Only When Others Are Watching: The Contingent Efforts of High Status Group Members

References

• Anderson C, Ames DR, Gosling SD (2008) Punishing hubris: The perils of overestimating one’s status in a group. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 34(1):90–101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, John OJ, Keltner D, Kring AM (2001) The origins of status within face-to-face social groups. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 81:116–132.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bauer DJ, Preacher KJ, Gil KM (2006) Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psych. Methods 11(2):142–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bendersky C, Hays NA (2012) Status conflict in groups. Organ. Sci. 23(2):323–340.Link, Google Scholar
• Bendersky C, Shah NP (2013) The downfall of extraverts and rise of neurotics: The dynamic process of status allocation in task groups. Acad. Management J. 56(2):387–406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berger J, Rosenholtz SJ, Zelditch M (1980) Status organizing processes. Annual Rev. Soc. 6:479–508.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blader SL, Chen YR (2011) What influences how higher-status people respond to lower-status others? Effects of procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and concerns about status. Organ. Sci. 22:1040–1060.Link, Google Scholar
• Blader SL, Chen YR (2012) Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 102(5):994–1014.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blader SL, Yu S (2017) Are status and respect different or two sides of the same coin? Acad. Management Ann. 11(2):800–824.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bunderson S, van der Vegt G, Cantimur Y, Rink F (2016) Different views of hierarchy and why they matter: Hierarchy as inequality or as cascading influence. Acad. Management J. 59(1):1265–1289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Collins LM, Schafer JL, Kam CM (2001) A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psych. Methods 6(4):330–351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook TD, Campbell DT (1979) Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis for Field Settings (Rand McNally, Skokie, IL).Google Scholar
• Correll SJ, Ridgeway CL (2006) Expectation states theory. Handbook of Social Psychology (Springer, New York), 29–51.Google Scholar
• Cronin MA, Weingart LR, Todorova G (2011) Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet? Acad. Management Ann. 5:571–612.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Cremer D (2002) Respect and cooperation in social dilemmas: The importance of feeling included. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 28(10):1335–1341.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Cremer D, Van Dijk E (2005) When and why leaders put themselves first: Leader behaviour in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 35(4):553–563.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Cremer D, Van Dijk E, Folmer CPR (2009) Why leaders feel entitled to take more. Psychological Perspectives on Ethical Behavior and Decision Making (Information Age, Charlotte, NC), 107–119.Google Scholar
• Driskell JE, Mullen B (1990) Status, expectations, and behavior A meta-analytic review and test of the theory. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 16(3):541–553.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edwards JR, Lambert LS (2007) Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psych. Methods 12(1):1–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellemers N, De Gilder D, Haslam SA (2004) Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Acad. Management Rev. 29(3):459–478.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erez A, Sleebos E, Mikulincer M, Van Ijzendoorn MH, Ellemers N, Kroonenberg PM (2009) Attachment anxiety, intra-group (dis)respect, actual efforts, and group donation. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 39:734–746.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Emich KJ (2014) A social cognitive investigation of intragroup motivation: Transpersonal efficacy, effort allocation, and helping. Group Dynam. Theory Res. Practice 18(3):203–221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Emich KJ, Lu L (2017) He thought, she thought: The importance of subjective patterns to understanding team processes. J. Organ. Behav. 38(1):152–156.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7(2):117–140.Google Scholar
• Fisek MH, Berger J, Moore JC (2002) Evaluations, enactment, and expectations. Soc. Psych. Quart. 65(4):329–345.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foschi, M. (1989) Status characteristics, standards, and attributions. Berger J, Zelditch M, Anderson B, eds. Sociological Theories in Progress: New Formulations (Sage, Newbury Park, CA), 58–72.Google Scholar
• Gill D, Prowse V (2012) A structural analysis of disappointment aversion in a real effort competition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(1):469–503.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gill D, Prowse V (2014) Gender differences and dynamics in competition: The role of luck. Quant. Econom. 5(2):351–376.Crossref, Google Scholar
• George JM (1992) Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Acad. Management J. 35:191–202.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harkins SG, Szymanski K (1989) Social loafing and group evaluation. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 56(6):934–941.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (Guilford Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Hayes AF (2015) An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Res. 50(1):1–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hays NA, Blader S (2017) To give or not to give? Interactive effects of status and legitimacy on generosity. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 112(1):17–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hertel G, Kerr NL, Messé LA (2000) Motivation gains in groups: Paradigmatic and theoretical advances on the Kӧhler effect. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 79:580–601.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hollander EP (1958) Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psych. Rev. 65(2):117–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hüffmeier J, Krumm S, Kanthak J, Hertel G (2012) “Don’t let the group down”: Facets of instrumentality moderate the motivating effects of groups in a field experiment. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 42(5):533–538.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Inesi M, Cable D (2015) When accomplishments come back to haunt you: The negative effect of competence signals on women’s performance evaluations. Personnel Psych. 68(3):615–657.Google Scholar
• Imas A, Sadoff S, Samek A (2016) Do people anticipate loss aversion? Management Sci. 63(5):1271–1284.Link, Google Scholar
• Jones GR (1984) Task visibility, free riding, and shirking: Explaining the effect of structure and technology on employee behavior. Acad. Management Rev. 9(4):684–695.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karau SJ, Williams KD (2001) Understanding individual motivation in groups: The collective effort model. Turner ME, ed. Groups at Work: Theory and Research (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ), 113–141.Google Scholar
