Why Do High-Status People Have Larger Social Networks? Belief in Status-Quality Coupling as a Driver of Network-Broadening Behavior and Social Network Size

References

• Anderson C, Brown CE (2010) The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Res. Organ. Behav. 30:1–35.Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Kilduff GJ (2009) Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 96(2):491–503.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Hildreth JAD, Howland L (2015) Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psych. Bull. 141(3):574–601.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, John OP, Keltner D (2012a) The personal sense of power. J. Personality. 80(2):313–344.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Brion S, Moore DA, Kennedy JA (2012b) A status-enhancement account of overconfidence. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 103(4):718–735.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, John OP, Keltner D, Kring AM (2001) Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 81(1):116–132.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Kraus MW, Galinsky AD, Keltner D (2012c) The local-ladder effect social status and subjective well-being. Psych. Sci. 23(7):764–771.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anicich EM, Fast NJ, Halevy N, Galinsky AD (2015) When the bases of social hierarchy collide: Power without status drives interpersonal conflict. Organ. Sci. 27(1):123–140.Link, Google Scholar
• Audia PG, Brion S (2007) Reluctant to change: Self-enhancing responses to diverging performance measures. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 102(2):255–269.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benjamin BA, Podolny JM (1999) Status, quality, and social order in the California wine industry. Administrative Sci. Quart. 44(3):563–589.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berger J, Cohen BP, Zelditch M (1972) Status characteristics and social interaction. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 37(3):241–255.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berger J, Rosenholtz SJ, Zelditch M (1980) Status organizing processes. Annual Rev. Sociol. 6(1):479–508.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berger J, Fisek MH, Noman RZ, Zelditch MJ (1977) Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation-States Approach (Elsevier, Amsterdam).Google Scholar
• Biernat M, Kobrynowicz D (1997) Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 72(3):544–557.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bitterly TB, Schweitzer ME, Brooks AW (2017) Risky business: When humor increases and decreases status. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 112(3):431–455.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blader S, Yu S (2017) Are status and respect different or two sides of the same coin? Acad. Management Ann. 11(2):800–824.Google Scholar
• Blader SL, Chen YR (2012) Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102(5):994–1014.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blader SL, Shirako A, Chen YR (2016) Looking out from the top. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 42(6):723–737.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blau PM (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Bonacich P (1987) Power and centrality: A family of measures. American J. Sociol. 92(5):1170–1182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H (2013) Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ).Google Scholar
• Bothner MS, Kim YK, Smith EB (2012) How does status affect performance? Status as an asset vs. status as a liability in the PGA and NASCAR. Organ. Sci. 23(2):416–433.Link, Google Scholar
• Bothner MS, Podolny JM, Smith EB (2011) Organizing contests for status: The Matthew effect vs. the Mark effect. Management Sci. 57(3):439–457.Link, Google Scholar
• Bothner MS, Smith EB, White HC (2010) A model of robust positions in social networks. Amer. J. Sociol. 116(3):943–992.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brashears ME (2011) Small networks and high isolation? A reexamination of American discussion networks. Social Networks 33(4):331–341.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brashears ME (2013) Humans use compression heuristics to improve the recall of social networks. Sci. Rep. 3(1):1513.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brooks AW, Gino F, Schweitzer ME (2015) Smart people ask for (my) advice: Seeking advice boosts perceptions of competence. Management Sci. 61(6):1421–1435.Link, Google Scholar
• Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2011) Amazon’s mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect. Psych. Sci. 6(1):3–5.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burkhardt ME, Brass DJ (1990) Changing patterns or patterns of change: The effects of a change in technology on social network structure and power. Administrative Sci. Quart. 35(1):104–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1984) Network items and the general social survey. Social Networks 6(4):293–339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2000) The network structure of social capital. Res. Organ. Behav. 22:345–423.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camic C (1992) Reputation and predecessor selection: Parsons and the institutionalists. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 57(4):421–445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell KE, Marsden PV, Hurlbert JS (1986) Social resources and socioeconomic status. Soc. Networks. 8(1):97–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casciaro T, Gino F, Kouchaki M (2014) The contaminating effects of building instrumental ties. Admin. Sci. Quart. 59(4):705–735.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chiu CY, Gelfand MJ, Yamagishi T, Shteynberg G, Wan C (2010) Intersubjective culture: The role of intersubjective perceptions in cross-cultural research. Perspect. Psych. Sci. 5(4):482–493.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen EG, Roper SS (1972) Modification of Interracial Interaction Disability: An Application of Status Characteristic Theory. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 37(6):643–657.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Correll SJ, Ridgeway CL (2003) Expectation states theory. Delamater J, ed. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research: Handbook of Social Psychology (Kluwer Academic, New York), 29–51.Google Scholar
• Costa P, McCrae R (1992) Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psych. Assessment 4(1):5–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cuddy AJC, Fiske ST, Glick P (2007) The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 92(4):631–648.Crossref, 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
• Eisenberger NI, Lieberman MD, Williams KD (2003) Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Sci. 302(5643):290–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elvira MM, Graham ME (2002) Not just a formality: Pay system formalization and sex-related earnings effects. Organ. Sci. 13(6):601–617.Link, Google Scholar
