The effect of status distance within organizations on stress:
Do high-status individuals perceive ties to low-status individuals as a
threat to lose status? Do low-status individuals perceive ties to
high-status individuals as an opportunity to gain high-status?
Rinske Breuer
Student number:11145544 June 24th
, 2016, final version
Thesis: MSc. in Business Administration - Strategy track University of Amsterdam
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Rinske Breuer who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of contents Abstract ... 4 Introduction ... 5 Theoretical background ... 8 Status distance ... 8 Stress ... 9
Status transfers through ties ... 10
Perceived opportunity ... 12
Perceived threat ... 13
Need for status ... 14
Competitiveness of work environment ... 15
Method ... 15
Pilot studies ... 15
Procedures & Sampling ... 16
Measures ... 17
1. Status distance ... 17
2. Perceived opportunity ... 18
3. Perceived threat ... 19
4. Stress ... 20
5. Need for status ... 20
6. Competitiveness of the environment ... 20
7. Demographics and control variables ... 20
Results ... 21
Results Study 1 ... 23
H1: Direct effect of status distance on stress ... 23
H2: Mediating effect of perceived opportunity ... 24
H3: Mediating effect of perceived threat ... 25
H4: Moderating effect of need for status ... 27
H5: Moderating effect of competitiveness ... 28
Discussion study 1 ... 29
Results Study 2 ... 30
H1: Direct effect of status distance on stress ... 30
H2: Mediating effect of perceived opportunity ... 32
H3: Mediating effect of perceived threat ... 33
H4: Moderating effect of need for status ... 34
Discussion study 2 ... 35
Discussion ... 37
Relative status position ... 38
Limitations ... 39
Future research ... 41
Contribution to firm performance ... 42
Conclusion ... 43
Appendix 1: Overview pilot 1 & 2 ... 48
Abstract
This research investigated the effect of status distance on stress. Since status transfers through social interactions or network ties, I hypothesized that low-status individuals perceive ties to high-status individuals as an opportunity to gain status. As low-status individuals do not always get to chance to engage in such a relation, they might feel the pressure to perform well when the opportunity arises, and hence perceive these ties as stressful. Similarly, I hypothesized that high-status individuals perceive ties to low-status individuals as a threat to lose status, and hence perceive stress because of this relation. I also investigated the influence of need for status and competitiveness of the environment as moderators of these relationships. The research consisted of two studies conducted with the same questionnaire. Study 1 was conducted world-wide among 127 working people in a world-wide variety of industries. Study 2 was conducted among 36 workers in a Dutch hospital. Results showed higher degrees of stress in ties to high-status individuals, which was partially mediated by pride, and lower degrees of stress in ties to low-status individuals, which was partially mediated by threat. Limitations and directions for future research are given.
Introduction
Status is the subjective assessment of where in the social hierarchy someone belongs (Piazzi & Castelluci, 2013). Someone’s degree of status is based on the respect, admiration, and voluntary deference an individual receives (see review Anderson, Hildreth & Howland, 2015). High status, both for individuals and organizations, is predominantly related to positive outcomes, e.g. more favorable network positions (Burt, Kilduff & Tasselli, 2013), better market opportunities (Jensen, 2008), and more access to capital (Stuart, Hoang & Hybels, 1999). High-status people are more likely to propose ideas that are perceived as good, to receive acceptance, to get higher compensations, and to be promoted faster (Burt, Kilduff & Tasselli, 2013). In sum, status is an important construct.
However, high-status individuals are less precise, less secure in their actions, and care less about others (Van Kleef et al., 2008; Sturm & Antonakis, 2015). In other words, an additional effect of status in social relations is that it might be a source of stress (Elangovan & Xie, 2000; Forsyth, 2010; Kalish et al., 2015). Stress is defined as the perceived state of mental tension and the feeling of pressure (Merriam Webster). Stress on an individual level enhances performance on the short term, but overextended stress of employees has severe outcomes for organizations. Individual level stress might eventually lead to decreased firm performance due to increased level of diseases, absenteeism, tardiness, and turnover (Elangovan & Xie, 2000; Sapolsky, 2004). Thus, in addition to the beneficial effects of status, when viewed as a source of stress, status may also have negative effects.
