Individual differences in status generalization: Effects of need for social approval, anticipated interpersonal contact, and instrumental task abilities.

Abstract

Status generalization is the process through which the external status of actors is used to determine important features of social interaction. Berger and his associates used expectation states theory to explain status generalization and the inequalities in power and prestige that emerge in task-oriented groups. Two studies were conducted to extend the scope of this theory and investigate the hypothesis that need for social approval ajid differences in relative status between actors combine to structure the status-organizing process. Study 1 focused on the role of normative dependence. Results showed that approval-motivated persons were influenced by status more than their low-approval counterparts when making decisions on a cooperative group task, especially if face-to-face contact with their partner was anticipated. Study 2 focused on the role of informational dependence. Subjects in this study did not expect to meet their partner; however, a specific ability related to successful performance was introduced. A similar interaction between need for social approval and status was observed, but the effect was limited to conditions in which a task ability was present. The findings were interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that the construct of need for social approval contains both an approval-seeking and a defensiveness component that are differentially activated by the anticipation of interpersonal contact and the presence of a task ability that makes performance relevant to self-conceptions.Status generalization is the process through feet of personality and selected situational which the external status of actors is used to variables on the status-organizing process, structure social interaction. Previous re-In early studies of group behavior, Bales search has shown that social characteristics and his associates (Bales, 1953; Bales & Slaof actors tend to organize the power and pres-ter, 1955) found that ad hoc groups working tige orderings within informal task groups, on a collective task develop a hierarchy of The purpose of this investigation is to explore influence within the group. Some actors parthis phenomenon further and present the re-ticipate to a greater degree, receive more acsults of two studies designed to assess the ef-tion opportunities, make more suggestions, are evaluated more positively on leadership and guidance, and have greater influence over The data described here were part of a doctoral disme group's decision making than other memsertation submitted by the first author to the Department b Th cornn onents o f interaction tend of Psychology, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Del ?' V? 6 ^ components 01 interaction tena Portions of this study were also reported at the 87th annual to be highly correlated and together define meeting of the American Psychological Association, New the observable power and prestige order of York, September 1979. Thanks and appreciation are ex-the group. tended to Jack McKilli P ,Nerella Ramanaiah, Tom Mitch-Subsequent research has demonstrated that...

Children's need for approval and achievement motivation: An interactional approach

“…These results complement those of Lobel and Levanon (1988), who concluded that in situations involving a threat of failure, children with high nApp resort to behaviours that preserve their positive public image. The fact that only the attribution, and not the denial component, was related to achievement behaviour is in accordance with the conclusions of Martin and Greenstein (1983) that attribution is related to normative dependence, and denial is related to informational dependence. This finding could also have been interpreted as evidence of self-deception, which states that individuals with high nApp deceive themselves and truly believe that they possess highly positive characteristics.…”

“…These two components are moderately correlated (Ford, 1964;Lobel, 1982;Millham, 1974;Ramanaiah, Schill and Leung, 1977) and are related to different behaviours (e.g. Martin and Greenstein, 1983;Rump and Court, 1971). For example, Martin and Greenstein (1983) found that the anticipation of interpersonal contact is related to the attribution component, whereas the denial component is related to the specification of task-related abilities.…”

“…Martin and Greenstein, 1983;Rump and Court, 1971). For example, Martin and Greenstein (1983) found that the anticipation of interpersonal contact is related to the attribution component, whereas the denial component is related to the specification of task-related abilities. Achievement behaviours and cognitions can be related to the attribution component-the desire to receive positive reinforcement, or to the denial component-the desire to avoid negative reinforcement, or to both.…”

Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review

“…Unfortunately, no information was offered with regard to the construct validity of this scale. This is also true of a recent revision of this scale (Martin and Greenstein, 1983).…”

Empirical Research About Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence: A Methodological Review

“…A number of assessments exist to measure participants' tendencies to respond in self-report data based on social desirability, such as the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), the Martin-Larsen Approval Motivation Scale (Martin & Greenstein, 1983), and the Other-Deception and Self-Deception Questionnaires (Paulhus, 1984;Sackeim & Gur, 1979). Due to their considerable length and limited psychometric properties of these measures, short form measures with acceptable psychometric properties have also been developed to measure social desirability bias (Blake, Valdiserri, Neuendorf, & Nemeth, 2006;Fischer & Fick, 1993).…”