娀 Academy of Management Journal
2013, Vol. 56, No. 2, 387–406.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0316
THE DOWNFALL OF EXTRAVERTS AND RISE OF NEUROTICS:
THE DYNAMIC PROCESS OF STATUS
ALLOCATION IN TASK GROUPS
CORINNE BENDERSKY
University of California, Los Angeles
NEHA PARIKH SHAH
Rutgers University
We advance previous research that has associated extraversion with high status and
neuroticism with low status in newly formed task groups by examining how variations
in personality affect status changes over time. By building on research that emphasizes
the dark sides of extraversion and the bright sides of neuroticism, we challenge the
persistence of extraverts’ advantage and neurotics’ disadvantage in task group status
hierarchies. In a field and an experimental study, we find that extraversion is associated with status losses and disappointing expectations for contributions to group tasks
and neuroticism is associated with status gains due to surpassing expectations for
group-task contributions. Whereas personality may inform status expectations through
perceptions of competence when groups first form, as group members work together
interdependently over time, actual contributions to the group’s task are an important
basis for reallocating status.
gent status orders (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972;
Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah, & Ames, 2006;
Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002a; Ridgeway,
1991; Ridgeway, Diekema, & Johnson, 1995). For
instance, research has shown that personality plays
an important role in shaping who earns status in
work groups (Anderson et al., 2001; Hogan & Hogan, 1991) by signaling competence and shaping
performance expectations when groups first form
(Berger et al., 1972; Berger et al., 1977). In particular, extraverted members tend to express confidence, dominance, and enthusiasm, and so are attributed with high status and frequently selected
for leadership positions (e.g., Anderson & Kilduff,
2009; Barry & Stewart, 1997; Caspi, Roberts, &
Shiner, 2005; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994). Neurotic members tend to express anxiety, withdrawal,
and emotional volatility, earning lower status and
rarely emerging as leaders (Judge & Bono, 2001;
Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002b; Keller, 1999;
Lord, Devader, & Alliger, 1986).1
Status hierarchies that are based on people’s relative amount of respect and prominence in task
groups (Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001;
Flynn, 2003; Magee & Galinsky, 2008) are a ubiquitous feature of the workplace (Weber, 1946). Social psychologists, sociologists, and economists
have long examined the factors that influence who
is attributed with high status (Anderson et al.,
2001; Bales, Strodtbeck, Mills, & Roseborough,
1951; Berger, Fisek, Norman, & Zelditch, 1977), the
interpersonal interactions that reify and reinforce
status hierarchies (Fiske, 2010; Mazur, 1985; Ridgeway, 1987; Ridgeway & Berger, 1986), the benefits
that flow to individuals with high status (Bales,
1958; Frank, 1985), and the functional benefits of
stable status hierarchies for group performance
(Blau, 1964; Thibaut & Kelly, 1959).
The predominant view is that status is attributed
based on enduring personal characteristics and reinforced through deferential acceptance of emerWe wish to thank Miguel Unzueta, Margaret Shih,
Ming-Hong Tsai, Nicholas Hays, Daniel Ames, Gavin
Kilduff, Oliver Sheldon, and Robert Livingston for their
helpful comments and suggestions. We would also like to
thank Associate Editor Adam Grant and the three anonymous reviewers for their extremely constructive development of this article.
1
We will refer to people with high neuroticism and
extraversion scores as neurotic and extraverted, respectively, although we are not using those terms in the
clinical sense.
387
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
388
Academy of Management Journal
We build on recent research on status mobility to
challenge the persistence of extraverts’ advantage
and neurotics’ disadvantage in task group status
hierarchies. This burgeoning line of research indicates that people gain and lose status in groups and
invest substantial personal resources in status enhancement and maintenance (Auriol & Renault,
2008; Bendersky & Hays, 2012; Bendersky & Shah,
2012; Besley & Ghatak, 2008; Huberman, Loch, &
Onculer, 2004; Owens & Sutton, 2001; Pettit, Yong,
& Spataro, 2010). Whereas personality may generate perceptions of competence when groups first
form, and members have little other information on
which to base performance expectations, as group
members work together interdependently over
time, contributions to the group’s task become a
more important basis for status allocations
(Bunderson, 2003; Flynn, 2003; Fragale, 2006;
Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006; Willer, 2009). Although
extraverts’ dominance and assertiveness generate
positive performance expectations at the outset, extraverts are often poor listeners and unreceptive to
others’ input (Grant, Gino, & Hofmann, 2011; Judge,
Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009), which can limit their
effectiveness at interdependent group tasks (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002; Fragale, 2006).
Because of this, extraverts’ actual contributions to
the group’s task may fall short of peers’ initial expectations and extraverts may lose status over time
as a result. Peers’ low initial expectations of neurotics’ contributions may be unwarranted, as considerable research suggests that neurotics tend to
get highly engaged in tasks because their anxiety
and concern about how others see them motivate
them to prepare for and persist at tasks (Norem &
Cantor, 1986; Norem & Illingworth, 1993; Rusting &
Larsen, 1998; Tamir, 2005; Tamir & Robinson,
2004). Neurotics, thus, may gain status over time as
a result of exceeding their peers’ contribution
expectations.
We test specific predictions about the effects of
the personality traits of extraversion and neuroticism on individuals’ status mobility—as well as
disappointing and exceeding expectations for task
contributions as mediating mechanisms of those
dynamics—in a longitudinal study of masters of
business administration (MBA) student groups and
in an experiment. By examining the relationship
between personality characteristics and status
through a dynamic lens, we challenge the conclusions of past research that has looked only at emergent status positions. This approach is both theoretically and practically important, because it
April
implies a different status allocation process than
the dominant paradigm does. Rather than a calculation of people’s status-valued attributes creating a
stable hierarchy, we demonstrate that status allocation processes unfold more fluidly as peers revise
their noisy initial expectations based on actual task
experiences. The dynamic processes we identify
here may be mechanisms for increasing the functional benefits of status hierarchies by correcting
early status misallocations that were based on unrealistic expectations.
STATUS DYNAMICS ASSOCIATED WITH
EXTRAVERSION AND NEUROTICISM
Our predictions about status dynamics draw
from expectations states theory, which says that the
more people are expected to contribute to the
group’s task, the higher status they are given
(Berger, Connor, & Fisek, 1974; Berger et al., 1977).
Group members develop differentiated performance expectations based on people’s attributes,
called “status characteristics.” Status characteristics are intuitively aggregated, such that the balance
of each person’s positive and negative status characteristics forms a hierarchy almost instantaneously. For instance, implicit theories of leadership tend to associate positive status value to
assertiveness, which is a facet of extraversion, and
negative status value to anxiety, which is a facet of
neuroticism (Keller, 1999; Lord et al., 1986). As a
result, extraverts tend to be attributed with relatively high status and neurotics with relatively low
status (Anderson et al., 2001; Hogan et al., 1994;
John & Srivastava, 1999; Judge et al., 2002a).
People’s status may change if their actual performance is evaluated differently than peers’ initial
expectations (Berger, Ridgeway, Fisek, & Norman,
1998; Chizhik, Alexander, Chizhik, & Goodman,
2003; Fisek, 1991; Goar & Sell, 2005). Just as the
personality traits of extraversion and neuroticism
are associated with predictable behaviors that generate performance expectations when groups first
form, they are also related to particular behaviors
when groups work interdependently that may
cause peers to reevaluate extraverts’ and neurotics’
value to the group and, hence, their status positions
within it. These changes in the perceptions of extraverts’ and neurotics’ contributions to the group
are the bases of our hypotheses.
2013
Bendersky and Shah
Extraversion
Extraverts may desire status because they want to
“get ahead” (Hogan, Jones, & Cheek, 1985) or be
seen as superior to others (Barrick et al., 2002;
Paulhus & John, 1998) to attract social attention
(Ashton, Lee, & Paunonen, 2002). These trait characteristics translate into behaviors such as assertiveness, interpersonal dominance, and talkativeness (e.g., Barry & Stewart, 1997; Caspi et al., 2005;
DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007). Peers perceive
these behaviors favorably and initially reward high
status to extraverts (Anderson et al., 2001; Hogan et
al., 1994; John & Srivastava, 1999; Judge et
al., 2002a).
We expect that the main reason why extraverts
lose status is because they are seen as contributing
less to the group than they were initially expected
to. Research on the “dark sides” of extraverted behaviors (Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Judge et al., 2009)
finds that with experience working together, peers
interpret extraverts as poor listeners who are unreceptive to input from others (e.g., Grant et al.,
2011). For example, Grant et al. (2011) determined
that when subordinates are proactive (i.e., they
voice constructive ideas, take charge to improve
work methods, and exercise upward influence),
groups with more extraverted leaders are less effective due to heightened competition and conflict.
Similarly, Ames and Flynn (2007) found that
highly assertive leaders were considered ineffective because they overemphasized instrumental
outcomes and sacrificed relational ones (also see
Ames, 2008).