Status is often regarded as two stated: either high or low (Melamed, 2012). However, status should be seen on a continuum in relation to other people’s status. Such a view provides a more sophisticated representation of the reality and should clarify underlying constructs more clearly. Additionally, the position of an individual in a group with regard to status differences is even more important than one’s absolute status (Frank, 1985 in Spataro et al., 2014). So,
individuals care more about their status in relation to the status of their colleagues or other group members than solely their own status. For example, high-status individuals might experience high levels of stress, because all their ties are to high-status individuals, whereas low-status individuals might perceive less stress, because they collaborate only with others of a similar status. This new view of relativity of status opens a gap in the current status literature. Instead of the commonly asked question “What is the effect of status on stress?”, my question is: “What is the effect of different levels of status distance on stress?”. By emphasizing on status distance, this research contributes to the existing research by putting status in the context. Moreover, looking at status distance on a continuum provides more sophisticated insights than making artificial groups. Hence, I will research the degree of status distance, including the option of status equality.
In this paper, I combine the psychological and organization’s structure insights by focusing on the stress people might perceive due to status distance. Research has shown that individuals prefer to associate with people of a similar status (Byrne et al., 1966; Goldman, Rosenzweig & Lutter, 1980). However, people in organizations cannot always associate with similar status others, e.g. it is too expensive to have solely senior consultants in a team, so these high-status individuals need to ask low-status juniors to conduct research for them. Since ties influence their degree of status, meaning that ties to high-status individuals enhances one’s status and ties to low-status individuals decreases one’s status, low-status people may even seek out high-status partners. I question whether low-status people perceive ties to high-status people as stressful while thinking of it as an opportunity to gain status. In the example of the consultants, juniors might want to work closely with senior consultants to enhance their status, but also feel stress due to this tie because of the pressure to perform well and not wanting to ruin their chance to gain more status. Similarly, a tie with someone of a lower status might be seen as a threat to one’s current status, possibly causing stress. In the example, when senior
consultants work with juniors, they might feel stress due to this relation, because of the risk that others might associate them with the junior and consequently, decreasing their received respect. Figure 1 shows the two research models; model 1 shows the proposed effect of status distance to higher status people, in which individuals perceive the opportunity to gain status, model 2 shows the proposed effect of status distance to lower status people, in which individuals perceive a threat to lose status. Both models are expected to be moderated by the individual’s need for status. In order to perceive any effects of status distance, I argue that individuals need to be aware of status distance. Therefore, I chose to investigate the moderating effect of need for status, reflecting an individual’s sensitivity for (possible) changes in status. The second moderator for both models is competitiveness on the work floor. Reasoning that the competition influences the urge to outperform others and the pressure to perform well, this might also have an effect on the stress an individual perceives.
Conducting research on status distance as a magnitude provides more nuanced and sophisticated information of the effect on people’s perceived stress. Current status research basically argues that high-status individuals perceive fewer stress than low-status individuals. However, this might not be completely the case. This research expands this literature by investigating perceptions that lead to stress, which is an indication of human behavior. As implied by Frank & Nüesch (2011), this research contributes by emphasizing the importance of choosing the right status distances within an organization to avoid high stress levels. This information provides the opportunity to strategically determine the organization’s structure and culture, and thereby improving productivity and performance.
