Informal groups form hierarchies and allocate social status in order to coordinate action and make collective decisions. Although researchers have identified characteristics of people who tend to get status, the extent to which these characteristics are context-dependent is unclear. In two studies, participants from the United States (N = 157) and Germany (N = 95) engaged in affiliative or competitive group interactions. We investigated whether the nature of the group’s task moderated the relationship between status attainment and personality. As in previous research, we found that extraversion predicted status in both competitive and affiliative contexts. In contrast, agreeableness was only associated with status in affiliative contexts. These findings underscore the importance of examining the relationship between personality and social status in context.
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
2.
AndersonC.KilduffG. J. (2009a). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 491–503. doi:10.1037/a0014201
3.
AndersonC.KilduffG. J. (2009b). The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 295–298. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2003.01655.x
4.
AndersonC.SpataroS. E.FlynnF. J. (2008). Personality and organizational culture as determinants of influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 702–710. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.702
5.
AndersonC.SrivastavaS.BeerJ. S.SpataroS. E.ChatmanJ. A. (2006). Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1094–1110. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1094
6.
AronA.MelinatE.AronE. N.ValloneR. D.BatorR. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 363–377.
BenderskyC.ShahN. P. (2013). The downfall of extraverts and rise of neurotics: The dynamic process of status allocation in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 387–406.
9.
BergerJ.CohenB. P.ZelditchM.Jr (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37, 241–255.
10.
BergerJ.RosenholtzS.ZelditchM. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508.
ChengJ. T.TracyJ. L.FoulshamT.KingstoneA.HenrichJ. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 103–125. doi:10.1037/a0030398
13.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21–50.
14.
CronbachL. (1955). Processes affecting scores on “understanding of others” and “assumed similarity.”Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177–193.
CummingG. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York: Routledge.
17.
DeYoungC. G.WeisbergY. J.QuiltyL. C.PetersonJ. B. (2013). Unifying the aspects of the big five, the interpersonal circumplex, and trait affiliation. Journal of Personality, 81, 465–475.
18.
FiskeA. P.HaslamN. (2005). The four basic social bonds: Structures for coordinating interaction. In BaldwinM. W. (Ed.), Interpersonal cognition (pp. 267–298). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
19.
HahnE.GottschlingJ.SpinathF. M. (2012). Short measurements of personality—Validity and reliability of the GSOEP Big Five Inventory (BFI-S). Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 355–359. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.03.008
20.
HorowitzL. M.WilsonK. R.TuranB.ZolotsevP.ConstantinoM. J.HendersonL. (2006). How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: A revised circumplex model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 67–86. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_4
21.
JohnO. P.RobinsR. W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 206–219.
22.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York, NY: Guilford.
23.
JuddC. M.KennyD. A.McClellandG. H. (2001). Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-subject designs. Psychological Methods, 6, 115–134. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.6.2.115
24.
JuddC. M.McClellandG. H. (1989). Data analysis: A model comparison approach. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
25.
JudgeT. A.BonoJ. E.IliesR.GerhardtM. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.765
26.
KeltnerD.Van KleefG. A.ChenS.KrausM. (2008). A reciprocal influence model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 151–192.
27.
KennyD. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
28.
LearyT. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. Oxford, England: Ronald Press.
29.
LordR. G.De VaderC. L.AlligerG. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402–410. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.402
30.
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
31.
MarkeyP. M.FunderD. C.OzerD. J. (2003). Complementarity of interpersonal behaviors in dyadic interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1082–1090. doi:10.1177/0146167203253474
32.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins’s circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586–595.
33.
RammstedtB.JohnO. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001
34.
RobinsR. W.BeerJ. S. (2001). Positive illusions about the self: Short-term benefits and long-term costs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 340–352.
35.
SchmittN. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8, 350–353.
36.
SchönbrodtF. D.BackM. D.SchmukleS. C. (2012). TripleR: An R package for social relations analyses based on round-robin designs. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 455–470. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0150-4
37.
SrivastavaS.AndersonC. (2011). Accurate when it counts: Perceiving power and status in social groups. In SmithJ. L.IckesW.HallJ.HodgesS. D.GardnerW. (Eds.), Managing interpersonal sensitivity: Knowing when—and when not—to understand others (pp. 41–58). Hauppage, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
38.
StawB. M.BarsadeS. G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A test of the sadder-but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 304–331.
39.
TiedensL. Z.FragaleA. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 558–568. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.558
40.
WigginsJ. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In CicchettiD.GroveW. M. (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl, Vol. 2: Personality and psychopathology (pp. 89–113). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
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.
