It is well known in social psychology that people are judged by the company they keep, but when and how does that company affect how individuals are evaluated? This article extends expectation states theory to explain associative status. The theory predicts that the status value of former coworkers will “spill over” to positively predict a person’s status position in a new task with new coworkers. A series of crowdsourced experiments finds that status spreads to a person from a former interaction partner. The status of one’s associates predicts deference behavior only when the previous and current task contexts rely on similar abilities. Meanwhile, explicitly evaluated status and performance expectations respond to the status of associates regardless of how interaction contexts are related. The present findings highlight the importance of role relationships and task contexts as moderators that regulate whether status transfers from one person to another.
AndersonCameronHildrethJohn Angus D.HowlandLaura. 2015. “Is the Desire for Status a Fundamental Human Motive? A Review of the Empirical Literature.” Psychological Bulletin141(3):574–601.
2.
BergerJoseph. 2014. “The Standardized Experimental Situation in Expectation States Research: Notes on History, Uses, and Special Features.” Pp. 269–94 in Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences, edited by Webster Jr.M.SellJ.San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
3.
BergerJosephFişekM. Hamit. 2006. “Diffuse Status Characteristics and the Spread of Status Value: A Formal Theory.” American Journal of Sociology111(4):1038–79. doi:10.1086/498633.
4.
BergerJosephFişekM. HamitNormanRobert Z.ZelditchMorrisJr.1977. Status Characteristics and Social Interaction. New York: Elsevier.
5.
BergerJosephZelditchMorrisJr.AndersonBoCohenBernard P.1972. “Structural Aspects of Distributive Justice: A Status Value Formulation.” Pp. 119–46 in Sociological Theories in Progress, Volume 2, edited by BergerJ.ZelditchM.Jr.AndersonB.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
6.
BetancourtNathanKovácsBalázsOtnerSarah M. G.2018. “The Perception of Status: How We Infer the Status of Others from Their Social Relationships.” Network Science6(3):319–47. doi:10.1017/nws.2018.13.
7.
BlackhartGinette C.BrownKelly E.ClarkTravisPierceDonald L.ShellKelsye. 2012. “Assessing the Adequacy of Postexperimental Inquiries in Deception Research and the Factors That Promote Participant Honesty.” Behavior Research Methods44(1):24–40. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0132-6.
8.
BundersonJ. StuartVan der VegtGerben S.SparroweRaymond T.2014. “Status Inertia and Member Replacement in Role-Differentiated Teams.” Organizational Science25(1):57–72. doi:10.1287/orsc.2013.0835.
9.
CastellucciFabrizioErtugGokhan. 2010. “What’s in It for Them? Advantages of Higher-Status Partners in Exchange Relationships.” Academy of Management Journal53(1):149–66.
10.
ChmielewskiMichaelKuckerSarah C.2019. “An MTurk Crisis? Shifts in Data Quality and the Impact on Study Results.” Social Psychological and Personality Science11(4):464–73. doi:10.1177/1948550619875149.
11.
CialdiniRobert B.de NicholasMaralou E.1989. “Self-Presentation by Association.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology57(4):626–31. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.626.
12.
CohenBernard P.KikerJoan E.KruseRonald J.1969. “The Use of Closed Circuit Television in Expectation Experiments.” Technical Report No. 29.
13.
DenverMeganEwaldAlec. 2018. “Credentialing Decisions and Criminal Records: A Narrative Approach.” Criminology56(4):715–49. doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12190.
14.
DippongJoseph. 2012. “The Effects of Scope Condition-Based Participant Exclusion on Experimental Outcomes in Expectation States Research: A Meta-analysis.”Social Science Research41(2):359–71. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.11.005.
15.
HahlOliverZuckermanEzra W.KimMinjae. 2017. “Why Elites Love Authentic Lowbrow Culture: Overcoming High-Status Denigration with Outsider Art.” American Sociological Review82(4):828–56. doi:10.1177/0003122417710642.
16.
HoxJoop J.KreftIta G. G.HermkensPiet L. J.1991. “The Analysis of Factorial Surveys.” Sociological Methods & Research19(4):493–510. doi:10.1177/0049124191019004003.
17.
HussingerKatrinPellensMaikel. 2019. “Guilt by Association: How Scientific Misconduct Harms Prior Collaborators.” Research Policy48(2):516–30. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.012.
18.
HysomStuart J.2009. “Status Valued Goal Objects and Performance Expectations.” Social Forces87(3):1623–48. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0160.
19.