Figure 1: model of relation variables
Model 1: status distance to higher ties
Model 2: Status distance to lower ties
Theoretical background
Status distance
Status distance in an organization is the perception of differences in status between colleagues, which is the result of a combination of formal and social hierarchy. The position in the formal hierarchy is based on the firm’s organogram and the extent to which collaboration is required based on roles descriptions, e.g. the status difference between doctors and nurses. Formal hierarchy might often be an indication of the level of social hierarchy, which is based on a person’s network linkages (ties), e.g. doctors will have more contacts (with people from different departments) and will more often be asked for advice, resulting in a higher level of status than nurses. Thus, I assume that there is to a certain extent alignment and interaction between formal and social hierarchy, and hence, I have not made a distinction between the two
In a firm with small status distances, most ties will be reciprocal, meaning that individuals are interdependent. In a hierarchical firm, the amount of incoming and outgoing ties differs between individuals. A person with more incoming ties than outgoing ties is less dependent on others and has a higher status. A strong network position provides an individual to have access to (non-redundant) information and to have control (Burt, Kilduff & Tasselli, 2013).
In the presence of status inequality, two types of relations can be formed: homophilous relations with equal partners and heterophilous relationships with partners of a higher or lower status. Status-homophilous relationships are formed because of a certain degree of trust and the ease of cooperation due to similarities (Shipilov, Xiao Lie & Greve, 2011). Whereas low-status partners are motivated to engage in heterophilous relations due to the prospect of status-enhancement (Benjamin & Podolny, 1999; Betancourt, 2015; Piazza & Castelluci, 2013), high-status partners are motivated by the securing greater effort, higher quality and shorter response times from the low-status counterpart (Castellucci & Ertug, 2010) and access to resources (Shipilov, Xiao Lie & Greve, 2011). Thus, parties have diverse motives to engage in heterophilous relationships and each relation has a different effect on individuals.
Stress
Homophilous ties will cause less stress than heterophilous ties because homophilous ties meet most of the interpersonal attraction principles, being similarity, complementarity, reciprocity, personal qualities and physical attractiveness (Forsyth, 2010). These interpersonal attraction principles outline individuals’ preferences for tie formation. Because homophilous ties are preferred, I expect that individuals perceive these relations as the most pleasant and hence, perceive the least stress in such relations. Similarly, heterophilous ties might cause stress. Dean, Willis and Hewit (1975), for example, found in their study of U.S.
Navy-personnel that people prefer a larger personal space in a conversation with higher rank individuals than with their peers. This indicates that people feel less comfortable in a relation with someone of a higher status.
Moreover, the relative plurality of shared information in homophilous ties buffers individuals from perceiving stress due to these ties. People share more information with similar others, individuals they are psychically close to, and when they like the other person (Liden, Wayne & Stilwell, 1993; Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997; Borgatti & Cross, 2003). This information sharing instills clarified expectations, trust and psychological safety. Also the information sharing process is more reciprocal in homophilous ties. Whereas information might be shared in heterophilous ties, the way in which it is shared is different. Upward compared to downward communication occurs less frequently, and contains shorter and more guared messages (Forsyth, 2010).
Thus, individuals feel more naturally attracted to homophilous ties due to the similarity and reciprocity principle, and feel safer in homophilous ties because the higher degree of shared knowledge. Therefore, heterophilous ties, and so status distance, is expected to instill higher levels of stress.
H1: Status distance is positively related to stress.
Status transfers through ties
Researched showed that in heterophilous relations status transfers from the higher-status partners to lower-higher-status partners through network ties (Betancourt, 2015; Podolny, 1993; Benjamin & Podolny, 1999; Cowen, 2012). People assume that individuals connect to similar individuals and tend to memorize relations in triads or groups, especially when the connection is to distant for a valid assessment (Krackhardt & Kilduff, 1999; Brashears & Quintane, 2015).
Due to this similarity attracting effect, having a relation with someone of a higher status might give you a higher status, because others think the group adopted this person for a legit reason and consider this individual as similar to this higher status group and hence judge this person similarly. Status might also transfer the other way around. When someone of a higher status enters a relation with a lower status individual, outsiders might assume this person is similar to that lower-status group, which decreases his/her status.