These behaviors may be particularly detrimental
to group performance on interdependent tasks, because the other group members do not feel that
their input is appropriately valued (Griffin, Neal, &
Parker, 2007; Judge et al., 2009). For example, Fragale’s (2006) research indicates that assertive
speech is associated with lower status conferrals
and performance expectations when tasks are interdependent than when tasks are independent. Extraverts’ low receptivity to others’ input may signal
that extraverts have self-interested objectives, thus
making peers interpret extraverts’ behaviors as attempts to self-aggrandize through a work group’s
task rather than to truly benefit the group (Fu, Tsui,
Liu, & Li, 2010; Ridgeway, 1982). Thus, it is possible that the behaviors of extraverted members that
initially signal high status may be interpreted as
self-interested and self-aggrandizing in the context
of collective task interactions. We therefore expect
389
that extraverts lose status through the mechanism
of disappointing expectations of contributions to
the group’s task. Thus, we propose:
Hypothesis 1a. Extraversion is associated with
losses in peer-attributed status over time.
Hypothesis 1b. The relationship between extraversion and status loss is mediated by disappointing expectations of contributions to a
group.
Neuroticism
In addition to anxiety, withdrawal, and volatility
(Keller, 1999; Lord et al., 1986), neuroticism is related to low self-esteem, low self-efficacy, and an
external locus of control, all of which are associated with low performance expectations (Judge &
Bono, 2001; Judge et al., 2002b). For these reasons,
neurotics are attributed with low initial status in
task groups.
We expect neurotics to gain status over time,
because their group-task contributions surpass
peers’ particularly low initial expectations. Neuroticism is strongly associated with social anxiety
(Costa & McCrae, 1992; Wiggens, 1968) and a desire
to avoid social disapproval and being perceived as
incompetent in task settings (Arkin, 1981; Elliot &
Thrash, 2002; Wolfe, Lennox, & Cutler, 1986). As a
result, neurotics are motivated to prepare for, exert
effort and attention towards, and contribute to tasks
to avoid these kinds of social threats (Higgins,
2000; Rusting & Larsen, 1998; Smillie, Yeo, Furnham, & Jackson, 2006; Tamir & Robinson, 2004).
For example, neurotics perform best when the
threat of social disapproval is especially salient
(Rusting & Larsen, 1998; Tamir, 2005; Tamir & Robinson, 2004), and they strategically access worry
and anxiety to promote high levels of preparation
and contribution to tasks (Norem & Cantor, 1986;
Norem & Illingworth, 1993; Tamir, 2005). Because
neurotics are motivated to avoid the threat of appearing incompetent relative to others, they may
engage in group-task-oriented behaviors when
working with a new group, so that their normative
levels of competence are recognized by their peers
(Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Elliot & Thrash,
2002). Given the low initial performance expectations peers have for neurotic group members, even
a normative level of task contribution should be
pleasantly surprising. We predict, therefore, that
neurotics’ actual group task contributions exceed
390
Academy of Management Journal
the particularly low expectations of their group
mates, and this induces increased status attributions over time. Thus, we propose:
Hypothesis 2a. Neuroticism is associated with
increased peer-attributed status over time.
Hypothesis 2b. The relationship between neuroticism and increased peer-attributed status is
mediated by exceeding expected contributions
to a group.
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDIES
We test these hypotheses in two complementary
studies. In the first study, we look at the status
mobility of extraverts and neurotics early and late
in the lives of MBA student groups. We find that
changes in ascribed status for both extraverts and
neurotics are mediated by changes in perceptions
of their contributions to the group. This study establishes the external validity of our findings. To
establish internal validity, we conduct an experiment in which we manipulate personality and task
contributions to isolate the effects of peers’ expectations on the status mobility of extraverts and
neurotics.
STUDY 1
The student groups that we studied interacted
together on all courses during the first quarter of
the MBA program. They did not have formal reporting structures or resource-based power hierarchies
that could confound the emergent and dynamic
status processes we are interested in. Since all of
the teams were working on similar projects with
identical task objectives, we were able to reduce
noise in the association between personality and
status change that could be introduced by different
task characteristics, individual tenure, and group
life cycles. We could also control for individuals’
cognitive ability and task performance, enabling us
to rule out an alternative explanation that ability,
rather than personality, produced the status effects
we identified. The teams in this study were exogenously formed by the program administration to
maximize within-group heterogeneity and minimize between-group differences. Although not true
random assignment, this design eliminates potential self-selection biases and the effects of existing
relationships on status dynamics.
April
Methods
Participants. Two hundred twenty-nine individuals (157 men) from 44 teams of four to six people
(mean ⫽ 5.4, s.d. ⫽ 0.62) completed all surveys and
agreed to participate in the research project for an
88 percent response rate. We excluded two participants for being highly influential outliers in at
least one of the analyses, as a result of examination
of studentized residuals and leverage postestimation predictions (Chen, Ender, Mitchell, & Wells,
2007).2 Included respondents were 29.45 years old,
on average (s.d. ⫽ 3.68), 52 percent were East or
South Asian, 37 percent were Caucasian, and the
rest were African American, Latino, or “other.”
Procedures. Students were surveyed about their
Big Five personality characteristics during an orientation program prior to the beginning of the quarter and formation of the teams. Round-robin surveys about their expectations of teammates’ status
and task contribution were administered during the
first week of the required Organizational Behavior
course (time 1), and again about their perceptions
after the last class and right before taking their final
exams ten weeks later (time 2). By our time 1 survey, the groups had worked together for about
one week during the orientation program with a
variety of experiential exercises, but they had not
yet completed any graded class assignments. Thus,
the group members had enough information to
form initial status attributions and performance expectations, since these impressions form quickly
after limited interactions (Anderson et al., 2001;
Bales et al., 1951). The second survey was administered after a full quarter of group-based course
activities and assignments. By this time, group
members had substantial task interaction experience together, on which they may have based revised status assessments. Demographic variables
and General Management Aptitude Test (GMAT)
scores were collected from the MBA program admissions files. Grades were assigned by teaching
assistants who were blind to the research study’s
hypotheses. Although students had received assignment grades prior to the final survey, they
did not learn their final course grades until after it
was administered. Students were required to complete the surveys for the class, but they could vol-
2
Including these outliers does not change the pattern
of effects, but the relationship between extraversion and
contribution drops below standard significance levels.
2013
Bendersky and Shah
untarily opt out of participating in the research
project.
Measures. We measured the Big Five personality
characteristics with the 60-item NEO Five Factor
Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). All responses
are on a seven-point scale from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 7, “strongly agree.” A sample extraversion item is “I like to have a lot of people around
me.” A sample neuroticism item is “I am not a
worrier” (r). All five scales have Cronbach’s alphas
above .70.
We measured status using existing protocols (Anderson, Ames, & Gosling, 2008; Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro, & Chatman, 2006; Bendersky &
Shah, 2012; Flynn, 2003), by asking students to rate
each member of their study group, including themselves, on a scale from 1, “very little,” to 7, “very
much,” about the following status characteristics:
(1) “To what extent does each individual influence
the group’s decisions?” and (2) “How much status
(social respectability) does each individual have in
the group?” in both the time 1 and time 2 surveys.
Influence is a behavior that is often used as a status
indicator (e.g., Berger et al., 1977; Ridgeway, Boyle,
Kuipers, & Robinson, 1998). Although some research has used a single-item measure of status (cf.
Anderson et al., 2006), we included the influence
item as well to increase the reliability of the measure. The Cronbach’s alpha of the average peer
ratings of these items, excluding self-scores, at time
1 equals .77 and at time 2 equals .86.
To determine if it is appropriate to consider the
within-group status hierarchies independently, we
confirmed that the within-group agreement indexes, rwg (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984), at both
times justify group aggregation. At time 1, the median rwg is 0.99 (range is 0.94 –1.00), and at time 2,
the median rwg is 1.00 (range is 0.91–1.00). Additionally, we confirmed that the intraclass correlations, ICC(1) and ICC(2) (Hayes, 2006), exceed the
standard benchmarks (James, 1982; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000) (time 1 ICC[1] ⫽ .41, ICC[2] ⫽ .79;
time 2 ICC[1] ⫽ .36, ICC[2] ⫽ .74). These results
justify combining the items into scales and considering each group’s status hierarchy independently.
We used the social relations model (SRM) to
address the dyadic and nested interdependencies
found in within-group round-robin rating data
(Kenny & La Voie, 1984). The SRM provides a statistical partitioning of round-robin rating data into
three major sources of variance: target, rater, and
relationship. We calculated unbiased target scores,
391
which are the team mean-centered average peer
ratings for each group member (i.e., incoming ratings) corrected for “missing partner bias” that results from excluding the self-ratings, and because
each group member rates a slightly different set of
individuals (Warner, Kenny, & Stoto, 1979). We
also created unbiased perceiver scores, which are
the corrected means of each person’s ratings of all
of their team members (i.e., outgoing ratings). This
process also partials out group-level variance, so
that it is appropriate to conduct analyses with the
individual level data.
We measured contribution to a group in both
surveys with a five-item scale (1 ⫽ “strongly disagree,” 7 ⫽ “strongly agree”) from Flynn et al.
(2006) that includes helpfulness, reciprocity, providing feedback, and willingness to sacrifice selfinterests for the good of the group. The time 1
questions asked about expectations, and the time 2
items were evaluative. A sample time 1 item is, “I
expect that s/he will be willing to help when
needed.” The equivalent item at time 2 is “S/he was
willing to help when needed.” The interrater reliability and agreement statistics of the peer ratings,
excluding self-scores, at both time periods justify
combining the items into scales and considering
group-level effects (time 1: ␣ ⫽ .74, ICC1 ⫽ .68,
ICC2 ⫽ .92, median rwg ⫽ 0.95 [range is 0.96 –1.00];
time 2: ␣ ⫽ .87, ICC1 ⫽ .73, ICC2 ⫽ .93, median
rwg ⫽ 0.99 [range is 0.81–1.00]). We thus created
SRM contribution variables in both time periods.
