Status characteristics theory applies in task-oriented, collectively-oriented settings, but status structures often seem to persist beyond those task groups. For example, when a meeting disbands and employees go to lunch together, we tend to see that the manager does most of the talking, guides the discussion, and so on–just as we would expect in a task group. The pilot study experimentally testing these ideas examined the conditions under which status structures that arise in task groups transfer to social groups, and a full study is in preparation as part of my dissertation work.
Psychology research finds that social loafing (the tendency to free-ride off of others) decreases when group members can clearly tell what each actor contributes to the group problem. However, many other findings regarding social loafing (e.g., who is more likely to do it) are inconsistent. Since these studies are largely conducted in task-oriented, collectively-oriented settings–the same settings to which status characteristics theory applies–I expect that status effects are a confounding factor that contribute to social loafing behavior. I conducted a laboratory experiment in which participants worked with a higher or lower status partner to complete a task for which contributions were either visible or invisible. This manuscript is in preparation.
Lower status people are more likely to adhere to rules, while higher status people are more likely to deviate from rules. Higher status peoples' tendency to bend rules might be an approach by which they retain status, thereby replicating inequality structures. This study examines whether higher status actors are more likely to claim to have contributed more work than they actually did. We predict that high first-order expectations (what actors believe) promote exaggeration of accomplishments and that high second-order expectations (what actors think others believe) decrease exaggerations. Our vignette experiment shows that people expect those with higher first-order expectations to exaggerate their accomplishments, and those with higher second-order expectations to be least likely to do so. The vignette study is a proof-of-concept that measures perceptions before collecting laboratory experimental data to examine behavior.
This manuscript is in preparation with Dr. Joseph Dippong.
This is a methodological study comparing the behavioral predictions of AI models and of affect control theory to human behavioral predictions; that is, do AI predictions or ACT predictions more closely match human predictions? If AI models more closely match human predictions, can AI supplement ACT research?
I am conducting this research with Dr. Dawn Robinson. Data analysis is in progress.