Therefore, individuals might deliberately choose with whom they connect to increase their status. Humans compete for status in their organization and display both verbal and nonverbal cues to ensure they receive their desired respect by impressing others (Leffler et al., 1982; Forsyth, 2010). This is because they are intrinsically motivated to attain more status and even more not to lose any (Maslow, 1943; McClelland & Burnham, 1976; Pettit, Yong & Spataro, 2010; review in Anderson, Hildreth & Howland, 2015). Grounded in the evolutionary theory, individuals have the innate desire to gain status, because those higher positions provide higher survival chances. In line with this theory, individuals prefer environments in which they are able to increase their status and refrain from interactions that threaten their status. Moreover, people will avoid status threat, since it is associated with disrespect. Status can be earned, which might increase the individual’s sense of control over their status, which is necessary to perceive stress.
To investigate how status distance in relationships at work influences stress, I used two separate models. In model 1, the effect of ties to higher status individuals was measured. The explanation sought for in this research was that individuals perceive such a relation as an opportunity to gain status. In model 2, the effect of ties to lower status individuals was measured, explained by perceived threat to lose status. In conclusion, the models either measured the effect of upward status distance or the effect of downward status with the same individuals as baseline.
Perceived opportunity
Low-status individuals might be attracted to high-status individuals based on the complementary principle, i.e. they perceive such a relation as an opportunity to possess (access to) desirable resources (Winch, 1958 in Forsyth, 2010). A higher degree of status provides people to a larger extent with the basic human needs, i.e. physiological, safety, love/affection & belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization (Maslow, 1943). Low-status individuals might perceive these basic human needs as lacking on the work floor. For example, low-status individuals might not be involved sufficiently in important matters or get the chance to show their capabilities. Therefore, low-status individuals will be looking for opportunities to enhance their status.
One way of gaining status is forming a relation with someone of a higher status. Low-status individuals will perceive this as an opportunity, because a failed attempt, e.g. being outperformed by the higher-status part, will not have negative consequences for their status (Pettit & Lount Jr., 2010).
However, I expect that the low-status partner will feel the pressure to live up to the high expectations of the high-status partner, because they do not always get the chance to climb the ladder. An indication for this is the theory that low-status partners put more effort in a relation with higher status partners (Castellucci & Ertug, 2010). Given the fact that from the low-status individuals’ viewpoint heterophilous relations are often based on ‘invitation only’, low-status individuals will feel the pressure, possibly causing stress, to perform well when an opportunity arises. Thus, I expect that low-status people perceive ties to high-status people as an opportunity to enhance their status, and hence perceive stress to seize the opportunity.
H2: For low-status individuals, the opportunity to gain status mediates the relationship
between status distance and stress, such that the positive relationship between status distance and stress is the strongest when the extent to which these individuals perceive these ties as an opportunity to gain status is the highest.
Perceived threat
I expect that high-status people perceive ties to low-status people as a threat, because ties to low-status people might reduce one’s status. Since high-status individuals have power and control in the current situation (Castellucci & Ertug, 2010), they are able to protect their degree of status and will, most likely, be sensitive to threats. The prospect of losing status, e.g. by being outperformed, might be seen as a real and severe threat causing stress (Pettit, Yong & Spataro, 2010; Pettit & Lount Jr., 2010). I expect this stress to be reinforced given that high-status individuals (relative to low-high-status people) are predominantly motivated by high-status enhancement (Bendersky, Shah, 2012; McClelland & Burnham, 1976) and high-power individuals are even more motivated by potential gains than lower-power individuals (Keltner et al., 2003).
In addition, based on the expectancy theory, people anticipate better performance of high-status people (Berger et al., 1974). Similar as for low-status people, high-status people will feel the pressure, possibly causing stress, to live up to these expectations in order to maintain their high status position. This ‘extra’ effort is apparent in the “Pygmalion effect”, a reinforcing circle in which people perform according to the expectations (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968 in Bendersky & Shah, 2012). I argue that because the bar is raising continuously, people become increasingly vulnerable to meet the expectations and hence individuals are more sensitive to threats to their status quo, which consequently causes stress.
