The Many Gifts of Status: How Attending to Audience Reactions Drives the Use of Status

References

• Adler M (1985) Stardom and talent. Amer. Econom. Rev. 75(1):208–212.Google Scholar
• Aknin LB, Human LJ (2015) Give a piece of you: Gifts that reflect givers promote closeness. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 60:8–16.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anand N, Jones BC (2008) Tournament rituals, category dynamics, and field configuration: The case of the Booker Prize. J. Management Stud. 45(6):1036–1060.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anand N, Watson MR (2004) Tournament rituals in the evolution of fields: The case of the Grammy awards. Acad. Management J. 47(1):59–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Angrist JD, Pischke J-S (2009) Mostly Harmless Econometrics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Azoulay P, Stuart T, Wang Y (2013) Matthew: Effect or fable? Management Sci. 60(1):92–109.Link, Google Scholar
• Bauckhage T (2015) Wide gap between Oscars and pop culture. USA Today (February 18).Google Scholar
• Becker GS (2010(1971)) The Economics of Discrimination (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Berger J, Sorensen AT, Rasmussen SJ (2010) Positive effects of negative publicity: When negative reviews increase sales. Marketing Sci. 29(5):815–827.Link, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Duflo E, Mullainathan S (2004) How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? Quart. J. Econom. 119(1):249–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bidwell MJ, Won S, Barbulescu R, Mollick ER (2015) I used to work at Goldman Sachs! How firms benefit from organizational status in the market for human capital. Strategic Management J. 36(8):1164–1173.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bourdieu P (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) The economics daily: Average annual expenditures on gifts of goods and services in 2013. Technical report, US Department of Labor.Google Scholar
• Caplow T (1982) Christmas gifts and kin networks. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 47(3):383–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caplow T (1984) Rule enforcement without visible means: Christmas gift giving in Middletown. Amer. J. Sociol. 89(6):1306–1323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Castilla EJ (2008) Gender, race, and meritocracy in organizational careers. Amer. J. Sociol. 113(6):1479–1526.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cattani G, Ferriani S, Allison PD (2014) Insiders, outsiders, and the struggle for consecration in cultural fields—A core-periphery perspective. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 79(2):258–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charman-Anderson S (2013) Can Nielsen BookScan stay relevant in the digital age? Forbes (January 7).Google Scholar
• Cheal D (1988) The Gift Economy (Routledge, New York).Google Scholar
• Chevalier JA, Mayzlin D (2006) The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. J. Marketing Res. 43(3):345–354.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clark CR, Clark S, Polborn MK (2006) Coordination and status influence. Rationality Soc. 18(3):367–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Correll SJ, Ridgeway CL, Zuckerman EW, Jordan-Bloch S, Jank S, Nakagawa S (2017) It’s the conventional thought that counts: How third-order inference produces status advantage. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 82(2):297–327.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis J (1992) Exchange (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis).Google Scholar
• Davis MH (1983) Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 44(1):113–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• English JF (2005) The Economy of Prestige: Prizes, Awards, and the Circulation of Cultural Value (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epley N (2014) Mindwise: Why We Misunderstand What Others Think, Believe, Feel, and Want (Vintage, New York).Google Scholar
• Epley N, Keysar B, Van Boven L, Gilovich T (2004) Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 87(3):327–339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ertug G, Castellucci F (2013) Getting what you need: How reputation and status affect team performance, hiring, and salaries in the NBA. Acad. Management J. 56(2):407–431.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Espeland WN, Sauder M (2007) Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. Amer. J. Sociol. 113(1):1–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehrman C (2011) The short, unsuccessful life of the American Book Awards. The New York Times (October 28).Google Scholar
• Fernandez-Mateo I, King Z (2011) Anticipatory sorting and gender segregation in temporary employment. Management Sci. 57(6):989–1008.Link, Google Scholar
• Flood A (2015) Books about women less likely to win prizes, study says. The New York Times (June 1).Google Scholar
• Fung A, Graham M, Weil D (2007) Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gino F, Flynn FJ (2011) Give them what they want: The benefits of explicitness in gift exchange. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 47(5):915–922.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ginsburgh V (2003) Awards, success, and aesthetic quality. J. Econom. Perspect. 17(2):99–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goffman E (1967) Interaction Ritual (Anchor Books, Garden City, NY).Google Scholar
• Goode WJ (1978) The Celebration of Heroes: Prestige as a Control System (University of California Press, Berkeley).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gould RV (2002) The origins of status hierarchies: A formal theory and empirical test. Amer. J. Sociol. 107(5):1143–1178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Granovetter M (1978) Threshold models of collective behavior. Amer. J. Sociol. 83(6):1420–1443.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hayes A (2014) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. A Regression-Based Approach (Guilford, New York).Google Scholar
• Jensen M (2003) The role of network resources in market entry: Commercial banks’ entry into investment banking, 1991–1997. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(3):466–497.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jensen M (2006) Should we stay or should we go? Accountability, status anxiety, and client defections. Admin. Sci. Quart. 51(1):97–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karpik L (2010) Valuing the Unique: The Economics of Singularities (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim JW, King BG (2014) Seeing stars: Matthew effects and status bias in Major League Baseball umpiring. Management Sci. 60(11):2619–2644.Link, Google Scholar