We controlled for a variety of constructs that
might affect target status perceptions. We included
the other Big Five personality characteristics, since
openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness
may each affect status to some extent (Hogan et al.,
1994; Judge et al., 2002a). We also controlled for
sex, because it has been associated with different
personality-based status attributions in previous research (e.g., Anderson et al., 2001). In addition, we
controlled for actual task competence that could
affect status attributions, since performance expectations are a function of both competence and contribution (Berger et al., 1974). We accounted for
competence in two ways. First, in both time 1 and
time 2 analyses, we used GMAT scores as a measure of general cognitive ability. Second, in our
analyses of time 2 effects, we controlled for grades
on individual assignments throughout the quarter,
mean-centered by class section, to control for individuals’ domain-specific competence, and for status signals that may be associated with grade discussions that occur in the groups. We did not
392
Academy of Management Journal
control for performance in our time 1 analyses,
since the students had not received any performance feedback prior to the first survey.
Last, we controlled for self-estimates of status and
contribution, because inaccurate self-perceptions
may impact peers’ evaluations of group members
(Anderson et al., 2006, 2008), and extraverts are
particularly inclined to egoistic biases (McCrae &
Costa, 1995; Paulhus, 1998; Paulhus & John, 1998).
We used the components of the Kwan, John, Kenney, Bond, and Robins’ (2004) self-enhancement
index in our analyses. Their self-enhancement formula distinguishes self-scores from perceiver
scores, which addresses if one sees oneself more
positively than one sees others; from target scores,
which accounts for whether one thinks of oneself
more positively than others do; and from the group
mean self-scores to remove team-level effects
(Kwan et al., 2004). Because our analyses are of
target scores, we controlled for the potential effects
of inaccurate self-estimates in our analyses by including the other components of the self-enhancement index in our regressions. For example, when
we tested the effects of the personality characteristics on time 1 target status, we controlled for time 1
self-status, perceiver status, and group mean selfstatus ratings. We included the self-estimate index
variables that are associated with each dependent
and independent variable in every time period included in our models.
Analyses. To test our hypotheses, we conducted
robust OLS regressions with standardized variables
and reported standardized model coefficients. We
used robust standard errors to correct for any nonindependence due to the observations being clustered in class sections in which publically visible
behavior may have influenced within-team status
dynamics (group-level effects are addressed by the
SRM variables). We modeled change in peers’ perceptions as the time 2 target status or contribution
ratings controlling for time 1 target status or contribution ratings. To test the statistical significance
of the indirect effects predicted by our mediation
hypotheses, we calculated 95 percent bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) using bootstrapping, with 1,000 replications (James & Brett, 1984).
Results
Correlations, reliabilities, and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. In Table 2, we report
all of the following robust OLS analyses.
April
Time 1 and time 2 target status. We first consider the effects of the personality and control variables on time 1 and time 2 target status ratings to
see if the role that personality plays in target status
assessments is different early as opposed to late in
a group’s life. As reported in Table 2, column 1,
consistent with past research, neuroticism is negatively associated with time 1 target status (␤ ⫽
⫺.17, p ⬍ .01, partial ␩2 ⫽ .04) and extraversion is
marginally positively associated with time 1 target
status (␤ ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .10, partial ␩2 ⫽ .01). At time 2
(column 2), neither the neuroticism (␤ ⫽ .05, p ⫽
.38, partial ␩2 ⫽ .01) nor the extraversion (␤ ⫽ ⫺.12,
p ⫽ .16, partial ␩2 ⫽ .01) coefficient is significant.
This is consistent with research suggesting that diffuse status characteristics, such as personality, are
more strongly associated with early status impressions than with late ones (Bunderson, 2003).
Analyses of target status change. In Table 2,
column 3, we report the results of our analysis on
time 2 target status ratings, controlling for the time
1 ratings with which we test Hypotheses 1a and 2a,
regarding the status mobility of extraverts and neurotics. We found that extraverts lose status (␤ ⫽
⫺.17, p ⬍ .05, partial ␩2 ⫽ .02), as we predicted in
Hypothesis 1a, and that neurotics gain status (␤ ⫽
.11, p ⬍ .01, partial ␩2 ⫽ .04), as we predicted in
Hypothesis 2a. We did not find any interactive
effects of neuroticism and extraversion on status
changes in post-hoc analyses.
Mediation analyses. We hypothesized that extraverts would disappoint and neurotics would exceed their peers’ expectations regarding how much
they would contribute to the groups, and that this
would explain the extraverts’ and neurotics’ status
mobility. Our results support both mediation hypotheses. As shown in Table 2, column 4, the association between extraversion and time 2 target
contribution, controlling for time 1 target contribution, is significantly negative (␤ ⫽ ⫺.23, p ⬍ .05,
partial ␩2 ⫽ .03). This result indicates that group
members perceive extraverts as contributing less
than expected to the group. Further, as can be seen
in column 5, the effect of extraversion on target
status at time 2, controlling for Time 1, drops in
magnitude but remains significant (␤ ⫽ ⫺.14, p ⬍
.05, partial ␩2 ⫽ .02) when time 2 and time 1 target
contribution are added to the model. A significant
bias-corrected bootstrap CI of ⫺.09 to ⫺.01 indicates that group members’ decreased perceptions of
contribution mediate extraverts’ fall in target status. These results partially support Hypothesis 1b.
⫺.09
.03
.05
6. Time 2 target contribution ⫺.07
a
⫺.06
.04
.06
⫺.05
⫺.08
.01
⫺.05
.02
⫺.09
⫺.03
⫺.06
⫺.20**
⫺.08
⫺.21**
⫺.04
⫺.18**
0
.07
.10
⫺.03
.10
.15*
0
.04
.03
.06
⫺.09
.01
.22**
⫺.05
.15*
.27**
.01
⫺.01
.04
.08
⫺.01
.01
.13*
.21**
.11
.17**
.22**
.07
.03
.17** ⫺.10
.06
⫺.08
.01
⫺.02
⫺.05
⫺.01
.15*
⫺.01
.01
.18**
.70
0.46
3.71
7
.07
.11†
.87
0.29
⫺0.02
6
⫺.02
.14*
.14*
.11†
.18**
.09
.07
.10
.12†
.03
.10
.02
⫺.10
.17**
⫺.06
.02
.80
0.48
4.04
8
.04
⫺.07
⫺.15*
⫺.04
⫺.03
⫺.01
⫺.09
⫺.12†
0
⫺.03
⫺.04
0
.07
⫺.06
⫺.01
.13†
.12†
⫺.26**
51.19
677.1
10
⫺.01
0
.07
.19**
0
.03
.24**
⫺.04
.10
.04
.07
.75
0.52
3.55
9
12
13
.07
.03
.04
.06
.09
0
.01
.08 ⫺.04
.11 ⫺.04
.02
.07 ⫺.04
.11 ⫺.11
.07
⫺.03
.03 ⫺.01
.05
.01
⫺.01 ⫺.07
⫺.02
0.47 4.24
.55**
0.98
5.76
14
0
⫺.02
⫺.04
⫺.30**
⫺.27**
⫺.10
.35**
⫺.21**
.05
.07
⫺.02
.24**
.35**
.25**
.47**
.77**
.41** ⫺.03
⫺.37**
⫺.21**
0.96
1.32 0.09 ⫺0.02
11
n ⫽ 227. Scale reliabilities are on the diagonal. Target score reliabilities are based on raw peer ratings.
†
p ⬍ .10
* p ⬍ .05
** p ⬍ .01
self-contribution
24. Time 2 global
23. Time 2 self-contribution
contribution
22. Time 2 perceiver
.08
.03
self-contribution
.03
20. Time 1 self-contribution
21. Time 1 global
⫺.13*
⫺.22**
⫺.20**
.08
19. Time 1 perceiver
contribution
0
⫺.14*
.18** ⫺.03
.07
18. Time 2 global self-status
.01
0
.01
.01
.05
.09
⫺.07
.04
.05
.14*
.24**
.74
0.20
0
5
.56** ⫺.08
⫺.01
.21**
.30** ⫺.07
0
.01
.05
.17**
.34**
⫺.09
.16*
.10
.02
⫺.15
.30**
⫺.01
.86
0.60
⫺0.02
4
17. Time 2 self-status
⫺.08
⫺.15*
.18** ⫺.02
15. Time 1 global self-status
16. Time 2 perceiver status
⫺.07
.45**
.22**
.31** ⫺.05
.16*
⫺.21**
.17** ⫺.09
.07
14. Time 1 self-status
⫺.06
.14*
12. Individual performance
13. Time 1 perceiver status
.03
11. Sex
⫺.07
.12†
.35** ⫺.09
9. Openness
⫺.15*
.04
.29** ⫺.16*
8. Conscientiousness
10. GMAT
⫺.14*
.23** ⫺.06
7. Agreeableness
.07
.07
⫺.08
⫺.06
4. Time 2 target status
5. Time 1 target contribution
.54**
.82
⫺.12†
.12†
.77
0.51
0.01
3
3. Time 1 target status
.75
0.55
2.20
2
⫺.22**
2. Neuroticism
0.47
1. Extraversion
3.73
s.d.