Thus, I hypothesize that high-status people perceive ties to low-status people as a threat to keep their status, increasing their perceived stress.
H3: For high-status individuals, the threat to lose status mediates the relationship
between status distance and stress, such that the positive relationship between status distance and stress is the strongest when the extent to which these individuals perceive these ties as a threat to lose status is the highest.
Need for status
In order to perceive ties as a threat or opportunity for their status, individuals need to pay attention to the status dynamics. Without monitoring status levels, it is highly unlikely that people perceive heterophilous ties as a threat of opportunity, and hence cause stress. Research showed that individuals constantly monitor status context and are sensitive the modest signs to status change, such as emotions and judgments of fairness (see review Anderson, Hildreth & Howland, 2015). Despite the self-serving bias to perceive yourself in a brighter light, people assess their own and other’s status very accurately, even when it is not clearly stated.
However, not all individuals are evenly motivated to gain more status (Umphress et al., 2007; Forsyth, 2010). For example, people scoring high rather than low on Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) are more driven by status and attracted to higher-status out-groups, and behave more dominant, assertive, though and uncaring to others. This orientation is also remarkable in their beliefs and reactions to others, e.g. accepting inequality (Whitley, 1999). Consequently, SDO predicts the use of stereotypes and prejudices. This effect works reinforcing: the positive outcomes and affect caused by status enhancement encourages these people to strive for more status (Martens et al., 2012).
Therefore, I expect that individuals who have a greater need to enhance their status, are more concerned about their status and hence are more likely to perceive a threat or opportunity to their degree of status. This will subsequently cause a higher degree of stress.
H4a: For low-status individuals, the need for status moderates the mediating effect of
perceived opportunity on the relationship between status distance and stress such that higher degrees of need for status have a stronger moderating effect on the relationship between status distance and stress, while lower degrees of need for status moderate to a lower extent the relationship between status distance and stress.
H4b: For high-status individuals, the need for status moderates the mediating effect of
perceived threat on the relationship between status distance and stress such that higher degrees of need for status have a stronger moderating effect on the relationship between status distance and stress, while lower degrees of need for status moderate to a lower extent the relationship between status distance and stress.
Competitiveness of work environment
Lount Jr. and Philips (2007) showed that people tend to be more competitive when they are compared to others and are more aware of threats and opportunities. This context might hinder the feeling of psychological and participative safety (Bunderson & Reagans, 2011), which protects individuals from high levels of stress in uncertain and vulnerable situations. Research showed that greater status distances incorporate competitive behavior within groups to gain more status (Spataro et al., 2014), which might hinder the psychological safety (Bunderson & Reagans, 2011) and hence increase the stress level.
H5a: For low-status individuals, competitiveness moderates the mediating effect of
perceived opportunity on the relationship between status distance and stress, which is also moderated by the need for status, in such a way that higher degrees of competitiveness have a stronger moderating effect on the relationship between status distance and stress, while lower degrees of competitiveness moderate to a lower extent the relationship between status distance and stress.
H5b: For high-status individuals, competitiveness moderates the mediating effect of
perceived threat on the relationship between status distance and stress, which is also moderated by the need for status, in such a way that higher degrees of competitiveness have a stronger moderating effect on the relationship between status distance and stress, while lower degrees of competitiveness moderate to a lower extent the relationship between status distance and stress.
Method
Pilot studies
Before sending out the questionnaire, two English pilot surveys were conducted among 24 respectively 19 respondents on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (M-Turk) website to check for
clarity of the questions and survey fatigue. The surveys consisted of exactly the same questions, but in a different order. Both pilot’s were reported to be clear and no noteworthy difference in the means and Cronbach’s alpha were found (appendix 1). However, low standard deviations were found in study 2, meaning that the variance within those variables is low. This could be either due to a very homogenous sample or due biases that a question(order) instills a specific answer. Because the expected diversity of the sample, the latter reason seems to be more likely to be the case in pilot 2. Since steering of answers biases the results, the setting of pilot 1 was used for the follow-up research.