• Kerr NL, Tindale RS (2004) Group performance and decision making. Annual Rev. Psych. 55:623–655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kerr NL, Messé LA, Seok D, Sambolec E, Lount RB Jr, Park ES (2007) Psychological mechanisms underlying the Kӧhler motivation gain effect. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 33:828–841.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kidwell RE, Bennett N (1993) Employee propensity to withhold effort: A conceptual model to intersect three avenues of research. Acad. Management Rev. 18(3):429–456.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kruger J, Dunning D (1999) Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 77(6):1121–1134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larson JR Jr (2010) In Search of Synergy in Small Group Performance (Psychology Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Levine JM, Moreland RL (1990) Progress in small group research. Annual Rev. Psych. 41:585–634.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Jaworski RA, Bennett N (2004) Social loafing: A field investigation. J. Management 30(2):285–304.Google Scholar
• Lount RB Jr, Phillips KW (2007) Working harder with the out-group: The impact of social category diversity on motivation gains. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 103(2):214–224.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lount RB Jr, Wilk SL (2014) Working harder or hardly working?: Posting performance eliminates social loafing and promotes social laboring in workgroups. Management Sci. 60:1098–1106.Link, Google Scholar
• Lount RB Jr, Pettit NC, Doyle SP (2017) Motivating underdogs and favorites. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 141:82–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mackinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Williams J (2004) Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behav. Res. 39:99–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Magee JC, Galinsky AD (2008) Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Acad. Management Ann. 2:351–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Magnusson D, Bergman LR, Rudinger G (1994) Problems and Methods in Longitudinal Research: Stability and Change (Cambridge University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Marr JC, Thau S (2014) Falling from great (and not so great) heights: How initial status position influences performance after status loss. Acad. Management J. 57:223–248.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merton RK (1968) The Matthew effect in science. Science 159(3810):56–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Messé LA, Kerr N, Sattler D (1992) “But some animals are more equal than others”: Role schema and privileged status in performance groups. Worchel S, Wood W, Simpson J, eds. Group Process and Productivity (Sage, Newbury Park, CA), 203–223.Google Scholar
• Pettit NC, Lount RB Jr (2010) Looking down and ramping up: The impact of status differences on effort in intergroup contexts. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 46(1):9–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pettit NC, Yong K, Spataro SE (2010) Holding your place: Reactions to the prospect of status gains and losses. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 46(2):396–401.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perry SJ, Lorinkova NM, Hunter EM, Hubbard A, McMahon JT (2016) When does virtuality really “work”? Examining the role of work-family and virtuality in social loafing. J. Management 42(2):449–479.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Preacher KJ, Selig JP (2012) Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Comm. Methods Measures 6(2):77–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway C (1982) Status in groups: The importance of motivation. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 47:76–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway C, Bourg C (2004) Gender as status: An expectation states approach. Eagly A, Beall A, Sternberg R, eds. Psychology of Gender (Guilford Press, New York), 217–241.Google Scholar
• Ridgeway C, Walker H (1995) Status structures. Cook K, Fine G, House J, eds. Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology (Allyn and Bacon, New York), 281–310.Google Scholar
• Rink F, Ellemers N (2015) The pernicious effects of unstable work group membership: How work group changes undermine unique task contributions and newcomer acceptance. Group Processes Intergroup Relations 18(1):6–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sleebos E, Ellemers N, de Gilder D (2006a) The paradox of the disrespected: Disrespected group members’ engagement in group-serving efforts. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 42(4):413–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sleebos E, Ellemers N, de Gilder D (2006b) The carrot and the stick: Affective commitment and acceptance anxiety as motives for discretionary group efforts by respected and disrespected group members. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 32(2):244–255.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith J (2016) The motivational effects of mission matching: A laboratory‐experimental test of a moderated mediation model. Public Admin. Rev. 76(4):626–637.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Steiner ID (1972) Group Processes and Productivity (Academic Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Stouten J, De Cremer D, Van Dijk E (2005) I’m doing the best I can (for myself): Leadership and variance of harvesting in resource dilemmas. Group Dynam. Theory Res. Practice 9(3):205–211.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Troyer L, Younts CW (1997) Whose expectations matter? The relative power of first-and second-order expectations in determining social influence. Amer. J. Soc. 103(3):692–732.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Troyer L, Younts CW, Kalkhoff W (2001) Clarifying the theory of second-order expectations: The correspondence between motives for interaction and actors’ orientation toward group interaction. Soc. Psych. Quart. 64(2):128–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Dijk E, De Cremer D (2006) Self-benefiting in the allocation of scarce resources: Leader-follower effects and the moderating effect of social value orientations. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 32(10):1352–1361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weber B, Hertel G (2007) Motivation gains of inferior group members: A meta-analytic review. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 93:973–993.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Webster M, Whitmeyer JM, Rashotte LS (2004) Status claims, performance expectations, and inequality in groups. Soc. Sci. Res. 33(4):724–745.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Willer R (2009) Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 74:23–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yip JA, Schweitzer ME, Nurmohamed S (2018) Trash-talking: Competitive incivility motivates rivalry, performance, and unethical behavior. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 144:125–144.Crossref, Google Scholar