1
Mean
Variable
.09
.14*
0
.45**
.27**
.01
.87**
.52**
⫺.11†
0.54
5.76
15
16
⫺.15
⫺.13*
⫺.02
⫺.15*
⫺.18**
⫺.12†
⫺.16**
⫺.08
0.95
⫺0.12
TABLE 1
Study 1: Descriptive Statistics, Scale Reliabilities, and Correlationsa
.20
.33**
.08
.20**
.26**
.15*
.59**
0.75
5.87
17
.29*
.21**
0
.35**
.25**
.01
0.45
5.88
18
⫺.01**
.16**
.26**
.01
.79**
0.64
0
19
.08**
.25**
.19**
.43**
0.95
5.83
20
0
22
.69**
.07 ⫺.02
.10
.01
0.44 0.63
6.41
21
24
.39
0.88 0.42
6.07 6.41
23
394
Academy of Management Journal
April
TABLE 2
Study 1: Robust OLS Regressions with Standardized Variables and Coefficients
Variable
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Time 2 target contribution
Time 1 target status
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Openness
GMAT
Individual performance
Sex
Time 1 perceiver status
Time 1 self-status
Time 1 global self-status
Time 2 perceiver status
Time 2 self-status
Time 2 global self-status
Time 1 target contribution
Time 1 perceiver
contribution
Time 1 self-contribution
Time 1 global
self-contribution
Time 2 perceiver
contribution
Time 2 self-contribution
Time 2 global
self-contribution
Adjusted R2
F(df)
Neuroticism biascorrected bootstrap CI
Extraversion biascorrected bootstrap CI
Model 1: Time 1
Target Status
Model 2: Time 2
Target Status
⫺0.17**
0.18†
0.05
⫺0.12
⫺0.21**
⫺0.02
0.19*
0.01
⫺0.10
0.10
0.17*
0.05
0.35**
⫺0.10†
⫺0.04
0.35**
⫺0.05
0.01
0.50**
0.03
0.03
Model 3:
Time 2 Target
Status|Time 1
Target Status
Model 4:
Time 2 Target
Contribution|
Time 1 Target
Contribution
Model 5:
Time 2 Target
Status|Time 1
Target Status with
Contribution
0.11**
⫺0.17*
0.13*
⫺0.23*
0.49**
0.00
0.08
0.10
0.07†
0.24**
⫺0.07†
⫺0.21**
⫺0.02
0.06
0.51**
0.03
⫺0.02
0.06
0.11
0.01
0.13
⫺0.07
0.03
⫺0.16*
0.00
⫺0.15
⫺0.02
0.15*
⫺0.04
0.28
0.30**
⫺0.01
0.07
⫺0.14*
0.20*
0.45**
⫺0.01
0.10†
0.07
0.08*
0.22**
⫺0.03
⫺0.21**
0.02
0.03
0.48**
0.07
0.01
⫺0.03
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.39**
⫺0.14
⫺0.11
0.18
7.69 (10, 211)**
0.43
16.76 (11, 208)**
0.61
23.19 (15, 202)**
0.21
2.48 (22, 194)**
⫺0.10
0.02
0.02
⫺0.15†
0.03
0.65
23.31 (23, 193)**
.01. 04
⫺.09, ⫺.01
p ⬍ .10
* p ⬍ .05
** p ⬍ .01
†
The effect of neuroticism on time 2 target contribution, controlling for time 1 target contribution, is
significantly positive (␤ ⫽ .13, p ⬍ .05, partial ␩2 ⫽
.02; see column 4), indicating that group members
perceive neurotics as contributing more than expected to the group. With times 1 and 2 target
contributions added to the model (column 5), the
effect of neuroticism on time 2 target status, controlling for time 1 target status, drops in magnitude
and significance (␤ ⫽ .07, p ⫽ .14, partial ␩2 ⫽ .01).
The increase in contribution perceptions mediates
the effect of neuroticism on the increase in target
status from time 1 to time 2, as indicated by a
significant bias-corrected bootstrap CI of .01–.04.
These results support Hypothesis 2b. Thus,
changes in target contribution mediate the effects of
both neuroticism and extraversion on target status
mobility.
Post-hoc analysis of regression to the mean. We
tested an alternative explanation—that the status
mobility we observed is due to regression to the
mean. It is possible that, since individuals with
high neuroticism scores tend to start in low status
positions and people with high extraversion scores
in high status positions, over time, as peer-ratings
regress to the mean, it would appear as though
2013
Bendersky and Shah
neurotics gain status and extraverts lose status. If
this were the case, then the status ratings of all
group members should converge over time, and the
dispersion of the hierarchy at time 2 would be
flatter (i.e., group members would be more equally
rated) than at time 1. We calculated dispersion
using the groups’ Gini coefficients of the members’
status ratings in each time period, as suggested by
Kalkhoff (2005) and Harrison and Klein (2007). A
t-test of the time 1 (mean ⫽ 0.24, s.d. ⫽ 0.16) and
time 2 (mean ⫽ 0.23, s.d. ⫽ 0.14) Gini coefficients
was not significant (t ⫽ 0.42, n.s.), indicating that
status dispersion did not change. Additionally, as
can be seen in Table 2, column 3, none of the other
personality variables are associated with the status
changes that we would expect to see if ratings were
all regressing to the mean. Therefore, this is not a
likely alternative explanation for our findings.
Study 1 Discussion
The results of Study 1 reveal distinct status dynamics for neurotics and extraverts. Consistent
with our predictions, peers’ attributions of extraverts’ status decrease and their attributions of neurotics’ status increase over time. We also determined that peers’ expectations of extraverts’
contributions to the group were disappointed,
which partially mediates extraverts’ status losses.
Neurotics exceed peers’ expectations of neurotics’
contributions to the group, fully mediating their
status gains.
By controlling for competence in the form of both
general ability (GMAT score) and specific task performance (individual grades), as well as for egoistic
biases, we are confident that the effects of perceived contributions are not proxies for competence or hubris. We suspect that the small effect
sizes of the individual variables in our models are
due to the many control variables that also explain
some variance in the mediator and dependent variables, making this a very conservative test of the
effects that we predicted. Additionally, by refuting
explanations such as different opportunities for status enhancement (by controlling for time 1 status
positions) and regression to the mean, we have
demonstrated that these are not just opportunism
effects or statistical anomalies.
We found some unexpected relationships between the other personality traits and time 1 target
status. Agreeableness is negatively associated with
initial target status attributions (␤ ⫽ ⫺.21, p ⬍ .01),
which may be due to agreeable people’s unwilling-
395
ness to engage in self-promotion (KylHeku & Buss,
1996). In addition, despite the association between
conscientiousness and task performance that has
been found in past research (Barrick, Mount, &
Judge, 2001; Barry & Stewart, 1997), it is not significantly associated with time 1 target status in these
groups (␤ ⫽ ⫺.02, p ⫽ .85). Perhaps conscientiousness was less visible and agreeableness less valuable to peers during the initial interactions on
which they based their initial status assessments in
this study than those traits have been in other research contexts. Future research should determine
how the nature of the interactions on which status
assessments are based affect the value of these different personality traits.
Although this field study establishes that extraverts losing status and neurotics gaining status are
real phenomena, the simultaneous measurement of
the variables limit causal inferences and internal
validity. Thus, this study cannot inform whether
personality is a cause of these effects or fully adjudicate whether they are driven by regression to the
mean. Since we did not measure extraverts’ and
neurotics’ actual behaviors, this study also does not
reveal whether the effects can be explained by expectations alone, or whether extraverts’ and neurotics’ distinctive behaviors play a role. We conducted Study 2 to address all of these limitations.
STUDY 2
Study 2 is a five (personality) by two (task contribution) between-subjects experiment in which
we manipulated the personality of a colleague
whose help the respondent ostensibly solicits in a
workplace scenario. We measured status and task
contribution expectations before the colleague responded with a generous or ungenerous contribution to the task, and then asked for task contribution evaluations and subsequent status ratings.
With this design, we isolated the causal effect of
personality on differences between expectations
and evaluations of status and contributions, investigated whether the deviations between expectations and evaluations differed based on contribution behaviors, determined if status mobility was
due to disappointing or surpassing contribution expectations, and ruled out regression to the mean.
Methods
Participants. We collected 304 observations
from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an open
396
Academy of Management Journal
online marketplace from which reliable data can be
quickly and inexpensively collected (Buhrmester,
Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). We paid respondents $.50
for participating in the study, which took less than
five minutes, on average. We excluded two observations because they were extremely influential
data points, based on the same criteria as in Study
1.3 Fifty-nine percent of included respondents were
female and 80 percent were white. Sixty-six percent were between 18 and 35 years old and the rest
were older than 36.
Procedures. Respondents were instructed to
“Please read the following work-related scenario.
Imagine yourself in the situation and then answer
the following questions to indicate how you perceive John.” They then all read the following scenario, adapted from Ames, Flynn, and Weber (2004):
Imagine that you started an office job about 6
months ago and you’re now acquainted with your
colleagues and comfortable with how things work.
It’s Wednesday afternoon and you’ve been given the
job of preparing a presentation for your manager—
he needs it next week. You email your coworker,
John, to ask if he can pitch in and help you. You’ve
met John briefly a few times and once helped him
find some important papers.
We manipulated John’s personality with each respondent reading one of the following concluding
sentences to the scenario (McNiel & Fleeson, 2006).