• Fang R, Landis B, Zhang Z, Anderson MH, Shaw JD, Kilduff M (2015) Integrating personality and social networks: A meta-analysis of personality, network position, and work outcomes in organizations. Organ. Sci. 26(4):1243–1260.Link, Google Scholar
• Fischer R, Smith PB (2004) Values and organizational justice: Performance- and seniority-based allocation criteria in the United Kingdom and Germany. J. Cross-Cultural Psych. 35(6):669–688.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P, Xu J (2002) A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 82(6):878–902.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flynn FJ (2003) How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity and frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. Acad. Management J. 46(5):539–553.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foschi M (2000) Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annual Rev. Sociol. 26(1):21–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gino F, Brooks AW, Schweitzer ME (2012) Anxiety, advice, and the ability to discern: Feeling anxious motivates individuals to seek and use advice. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 102(3):497–512.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goh JX, Hall JA, Rosenthal R (2016) Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Soc. Personality Psych. Compass 10(10):535–549.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann WB (2003) A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J. Res. Personality 37(6):504–528.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gould RV (2002) The origins of status hierarchies: A formal theory and empirical test. American J. Sociol. 107(5):1143–1178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gruenfeld DH, Inesi ME, Magee JC, Galinsky AD (2008) Power and the objectification of social targets. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 95(1):111–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall A, Wellman B (1985) Social Networks and Social Support (Academic Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Han SK (1994) Mimetic isomorphism and its effect on the audit services market. Soc. Forces. 73(2):637–664.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hardy CL, Van Vugt M (2006) Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 32(10):1402–1413.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hargens LL, Hagstrom WO (1982) Scientific consensus and academic status attainment patterns. Sociol. Ed. 55(4):183–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hayes A (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis (The Guilford Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Hays NA, Bendersky C (2015) Not all inequality is created equal: Effects of status vs. power hierarchies on competition for upward mobility. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 108(6):867–882.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hays NA, Blader SL (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
• Henrich J, Gil-White FJ (2001) The evolution of prestige: freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution Human Behav. 22(3):165–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hill RA, Dunbar RIM (2003) Social network size in humans. Human Nature 14(1):53–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hinkin TR (1998) A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organ. Res. Methods 1(1):104–121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hollander EP (1980) Leadership and social exchange processes.Gergen KJ, Greenberg MS, Willis RH, eds. Social Exchange (Springer, Boston), 130–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hollander EP, Julian JW (1970) Studies in leader legitimacy, influence, and innovation. Adv. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 5:33–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Homans GC (1961) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms (Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York).Google Scholar
• Huo YJ, Binning KR, Molina LE (2010) Testing an integrative model of respect: Implications for social engagement and well-being. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 36(2):200–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ibarra H (1992) Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Sci. Quart. 37(3):422–447.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khan SR (2011) Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul’s School (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kilduff M, Krackhardt D (1994) Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Acad. Management J. 37(1):87–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinbaum AM, Stuart TE, Tushman ML (2013) Discretion within constraint: Homophily and structure in a formal organization. Organ. Sci. 24(5):1316–1336.Link, Google Scholar
• Kuwabara K, Hildebrand C, Zou X (2018) Lay theories of networking: How laypeople’s beliefs about networks affect their attitudes and engagement toward instrumental networking. Acad. Management Rev. 43(1):50–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuwabara K, Yu S, Lee AJ, Galinsky AD (2016) Status decreases dominance in the West but increases dominance in the East. Psych. Sci. 27(2):127–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Landers RN, Behrend TS (2015) An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Indust. Organ. Psych. 8(2):142–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larivière V, Gingras Y (2009) The impact factor’s Matthew effect: A natural experiment in bibliometrics. J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. Tech. 61(2):424–427.Google Scholar
• Leary MR, Jongman-Sereno KP, Diebels KJ (2014) The pursuit of status: A self-presentational perspective on the quest for social value. Cheng JT, Tracy JL, Anderson C, eds. The Psychology of Social Status (Springer, New York), 159–178.Google Scholar
• Lerner MJ, Miller DT (1978) Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psych. Bull. 85(5):1030–1051.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li H, Chen YR, Blader SL (2016) Where is context? Advancing status research with a contextual value perspective. Res. Organ. Behav. 36:185–198.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lin N (1999) Building a network theory of social capital. Connections 22(1):28–51.Google Scholar
• Lin N (2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lount RB, Pettit NC (2012) The social context of trust: The role of status. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 117(1):15–23.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
