Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective.

Blader, Steven L.; Chen, Yaru

doi:10.1037/a0026651

Cited by 341 publications

(359 citation statements)

References 120 publications

(173 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

336

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with other experimental designs (20)(21)(22), our manipulation therefore included features of social status and power to emulate real-world hierarchies. The few studies to date that differentiated power and status suggest they sometimes lead to different outcomes; for instance, status often promotes, whereas power reduces, justice toward others (38). But both power and status are plausible explanations for the interactions between social rank and stability seen in the present study.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 42%

Hierarchy stability moderates the effect of status on stress and performance in humans

Knight

Mehta

2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High social status reduces stress responses in numerous species, but the stress-buffering effect of status may dissipate or even reverse during times of hierarchical instability. In an experimental test of this hypothesis, 118 participants (57.3% female) were randomly assigned to a high-or low-status position in a stable or unstable hierarchy and were then exposed to a social-evaluative stressor (a mock job interview). High status in a stable hierarchy buffered stress responses and improved interview performance, but high status in an unstable hierarchy boosted stress responses and did not lead to better performance. This general pattern of effects was observed across endocrine (cortisol and testosterone), psychological (feeling in control), and behavioral (competence, dominance, and warmth) responses to the stressor. The joint influence of status and hierarchy stability on interview performance was explained by feelings of control and testosterone reactivity. Greater feelings of control predicted enhanced interview performance, whereas increased testosterone reactivity predicted worse performance. These results provide direct causal evidence that high status confers adaptive benefits for stress reduction and performance only when the social hierarchy is stable. When the hierarchy is unstable, high status actually exacerbates stress responses.status | stress | performance | testosterone | cortisol

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 42%

Hierarchy stability moderates the effect of status on stress and performance in humans

Knight

Mehta

2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An important difference between status and power is that, unlike status which is socially conferred, power is a property of the actor and is less susceptible to the subjective evaluations of others (Blader & Chen, 2012). We expect that this key distinction between status and power would also lead to differential effects on creativity.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because power is derived from control over resources rather than conferred by the group, individuals with middle power should feel less susceptible to the threat of status loss (Blader & Chen, 2012). Hence, in Study 4, we manipulated power level (high, middle and low) and expected evaluation.…”

Section: The Present Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Squeezed in the middle: The middle status trade creativity for focus.

Duguid

Goncalo

2015

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Classical research on social influence suggested that people are the most conforming in the middle of a status hierarchy as opposed to the top or bottom. Yet, this promising line of research was abandoned before the psychological mechanism behind middle status conformity had been identified. Moving beyond the early focus on conformity, we propose that the threat of status loss may make those with middle status more wary of advancing creative solutions in fear that they will be evaluated negatively. Using different manipulations of status and measures of creativity, we found that when being evaluated, middle status individuals were less creative than either high status or low status individuals (Studies 1 & 2). In addition, we found that anxiety at the prospect of status loss also caused individuals with middle status to narrow their focus of attention and to think more convergently (Study 3). We delineate the consequences of power and status both theoretically and empirically by showing that, unlike status, the relationship between power and creativity is positive and linear (Study 4). By both measuring status (Studies 2 & 3) and by manipulating it directly (Study 5), we demonstrate that the threat of status loss explains the consequences of middle status. Finally, we discuss the theoretical implications of our results for future research on status and problem solving on tasks that require either focus or flexibility.

show abstract

“…Whilst the majority of research has been quantitative, a variety of methods have been used to study procedural justice (Mazerolle, Bennett, Davis, Sargeant, & Manning, 2013), including: observation (Dai, Frank, & Sun, 2011;McCluskey, 2003); survey research (Ivec, V.Braithwaite, & Reinhart, 2011;Sunshine & Tyler, 2003;Tyler, Schulhofer, & Huq, 2010); and interview (Harris & Gosnell, 2012). The majority of the research has focused on the perceptions of those being regulated, the receivers of procedural justice (Blader & Chen, 2012). Very few studies have focused on those authority figures responsible for "creating justice in the first place" (Blader & Chen, 2012, p.994) and the factors that influence whether or not they enact procedurally fair processes (Blader & Chen, 2011;B.Scott, Colquitt, & Paddock, 2009 (Cherney & Murphy, 2011) and organisational (Cropanzano & Ambrose, 2001) contexts, have also identified that people may consider the opportunity for voice in decision-making processes to be tokenistic and a strategy for co-opting compliance, rather than a meaningful opportunity for input (Mazerolle et al, 2014).…”

Section: Previous Applications Of Procedural Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative practice in statutory in child protection practice: Parental agreements and procedural justice

Venables¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Internationally, there is a growing trend to introduce alternative pathways for children and their families involved with statutory child protection systems. These alternatives focus on developing partnerships with families in order to promote children's safety and well-being within their homes. The form that alternative pathways take varies by jurisdiction.In Queensland (Australia), where this study takes place, the State Government has identified the use of parental agreements to be the least intrusive option available to the child protection authority when a child has been substantiated, via a full investigation, as in need of protection. These agreements are known as 'Intervention with Parental Agreement' (IPA) and allow for the statutory authority to work in partnership with families to address child protection concerns, without the use of a court order. Little is known about how IPA occurs and the extent to which its collaborative ethos is realised in practice.This study aims to provide a detailed understanding of collaborative practice in statutory child protection, using the example of IPA. The study has a key focus on procedural justice, that is the quality of treatment that people receive from an authority during decision-making processes (Tyler, 2006). Using a two-phase, qualitative methodology the study explores the perspectives of practitioners and parents involved in IPA practice.Phase one involved semi-structured interviews with 33 practitioners from the Queensland child protection authority, tertiary family support services and a service responsible for providing cultural guidance in cases that involve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. Phase two of the study involved semi-structured interviews with four parents. The interviews captured their unique experience of being subject to IPA, with a focus on their procedural justice judgements.The findings of the study indicate that the crisis-driven nature of statutory child protection in conjunction with the dominance of a risk-adverse culture is perceived by practitioners to be a barrier to collaborative practice. However, the local office culture within branch offices of the child protection authority and relationship-driven models of practice were found to facilitate collaboration in IPA practice.In particular, the nature and quality of three key partnerships of practice was found to shape how IPA practice occurred. These partnerships are: intra-agency partnerships, particularly those between statutory officers at the branch office level; inter-agency 2 partnerships; and those between practitioners and parents. The findings highlight that each of these partnerships are characterised by hierarchical relationships between the different stakeholders. Within all three of these partnerships, procedural justice emerged as an important factor for facilitating positive and collaborative working partnerships. This demonstrated that procedurally fair treatment is important to both parents and practitioners during IPA practice.All of the p...

show abstract

Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective.

Cited by 341 publications

References 120 publications

Hierarchy stability moderates the effect of status on stress and performance in humans

Hierarchy stability moderates the effect of status on stress and performance in humans

Squeezed in the middle: The middle status trade creativity for focus.

Collaborative practice in statutory in child protection practice: Parental agreements and procedural justice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About