Respondents who were in the extraversion experimental condition read, “You have observed that
John tends to be bold, spontaneous, assertive, and
talkative” (underlines in our original). To those in
the introversion condition, John was described as
“reserved, inhibited, timid, and quiet.” To those in
the neuroticism condition, he was described as
“emotional, subjective, moody, and demanding.”
Emotional stability was manipulated with the adjectives “unemotional, objective, steady, and undemanding.” Finally, respondents in the control condition read “You have not had a chance to observe
John’s personality.”
After exposing respondents to the personality
manipulation, we measured how much they expected John to contribute to the task request and
how much status they perceived John to have (hereafter, time 1 ratings). We also collected personality
manipulation checks.
3
Including the outliers produces the same pattern of
effects, but the relationship between extraversion and
contribution again drops below standard significance
levels.
April
Next, all respondents read: “After a short while
you receive the following response to your request
for help from John.” We manipulated contribution
with generous and ungenerous responses. Fortynine percent of the respondents received John’s
ungenerous contribution response: “I can help you
for only a little while because I’m pretty busy and I
have to leave early.” The rest received John’s generous contribution response: “I can help you for as
long you need even though I’m pretty busy and I
was going to leave early.”
We then collected time 2 ratings by having respondents evaluate John’s task contribution based
on this experience, to rate their perceptions of his
status “now” and to rate their perceptions of his
competence. Last, we collected some demographic
information, and debriefed and paid the subjects.
Measures. Because the scenario does not involve
influence behaviors, we measured status with a
multi-item scale that captures perceptions of status
based on terms in the literature (see Magee and
Galinsky [2008] for a review). Specifically, we
asked respondents to rate: (1) “How much do you
respect John?” (2) “How much esteem do you have
for John?” and (3) “How prestigious do you perceive John to be?” on a scale ranging from 1, “very
little,” to 7, “very much.” At time 2, we added the
word “now” to the end of each question to encourage respondents to incorporate John’s response into
their time 2 status ratings. The Cronbach’s alpha at
time 1 is .83 and at time 2 is .92.
We measured perceptions of John’s contribution
to the group task with the same five-item, sevenpoint scale as in Study 1. At time 1, we prefaced the
items with “Based on what you have observed
about John, to what extent do you agree that you
expect John to” for example, “be willing to help
when needed?” After learning John’s response to
the request, at time 2, we prefaced the items with
“Based on your experiences with John, to what
extent do you agree that” for example, “John was
willing to help when needed.” Thus, time 1 measures expectations (␣ ⫽ .80) and time 2, evaluations
(␣ ⫽ .88) of John’s task contribution behavior.
In our analyses, we controlled for perceived task
competence because it is highly correlated with
contribution ratings (r ⫽ .67, p ⬍ .01). By including
perceived competence as a control, we were able to
partial out the distinct effects of contributions. We
measured perceived competence at the end of the
questionnaire by asking respondents to rate how
well each of the following characteristics described
John (1 ⫽ “very little,” 7 ⫽ “very much”): (1) com-
2013
Bendersky and Shah
397
Results
petent, (2) knowledgable, and (3) capable (Ridgeway & Correll, 2006; alpha ⫽ .93). None of the
demographic variables that we collected explained
additional variance in our analyses, so we did not
include them as covariates.
We used the extraversion and neuroticism manipulation check scales from McNiel and Fleeson
(2006). Respondents rated (1 ⫽ “strongly disagree,”
7 ⫽ “strongly agree”) the extent to which they
agreed that the following adjectives described John.
The adjectives used to rate extraversion are “energetic,” “sociable,” “enthusiastic,” “adventurous,”
“lethargic” (r), “shy” (r), and “passive” (r) (␣ ⫽ .88);
those used for neuroticism are “insecure,” “demanding,” “vulnerable,” “oversensitive,” “calm”
(r), “optimistic” (r), and “stable” (r) (␣ ⫽ .82).
Analyses. We conducted analysis of covariances
(ANCOVAs) to determine whether the manipulations had significant effects, and whether the differences across personality conditions varied between the contribution conditions. To compare
differences in ratings, we conducted multilevel repeated measure (MRM) analyses with ratings
nested in respondents (because the same individuals rated in both time periods). This method tests
how much of the variance in a dependent variable
that is pooled across time is explained by the interaction of condition and rating time period. We conducted focused contrasts between conditions on
time 1 status and contribution expectations, and on
time 2 status and contribution evaluations, based
on the predicted means from these analyses. Interaction terms between condition and time period in
the MRM analyses test the difference between time
1 and time 2 ratings in each condition versus a
baseline condition. We assessed the mediation effects of contribution changes across conditions
with 95 percent bias-corrected, bootstrapped CIs,
with 1,000 replications (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
Manipulation checks. We determined that John
in the extraversion condition (mean ⫽ 5.71,
s.d ⫽ 0.93) was rated as the most extraverted of all
the conditions (all other means ⬍ 4.50, all t’s ⬍
⫺9.50, all p’s ⬍ .01). We also confirmed that John
in the neuroticism condition (mean ⫽ 5.17, s.d. ⫽
0.68) was rated as the most neurotic of all conditions (all other means ⬍ 4.00, all t’s ⬍ ⫺11.00, all
p’s ⬍ .01). Pooling across personality conditions,
we confirmed that the contribution evaluation of
John in the ungenerous contribution condition
(mean ⫽ 3.94, s.d ⫽ 1.09) was significantly lower
than that in the generous contribution condition
(mean ⫽ 5.36, s.d ⫽ 1.09; t ⫽ ⫺11.37, p ⬍ .01).
Descriptive statistics and ANCOVA results. We
report correlations, reliabilities, and descriptive
statistics in Table 3. The ANCOVA results (Table 4)
are consistent with the field study, in that personality explains variation in time 1 status but not in
time 2 status. There are also significant effects of
the personality manipulations on both the contribution expectations and evaluations. The contribution manipulations significantly predict the time 2
status and contribution ratings, but the effects of
the personality manipulations do not differ across
contribution conditions (there are no significant
interaction terms). Therefore, we conduct our subsequent analyses on the pooled contribution conditions data and add contribution condition as a
control variable.
Focused contrasts within rating time periods.
Because they are not substantively meaningful for
our hypotheses tests, we present the main effects
results from the MRM analyses in a reference table
in the Appendix. We will primarily focus on the
predicted means of extraverts and neurotics from
the analyses in the text and refer the reader to Table
5 for the additional results. At time 1, extraverts
TABLE 3
Study 2: Descriptive Statistics, Scale Reliabilities, and Correlationsa
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Time 1 status
Time 2 status
Time 1 contribution
Time 2 contribution
Perceived competence
a
Mean
s.d.
1
2
3
4
5
3.98
4.01
4.3
4.65
4.52
1.15
1.54
1.04
1.31
1.22
.83
.45**
.61**
.25**
.41**
.92
.29**
.79**
.74**
.80
.28**
.30**
.88
.67**
.93
n ⫽ 302. Scale reliabilities are on the diagonal.
** p ⬍ .01
398
Academy of Management Journal
April
TABLE 4
Study 2: ANCOVA Results
Variable
Perceived competence
Personality manipulation
Contribution manipulation
Personality ⫻ contribution
Adjusted R2
Time 1 Status
F(1,
F(4,
F(1,
F(4,
291) ⫽ 50.37**
291) ⫽ 19.44**
291) ⫽ 1.50
291) ⫽ 2.15†
.35
Time 2 Status
F(1,
F(4,
F(1,
F(4,
291)
291)
291)
291)
⫽ 260.53**
⫽ 1.68
⫽ 17.27**
⫽ 0.92
.58
Contribution
Expectations
F(1,
F(4,
F(1,
F(4,
291) ⫽ 22.70**
291) ⫽ 25.61**
291) ⫽ 1.63
291) ⫽ 0.59
.31
Contribution
Evaluations
F(1,
F(4,
F(1,
F(4,
291)
291)
291)
291)
⫽ 166.69**
⫽ 5.88**
⫽ 1.97**
⫽ 0.63
.57
†
p ⬍ .10
** p ⬍ .01
TABLE 5
Study 2: Predicted Means (Standard Errors) and Focused Contrasts based on Multilevel Repeated Measures Analyses
Variable
Extraverts
vs. neurotics
vs. introverts
vs. controls
Neurotics
vs. emotionally stables
vs. controls
Introverts
Emotionally stables
Controls
Time 1 Status
Time 2 Status
Contribution
Expectations
Contribution
Evaluations
4.37 (.13)
z ⫽ 1.11**
z ⫽ 0.61**
z ⫽ 0.12
3.26 (.13)
z ⫽ ⫺1.12**
z ⫽ ⫺0.99**
3.76 (.13)
4.38 (.14)
4.26 (.14)
3.87 (.13)
z ⫽ 0.06
z ⫽ ⫺0.19
z ⫽ ⫺0.27
3.81 (.13)
z ⫽ ⫺0.46*
z ⫽ ⫺0.33†
4.06 (.13)
4.27 (.14)
4.14 (.14)
4.39 (.12)
z ⫽ 0.95**
z ⫽ 0.25
z ⫽ ⫺0.26
3.44 (.12)
z ⫽ ⫺1.08**
z ⫽ ⫺1.21**
4.64 (.12)
4.52 (.12)
4.65 (.12)
4.29 (.12)
z ⫽ ⫺0.16
z ⫽ ⫺0.72**
z ⫽ ⫺0.49**
4.45 (.12)
z ⫽ ⫺0.31†
z ⫽ ⫺0.33†
5.01 (.12)
4.76 (.12)
4.78 (.12)
†
p ⬍ .10
* p ⬍ .05
** p ⬍ .01
have significantly higher status (mean ⫽ 4.37, s.e.