As expected, participants assigned the lowest levels of status to coworkers of the lowest status, moderate status to similar individuals, and the highest levels of status to their high-status relations. Surprisingly, lower levels of pride were reported to ties with high-status individuals than to similar-status individuals, while opportunity reported the expected results that individuals perceive higher levels of opportunity in ties to high-status individuals. Shame and threat reported no consistent or clear findings in the pilots. The highest levels of stress were found in ties to high-status individuals and the lowest levels of stress in ties to similar-status individuals. Following these pilots, I conducted two studies with identical measures. The first study was globally conducted on M-Turk to gain a general insight. The second study was conducted in a Dutch hospital to investigate whether the results were replicable to a specific industry.
Procedures & Sampling
This research consisted of two studies. The aim of study 1 was to investigate the topic matter. Study 2 was used to reduce heterogeneity and explore the influence of (firm)culture
(more detailed explanation in section “study 2”). Study 1 included 127 participants1, who
completed the survey on M-Turk (74 males, average age = 34, average tenure = 6). This cross-sectional sample consist of a wide variety of industries, covering a broad range of hierarchy levels (min status distance = -2; max status distance = 9). Participants were asked to complete an online survey in Qualtrics taking approximately 10 minutes. The survey was offered both in Dutch and English. Questions were asked about the participant’s perception of their status, their perception of the relations with several colleagues, and their work environment perception (questionnaire in appendix 2).
Measures
1. Status distance
To measure status distance, I used an adaptation of the community ladder of The MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (10-point scale) (Goodman et al., 2001). This scale measured status with a vertical ladder (figure 2), which provides a better representation of the height of status than for example a horizontal slider or Likert scale. First, participants were given the following description of status distance: “Think of the ladder below as representation of where people stand in their work environment. People define work environment in different ways; please define it in whatever is most meaningful to you. At the top of the ladder are the people who have the highest standing. At
1 127 participants answered all questions, except for the questions regarding the degree of status
distance. These participants were only included in the analyses with status distance as an ordinal variable and not in the regression analyses when status distance was on interval level. 94 participants completed the entire survey and were included in all analyses
the bottom are the people who have the lowest standing in their work environment.”. Next, participants were asked to indicate their own stepon the ladder by clicking on a rung, the step of the highest individuals with whom they interact, and the step of the lowest status holders with whom they interact. Moreover, I asked the participants to name two people (henceforth A1 for similar status individuals, A2 for highest status individuals, A3 for lowest status individuals) in order to adjust the questions with regard to the ties. The status distance to a higher individual is the difference between A1 and A2, which is henceforth referred to as positive status distance. The status distance to a lower individual is the difference between A1 and A3, which is henceforth referred to as negative status distance. The total status distance an individual perceives at work is A2 minus A3.
All of the following variables were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “1: Not at all” to “7: extremely”.
2. Perceived opportunity
Perceived opportunity was measured by a pride scale and three questions regarding the individual’s opportunity perception. Pride was used as an indicator for perceived opportunity because individuals tend to display more pride, when they have behaved in ways that increased their status (Belsky, Domitrovich & Crnic, 1997; Tracy & Matsumoto, 2008). Pride was measured with 7 items describing different feelings and emotions, such as “like I am achieving” (αstudy1 = .965; αstudy2 = .943). All the questions were made tie specific, e.g. “Indicate to what extent [A1; A2] makes you feel confident”. After the standardized scale, three questions were asked with regard to the perceived opportunity, i.e. “To what extent do you perceive the relation with [A1; A2] as an opportunity to raise your status?”, “To what extent do you perceive the relation with [A1; A2] as an opportunity to raise the extent to which people admire you?”, and
“To what extent do you perceive the relation with [A1; A2] as an opportunity to raise the extent to which people respect you?” (αstudy1 = .930; αstudy 2 = . 911). These scales were only asked for the names of similar and high-status individuals. The items were averaged within the same level of the tie, i.e. high or similar. Then, to see the effect of the distance, the results of the similar-status ties were subtracted from the results of high-status ties. Lastly, to create an overall mean, the total effect of opportunity was the average of the effect of pride and the effect of opportunity.
