Group identity may be embodied in more typical or extreme member attributes. The present research suggests that individuals’ perceptions of the group identity prototype predict their beliefs about the status hierarchy and, in turn, the prevalence of social undermining behavior. Across four studies using both experimental and field data, we find that perceiving that the group prototype is focused on the ideal rather than the central tendency is associated with greater levels of perceived status dispersion and social undermining, and that perceived status dispersion mediates the relationship between members’ perception of the group prototype and social undermining behavior. We also find that social context—specifically, salient group achievement goals elicited by intergroup competition and common ingroup identity—attenuates the effect of ideal prototypes on perceived social undermining. Theoretical implications for the social identity, status, and social undermining literatures are discussed.
AbramsD.MarquesJ. M.BownN. J.HensonM. (2000). Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance within in-groups and out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 906-912.
2.
AndersonC.BrownC. E. (2010). The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. In BriefA. P.StawB. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 30, pp. 55-89). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
3.
AndersonC.JohnO.KeltnerD.KringA. M. (2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 116-132.
4.
AnicichE. M.SwaabR. I.GalinskyA. D. (2015). Hierarchical cultural values predict success and mortality in high-stakes team. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 1338-1343.
5.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
6.
BartelC. A.WiesenfeldB. M. (2013). The social negotiation of group prototype uncertainty in dynamic organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 38, 503-524.
7.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 97-111.
8.
BrownR. J.TurnerJ. C. (1981). Interpersonal and intergroup behavior. In TurnerJ.GilesH. (Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 33-65). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L. (1999). Reducing prejudice: Combating intergroup bias. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 101-105.
10.
DoyleS. P.LountR. B.Jr.WilkS. L.PettitN. C. (2016). Helping others most when they are not too close: Status distance as a determinant of interpersonal helping in organizations. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2, 155-174.
11.
DriskellJ. E.MullenB. (1990). Status, expectations, and behavior: A meta-analytic review and test of the theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 541-553.
12.
DuffyM. K.GansterD. C.PagonM. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331-351.
13.
FieldingK. S.HoggM. A. (1997). Social identity, self-categorization, and leadership: A field study of small interactive groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 39-51.
14.
FriesenJ. P.KayA. C.EibachR. P.GalinskyA. D. (2014). Seeking structure in social organization: Compensatory control and the psychological advantages of hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 590-609.
15.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F.BankerB. S.HouletteM.JohnsonK. M.McGlynnE. A. (2000). Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 98-114.
16.
GiessnerS. R.van KnippenbergD. (2008). “License to fail”: Goal definition, leader group prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 14-35.
17.
GreenbaumR. L.MawritzM. B.EissaG. (2012). Bottom-line mentality as an antecedent of social undermining and the moderating roles of core self-evaluations and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 343-359.
18.
GreerL. L.De JongB. A.SchoutenM. E.DannalsJ. (2015). A meta-analysis of the effects of hierarchy on team performance. Manuscript submitted for publication.
19.
GreerL. L.van KleefG. A. (2010). Equality versus differentiation: The effects of power dispersion on group interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1032-1044.
20.
GroysbergB.PolzerJ. T.ElfenbeinH. A. (2010). Too many cooks spoil the broth: How high-status individuals decrease group performance. Organization Science, 22, 722-737.
21.
HainsS. C.HoggM. A.DuckJ. M. (1997). Self-categorization and leadership: Effects of group prototypicality and leader stereotypicality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1087-1099.
22.
HalevyN.ChouE. Y.GalinskyA. D. (2011). A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 32-52.
23.
HalevyN.ChouE. Y.GalinskyA. D.MurnighanJ. K. (2012). When hierarchy wins: Evidence from the National Basketball Association. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 398-406.
24.
HarrisonD. A.KleinK. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199-1228.
25.
HaslamS. A. (2004). Psychology of organizations: The social identity approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
26.
HaslamS. A.OakesP. J.McGartyC.TurnerJ. C.OnoratoR. S. (1995). Contextual changes in the prototypicality of extreme and moderate outgroup members. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 509-530.
27.
HaslamS. A.TurnerJ. C.OakesP. J.McGartyC.HayesB. K. (1992). Context-dependent variation in social stereotyping 1: The effects of intergroup relations as mediated by social change and frame of reference. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 3-20.
28.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
29.
HaysN. A. (2012). Social climbing: A contextual approach to understanding the effects of social hierarchy on individual cognition and behavior (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
30.
HershcovisM. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying . . . oh my!”: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 499-519.
