Holding your place: Reactions to the prospect of status gains and losses

Pettit, Nathan C.; Yong, Kevyn; Spataro, Sandra E.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.12.007

Cited by 175 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(59 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

112

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Men's current status advantage means they have more to lose than women. The prospect of losing status is highly threatening (Marr & Thau, 2014;Pettit, Yong, & Spataro, 2010;Scheepers & Ellemers, 2005). To protect their status advantage, people reconstruct the meaning of merit (Uhlmann & Cohen, 2005).…”

Section: Evidence For Men's Motivated Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 99%

A pawn in someone else's game?: The cognitive, motivational, and paradigmatic barriers to women's excelling in negotiation

Kennedy

Kray

2015

Research in Organizational Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within a framework of inequality the existence of conflict is denied and the means to engage openly in conflict are excluded. -Jean Baker Miller, M. D. The New Psychology of WomenWomen in organizations are succeeding to a lesser degree than men. Women still hold only 5% of CEO positions (Catalyst, 2015), 19% of Board Directorships (Catalyst, 2015 and are estimated to earn only $0.82 for every dollar paid to men (Hegewisch, Ellis, & Hartmann, 2015). When women are under-represented in high status positions, it becomes more difficult for other women to succeed in the organization (Ibarra, 1992(Ibarra, , 1993Kanter, 1977). The female gender group is seen more negatively in firms with fewer senior women (Ely, 1994) and women's skills go unrecognized (Joshi, 2014) 1 .Despite similar career aspirations, the trajectories of high-achieving men and women in MBA programs vary in important ways. A recent survey of Harvard Business School alumni showed that women were less likely than men to hold senior management positions, less likely to Women's relatively worse performance in negotiation is often cited as an explanation for gender differences in advancement and pay within organizations. We review key findings from the past twenty years of research on gender differences in negotiation. Women do underperform relative to men in negotiation, but only under limited circumstances, which means the performance gap is unlikely due to lesser skills on their part. The barriers between women and negotiation excellence are of three types: cognitive, motivational, and paradigmatic. Cognitive barriers stem from negative stereotypes about women's negotiating abilities. Motivational barriers stem from desire to prevent women negotiators from excelling in a masculine domain. Paradigmatic barriers stem from how negotiation is currently studied. We call for greater attention to motivational barriers and for changes to the negotiation paradigm. Women negotiators are not incompetent, and training them to negotiate more like men is not obviously the solution. In fact, women have greater concern for others than men do, and their cooperativeness elevates collective intelligence and enables ethical behavior. Under a new paradigm of negotiation, the value of these strengths could become more readily apparent. In particular, we advocate for greater attention to long-term relationships, subjective value, and relational capital, all of which may have important economic implications in real world negotiations. ß

show abstract

Section: Evidence For Men's Motivated Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 99%

A pawn in someone else's game?: The cognitive, motivational, and paradigmatic barriers to women's excelling in negotiation

Kennedy

Kray

2015

Research in Organizational Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By contrast, actors in disadvantaged structural positions will often be motivated to improve their standing (Pettit, Yong, and Spataro, 2010). Maneuvering is the use of capability-based resources (i.e., skills, dispositions, and cognitive orientations) for instrumental purposes (i.e., with the intent to improve an actor's structural position).…”

Section: Maneuvering: Marshaling Capability-based Resources To Achievmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bringing Agency Back into Network Research: Constrained Agency and Network Action

Gulati¹,

Srivastava²

2014

Research in the Sociology of Organizations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article enriches the conception of agency that prevails in network research by proposing a framework of constrained agency. Our framework is grounded in the resources and motivations that actors draw on within their structurally constrained context. Structural positions influence the resources available to actors and color the motivations that shape their actions. At the same time resources equip actors to exert agency while motivations propel them to do so. Examining how specific resources are used when particular motivations are operative reveals ideal types of constrained agency. Within the wide range of actions that constrained agency can encompass, we focus on network action. We derive a typology of network actions and illustrate how the form of constrained agency through which a particular network action is taken can affect actors' ensuing structural positions and the nature of the constraints they subsequently face. We conclude by discussing how this conceptualization of constrained agency can help identify new sources of endogenous change in network structure and can serve as a guide for future empirical research.3

show abstract

“…Research has illustrated that individuals are motivated to maintain their social status and will go to great lengths to avoid status loss [14, 15]. How, so, do individuals consider their own social status as they grow older?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rising above It: Status Ambivalence in Older Adults

Robertson¹,

Weiss²

2018

Gerontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Social status is the standing of a person or group in the social hierarchy, and is perceived to change across the life span from low social status in early life, to peak in midlife, and to a decline thereafter. As threats to subjective social status are known to be detrimental to individuals’ health, it is important to better understand how older adults perceive themselves and others in terms of age-related social status. Objective: We examined status ambivalence – the potential discrepancy between how older adults’ perceive social status for themselves compared to older adults in general. Method: Study 1 used qualitative data from 37 semi-structured interviews with older adults to assess perceptions of social status. Study 2 used quantitative survey data from 114 older adults who completed explicit and implicit measures of social status. Results: Study 1 (n = 37, mean_age = 71.72, SD_age = 5.69; 81.1% women) provided preliminary evidence for status ambivalence such that older adults reported unequivocal low social status for other older adults but a more ambivalent perception of their own social status. Study 2 (n = 114, mean_age = 64.32, SD_age = 8.98, 57.9% women) compared implicit and explicit measures of social status revealing that older adults consistently perceive older adults to have low social status but again show a more ambivalent perception of their own social status. Conclusion: We discuss status ambivalence as a potential protective mechanism in the context of negative societal perceptions of age-related social status that may be important for well-being in later life.

show abstract

Holding your place: Reactions to the prospect of status gains and losses

Cited by 175 publications

References 43 publications

A pawn in someone else's game?: The cognitive, motivational, and paradigmatic barriers to women's excelling in negotiation

A pawn in someone else's game?: The cognitive, motivational, and paradigmatic barriers to women's excelling in negotiation

Bringing Agency Back into Network Research: Constrained Agency and Network Action

Rising above It: Status Ambivalence in Older Adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About