This paper examines reactions of in-group members and third-party observers to behaviors people perform to affect the status hierarchy of their group (i.e., status moves). We understand status hierarchies to be “negotiated,” where “status moves” are a means to negotiate the group’s informal order. Results indicate that the valence (positive vs. negative) and context (initiating vs. reacting) of the status move interactively affect observers’ reactions (Studies 1 and 3), and that these reactions are explained by perceptions of the actor’s self- versus group concern (Studies 1–2 and 4) in both experimental as well as more naturalistic contexts. Specifically, initiating status moves elicit stronger reactions, with positive/negative initiating moves resulting in recommendations of greater reward/punishment and status gain/loss for the actor (Studies 1 and 3) than reacting moves. Overall, we offer a first systematic examination of status moves and how people perceive and react to them.
AkinolaM.MendesW. B. (2014). It’s good to be the king: Neurobiological benefits of higher social standing. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 43–51. doi:10.1177/1948550613485604
2.
AndersonC.AmesD. R.GoslingS. D. (2008). Punishing hubris: The perils of status self-enhancement in teams and organizations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 90–101. doi:10.1177/0146167207307489
3.
AndersonC.JohnO. P.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. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.81.1.116
4.
AndersonC.KrausM. W.GalinskyA. D.KeltnerD. (2012). The local ladder effect: Social status and subjective well-being. Psychological Science, 23, 764–771. doi:10.1177/0956797611434537
5.
BarkowJ. H. (1975). Prestige and culture: A biosocial interpretation. Current Anthropology, 16, 553–572. doi:10.1086/201619
6.
BenderskyC.HaysN. A. (2012). Status conflict in groups. Organization Science, 23, 323–340. doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0734
7.
BenderskyC.ShahN. (2013). The downfall of extraverts and rise of neurotics: The dynamic process of status allocation in task groups. The Academy of Management Journal, 56, 387–406. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0316
8.
BergerJ.CohenB. P.ZelditchM.Jr. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37, 241–255. doi:10.2307/2093465
9.
BergerJ.RosenholtzS. J.ZelditchM. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.06.080180.002403
10.
ChoY.OverbeckJ. R.CarnevaleP. J. (2011). Status conflict in negotiation. In MannixE. A.NealeM. A.OverbeckJ. R. (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams: Negotiation and groups (Vol. 14, pp. 111–136). New York, NY: Emerald.
11.
CritcherC. R.DunningD. (2011). No good deed goes unquestioned: Asymmetric cynical attributions maintain the norm of self-interest. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1207–1213. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.001
12.
CurhanK. B.LevineC. S.MarkusH. R.KitayamaS.ParkJ.KarasawaM.. . . RyffC. D. (2014). Subjective and objective hierarchies and their relations to psychological well-being: A U.S./Japan comparison. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 855–864. doi:10.1177/1948550614538461
13.
DayR.DayJ. V. (1977). A review of the current state of negotiated order theory: An appreciation and a critique. Sociological Quarterly, 18, 126–142.
14.
FeatherN. T. (1999). Judgments of deservingness: Studies in the psychology of justice and achievement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 86–107. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_1
15.
FlynnF. J.ReagansR. E.AmanatullahE. T.AmesD. R. (2006). Helping one’s way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1123–1137. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.91.6.1123
16.
FrankR. H.CookP. J. (1995). The winner-take-all society: Why the few at the top get so much more than the rest of us. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
17.
GilbertD. T.MaloneP. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21–38. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.117.1.21
18.
GoffmanE. (1969). Strategic interaction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
19.
GoodwinD. K. (2005). Team of rivals: The political genius of Abraham Lincoln. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
20.
GouldR. V. (2002). The origins of status hierarchies: A formal theory and empirical test. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 1143–1178. doi:10.1086/341744
21.
GouldR. V. (2003). Collision of wills: How ambiguity about social rank breeds conflict. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22.
GroysbergB.PolzerJ. T.ElfenbeinH. A. (2011). Too many cooks spoil the broth: How high status individuals decrease group effectiveness. Organization Science, 22, 722–737. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0547
23.
HardyC. L.van VugtM. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1402–1413. doi:10.1177/0146167206291006
24.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
25.
HubermanB. A.LochC. H.OnculerA. (2004). Status as a valued resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67, 103–114. doi:10.1177/019027250406700109
26.
JonesE. E.NisbettR. E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. New York, NY: General Learning Press.
27.
KalkhoffW. (2005). Collective validation in multi-actor task groups: The effects of status differentiation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 57–74. doi:10.1177/019027250506800105
28.
KimH. Y.PettitN. C. (2015). Status is a four-letter word: Self vs. other differences and concealment of status-striving. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 267–275. doi:10.1177/1948550614555030
29.
LarsenR. J.KetelaarT. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 132–140. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.61.1.132
30.
LochC. H.HubermanB. A.StoutS. (2000). Status competition and performance in work groups. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43, 35–55. doi:10.1016/S0167–2681(00)00107–4
31.
MageeJ. C.GalinskyA. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351–398. doi:10.1080/19416520802211628
32.
MainesD. R. (1982). In search of mesostructure: Studies in the negotiated order. Urban Life, 11, 267–279. doi:10.1177/089124168201100301
33.
MarmotM. G. (2004). The status syndrome: How social standing affects our health and longevity. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
34.
MarrJ.ThauS. (2014). Falling from great (and not so great) heights: How initial status position influences performance after status loss. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 223–248. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0909
35.
NeeleyT. (2013). Language matters: Status loss and achieved status distinctions in global organizations. Organization Science, 24, 476–497. doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0739
36.
OchsnerK. N. (2000). Are affective events richly recollected or simply familiar? The experience and process of recognizing feelings past. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 242–261. doi:10.1037/0096–3445.129.2.242
37.
OverbeckJ. R.CorrellJ.ParkB. (2005). Internal status sorting in groups: The problem of too many stars. In Thomas-HuntM. C.MannixE. A.NealeM. A. (Eds.), Research on managing groups & teams (Vol. 7, pp. 169–199). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
38.
OwensD. A.SuttonR. I. (2001). Meetings as status contests: Negotiating order in on-going workgroups. In TurnerM. (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 299–316). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
PettitN. C.YongK.SpataroS. E. (2010). Holding your place: Reactions to the prospect of status gains and losses. Journal of Experiment Social Psychology, 46, 396–401. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.12.007
40.
PinkerS. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York, NY: Viking.
41.
PorathC. L.OverbeckJ. R.PearsonC. M. (2008). Picking up the gauntlet: How individuals respond to status challenges. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1945–1980. doi:10.1111/j.1559–1816.2008.00375.x
42.
RidgewayC. L.DiekemaD. (1989). Dominance and collective hierarchy formation in male and female task groups. American Sociological Review, 54, 79–93. doi:10.2307/2095663
43.
StellingJ.BucherR. (1972). Autonomy and monitoring on hospital wards. Sociological Quarterly, 13, 431–446. doi:10.1111/j.1533–8525.1972.tb00827.x
44.
StraussA. L. (1978). Negotiations: Varieties, contexts, processes, and social order. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
45.
WeinerB. (1996). Searching for order in social motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 199–216. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0703_1
46.
WillerR. (2009). Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. American Sociological Review, 74, 23–43. doi:10.1177/000312240907400102
