Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:42:12.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The perception of status: How we infer the status of others from their social relationships

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2018

NATHAN BETANCOURT ,
BALÁZS KOVÁCS Open the ORCID record for BALÁZS KOVÁCS [Opens in a new window]  and
SARAH M. G. OTNER Open the ORCID record for SARAH M. G. OTNER [Opens in a new window]
NATHAN BETANCOURT
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (e-mail: N.E.Betancourt@uva.nl)
BALÁZS KOVÁCS
Affiliation:
Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA (e-mail: balazs.kovacs@yale.edu)
SARAH M. G. OTNER
Affiliation:
Imperial College Business School, London, UK (e-mail: s.otner@imperial.ac.uk)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates how we infer the status of others from their social relationships. In a series of experimental studies, we test the effects of a social relationship's type and direction on the status judgments of others. We demonstrate empirically, possibly for the first time, a widely-assumed connection between network structure and perceptions of status; that is, that observers do infer the status positions of group members from their relationships. Moreover, we find that observers' status judgments vary with the direction and type of social relationship. We theorize that underlying this variance in status judgments are two relational schemas which differentially influence the processing of the observed social ties. Our finding that only the linear-ordering schema leads to status inferences provides an important scope condition to prior research on network cognition, and specifically on the perceptions of social status.

Keywords

social statussocial hierarchynetwork cognitionnetwork perceptionexperiments
Type
Research Article
Information
Network Science , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 319 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141 (3), 574–601.Google Scholar
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18 (5), 295–298.Google Scholar
Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37 (3), 241–255.Google Scholar
Betancourt, N., & Wezel, F. C. (2016). The credibility of social climbing: When does inter-firm mobility [Not] influence organizational status? Organization Science, 27 (6), 1435–1452.Google Scholar
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Brands, R. A. (2013). Cognitive social structures in social network research: A review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34 (S1), S82–S103.Google Scholar
Carnabuci, G., Emery, C., & Brinberg, D. (2018) Emergent leadership structures in informal groups: A dynamic, cognitively informed network model. Organization Science 29 (1), 118–133.Google Scholar
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1990). The representation of social relations by monkeys. Cognition, 37 (1–2), 167–196.Google Scholar
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (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 (1), 103–125.Google Scholar
Chiao, J. Y., Adams, R. B., Tse, P. U., Lowenthal, W. T., Richeson, J. A., & Ambady, N. (2008). Knowing who's boss: fMRI and ERP investigations of social dominance perception. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11 (2), 201–214.Google Scholar
de Klepper, M. C., Labianca, G., Sleebos, E., & Agneessens, F. (2017). Sociometric status and peer control attempts: A multiple status hierarchies approach. Journal of Management Studies, 54 (1), 1–31.Google Scholar
De Soto, C. B. (1960). Learning a social structure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60 (3), 417–421.Google Scholar
De Soto, C. B., Henley, N. M., & London, M. (1968). Balance and the grouping schema. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8 (1), 1–7.Google Scholar
De Soto, C. B., & Kuethe, J. L. (1958). Perception of mathematical properties of interpersonal relations. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 8 (3), 279–286.Google Scholar
De Soto, C. B., & Kuethe, J. L. (1959). Subjective probabilities of interpersonal relationships. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59 (2), 290–294.Google Scholar
Delia, J. G., & Crockett, W. H. (1973). Social schemas, cognitive complexity, and the learning of social structures. Journal of Personality, 41 (3), 413–429.Google Scholar
Field, A., & Hole, G. (2002). How to design and report experiments. London, UK: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 941–982). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Flynn, F. J., Reagans, R. E., & Guillory, L. (2010). Do you two know each other? Transitivity, homophily, and the need for (network) closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99 (5), 855–869.Google Scholar
Giessner, S. R., & Schubert, T. W. (2007). High in the hierarchy: How vertical location and judgments of leaders' power are interrelated. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104 (1), 30–44.Google Scholar
Girden, E. R. (1992). ANOVA: repeated measures (Vol. 84). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Gould, R. V. (2002). The origins of status hierarchies: A formal theory and empirical test. American Journal of Sociology, 107 (5), 1143–1178.Google Scholar
