Status, Power, and Accounts

Massey, Kelly; Freeman, Sabrina; Zelditch, Morris

doi:10.2307/2787084

Cited by 22 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This proposition is supported by the fact that the newer cooperatives trust the rich while older and more successful cooperatives trust both the rich and the poor, even placing poor into positions of power. This confirms Massey, Freeman, andZelditch (1997) (cited in Kopelman, Weber, &Messick, 2002, p. 129) finding that people judge higher status individuals' acts more favorably than they do similar status individuals if those higher status individuals' rationales are valid, but also much less favorably than those of similar status if the higher status peoples' rationales are invalid. To complement that finding, the implication produced by this study is that greater familiarity between individuals, the lower is the strength of those tendencies.…”

Section: (A) the Beginnings Of A Theory On Inequality And Trust Formasupporting

confidence: 54%

Wealth-Based Trust and the Development of Collective Action

Jones

2004

World Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interpersonal trust is one possible mechanism by which wealth inequality affects the success of efforts in cooperation. Specifically, the presence of perceived economic differences between members of small agricultural cooperatives in northwest Ecuador's agricultural frontier encourages trust in the wealthy, thus facilitating coop development during the initial stage of cooperative formation. But, such inequality and exclusive trust may later negatively affect coop success. These generalizations are only possible through refinement of frameworks currently used in the study of heterogeneity and common pool resource management. This refinement is made possible by paying closer attention to the operationalization of variables and by synthesizing already existing hypotheses.

show abstract

Section: (A) the Beginnings Of A Theory On Inequality And Trust Formasupporting

confidence: 54%

Wealth-Based Trust and the Development of Collective Action

Jones

2004

World Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consistent with this notion, consumers were more willing to give a firm with a good reputation the benefit of the doubt when making inferences about underlying motive for pricing actions, thereby suggesting that reputations can be used to ‘gain greater leniency from consumers and soften consumers’ reactions to firms' actions' (Campbell, 1999: 190). Similarly, the literature on accounts and excuses (e.g., Scott and Lyman, 1968) has found that the explanations provided by highly regarded offenders are more likely to be positively viewed and internally accepted than those provided by lower status offenders (Blumstein et al , 1974; Massey, Freeman, and Zelditch, 1997). Indeed, in some instances, high status actors may not even be required to provide an explanation because their high moral character shields them from the necessity (Scott and Lyman, 1968).…”

Section: Social Judgment Biases and Firm Reputationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

The path dependence of organizational reputation: how social judgment influences assessments of capability and character

Mishina

Block

Mannor

2011

Strategic Management Journal

294

322

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Editor Richard Bettis and the anonymous SMJ referees for their many helpful comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank Matt Bloom, Scott Graffin, Mayu Mishina, Tim Pollock, Jo-Ellen Pozner, and Violina Rindova, who have provided us with insightful comments on an earlier version of this paper. The Path Dependence of Organizational Reputation: How Social Judgment Influences Assessments of Capability and Character ABSTRACTDrawing upon theory on social judgments and impression formation from social psychology, this paper explores the socio-cognitive processes that shape the formation of favorable and unfavorable organizational reputations. Specifically, we suggest that stakeholders make distinctions between an organization's capabilities and its character. We explain the nature and function of each and articulate the manner in which judgment heuristics and biases manifest in the development of capability and character reputations. In doing so, this research explores both the positive and negative sides of organizational reputation by examining the manner in which different types of reputations are built or damaged, and how these processes influence the ability of managers to enhance and protect these reputations. 1In the past two decades, there has been considerable scholarly interest in the topic of firm reputation (e.g., Fombrun and Shanley, 1990;Rindova et al., 2005;Weigelt and Camerer, 1988). This research has significantly expanded our understanding of what constitutes an organizational reputation and the host of benefits that may result from enjoying a favorable reputation (e.g., Fombrun and Shanley, 1990;Rindova, Petkova, and Kotha, 2007;Rindova et al., 2005). However, we still know relatively little about how stakeholders make these reputational judgments about an organization or how such judgments might be adjusted in light of new information. Specifically, scholars are just beginning to examine these socio-cognitive processes-the social judgments through which stakeholders translate information about an organization into a particular reputation (Love and Kraatz, 2009). Given the impact of heuristics and biases on the judgments and decisionmaking of both individuals (e.g., Tversky and Kahneman, 1974) and organizations (e.g., Carpenter, Pollock and Leary, 2003;Mishina et al., 2010), it stands to reason that these biases may also shape the manner in which organizational reputations form and change.Examining the socio-cognitive processes involved in the formation and revision of organizational reputations is important for at least three reasons. First, in the absence of perfect information about a firm's characteristics and future behavior, stakeholders use its reputations as a proxy in order to make decisions. However, there can often be gaps between a firm's reputation and its objective characteristics. We can begin to uncover when and how these gaps may occur and persist by delineating why evaluators focus, and place greater credence, on certain cues 1 whi...

show abstract

“…In fact, communication scholars usually focused on conversational structure rather than larger contextual issues. Of course, not all communications researchers and psychologists ignore the concept of status and power in their studies (e.g., see Tedeschi and Norman ; Tedeschi et al ), but investigations associated with status and power are often more central to the study of accounts when conducted by sociologists (see Massey, Freeman, and Zelditch ; Orbuch 1997).…”

Section: Discussion and Conclusion: A Way Forward For Accountsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooperative Accounts: Avoiding Conflict and Repairing Social Relations

Poulson

Carter

Crowley

2017

Symbolic Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The analytical concept of accounts has long presented sociologists with an excellent tool for the study of talk. Nonetheless, studies of accounts often neglect the fact that cooperation is common when an account for untoward behavior is constructed. Many studies tend to flatten the process of how accounts are created by routinely describing them as being "offered" by offenders and then "evaluated" by reproachers. We assume that accounts are often negotiated between parties as a means of avoiding conflict and preserving a relationship. As such, this paper develops the concept of cooperative accounts that are offered to (or projected upon) offenders as a means of explaining their untoward behavior. While also examining hostile accounts, this paper concentrates on developing the cooperative account in order to investigate more fully Scott and Lyman's (1968) argument that accounts are crucial for managing conflict and maintaining social order. Because offering cooperative accounts to others is a routine social interaction their examination provides an opportunity to reanchor the study of accounts back into the symbolic interactionist tradition.

show abstract

Status, Power, and Accounts

Cited by 22 publications

References 8 publications

Wealth-Based Trust and the Development of Collective Action

Wealth-Based Trust and the Development of Collective Action

The path dependence of organizational reputation: how social judgment influences assessments of capability and character

Cooperative Accounts: Avoiding Conflict and Repairing Social Relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About