Status Hierarchies in Language Models

Abstract: From school playgrounds to corporate boardrooms, status hierarchies -- rank orderings based on respect and perceived competence -- are universal features of human social organization. LLMs trained on human-generated text inevitably encounter these hierarchical patterns embedded in language, raising the question of whether they might reproduce such dynamics in multi-agent settings. This thesis investigates when and how LLMs form status hierarchies by adapting Berger et al.'s (1972) expectation states framework. I create multi-agent scenarios where separate LLM instances complete sentiment classification tasks, are introduced with varying status characteristics (e.g., credentials, expertise), then have opportunities to revise their initial judgments after observing their partner's responses. The dependent variable is deference, the rate at which models shift their ratings toward their partner's position based on status cues rather than task information. Results show that LLMs form significant status hierarchies when capability is equal (35 percentage point asymmetry, p < .001), but capability differences dominate status cues, with the most striking effect being that high-status assignments reduce higher-capability models' deference rather than increasing lower-capability models' deference. The implications for AI safety are significant: status-seeking behavior could introduce deceptive strategies, amplify discriminatory biases, and scale across distributed deployments far faster than human hierarchies form organically. This work identifies emergent social behaviors in AI systems and highlights a previously underexplored dimension of the alignment challenge.