31.
HewstoneM.RubinM.WillisH. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575-604.
32.
HoggM. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. New York: New York University Press.
33.
HoggM. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184-200.
34.
HoggM. A.HardieE. A. (1991). Social attraction, personal attraction, and self-categorization: A field study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 175-180.
35.
HoggM. A.HardieE. A.ReynoldsK. J. (1995). Prototypicality, similarity, self-categorization, and depersonalized attraction: A perspective on group cohesiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 159-177.
36.
HoggM. A.TerryD. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.
37.
HoggM. A.TurnerJ. C.DavidsonB. (1990). Polarized norms and social frames of reference: A test of the self-categorization theory of group polarization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 77-100.
38.
KteilyN. S.RichesonJ. A. (2016). Perceiving the world through hierarchy-shaped glasses: On the need to embed social identity effects on perception within the broader context of intergroup hierarchy. Psychological Inquiry, 27, 327-334.
39.
LamC. K.Van der VegtG. S.WalterF.HuangX. (2011). Harming high performers: A social comparison perspective on interpersonal harming in work teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 588-601.
40.
LammersJ.GalinskyA. D. (2009). The conceptualization of power and the nature of interdependency: The role of legitimacy and culture. In TjosvoldD.WisseB. (Eds.), Power and interdependence in organizations (pp. 67-82). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41.
MarquesJ. M.PaezD.AbramsD. (1998). Social identity and intragroup differentiations as subjective social control. In WorchelS.MoralesJ. F.PaezD.DeschampsJ. (Eds.), Social identity: International perspectives (pp. 124-141). London, England: SAGE.
42.
McPhersonJ. M.Smith-LovinL. (1987). Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. American Sociological Review, 52, 370-379.
43.
MortonT. A.PostmesT.JettenJ. (2007). Playing the game: When group success is more important than downgrading deviants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 599-616.
44.
MullerE. N. (1985). Income inequality, regime repressiveness, and political violence. American Sociological Review, 50, 47-61.
45.
MurphyG. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46.
MussweilerT. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110, 472-489.
47.
MussweilerT.DamischL. (2008). Going back to Donald: How comparisons shape judgmental priming effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1295-1315.
48.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
49.
OakesP.HaslamS. A.TurnerJ. C. (1998). The role of prototypicality in group influence and cohesion: Contextual variation in the graded structure of social categories. In WorchelS.MoralesJ. F.PáezD.DeschampsJ. (Eds.), Social identity: International perspectives (pp. 75-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
50.
OosterhofA.Van der VegtG. S.VandeVliertE.SandersK. (2009). Valuing skill differences: Perceived skill complementarity and dyadic helping behavior in teams. Group & Organization Management, 34, 536-562.
51.
PfefferJ.LangtonN. (1993). The effect of wage dispersion on satisfaction, productivity, and working collaboratively: Evidence from college and university faculty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 382-407.
52.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
53.
SwaabR. I.SchaererM.AnicichE. M.RonayR.GalinskyA. D. (2014). The too-much-talent effect: Team interdependence determines when more talent is too much or not enough. Psychological Science, 25, 1581-1591.
54.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
55.
TjosvoldD.YuZ.HuiC. (2004). Team leaning from mistakes: The contribution of cooperative goals and problem solving. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 1223-1245.
56.
TomaC.VasiljevicD.OberléD.ButeraF. (2013). Assigned experts with competitive goals withhold information in group decision making. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 161-172.
57.
TurnerJ. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social-cognitive theory of group behavior. In LawlerE. J. (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 77-122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
58.
TurnerJ. C. (1987). The analysis of social influence. In TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 68-88). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
59.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
60.
TurnerJ. C.OakesP. J.HaslamS. A.McGartyC. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454-463.
61.
TylerT. R.BladerS. L. (2002). Autonomous vs. comparative status: Must we be better than others to feel good about ourselves?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 813-838.
62.
UllrichJ.ChristO.van DickR. (2009). Substitutes for procedural fairness: Prototypical leaders are endorsed whether they are fair or not. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 235-244.
63.
Van DijkeM.PoppeM. (2003). Preferred changes in power differences: Effects of social comparison in equal and unequal power relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 149-160.
64.
van KnippenbergB.van KnippenbergD. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating of role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 25-37.
65.
van KnippenbergD.HoggM. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. In BriefA. P.StawB. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 25, pp. 245-295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
66.
WenzelM.MummendeyA.WaldzusS. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 331-372.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
