Early theories of status dynamics in small groups portrayed intragroup status as a limited resource—as the status of one group member rises, the status of another must fall. Recent theorizing presents an alternative view: that the amount of status available to group members can be variable rather than fixed. Building on this view, we theorize that the average level of intragroup status changes as a function of group performance, such that the intragroup status of an average group member is higher in groups with higher performance and lower in groups with lower performance. We further theorize that changes in group solidarity partly account for the link between group performance and intragroup status. Across three preregistered studies, we find support for these hypotheses, which we hope will kindle interest in identifying other factors that can account for changes in intragroup status equilibria.
AndersonC.HildrethJ. A. D.HowlandL. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 574–601. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038781
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(1), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.1.116
AndersonC.KrausM. W.GalinskyA. D.KeltnerD. (2012). The local-ladder effect: Social status and subjective well-being. Psychological Science, 23(7), 764–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611434537
6.
AndersonC.SpataroS. E.FlynnF. J. (2008). Personality and organizational culture as determinants of influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 702–710. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.702
7.
AndersonC.WillerR.KilduffG. J.BrownC. E. (2012). The origins of deference: When do people prefer lower status?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 1077–1088. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027409
8.
BaiF.HoG. C. C.YanJ. (2020). Does virtue lead to status? Testing the moral virtue theory of status attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(3), 501–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000192
9.
BalesR. F.StrodtbeckF. L.MillsT. M.RoseboroughM. E. (1951). Channels of communication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16(4), 461–468. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088276
10.
BarkowJ. H. (1975). Strategies for self-esteem and prestige in Maradi, Niger Republic. In WilliamsT. R. (Ed.), Psychological anthropology (pp. 373–388). De Gruyter Mouton.
BergerJ.CohenB. P.ZelditchM.Jr. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37(3), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.2307/2093465
BladerS. L.YuS. (2017). Are status and respect different or two sides of the same coin?Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 800–824. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0150
15.
BlauP. (1963). The dynamics of bureaucracy. University of Chicago Press.
BoehmJ. K.ChenY.WilliamsD. R.RyffC.KubzanskyL. D. (2015). Unequally distributed psychological assets: Are there social disparities in optimism, life satisfaction, and positive affect?PLoS One, 10, Article e0118066. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118066
18.
BottgerP. C. (1984). Expertise and air time as bases of actual and perceived influence in problem-solving groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.214
19.
BullockJ. G.GreenD. P.HaS. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018933
20.
BundersonJ. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 557–591. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556637
21.
BundersonJ. S.ReagansR. E. (2011). Power, status, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 22(5), 1182–1194. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41303111
22.
BurkeW. W.ChurchA. (1992). Managing change, leadership style, and intolerance to ambiguity: A survey of organization development practitioners. Human Resource Management, 31(4), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930310403
23.
ButterfieldD. A.PowellG. N. (1981). Effect of group performance, leader sex, and rater sex on ratings of leader behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28(1), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(81)90019-2
24.
CartwrightD.ZanderA. (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed.). Harper and Row.
25.
ChangA.BordiaP. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion–group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32(4), 379–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200401
26.
CollinsA. L.LawrenceS. A.TrothA. C.JordanP. J. (2013). Group affective tone: A review and future research directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S43–S62. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1887
27.
CooperD. C.MilicM. S.MillsP. J.BardwellW. A.ZieglerM. G.DimsdaleJ. E. (2010). Endothelial function: The impact of objective and subjective socioeconomic status of flow-mediated dilation. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 39(3), 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-010-9181-9
28.
De JongB. A.DirksK. T.GillespieN. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1134–1150. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000110
29.
DesJardinsN. M. L.SrivastavaS.KüfnerA. C.BackM. D. (2015). Who attains status? Similarities and differences across social contexts. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(6), 692–700. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615580171
30.
DovidioJ. F.BrownC. E.HeltmanK.EllysonS. L.KeatingC. F. (1988). Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A multichannel study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), 580–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.580
31.
DurkheimE. (1956). Education and sociology. Free Press.
32.
FastN. J.TiedensL. Z. (2010). Blame contagion: The automatic transmission of self-serving attributions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.007
33.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
FlynnF. J. (2003). How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity and frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 539–553. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040648
36.
FlynnF. J.BrocknerJ. (2003). It’s different to give than to receive: Predictors of givers’ and receivers’ reactions to favor exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 1034–1045. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.1034
37.
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(6), 1123–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1123
38.
