PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Members of small groups fundamentally desire status as status underpins members\' self-concept and dictates behavior in groups. Moreover, group members readily orient and update status perceptions that index the social standing of themselves and other members. Yet, our understanding is obscured by variability in how researchers study status. In the current review, we crystallize knowledge regarding the nature of status by characterizing variability in definitions, measures, and analytic frameworks. We advocate a definition of status that draws together attributes of respect, admiration, and voluntary deference. We also distinguish reputational and relational status operationalizations and address implications pertaining to measurement along with downstream decisions involving data management and analysis. We encourage a deliberate approach to ensure congruency in how status is defined, measured, and analyzed within a research program. This review also guides theory and hypothesis generation regarding how status-related processes may vary based on different forms of status or differing contexts.
Distinctions in group members’ status naturally arise during group interactions. High status tends to be associated with an array of benefits, such as receiving more respect and attention, enjoying better psychological and physical health, and having greater access to valued resources and opportunities. As such, people fundamentally desire status, vigilantly attend to their own and others’ status, and actively pursue status. Status also powerfully influences group functioning. Whereas a consensually formed status hierarchy may provide order and increase coordination, disputes over status rank can undermine cooperation and encourage conflict among group members. Despite the critical role status plays in social interactions, researchers continue to disagree about how status should be defined and studied. Without a consistent definition and a measurement guideline, it is difficult to produce cumulative knowledge regarding when, for whom, and why status is afforded to others, and the consequences of gaining, losing, or threats to one\'s status. In this review, we advocate a status definition that identifies respect, admiration, and voluntary deference as three essential attributes of status. We also distinguish status that is consensually conferred by a group (i.e., reputational status) from status conferred by a particular group member (i.e., relational status). We conclude this paper by providing a guide of measurement options and data management strategies that are suitable for studying distinctive research questions.
Distinctions in group members’ status naturally arise during group interactions. High status tends to be associated with an array of benefits, such as receiving more respect and attention, enjoying better psychological and physical health, and having greater access to valued resources and opportunities. As such, people fundamentally desire status, vigilantly attend to their own and others’ status, and actively pursue status. Status also powerfully influences group functioning. Whereas a consensually formed status hierarchy may provide order and increase coordination, disputes over status rank can undermine cooperation and encourage conflict among group members. Despite the critical role status plays in social interactions, researchers continue to disagree about how status should be defined and studied. Without a consistent definition and a measurement guideline, it is difficult to produce cumulative knowledge regarding when, for whom, and why status is afforded to others, and the consequences of gaining, losing, or threats to one\'s status. In this review, we advocate a status definition that identifies respect, admiration, and voluntary deference as three essential attributes of status. We also distinguish status that is consensually conferred by a group (i.e., reputational status) from status conferred by a particular group member (i.e., relational status). We conclude this paper by providing a guide of measurement options and data management strategies that are suitable for studying distinctive research questions.
摘要：
小团体的成员从根本上渴望地位，因为地位是成员自我概念的基础，并决定了团体的行为。此外，小组成员很容易定位和更新状态感知，以索引自己和其他成员的社会地位。然而，我们的理解被研究人员如何研究状态的可变性所掩盖。在当前的审查中，我们通过描述定义中的可变性来结晶关于地位性质的知识，措施，和分析框架。我们主张对地位的定义，将尊重的属性结合在一起，钦佩,自愿的尊重。我们还区分声誉和关系状态操作，并解决与测量有关的影响以及涉及数据管理和分析的下游决策。我们鼓励采取深思熟虑的方法，以确保身份定义的一致性，测量，并在研究计划中进行了分析。这篇评论还指导了有关状态相关过程如何根据不同形式的状态或不同的环境而变化的理论和假设生成。
在小组互动过程中，小组成员状态的区别自然会出现。高地位往往与一系列好处有关，例如受到更多的尊重和关注，享受更好的心理和身体健康，并有更多机会获得宝贵的资源和机会。因此，人们从根本上渴望地位，警惕地关注自己和他人的地位，积极追求地位。地位也有力地影响着群体的运作。尽管协商一致形成的地位等级可以提供秩序并增加协调，关于地位等级的争端可能会破坏合作并鼓励团体成员之间的冲突。尽管地位在社会交往中起着关键作用，研究人员仍然不同意如何定义和研究地位。如果没有一致的定义和测量指南，很难产生关于何时，为谁,以及为什么地位被赋予他人，以及获得的后果，失败,或威胁到一个人的状态。在这次审查中,我们提倡一种确定尊重的地位定义，钦佩,和自愿尊重是身份的三个基本属性。我们还区分由一个团体自愿授予的地位(即，声誉状态)来自特定组成员授予的状态(即，关系状态)。我们通过提供适合研究独特研究问题的测量选项和数据管理策略的指南来总结本文。
在小组互动过程中，小组成员状态的区别自然会出现。高地位往往与一系列好处有关，例如受到更多的尊重和关注，享受更好的心理和身体健康，并有更多机会获得宝贵的资源和机会。因此，人们从根本上渴望地位，警惕地关注自己和他人的地位，积极追求地位。地位也有力地影响着群体的运作。尽管协商一致形成的地位等级可以提供秩序并增加协调，关于地位等级的争端可能会破坏合作并鼓励团体成员之间的冲突。尽管地位在社会交往中起着关键作用，研究人员仍然不同意如何定义和研究地位。如果没有一致的定义和测量指南，很难产生关于何时，为谁,以及为什么地位被赋予他人，以及获得的后果，失败,或威胁到一个人的状态。在这次审查中,我们提倡一种确定尊重的地位定义，钦佩,和自愿尊重是身份的三个基本属性。我们还区分由一个团体自愿授予的地位(即，声誉状态)来自特定组成员授予的状态(即，关系状态)。我们通过提供适合研究独特研究问题的测量选项和数据管理策略的指南来总结本文。