Gruenfeld, D. H., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2010). Organizational preferences and their consequences. In Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 1252–1287). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002033Google Scholar
Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., Cohen, T. R., & Livingston, R. W. (2012). Status conferral in intergroup social dilemmas: Behavioral antecedents and consequences of prestige and dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102 (2), 351–366.Google Scholar
Henley, N. M., Horsfall, R. B. & De Soto, C. B. (1969). Goodness of figure and social structure. Psychological Review, 76 (2), 194–204.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Janicik, G. A., & Larrick, R. P. (2005). Social network schemas and the learning of incomplete networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (2), 348–364.Google Scholar
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110 (2), 265–284.Google Scholar
Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (1), 87–108.Google Scholar
Killworth, P., & Bernard, H. (1976). Informant accuracy in social network data. Human Organization, 35 (3), 269–286.Google Scholar
Kovács, B., & Liu, C. (2016). Audience structure and status multiplicity. Social Networks, 44, 36–49.Google Scholar
Krackhardt, D. (1987). Cognitive social structures. Social Networks, 9 (2), 109–134.Google Scholar
Krackhardt, D., & Kilduff, M. (1999). Whether close or far: Social distance effects on perceived balance in friendship networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (5), 770–782.Google Scholar
Leavitt, H. J. (2005). Top down: Why hierarchies are here to stay and how to manage them more effectively. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Lemann, T. B., & Solomon, R. L. (1952). Group characteristics as revealed in sociometric patterns and personality ratings. Sociometry, 15 (1/2), 7–90.Google Scholar
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2 (1), 351–398.Google Scholar
Maner, J. K., & Case, C. R. (2016). Dominance and prestige: Dual strategies for navigating social hierarchies. In Olson, J., & Zanna, M. (Eds.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 54, pp. 129–180). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Marineau, J. E. (2017). Trust and distrust network accuracy and career advancement in an organization. Group & Organization Management, 42 (4), 487–520.Google Scholar
Mascaro, O., & Csibra, G. (2012). Representation of stable social dominance relations by human infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109 (18), 6862–6867.Google Scholar
Mauchly, J. W. (1940). Significance test for sphericity of a normal n-variate distribution. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11 (2), 204–209.Google Scholar
Mazur, A. (1985). A biosocial model of status in face-to-face primate groups. Social Forces, 64 (2), 377–402.Google Scholar
Otner, S. M. G. (2017). Status: Sink, or Swim? The Liability of Newness in Status Allocation to Group Newcomers. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Management and Organizational Cognition Conference, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Perry-Smith, J. E. (2014). Social network ties beyond nonredundancy: An experimental investigation of the effect of knowledge content and tie strength on creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99 (5), 831–846.Google Scholar
Pettit, N. C., & Sivanathan, N. (2012). The eyes and ears of status: How status colors perceptual judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38 (5), 570–582.Google Scholar
Pettit, N. C., Sivanathan, N., Gladstone, E., & Marr, J. C. (2013). Rising stars and sinking ships: Consequences of status momentum. Psychological Science, 24 (8), 1579–1584.Google Scholar
Podolny, J. M. (2001). Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology, 107 (1), 33–60.Google Scholar
Podolny, J. M. (2005). Status signals: A sociological study of market competition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ridgeway, C. L. (1991). The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70 (2), 367–386.Google Scholar
Ridgeway, C. L., & Erickson, K. G. (2000). Creating and spreading status beliefs. American Journal of Sociology, 106 (3), 579–615.Google Scholar
Rueden, C. V., Gurven, M., & Kaplan, H. (2010). Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278, 2223–2232.Google Scholar
Shariff, A. F., Tracy, J. L., & Markusoff, J. L. (2012). (Implicitly) judging a book by its cover: The power of pride and shame expressions in shaping judgments of social status. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38 (9), 1178–1193.Google Scholar
Smith, E. B., Menon, T., & Thompson, L. (2012). Status differences in the cognitive activation of social networks. Organization Science, 23 (1), 67–82.Google Scholar
Terburg, D., Aarts, H., & van Honk, J. (2012). Testosterone affects gaze aversion from angry faces outside of conscious awareness. Psychological Science, 23 (5), 459–463.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Betancourt et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S8

Download Betancourt et al. supplementary material(File)
File 37.7 KB