FlynnF. J.YuA. (2021). Better to give than reciprocate: Status and reciprocity in prosocial exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(1), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000349
39.
FrankR. H. (1985). Choosing the right pond: Human behavior and the quest for status. Oxford University Press.
40.
GerberJ. P.WheelerL.SulsJ. (2018). A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years on. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000127
41.
GoodmanE.AdlerN. E.KawachiI.FrazierA. L.HuangB.ColditzG. A. (2001). Adolescents’ perceptions of social status: Development and evaluation of a new indicator. Pediatrics, 108(2), e31. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.108.2.e31
42.
GreerL. L.de JongB. A.SchoutenM. E.DannalsJ. E. (2018). Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(6), 591–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000291
43.
HackmanJ. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. Consulting Psychologists Press.
44.
HackmanJ. R.KatzN. (2010). Group behavior and performance. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 1208–1251). John Wiley & Sons.
45.
HaysN. A.BenderskyC. (2015). Not all inequality is created equal: Effects of status versus power hierarchies on competition for upward mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 867–882. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000017
46.
HuoY. J.BinningK. R.MolinaL. E. (2010). Testing an integrative model of respect: Implications for social engagement and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(2), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209356787
47.
IlgenD. R.HollenbeckJ. R.JohnsonM.JundtD. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input–process–output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250
48.
Kyl-HekuL. M.BussD. M. (1996). Tactics as units of analysis in personality psychology: An illustration using tactics of hierarchy negotiation. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(4), 497–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00103-1
49.
LawlerE. J. (2001). An affect theory of social exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 107(2), 321–352. https://doi.org/10.1086/324071
50.
LawlerE. J.ThyeS. R.YoonJ. (2000). Emotion and group cohesion in productive exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3), 616–657. https://doi.org/10.1086/318965
51.
LawlerE. J.YoonJ. (1996). Commitment in exchange relations: Test of a theory of relational cohesion. American Sociological Review, 61(1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096408
52.
LeachC. W.van ZomerenM.ZebelS.VliekM. L. W.PennekampS. F.DoosjeB.OuwerkerkJ. W.SpearsR. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144
53.
LeonardelliG. J.TormalaZ. L. (2003). The negative impact of perceiving discrimination on collective well-being: The mediating role of perceived ingroup status. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(4), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.159
54.
LevineJ. M.MorelandR. L. (1994). Group socialization: Theory and research. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 305–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779543000093
55.
MarkovskyB.LawlerE. J. (1994). A new theory of group solidarity. In MarkovskyB.HeimerK.O’BrienJ. (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 11, pp. 113–137). JAI Press.
56.
MarshH. W.ParkerJ. W. (1984). Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don’t learn to swim as well?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(1), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.1.213
57.
McGrathJ. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group Research, 22(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496491222001
58.
MertonR. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8(2), 193–210.
59.
MurnighanJ. K.ConlonD. E. (1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 165–186. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393352
60.
RidgewayC. L.BergerJ. (1986). Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. American Sociological Review, 51(5), 603–617. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095487
61.
RiggsM. L.KnightP. A. (1994). The impact of perceived group success–failure on motivational beliefs and attitudes: A causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 755–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.755
62.
SalanovaM.LlorensS.CifreE.MartinezI.SchaufeliW. (2003). Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being, and task performance among electronic work groups: An experimental study. Small Group Research, 34(1), 43–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496402239577
63.
SchlenkerB. R.SoraciS.Jr.McCarthyB. (1976). Self-esteem and group performance as determinants of egocentric perceptions in cooperative groups. Human Relations, 29(12), 1163–1176. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677602901205
64.
SherifM. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment. University of Oklahoma Press.
65.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–37). Brooks/Cole.
68.
ThyeS. R.YoonJ.LawlerE. J. (2002). The theory of relational cohesion: Review of a research program. In ThyeS. R.LawlerE. J. (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 19, pp. 217–244). Emerald Publishing.
69.
TingleyD.YamamotoT.HiroseK.KeeleL.ImaiK. (2014). Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(5). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v059.i05
70.
WhyteW. F. (1943). Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum. University of Chicago Press.
71.
WillerR. (2009). Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400102
72.
WillerR.FlynnF. J.ZakS. (2012). Structure, identity, and solidarity: A comparative field study of generalized and direct exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(1), 119–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212448626
YuS.GreerL. L.HalevyN.van BunderenL. (2019). On ladders and pyramids: Hierarchy’s shape determines relationships and performance in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(12), 1717–1733. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219842867
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.
