Almost All You Wanted to Know About Status Inconsistency but Never Dared to Measure: Theoretical Deficits in Empirical Research on Status Inconsistency

Abstract

Status inconsistency theorizing still contains more promises than current research about the concept has lived up to. While being somewhat eclectic in the points made, in the three parts of the paper, nevertheless, a general evaluation of status inconsistency theorizing and empirical research is aimed at. In the first section basic premises and conditions of the theory are discussed. It is persistently argued that these premises need to be corroborated empirically, if status inconsistency is to become a stronger predictor than in the past. In particular, it is maintained that status inconsistency needs to be dealt with and measured at the individual's subjective level, how he or she experiences the respective status configurations in respective contexts. At the macrosocietal level status inconsistency seems to be a weak predictor due to numerous counter-effects balancing each other. In narrowly modernized communities, however, status inconsistency might become a strong predictor of some forms of behavior, if it is established that status inconsistent configurations possess relevancy for both the individual and his or her interaction partners and are experienced as stressful by the individual Drawing in particular on findings from expectation states theory and research, numerous caveats as to more adequate linkage between theoretical terms and possible operationalizations are pointed to. It is hoped that with some of the caveats in mind, status inconsistency research will rejuvenate.

Restoring balance? Status inconsistency, absenteeism, and HRM practices

“…This setting constitutes the referential structure that determines the inputs the individual perceives he or she can legitimately be expected to make and the returns he or she can legitimately expect to receive. The derived notion of an appropriate input-return relationship comes to serve as a de facto distribution rule, creating a sense of entitlement (Berger, Zelditch, Anderson, & Cohen, 1972;Zimmermann, 1985). This notion establishes the main difference between the ERI model and its intellectual forebear-equity theory (Adams, 1965).…”

Estimation of a Two-Equation Panel Model with Mixed Continuous and Ordered Categorical Outcomes and Missing Data

“…Easterlin (2002) and Diener and Seligman (2004)). According to this view and following the suggestion, for example, of Zimmermann (1985) to consider subjective in addition to objective variables in research on status inconsistency, this paper understands both gratification variables and occupational qualification as factors that define social positions. This means, for example, that when occupational qualification shows a declining effect on income over time, unusual combinations of income and occupational qualification become more likely to emerge.…”