KalkhoffW.2005. “Collective Validation in Multi-actor Task Groups: The Effects of Status Differentiation.” Social Psychology Quarterly68(1):57–74. doi:10.1177/019027250506800105.
20.
KalkhoffWillMelamedDavidPollockJoshMillerBrennanOvertonJonPfeifferMatthew. 2020. “Cracking the Black Box: Capturing the Role of Expectation States in Status Processes.” Social Psychology Quarterly83(1):26–48. doi:10.1177/0190272519868988.
21.
KalkhoffWillThyeShane R.2006. “Expectation States Theory and Research: New Observations from Meta-analysis.” Sociological Methods & Research35(2):219–49.
22.
KalkhoffWillYountsC. WesleyTroyerLisa. 2011. “Do Others’ Views of Us Transfer to New Groups and Tasks? An Expectation States Approach.” Social Psychology Quarterly74(3):267–90. doi:10.1177/0190272511416105.
23.
KennedyRyanCliffordScottBurleighTylerWaggonerPhilip D.JewellRyanWinterNicholas J. G.2020. “The Shape of and Solutions to the MTurk Quality Crisis.” Political Science Research and Methods8(4):614–29. doi:10.1017/psrm.2020.6.
24.
LitmanLeibRobinsonJonathan. 2021. Conducting Online Research on Amazon Mechanical Turk and Beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
LynnFreda B.SimpsonBrentWalkerMark H.PetersonColin. 2016. “Why Is the Pack Persuasive? The Effect of Choice Status on Perceptions of Quality.” Sociological Science3:239–63. doi:10.15195/v3.a12.
26.
ManagoBiancaMizeTrenton D.DoanLong. 2021. “Can You Really Study an Army on the Internet? Comparing How Status Tasks Perform in the Laboratory and Online Settings.” Sociological Methodology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/00811750211014242.
27.
MarkovskyBarrySmithLe Roy F.BergerJoseph. 1984. “Do Status Interventions Persist?”American Sociological Review49(3):373–82. doi:10.2307/2095281.
28.
MasonWinterSuriSiddharth. 2012. “Conducting Behavioral Research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.” Behavior Research Methods44(1):1–23. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6.
29.
MertonRobert K.1968. “The Matthew Effect in Science.” Science159(3810):56–63.
30.
PagerDevah. 2003. “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Journal of Sociology108(5):937–75. doi:10.1086/374403.
RidgewayCecilia L.2011. Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World. New York: Oxford University Press.
33.
RidgewayCecilia L.FiskSusan. 2012. “Class Rules, Status Dynamics, and ‘Gateway’ Interactions.” Pp. 131–51 in Facing Social Class: How Societal Rank Influences Interaction, edited by FiskeS. T.MarkusH. R.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
34.
SavageScott V.SeebruckRyan. 2015. “The Road to the Top: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Mobility in the Elite Labor Market of College Basketball Coaching.” Sociological Focus48(3):208–27. doi:10.1080/00380237.2015.1039454.
35.
SilvaFabiana. 2018. “The Strength of Whites’ Ties: How Employers Reward the Referrals of Black and White Jobseekers.” Social Forces97(2):741–68. doi:10.1093/sf/soy051.
36.
SmithSandra Susan. 2007. Lone Pursuit: Distrust and Defensive Individualism among the Black Poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
37.
SummervilleAmyChartierChristopher R.2013. “Pseudo-Dyadic ‘Interaction’ on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.” Behavior Research Methods45(1):116–24. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0250-9.
38.
ThyeShane R.1999. “Part 2: Status Influence and Status Value.” Pp. 248–56 in Network Exchange Theory, edited by WillerD.Westport, CT: Praeger.
39.
ThyeShane R.2000. “A Status Value Theory of Power in Exchange Relations.” American Sociological Review65(3):407–32.
40.
ThyeShane R.HarrellAshley. 2017. “The Status Value Theory of Power and Mechanisms of Micro Stratification: Theory and New Experimental Evidence.” Social Science Research63:54–66. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.09.008.
41.
TroyerLisa. 2001. “Effects of Protocol Differences on the Study of Status and Social Influence.” Current Research in Social Psychology6(13):182–205.
42.
WalkerLisa SlatteryWebsterMurrayBianchiAlison J.2011. “Testing the Spread of Status Value Theory.” Social Science Research40(6):1652–63. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.04.005.
43.
WebsterMurrayWalkerLisa Slattery. 2016. “The Theories of Status Characteristics and Expectation States.” Pp. 321–42 in Handbook of Contemporary Sociological Theory, edited by AbrutynS.Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.
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.
