IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v32y2021i1p111-132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Do High-Status People Have Larger Social Networks? Belief in Status-Quality Coupling as a Driver of Network-Broadening Behavior and Social Network Size

Author

Listed:
  • Jiyin Cao

    (Management Area, College of Business, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794)

  • Edward Bishop Smith

    (Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208)

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated that the size and reach of people’s social networks tend to be positively related to their social status. Although several explanations help to account for this relationship—for example, higher-status people may be part of multiple social circles and therefore have more social contacts with whom to affiliate—we present a novel argument involving people’s beliefs about the relationship between status and quality, what we call status-quality coupling . Across seven separate studies, we demonstrate that the positive association between social status and network-broadening behavior (as well as social network size) is contingent on the extent to which people believe that status is a reliable indicator of quality. Across each of our studies, high- and low-status people who viewed status and quality as tightly coupled differed in their network-broadening behaviors, as well as in the size of their reported social networks. The effect was largely driven by the perceived self-value and perceived receptivity of the networking target. Such differences were significantly weaker or nonexistent among equivalently high- and low-status people who viewed status as an unreliable indicator of quality. Because the majority of participants—both high- and low-status—exhibited beliefs in status-quality coupling, we conclude that such a belief marks an important and previously unaccounted-for driver of the relationship between status, network-broadening behaviors, and social networks. Implications for research on social capital, advice seeking, and inequality are highlighted in the discussion section.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiyin Cao & Edward Bishop Smith, 2021. "Why Do High-Status People Have Larger Social Networks? Belief in Status-Quality Coupling as a Driver of Network-Broadening Behavior and Social Network Size," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 111-132, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:32:y:2021:i:1:p:111-132
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2020.1381
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.1381
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2020.1381?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Landers, Richard N. & Behrend, Tara S., 2015. "An Inconvenient Truth: Arbitrary Distinctions Between Organizational, Mechanical Turk, and Other Convenience Samples," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 142-164, June.
    2. Torelli, Carlos J. & Leslie, Lisa M. & Stoner, Jennifer L. & Puente, Raquel, 2014. "Cultural determinants of status: Implications for workplace evaluations and behaviors," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 123(1), pages 34-48.
    3. Matthew S. Bothner & Joel M. Podolny & Edward Bishop Smith, 2011. "Organizing Contests for Status: The Matthew Effect vs. the Mark Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 439-457, March.
    4. Adam M. Kleinbaum & Toby E. Stuart & Michael L. Tushman, 2013. "Discretion Within Constraint: Homophily and Structure in a Formal Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1316-1336, October.
    5. Ray Reagans, 2005. "Preferences, Identity, and Competition: Predicting Tie Strength from Demographic Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1374-1383, September.
    6. Audia, Pino G. & Brion, Sebastien, 2007. "Reluctant to change: Self-enhancing responses to diverging performance measures," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 255-269, March.
    7. Marta M. Elvira & Mary E. Graham, 2002. "Not Just a Formality: Pay System Formalization and Sex-Related Earnings Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(6), pages 601-617, December.
    8. Woo, Sang Eun & Keith, Melissa & Thornton, Meghan A., 2015. "Amazon Mechanical Turk for Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Advantages, Challenges, and Practical Recommendations," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 171-179, June.
    9. Edward Bishop Smith & Tanya Menon & Leigh Thompson, 2012. "Status Differences in the Cognitive Activation of Social Networks," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 67-82, February.
    10. Ruolian Fang & Blaine Landis & Zhen Zhang & Marc H. Anderson & Jason D. Shaw & Martin Kilduff, 2015. "Integrating Personality and Social Networks: A Meta-Analysis of Personality, Network Position, and Work Outcomes in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 1243-1260, August.