⫽ .13) and expected contribution ratings (mean ⫽
4.39, s.e. ⫽ .12) than neurotics do (meanstatus ⫽
3.26, s.e. ⫽ .13; z ⫽ 1.11, p ⬍ .01. meanexp. cont.
⫽ 3.44, s.e. ⫽ 0.12; z ⫽ .95, p ⬍ .01). Neurotics’
time 1 ratings are the lowest of all conditions. Although extraverts are in higher status positions
than introverts and controls (the latter contrast
is not significant), they are all held to equivalent
contribution expectations.
At time 2, extraverts have equivalent status as
neurotics (meanextra. ⫽ 3.87, s.e. ⫽ .13; meanneuro.
⫽ 3.81, s.e. ⫽ .13; z ⫽ 0.06, p ⫽ .76), and nonsignificantly lower status than both introverts
(meanintro ⫽ 4.06, s.e. ⫽ .13; z ⫽ ⫺0.19, p ⫽ .31)
and controls (meancontrol. ⫽ 4.14, s.e. ⫽ .14; z ⫽
⫺0.27, p ⫽ .16). Although extraverts’ contribution
ratings (mean ⫽ 4.29, s.e. ⫽ .12) are nonsignificantly lower than neurotics’ (mean ⫽ 4.45, s.e. ⫽ .12;
z ⫽ ⫺0.16, p ⫽ .33), they are significantly lower than
those of both introverts (mean ⫽ 5.01, s.e. ⫽ .12; z ⫽
⫺0.72, p ⬍ .01) and controls (mean ⫽ 4.78, s.e. ⫽ .12;
z ⫽ ⫺0.49, p ⬍ .01). Neurotics’ contribution ratings
are only marginally significantly lower than others’. In sum, extraverts are not attributed with
higher initial expectations, but are evaluated more
critically than others are for their task contributions. Peers have particularly low initial expectations of neurotics, but their actual task contributions are recognized as similar to others’.
Contrasts in differences between rating time
periods across conditions. The detailed results of
the analyses comparing the deviations in ratings
over time across personality conditions (i.e., the
interaction terms in the MRM analyses) are reported in Table 6. The tests confirm that neurotics
increase both their status (column 1: b ⫽ 1.06, p ⬍
.01) and contribution ratings (column 2: b ⫽ 1.12,
p ⬍ .01) more than extraverts do. Additionally,
when contribution is added to the model predicting
status (Appendix: b ⫽ 0.68, p ⬍ .01), the contrast
coefficient for extraverts versus neurotics drops in
2013
Bendersky and Shah
399
TABLE 6
Study 2: Contrasts between Personality Conditions in Changes over Time and
Mediation Tests from Multilevel Repeated Measures Analyses
Extraversion Baseline
Variable
Neurotics
Introverts
Emotionally stables
Controls
Bias-corrected bootstrap CI
vs. neurotics
vs. introverts
vs. emotionally stables
vs. controls
Neuroticism Baseline
Model 1:
Change
in Status
Model 2:
Change in
Contribution
Model 3: Change
in Status with
Contribution
Model 4:
Change
in Status
Model 5:
Change in
Contribution
Model 6: Change
in Status with
Contribution
1.06**
0.81**
0.40
0.39
1.12**
0.47*
0.35
0.24
0.30
0.49**
0.16
0.22
⫺0.25
⫺0.66**
⫺0.67**
⫺0.65**
⫺0.77**
⫺0.88**
0.19
⫺0.13
⫺0.07
0.40, 1.06
–0.07, 0.65
⫺0.86, ⫺0.21
⫺0.93, ⫺0.25
–0.18, 0.55
* p ⬍ .05
** p ⬍ .01
both magnitude and significance (Table 6, column
3: b ⫽ 0.30, p ⫽ .10), and the bootstrap CI is significant (CI ⫽ 0.40, 1.06). Thus, differences in status
mobility between extraverts and neurotics are fully
mediated by the differences in their contribution
rating changes.
The significantly more positive indirect paths of
the neurotics compared to both the emotionally
stables (column 6: CI ⫽ ⫺0.86, ⫺0.21) and the
controls (CI ⫽ ⫺0.93, ⫺0.25) provide further evidence in support of Hypothesis 2b. The additional
contrasts between the indirect paths of extraverts
and introverts (column 3: CI ⫽ ⫺0.07, 0.65) and the
controls (CI ⫽ ⫺0.18, 0.55) do not demonstrate
greater variance in extraverts’ status losses due to
bigger losses in contribution ratings, however. Thus,
we find only partial support for Hypothesis 1b.
Finally, we again tested whether the effects we
observed are due to statistical regression to the
mean, since the status and contribution ratings of
extraverts and neurotics seemed to converge over
time. To do so, we examined if the mean ratings
pooled across personality conditions became more
equal to each other by calculating the Gini coefficient of the dispersion of status ratings and contribution ratings in both time periods. The time 2 Gini
coefficients are not significantly larger than the
time 1 coefficients (time 1 status: mean ⫽ 0.16, s.d.
⫽ 0.01; time 2 status: mean ⫽ .20, s.d. ⫽ 0.03; t ⫽
⫺1.32, p ⫽ .41; time 1 contribution: mean ⫽ 0.14,
s.d. ⫽ 0.00; time 2 contribution: mean ⫽ 0.14, s.d.
⫽ 0.03; t ⫽ ⫺0.004, p ⫽ .99). Thus, the effects
do not regress to the mean.
Study 2 Discussion
The results of this study extend those of Study 1.
First, we determined that, despite their high initial
status, extraverts are not held to particularly high
contribution expectations, whereas neurotics are
expected to be very poor contributors and have
very low initial status. The evaluations of extraverts’ actual contributions are particularly critical.
To provide a more nuanced interpretation of these
results, we examined the contrasts within each
contribution condition separately and found that
extraverts were punished more than others were for
contributing ungenerously and rewarded less than
others were for contributing generously.4 Thus, the
difference between the ignorant and informed perceptions of extraverts was due to harsh evaluations
rather than high expectations.
Neurotics’ contributions were evaluated consistently with those of others. The mobility for neurotics was due to initial expectations being so low
that even their normative contributions were pleasantly surprising. By isolating and manipulating
these personality characteristics, we can confidently infer causality. However, since we did not
consider full personality profiles—for instance, by
combining different personality traits—we do not
know how different personality configurations may
impact these dynamics.
Extraverts lost more status than others, and neurotics gained more status than others, supporting
4
Results are available upon request.
400
Academy of Management Journal
Hypotheses 1a and 2a. We also found strong support for the mediating effect of surpassing contribution expectations on neurotics’ status gains (Hypothesis 2b). This effect was not as clear for
extraverts, however. There were some relationships
that were consistent with Hypothesis 1b: extraverts’ contributions were evaluated more negatively than were those of introverts and controls,
and the relative difference in contribution expectations and evaluations was more negative than that
difference was for introverts. However, the status
deviation contrast with introverts was not explained by differences in contribution (the magnitude but not the significance of that contrast
dropped; see Table 6, column 3), and the indirect
mediation paths did not differ between the extraversion and introversion or control conditions. One
interpretation is that extraverts’ status attributions
are less directly associated with their group-task
contributions than neurotics’ are. This is supported
by the evidence that contribution expectations
were not especially high for extraverts, despite
their high initial status. Thus, even though extraverts disappointed contribution expectations, this
result did not detract from their status in and of
itself.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Our research reinforces the view of status hierarchies as dynamically evolving, and of status as a
resource that can be gained and lost. Our studies
suggest that the dominant assumption that extraversion and emotional stability are associated with
high status (Anderson et al., 2001; Hogan et al.,
1994; Judge et al., 2002a) tells only half the story.
By building on recent research that has emphasized
the dark sides of extraversion (Grant et al., 2011;
Judge et al., 2009) and the bright sides of neuroticism (Le, Oh, Robbins, Ilies, Holland, & Westrick,
2011; Norem & Cantor, 1986; Norem & Illingworth,
1993; Rusting & Larsen, 1998; Tamir, 2005; Tamir &
Robinson, 2004), we identified the individual characteristics that predict which individuals are likely
to gain and lose status.
We have found support for our theoretical propositions that extraverts lose status because their
behaviors associated with high initial status perceptions are considered less valuable as group
members interact over time. Extraverts’ contributions disappoint their peers due to the critical evaluations of the extraverts’ contributions rather than
the high level of the initial expectations. This result
April
suggests that peers may infer that extraverts are
motivated by self-interests and interpret their contributions skeptically. Thus, extraverts may have to
contribute at especially high levels in order to
maintain their high status. Neurotic individuals
gain status because they surpass expectations of
their contributions to the group’s task. Neurotics
need not be especially big contributors to their
groups to increase their status because peers’ initial
expectations are so low. Our studies, thus, indicate
that extraverts’ and neurotics’ status mobility arises
from peers initially making status judgments based
on noisy signals of expected competence, but then
revising those assessments based on experiences of
group interactions over time.