• MacDonald G, Leary MR (2005) Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psych. Bull. 131(2):202–223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Magee JC, Galinsky AD (2008) Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Acad. Management Ann. 2(1):351–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manzo G, Baldassarri D (2015) Heuristics, interactions, and status hierarchies. Sociol. Methods Res. 44(2):329–387.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Rev. Sociol. 27(1):415–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mehra A, Kilduff M, Brass DJ (2001) The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Sci. Quart. 46(1):121–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Menon T, Smith EB (2014) Identities in flux: Cognitive network activation in times of change. Soc. Sci. Res. 45:117–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merton RK (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure (The Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Miyamoto Y, Yoo J, Levine CS, Park J, Boylan JM, Sims T, Markus HR, et al. (2018) Culture and social hierarchy: Self- and other-oriented correlates of socioeconomic status across cultures. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 115(3):427–445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neeley TB, Dumas TL (2016) Unearned status gain: Evidence from a global language mandate. Acad. Management J. 59(1):14–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perrow C (1961) Organizational prestige: Some functions and dysfunctions. American J. Sociol. 66(4):335–341.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pettit NC, Sivanathan N (2012) The eyes and ears of status. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 38(5):570–582.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phillips DJ, Zuckerman EW (2001) Middle‐status conformity: Theoretical restatement and empirical demonstration in two markets. Amer. J. Sociol. 107(2):379–429.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (1993) A status-based model of market competition. Amer. J. Sociol. 98(4):829–872.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raj M, Fast NJ, Fisher O (2017) Identity and professional networking. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 43(6):772–784.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reagans R (2005) Preferences, identity, and competition: Predicting tie strength from demographic data. Management Sci. 51(9):1374–1383.Link, Google Scholar
• Reskin BF (1979) Academic sponsorship and scientists’ careers. Sociol. Ed. 52(3):129–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL (1987) Nonverbal behavior, dominance, and the basis of status in task groups. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 52(5):683–694.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway C (1991) The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Soc. Forces 70(2):367–386.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL, Walker HA (1995) Status structures.Cook K, Fine G, House J, eds. Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology (Allyn and Beacon, New York), 281–310.Google Scholar
• Rosenthal R, Jacobson L (1992) Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils’ Intellectual Development (Irvington Publishers, New York).Google Scholar
• Rusbult CE, Insko CA, Lin YHW (1995) Seniority-based reward allocation in the United States and Taiwan. Soc. Psych. Quart. 58(1):13–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salimäki A, Jämsén S (2010) Perceptions of politics and fairness in merit pay. J. Management Psych. 25(3):229–251.Google Scholar
• Sasovova Z, Mehra A, Borgatti SP, Schippers MC (2010) Network churn: The effects of self-monitoring personality on brokerage dynamics. Admin. Sci. Quart. 55(4):639–670.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shea CT, Menon T, Smith EB, Emich K (2015) The affective antecedents of cognitive social network activation. Soc. Networks 43:91–99.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith EB, Menon T, Thompson L (2012) Status differences in the cognitive activation of social networks. Organ. Sci. 23(1):67–82.Link, Google Scholar
• Stuart TE, Hoang H, Hybels RC (1999) Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44:315–349.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tannenbaum AS (1974) Hierarchy in Organizations (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).Google Scholar
• Tasselli S, Kilduff M (2015) The microfoundations of organizational social networks: A review and an agenda for future research. J. Management 41(5):1361–1387.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thibaut JW, Kelley HH (1959) The Social Psychology of Groups (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Torelli CJ, Leslie LM, Stoner JL, Puente R (2014) Cultural determinants of status: Implications for workplace evaluations and behaviors. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 123(1):34–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tyler TR (2006) Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Rev. Psych. 57(1):375–400.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Der GS, Bunderson JS, Oosterhof A (2006) Expertness diversity and interpersonal helping in teams: Why those who need the most help end up getting the least. Acad. Management J. 49(5):877–893.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wanberg CR, Kammeyer-Mueller JD (2000) Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. J. Appl. Psych. 85(3):373–385.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wanberg CR, Kanfer R, Banas JT (2000) Predictors and outcomes of networking intensity among unemployed job seekers. J. Appl. Psych. 85(4):491–503.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weber M (1946) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (Routledge, London).Google Scholar
• Webster M, Entwisle DR (1976) Expectation effects on performance evaluations. Soc. Forces 55(2):493–502.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Whiting VR, de Janasz SC (2004) Mentoring in the 21st century: Using the internet to build skills and networks. J. Management Ed. 28(3):275–293.Google Scholar
• Willer R (2009) Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 74(1):23–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wolff HG, Moser K (2009) Effects of networking on career success: A longitudinal study. J. Appl. Psych. 94:196–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wolff HG, Schneider-Rahm CI, Forret ML (2011) Adaptation of a German multidimensional networking scale into English. Eur. J. Psych. Assessment 27(4):244–250.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woo SE, Keith M, Thornton MA (2015) Amazon mechanical Turk for industrial and organizational psychology: Advantages, challenges, and practical recommendations. Indust. Organ. Psych. 8(2):171–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Word C, Zanna MP, Cooper J (1974) The nonverbal mediation in interracial of self-fulfilling prophecies. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 10:109–120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yu S, Xie Y (2017) Preference effects on friendship choice: Evidence from an online field experiment. Soc. Sci. Res. 66:201–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zou X, Tam KP, Morris MW, Lee SL, Lau IYM, Chiu CY (2009) Culture as common sense: Perceived consensus vs. personal beliefs as mechanisms of cultural influence. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 97(4):579–597.Crossref, Google Scholar