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.
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. 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 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.
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.