Our work also suggests that these dynamics
are not necessarily due to individuals’ proactive
status seeking and maintenance efforts, as has been
suggested by other scholarship working in this nascent area (e.g., Bendersky & Shah, 2012; Huberman
et al., 2004; Pettit et al., 2010). In particular, the fact
that the effects of the personality manipulations in
the experimental study were the same regardless of
the target’s contribution behavior indicates that
much of the action may be from peers’ evolving
interpretations of the target’s behavior instead of
actual behavioral changes. It is possible, however,
that these personality characteristics motivate distinctive status investments as well. A promising
direction for future research, therefore, is to identify when people are more or less proactive in their
efforts to maintain and attain high status, and how
those behaviors relate to the peers’ interpretations
of the task-oriented behaviors we have considered here.
Limitations and Future Directions
Our research studies have their limitations,
which offer additional directions for future research. Our findings are especially interesting, because they appear to contradict the predominance
of confirmation biases (Nickerson, 1998) that
would predict self-fulfilling effects of the initial
expectations (Eden, 1990; Jussim & Harber, 2005).
Future research should explore why the positive
initial perceptions of extraverts do not trigger a
Pygmalion effect, or virtuous cycle, and why the
low expectations held of neurotics do not trigger a
golem effect, or vicious cycle, that would reinforce
status stability instead of mobility.
We did not find that extraverts were held to high
initial contribution expectations, or that reductions
2013
Bendersky and Shah
in those contribution perceptions fully mediated
extraverts’ status losses, as we had predicted. We
found stronger support for the mediation hypothesis in Study 1 than in Study 2, which could be due
to differences between the real group versus simulated dyadic task contexts in the studies. This result might indicate that extraverts’ status is more
directly associated with socio-emotional contributions to the group than to their task contributions
(Casciaro & Lobo, 2008), which our measures
would have picked up to a greater degree in the
field study than in the experimental one. It is also
possible, however, that the findings in Study 1 are
spuriously due to the simultaneous measurement
of the mediator variables with the independent and
dependent ones, or that the contribution perceptions were treated as proxies for a different construct, such as perceived competence. More research is needed to determine the mechanisms of
extraverts’ status losses.
Although we replicated our results in an experiment and student group sample, we did not examine these patterns in a real organization or formal
hierarchical structure. Future research should try
to extend these studies to identify the boundary
conditions on the effects of extraversion and neuroticism on status mobility. For example, it is possible that we would have observed less status mobility if the group members had had more prior
working experience, so that their initial expectations would have been more accurate, or if the tasks
had been less interdependent, so that contributions
to the group would have been less relevant to status
attributions.
We also recognize that extraversion and neuroticism are broad, multifaceted constructs. It is plausible that, although some facets of extraversion,
particularly assertiveness, are experienced more
negatively by peers over time, others, including
warmth and gregariousness, may be consistently
experienced positively. This possibility might explain why extraverts do not fall to the bottom of the
status hierarchies. Similarly, while neurotics’ anxiety regarding social threats may produce increased
status attributions, it is likely that other facets, such
as hostility and vulnerability to stress, might limit
their upward mobility. Exploring the nuance of
status dynamics at the facet level of personality is
an interesting avenue for future research.
Other theoretical traditions also may offer additional insights about individual differences that affect status dynamics beyond the Big Five. For instance, McClelland (1987) identified the need for
401
power as one of three fundamental motivators of
human behavior. It is possible that individuals who
are motivated by a need for power are particularly
likely to invest in status enhancement because of
how highly they value prestige (Winter, 1973). Alternatively, Wiggins and Trapnell (1996) and Hogan (1996) distinguished communion-striving from
status-striving as two broad motivational intentions
that could plausibly be associated with distinctive
status dynamics. Additionally, Flynn et al.’s (2006)
research suggests that “high self-monitors” might
be more inclined to increase or maintain their status because of their acute awareness of social dynamics. Finally, we recognize that there may be
omitted variables that predict how individuals respond to the surveys. Future research may allay
concerns regarding these variables with both self
and peer reports on personality at multiple points
throughout the data collection period.
Managerial Implications
Our studies indicate that group members may
initially overvalue extraverts and undervalue neurotics. Managers need to be cautious not to make
similar miscalculations when constructing task
groups before the groups have experience working
together. Managers may rely too heavily on extraverted employees, which could be problematic if
these individuals become less appreciated group
members over time. In contrast, introverted and
neurotic employees may be underutilized because
managers inaccurately assume they will be less effective team members. With experience working
together, however, both types of people may be
important and valued contributors to their teams.
REFERENCES
Ames, D. R. 2008. In search of the right touch. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 17: 381.
Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. 2007. What breaks a leader:
The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and
leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92: 307–324.
Ames, D. R., Flynn, F. J., & Weber, E. U. 2004. It’s the
thought that counts: On perceiving how helpers decide to lend a hand. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30: 461– 474.
Anderson, C., Ames, D. R., & Gosling, S. D. 2008. Punishing hubris: The perils of overestimating one’s status in a group. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 34: 90 –101.
402
Academy of Management Journal
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M.
2001. Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81: 116 –
132.
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. 2009. Why do dominant
personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups?
The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96:
491–503.
Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J. S., Spataro, S. E., &
Chatman, J. A. 2006. Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91: 1094 –1110.
Arkin, R. M. 1981. Self-presentation styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management: Theory and
social psychological research: 311–333. New York:
Academic.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S. V. 2002. What is
the central feature of extraversion? Social attention
versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83: 245–252.
Auriol, E., & Renault, R. 2008. Status and incentives.
RAND Journal of Economics, 39: 305–326.
Bales, R. F., Strodtbeck, F. L., Mills, T. M., & Roseborough, M. E. 1951. Channels of communication in
small groups. American Sociological Review, 16:
461– 468.
Bales, R. 1958. Task roles and social roles in problemsolving groups. In E. Maccoby, T. Newcomb, & E.
Hartley (Eds.), Social psychology (3rd ed.): 437–
447. New York: Holt.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. 2001. Personality and performance at the beginning of the
new millennium: What do we know and where do
we go next? International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 9: 9 –30.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. 2002.
Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 43–51.
Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. 1997. Composition, process,
and performance in self-managed groups: The role of
personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 62–
78.
April
Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. 1972. Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37: 241–255.
Berger, J., Connor, T. L., & Fisek, M. H. 1974. Expectation
states theory: A theoretical research program.
Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
Berger, J., Fisek, H. M., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M.
1977. Status characteristics and social interaction:
An expectation states approach. New York:
Elsevier.
Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., Fisek, M. H., & Norman, R. Z.
1998. The legitimation and delegitimation of power
and prestige orders. American Sociological Review,
63: 379 – 405.
Besley, T., & Ghatak, M. 2008. Status incentives. American Economic Review, 98: 206 –211.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life.
New York: Wiley.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. 2011. Amazon’s mechanical turk. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6: 3.
Bunderson, J. S. 2003. Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 557–
591.
Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. 2008. When competence is
irrelevant: The role of interpersonal affect in taskrelated ties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53:
655.
Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. 2005. Personality development: Stability and change. In S. T. Fiske,
A. E. Kazdin, & D. L. Schacter (Eds.), Annual review
of psychology, 56: 453– 484. Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews.
Chen, X., Ender, P. B., Mitchell, M., & Wells, C. 2007.
Stata web books: Regression with Stata, regression diagnostics, UCLA: Academic Technology Services, Statistical Consulting Group.
Chizhik, A. W., Alexander, M. G., Chizhik, E. W., &
Goodman, J. A. 2003. The rise and fall of power and
prestige orders: Influence of task structure. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 66: 303–317.
Bendersky, C., & Hays, N. A. 2012. Status conflict in
groups. Organization Science, 23: 323–340.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. 1992. Revised NEO
personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO fivefactor (NEO-FFI) inventory professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Bendersky, C., & Shah, N. 2012. The costs of status attainment: Performance effects of individual’s status
mobility in task groups. Organization Science, 23:
308 –322.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. 2007.
Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big
Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
93: 880 – 896.
2013
Bendersky and Shah
403
Eden, D. 1990. Pygmalion without interpersonal contrast
effects: Whole groups gain from raising manager expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 394.
Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. 2006. Nice guys finish first:
The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32: 1402–1413.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. 1996. Approach and
avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70: 461.
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. 2007. What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or
disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1199 –1228.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. 2002. Approach-avoidance
motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance
temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82: 804 – 818.
Hayes, A. F. 2006. A primer on multilevel modeling.
Human Communication Research, 32: 385– 410.
Fisek, M. H. 1991. Complex task structures and power
and prestige orders. In E. J. Lawler, B. Markovsky, C.
Ridgeway, & H. A. Walker (Eds.), Advances in group
processes, vol. 8: 115–134. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Fiske, S. 2010. Interpersonal stratification: Status, power,
and subordination. In S. Fiske, G. Lindzey & D. Gilbert (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed.):
941–982. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Higgins, E. T. 2000. Does personality provide unique
explanations for behaviour? Personality as cross-person variability in general principles. European Journal of Personality, 14: 391– 406.
Hogan, R. 1996. A socioanalytic perspective on the fivefactor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor
model of personality: 163–179. New York: Guilford.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. 1994. What we know
about leadership: Effectiveness and personality.
American Psychologist, 49: 493–504.
Flynn, F. J. 2003. How much should I give and how
often? The effects of generosity and frequency of
favor exchange on social status and productivity.