3. Perceived threat
Perceived threat was measured by a shame scale and three questions regarding the individual’s threat perception in ties to low and similar status individuals. Shame is used as an indicator for perceived threat because individuals who perceive their status is threatened are more likely to perceive shame (Belsky, Domitrovich & Crnic, 1997; Tracy & Matsumoto, 2008). All the questions were made tie specific. Shame was measured with the 8-item Guilt and Shame Proneness Scale (αstudy1 = . 945; α study2 = .785) (Cohen et al., 2011). After the standardized scales, three questions were asked with regard to the perceived threat, i.e. “To what extent do you perceive the relation with [A1; A3] as a threat to your status?”, “To what extent do you perceive the relation with [A1; A3] as a threat to the extent people admire you?”, and “To what extent do you perceive the relation with [A1; A3] as a threat to the extent people respect you?” (αstudy1 = .942; α study2 = .848). The items were averaged within the same level of the tie, i.e. low or similar. Then, to see the effect of the distance, the results of the similar-status ties were subtracted from the results of low-status ties. Lastly, to create an overall mean, the total effect of threat was the average of the effect of shame and the effect of threat.
4. Stress
To measure stress, I adjusted the 5 items of the job-related anxiety component work stress scale to A1, A2 and A3 (αstudy1 = . 897; α study2 = . 823) (Parker & DeCotiis, 1983). Items were for example: “I have felt fidgety or nervous as a result of the relation with [A1; A2; A3].”. Perceived stress to due to positive status distance was measured by stress to higher ties minus stress to similar ties. Perceived stress to due to negative status distance was measured by stress to lower ties minus stress to similar ties. Due to the initial low Cronbach’s alpha of the last question in the second study (αstudy2 = .451), this question was deleted in study 2.
5. Need for status
To measure the extent to which participants were sensitive to status, the variable need for status was used. Need for status was measured by taking the average of the 8-item scale (αstudy1 = . 924; αstudy2 = .751) of Flynn & Reagans (2006). The scale consists of items such as “Being a highly valued member of my social group is important to me.”.
6. Competitiveness of the environment
Competition on the work floor was measured with 5 items, such as “I work in a competitive environment.” (αstudy1 = .821; α study2 = .361) (Lount Jr. & Philips, 2007). Based on the low coherence of all the five items in the second survey, this scale was not included in that analysis.
7. Demographics and control variables
Respondents were asked 9 questions to provide demographic information, e.g. tenure, job position and industry. Furthermore, the control variables gender, age, and tenure were used. Gender was used as control variable, because males and females are likely to differ in attitudes,
& Reagans, 2011), which might be a behavior to protect their status. Both gender and age influence an individual’s awareness of status and desire to increase it (Anderson, Hildreth & Howland, 2015). Accordingly, this might also have an effect of the perception of status distance and an individual’s coping mechanisms and sensitivity for stress. In addition, gender and age are important contributions to an individual’s status (Berger, Rosenholtz & Zelditch, 1980). Tenure was chosen as a control variable, because someone’s status will be more thoroughly assessed when someone tenure increases. Status might be more dynamic when individuals just has started working somewhere than when individuals have already worked there for a long time. Following this reasoning, if higher tenures stabilizes one’s status position, this person will be less concerned about threats or opportunities to gain status which might lead to stress.
Results
Because the models look at both low and high-status individuals, table 1 reports the means and standard deviations of all separate variables for these status categories. This table simplifies the interpretation of the t-tests and provides an overview of the differences in means of the individual variables between the two studies, which do not come forward in the correlation matrices. Table 2 and 3 show the correlation matrices of study 1 and 2.
