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. I conducted a pilot study experimentally testing these ideas, examining the conditions under which status structures that arise in task groups transfer to social groups. A full study is in preparation as part of my dissertation work.
Social loafing (the tendency to free-ride off of others) increases when it is unclear what each actor contributes to solving the group task, even in task-oriented, collectively-oriented settings. Status characteristics theory, which applies in task groups, assumes that desire for task success is motive enough for actors to contribute to solving the task. I conducted a study to explain the discrepancy in the empirical findings from social loafing literature and the theoretical predictions of status characteristics theory. A laboratory experiment shows that higher status actors produce fewer contributions if others cannot tell what they contribute, showing status-based differences in motivation to contribute to the group task. This manuscript is under review.
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 under review and coauthored with Dr. Joseph Dippong and Isaac Jamerson.
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?
Data analysis is in progress. This study is a collaboration with Dr. Dawn Robinson.