Academy of Management Journal, 46: 539 –553.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. 1991. Personality and status. In
D. G. Gilbert & J. J. Connolly (Eds.), Personality,
social skills and psychopathology: An individual
differences approach: 137–154. New York: Plenum.
Flynn, F. J., Reagans, R. E., Amanatullah, E. T., & Ames,
D. R. 2006. Helping one’s way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing
who helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91: 1123–1137.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. 2001. Assessing leadership: A
view from the dark side. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 9: 40 –51.
Fragale, A. R. 2006. The power of powerless speech: The
effects of speech style and task interdependence on
status conferral. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101: 243–261.
Frank, R. H. 1985. Choosing the right pond: Human
behavior and the quest for status. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fu, P. P., Tsui, A. S., Liu, J., & Li, L. 2010. Pursuit of
whose happiness? Executive leaders’ transformational
behaviors and personal values. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55: 222.
Goar, C., & Sell, J. 2005. Using task definition to modify
racial inequality within task groups. Sociological
Quarterly, 46: 525–543.
Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. 2011. Reversing
the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of
employee proactivity. The Academy of Management Journal, 54: 528 –550.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. 2007. A new
model of work role performance: Positive behavior
in uncertain and interdependent contexts. The
Academy of Management Journal, 50: 327–347.
Hogan, R., Jones, W., & Cheek, J. M. 1985. Socioanalytic
theory: An alternative to armadillo psychology. In
B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life: 175–
198. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Huberman, B. A., Loch, C. H., & Onculer, A. 2004. Status
as a valued resource. Social Psychology Quarterly,
67: 103–114.
James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. 1984. Mediators, moderators,
and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 307–321.
James, L. 1982. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67:
219 –229.
James, L., Demaree, R., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85–
98.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. 1999. The Big Five trait
taxonomy: History, measurement and theoretical
perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research:
102–138. New York: Guilford.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2001. Relationship of core
self-evaluations traits—Self-esteem, generalized self-
404
Academy of Management Journal
efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—
With job satisfaction and job performance: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 80 –92.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W.
2002a. Personality and leadership: A qualitative and
quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87: 765–780.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. 2002b.
Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of
control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a
common core construct? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 83: 693–710.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. 2009. The bright
and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The
Leadership Quarterly, 20: 855– 875.
Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. 2005. Teacher expectations
and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9: 131–
155.
April
of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 402– 410.
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. 2008. Social hierarchy:
The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The
Academy of Management Annals, 2: 351–398.
Mazur, A. 1985. Biosocial model of status in face-to-face
primate groups. Social Forces, 64: 377– 402.
McClelland, D. 1987. Human motivation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. 1995. Positive and negative
valence within the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 29: 443– 460.
McNiel, J. M., & Fleeson, W. 2006. The causal effects of
extraversion on positive affect and neuroticism on
negative affect: Manipulating state extraversion and
state neuroticism in an experimental approach. Journal of Research in Personality, 40: 529 –550.
Nickerson, R. S. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous
phenomenon in many guises. Review of General
Psychology, 2: 175.
Kalkhoff, W. 2005. Collective validation in multi-actor
task groups: The effects of status differentiation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68: 57–74.
Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. 1986. Defensive pessimism:
Harnessing anxiety as motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1208 –1217.
Keller, T. 1999. Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership theories. Leadership
Quarterly, 10: 589 – 607.
Norem, J. K., & Illingworth, K. 1993. Strategy-dependent
effects of reflecting on self and tasks: Some implications of optimism and defensive pessimism. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 65: 822.
Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. 1984. The social relations
model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 18: 142–182. Orlando, FL: Academic.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2000. From micro to
meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research
Methods, 3: 211–236.
Kwan, V. S., John, O. P., Kenny, D. A., Bond, M. H., &
Robins, R. W. 2004. Reconceptualizing individual
differences in self-enhancement bias: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Review, 111: 94 –110.
KylHeku, L. M., & Buss, D. M. 1996. Tactics as units of
analysis in personality psychology: An illustration
using tactics of hierarchy negotiation. Personality
and Individual Differences, 21: 497–517.
Le, H., Oh, I. S., Robbins, S. B., Ilies, R., Holland, E., &
Westrick, P. 2011. Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear relationships between personality traits and
job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96: 113–133.
Lord, R. G., Devader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. 1986. A
meta-analysis of the relationship between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application
Owens, D. A., & Sutton, R. I. 2001. Status contests in
meetings: Negotiating the informal order. In M. E.
Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory
and research: 299 –316. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Paulhus, D. L. 1998. Interpersonal and intrapsychic
adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed
blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 1197–1208.
Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. 1998. Egoistic and moralistic
biases in self-perception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal
of Personality, 66: 1025–1060.
Pettit, N. C., Yong, K., & Spataro, S. E. 2010. Holding your
place: Reactions to the prospect of status gains and
losses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
46: 396 – 401.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. 2008. Asymptotic and
resampling strategies for assessing and comparing
indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40: 879 – 891.
Ridgeway, C. L. 1982. Status in groups: The importance
of motivation. American Sociological Review, 47:
76 – 88.
2013
Bendersky and Shah
405
Ridgeway, C. L. 1987. Nonverbal behavior, dominance,
and the basis of status in task groups. American
Sociological Review, 52: 683– 694.
bad: The paradox of neuroticism, negative affect, and
evaluative processing. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 87: 913–925.
Ridgeway, C. L. 1991. The social construction of status
value—Gender and other nominal characteristics.
Social Forces, 70: 367–386.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelly, H. H. 1959. The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Berger, J. 1986. Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups.
American Sociological Review, 51: 603– 617.
Warner, R. M., Kenny, D. A., & Stoto, M. 1979. A new
round robin analysis of variance for social interaction data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37: 1742–1757.
Ridgeway, C. L., Boyle, E. H., Kuipers, K. J., & Robinson,
D. T. 1998. How do status beliefs develop? The role
of resources and interactional experience. American
Sociological Review, 63: 331–350.
Weber, M. 1946. Class, status, party. In H. H. Gerth &
C. W. Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in
sociology: 180 –195. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. 2006. Consensus and the
creation of status beliefs. Social Forces, 85: 431–
453.
Wiggens, J. S. 1968. Personality structure. In P. R. Farnsworth, M. R. Rosenzweig, & J. T. Polelka (Eds.),
Annual review of psychology, vol. 19: 293–350.
Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Ridgeway, C. L., Diekema, D., & Johnson, C. 1995. Legitimacy, compliance, and gender in peer groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58: 298 –311.
Rusting, C. L., & Larsen, R. J. 1998. Personality and cognitive processing of affective information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24: 200 –213.
Smillie, L. D., Yeo, G. B., Furnham, A. F., & Jackson, C. J.
2006. Benefits of all work and no play: The relationship between neuroticism and performance as a
function of resource allocation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91: 139 –155.
Tamir, M. 2005. Don’t worry, be happy? Neuroticism,
trait-consistent affect regulation, and performance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89:
449 – 461.
Tamir, M., & Robinson, M. D. 2004. Knowing good from
Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. 1996. A dyadic-interactional perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S.
Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality:
Theoretical perspectives: 88 –162. New York: Guilford.
Willer, R. 2009. Groups reward individual sacrifice: The
status solution to the collective action problem.
American Sociological Review, 74: 23– 43.
Winter, D. 1973. The power motive. New York: Free
Press.
Wolfe, R. N., Lennox, R. D., & Cutler, B. L. 1986. Getting
along and getting ahead: Empirical support for a
theory of protective and acquisitive self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
50: 356 –361.
406
Academy of Management Journal
April
APPENDIX
TABLE A1
Study 2: Multilevel Repeated-Measures Analyses and Main Effects Results
Extraversion Baseline
Variable
Constant
Generosity condition
Perceived competence
Contribution
Extraverts
Neurotics
Introverts
Emotionally stables
Controls
Rating time period
Wald ␹2
Status
Contribution
Neuroticism Baseline
Status with
Contribution
1.16**
0.21*
0.60**
1.68**
0.37**
0.40**
0.02
⫺0.04
0.33**
0.68**
⫺1.11**
⫺0.61**
0.01
⫺0.12
⫺0.51**
391.57**
⫺0.95*
0.25
0.13
0.26
⫺0.11
382.52**
⫺0.47**
⫺0.79**
⫺0.08
⫺0.29†
⫺0.43**
912.24**
Status
Contribution
Status with
Contribution
0.05
0.20*
0.60**
0.73**
0.37**
0.40**
1.11**
0.95**
⫺0.44†
⫺0.05
0.33**
0.68**
0.47**
0.50**
1.12**
1.00**
0.55**
391.57**
1.21**
1.09**
1.21**
1.01**
382.52**
⫺0.32*
0.38*
0.18
⫺0.14
912.24**
†
p ⬍ .10
* p ⬍ .05
** p ⬍ .01
Corinne Bendersky (cbenders@anderson.ucla.edu) is an
associate professor of management and organizations at
the UCLA Anderson School of Management. She received her Ph.D. from the MIT Sloan School of Management. She studies conflict, dynamic status processes, and
organizational fairness.
Neha Parikh Shah (shahnp@business.rutgers.edu) is an
assistant professor in the Department of Management and
Global Business at Rutgers Business School. She received
her Ph.D. from the UCLA Anderson School of Management. Her research examines antecedents and consequences of individuals’ positions in social structures.
She is especially interested in the interplay of social and
instrumental concerns.