• Kirkpatrick D (2003) A literary award for Stephen King. New York Times (September 15), http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/books/a-literary-award-for-stephen-king.html.Google Scholar
• Kovács B, Liu C (2016) Audience structure and status multiplicity. Soc. Networks 44:36–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kovács B, Sharkey AJ (2014) The paradox of publicity: How awards can negatively affect the evaluation of quality. Admin. Sci. Quart. 59(1):1–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lampel J, Bhalla A (2007) The role of status seeking in online communities: Giving the gift of experience. J. Comput.-Mediated Comm. 12(2):434–455.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerner J, Tetlock P (1999) Accounting for accountability. Psych. Bull. 125(2):255–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lizardo O (2006) How cultural tastes shape personal networks. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 71(5):778–807.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lynn FB, Podolny JM, Tao L (2009) A sociological (de)construction of the relationship between status and quality. Amer. J. Sociol. 115(3):755–804.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malter D (2014) On the causality and cause of returns to organizational status—Evidence from the Grands Crus Classés of the Médoc. Admin. Sci. Quart. 59(2):271–300.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mauss M (1967) The Gift (1925) (Norton, New York).Google Scholar
• Merton RK (1968) The Matthew effect in science. Science 159(3810):56–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller L (2011) How the National Book Awards made themselves irrelevant. Salon (October 12), https://www.salon.com/2011/10/12/how_the_national_book_awards_made_themselves_irrelevant/.Google Scholar
• Musteen M, Datta DK, Kemmerer B (2010) Corporate reputation: Do board characteristics matter? British J. Management 21(2):498–510.Google Scholar
• Myers BR (2002) A Reader’s Manifesto: An Attack on the Growing Pretentiousness of American Literary Prose (Melville House, Brooklyn, NY).Google Scholar
• Nelson P (1970) Information and consumer behavior. J. Political Econom. 78(2):311–329.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (1993) A status-based model of market competition. Amer. J. Sociol. 98(4):829–872.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (1994) Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Admin. Sci. Quart. 39(3):458–483.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (2001) Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. Amer. J. Sociol. 107(1):33–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (2005) Status Signals (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL, Correll SJ (2006) Consensus and the creation of status beliefs. Soc. Forces 85(1):431–453.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rossman G, Schilke O (2014) Close, but no cigar—The bimodal rewards to prize-seeking. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 79(1):86–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rossman G, Esparza N, Bonacich P (2010) Iâd like to thank the Academy, team spillovers, and network centrality. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 75(1):31–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ryan HE, Wiggins RA (2004) Who is in whose pocket? Director compensation, board independence, and barriers to effective monitoring. J. Financial Econom. 73(3):497–524.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schelling TC (1969) Models of segregation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 59(2):488–493.Google Scholar
• Schnaars C, Morgan H (2013) In U.S. building industry, is it too easy to be green? USA Today (June 13).Google Scholar
• Schwartz B (1967) The social psychology of the gift. Amer. J. Sociol. 73(1):1–11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwarz N (1996) Cognition and Communication: Judgmental Biases, Research Methods, and the Logic of Conversation (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ).Google Scholar
• Scofield JH (2009) Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Not really… Energy Buildings 41(12):1386–1390.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sharkey AJ (2014) Categories and organizational status: The role of industry status in the response to organizational deviance. Amer. J. Sociol. 119(5):1380–1433.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sherry JF, McGrath MA, Levy SJ (1993) The dark side of the gift. J. Bus. Res. 28(3):225–244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shrum W (1996) Fringe and Fortune: The Role of Critics in High and Popular Art (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simcoe TS, Waguespack DM (2011) Status, quality, and attention: What’s in a (missing) name? Management Sci. 57(2):274–290.Link, Google Scholar
• Singh J, Agrawal A (2011) Recruiting for ideas: How firms exploit the prior inventions of new hires. Management Sci. 57(1):129–150.Link, Google Scholar
• Sorensen AT (2007) Bestseller lists and product variety. J. Indust. Econom. 55(4):715–738.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stock J, Rigdon K (2013) Top literary prizes. The Telegraph (October 15), http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookprizes/10139413/top-literary-prizes.html.Google Scholar
• Strathern M (2000) Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy (Routledge, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stuart TE, Hoang H, Hybels RC (1999) Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(2):315–349.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Useem M (1996) Investor Capitalism: How Money Managers Are Changing the Face of Corporate America (Basic Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Uzzi B, Lancaster R (2004) Embeddedness and price formation in the corporate law market. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 69(3):319–344.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Veblen T (1934) The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study in the Evolution of Institutions (Modern Library, New York).Google Scholar
• Waldfogel J (1993) The deadweight loss of Christmas. Amer. Econom. Rev. 83(5):1328–1336.Google Scholar
• Webley P, Lea SEG, Portalska R (1983) The unacceptability of money as a gift. J. Econom. Psych. 4(3):223–238.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wooten DB (2000) Qualitative steps toward an expanded model of anxiety in gift-giving. J. Consumer Res. 27(1):84–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zelizer VA (2012) How I became a relational economic sociologist and what does that mean? Politics Soc. 40(2):145–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zelizer VAR (1997) The Social Meaning of Money (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Epley N (2012) Exaggerated, mispredicted, and misplaced: When “it’s the thought that counts” in gift exchanges. J. Experiment. Psych. General 141(4):667–681.Crossref, Google Scholar