    11. Matthew S. Bothner & Young-Kyu Kim & Edward Bishop Smith, 2012. "How Does Status Affect Performance? Status as an Asset vs. Status as a Liability in the PGA and NASCAR," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 416-433, April.
    12. Alison Wood Brooks & Francesca Gino & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2015. "Smart People Ask for (My) Advice: Seeking Advice Boosts Perceptions of Competence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1421-1435, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matteo Prato & Fabrizio Ferraro, 2018. "Starstruck: How Hiring High-Status Employees Affects Incumbents’ Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 755-774, October.
    2. Kris Byron & Blaine Landis, 2020. "Relational Misperceptions in the Workplace: New Frontiers and Challenges," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 223-242, January.
    3. Sameer B. Srivastava, 2015. "Intraorganizational Network Dynamics in Times of Ambiguity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    4. Tiziana Casciaro & Sigal G. Barsade & Amy C. Edmondson & Cristina B. Gibson & David Krackhardt & Giuseppe (Joe) Labianca, 2015. "The Integration of Psychological and Network Perspectives in Organizational Scholarship," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 1162-1176, August.
    5. Mary M. Maloney & Priti Pradhan Shah & Mary Zellmer-Bruhn & Stephen L. Jones, 2019. "The Lasting Benefits of Teams: Tie Vitality After Teams Disband," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 260-279, March.
    6. Schweisfurth, Tim & Zaggl, Michael A. & Schöttl, Claus P. & Raasch, Christina, 2017. "Hierarchical similarity biases in idea evaluation: A study in enterprise crowdfunding," Kiel Working Papers 2095, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    7. Shea, Catherine T. & Fitzsimons, Gráinne M., 2016. "Personal goal pursuit as an antecedent to social network structure," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 45-57.
    8. Karen D. W. Patterson & David Eduardo Cavazos & Marvin Washington, 2014. "It Does Matter How You Get to the Top: Differentiating Status from Reputation," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-14, April.
    9. Guangxi Zhang & Jianan Zhong & Muammer Ozer, 2020. "Status Threat and Ethical Leadership: A Power-Dependence Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(3), pages 665-685, January.
    10. Vera Rocha & Mirjam van Praag, 2020. "Mind the gap: The role of gender in entrepreneurial career choice and social influence by founders," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(5), pages 841-866, May.
    11. Holger Lüdeke & Hanjo Allinger, 2017. "Zeig mir deine Freunde und ich sag dir, wer du bist – Ein empirischer Test zur Berücksichtigung der Akteursheterogenität in der Sozialkapitalforschung [Known by the company you keep – an empirical ," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 1-40, March.
    12. Trevor Young-Hyman & Adam M. Kleinbaum, 2020. "Meso-Foundations of Interorganizational Relationships: How Team Power Structures Shape Partner Novelty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 1385-1407, November.
    13. Vera Rocha & Mirjam van Praag, 2016. "How do Entrepreneurial Bosses influence their Employees' Future Entrepreneurship Choices?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-110/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    14. M. Max Evans & Ilja Frissen & Anthony K. P. Wensley, 2018. "Organisational Information and Knowledge Sharing: Uncovering Mediating Effects of Perceived Trustworthiness Using the PROCESS Approach," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(01), pages 1-29, March.
    15. Brad Humphreys & Bernd Frick, 2019. "Prize Structure and Performance: Evidence from NASCAR," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-13, October.
    16. Leif Brändle & Helen Signer & Andreas Kuckertz, 2023. "Socioeconomic status and entrepreneurial networking responses to the COVID-19 crisis," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 111-147, January.
    17. de Oliveira Maciel, Cristiano & Netto, Raul Zanon Rocha, 2020. "Architectural agency in intra-organizational networks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 489-497.
    18. Michelle M. Duguid & Denise Lewin Loyd & Pamela S. Tolbert, 2012. "The Impact of Categorical Status, Numeric Representation, and Work Group Prestige on Preference for Demographically Similar Others: A Value Threat Approach," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 386-401, April.
    19. Fang Di & Richards Timothy J. & Grebitus Carola, 2019. "Modeling Product Choices in a Peer Network," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 22(1), pages 1-13, June.
    20. Krukowski, Kipp A. & Pollack, Jeffrey M. & Rutherford, Matthew W., 2023. "Winning the opportunity to pitch: Piquing startup investors’ interest by sending the right signals in executive summaries," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 75-86.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:32:y:2021:i:1:p:111-132. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.