Table 1. Means and standard deviations of variables
Study 1 Study 2 LS (SD) SS (SD) HS (SD) LS (SD) SS (SD) HS (SD) Status 2.81 (1.74) 4.65 (1.90) 7.57 (1.75) 2.29 (1.27) 4.53 (1.77) 7.63 (1.54) Pride . 4.76 (1.54) 4.15 (1.63) . 5.96 (.906) 4.87 (1.47) Opportunity . 3.71 (1.50) 4.75 (1.66) . 3.39 (1.61) 3.87 (1.76) Shame 1.59 (1.04) 1.65 (1.06) . 1.18 (.347) 1.15 (.296) . Threat 1.72 (1.27) 1.90 (1.36) . 1.23 (.401) 1.37 (.694) . Threat_total 1.65 (1.08) 1.78 (1.12) . 1.20 (.340) 1.26 (.438) . Stress 1.79 (1.16) 1.96 (1.19) 2.42 (1.34) 1.57 (.692) 1.72 (.718) 2.35 (1.25)
Results Study 1
H1: Direct effect of status distance on stress
In addition to performing a correlation test between status distance and stress (ρ = .308, p < .01), a hierarchical multiple regression was performed to investigate the ability of status distance to predict levels of stress. In the first step of hierarchical multiple regression, three control variables were entered: gender, age and tenure (table 4). This model was not statistically significant (F (3, 89) = 1.32; p = .272) and explained 4.3% of variance in stress. After entry of status distance at Step 2, the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 13.6% (F (4, 88) = 3.462; p <.05). The introduction of status distance explained additional 9.30% in stress, after controlling for gender, age and tenure (F (1, 88) = 9.50; p <.01). In the final model, status distance was a significant predictor of stress (B = .172, β = .319, p < .01). For every unit of increase in status distance, a .172-unit increase in stress is predicted, holding all the other variables constant. With a maximum status distance reported of 9 units, this means that the maximum increase in stress that could be predicted is approximately 1.5 out of 7 units. So even though this variable was significant, status distance was only able to predict a marginal increase in stress, i.e. from low to medium stress levels, or from medium to high stress levels.
However, no significant correlations were found when dividing the variables in tie-specific models. In model 1, when specifying ties to high-status individual, the correlation was ρhigh = .061, p = .559. When controlling for gender, age, and tenure, status distance did not cause an significant increase either, R2
changehigh = .002, p = .642. When looking at ties to low-status individuals in model 2 neither provided significant results, ρlow = -.048, p = .647. Similar results were found with a regression analysis with gender, age and tenure as control variables; R2 changelow = .002, p = .652.
Taken together, the unspecified analysis provided support for the hypothesis that people perceive more stress when status distance increases. However, this support was only found for
status distance and stress when it was not made tie specific. So, status distance to higher respectively lower status individuals did not cause more stress due to relations to higher respectively lower status individuals.
Table 4. Hierarchical Regression Model of Stress
H2: Mediating effect of perceived opportunity
For model 1, a paired sample t-test was performed to analyze the differences in means between ties to individuals of a similar and higher status. Results showed a significant effect for status distance (t = 16.783, p = .000), pride (t = -4.527, p = .000), opportunity (t = 7.205, p = .000) and stress (t = 4.470, p = .000) (table 1). A regression analysis with PROCESS model 4 was performed to investigate the ability of positive status distance to predict additional stress to higher ties, while mediated by the perception of an opportunity to enhance status. Due to the different directions of the effect between pride and opportunity, the analysis was performed with pride and opportunity separately instead of putting them together.
The direct effect of positive status distance on stress was not statistically significant (F (1, 92) = .344; p = .559) and explained .4% of variance in additional stress to higher ties. The effect of status distance on pride was not significant (F (1, 92) = 1.97, p = .164). The mediating
R R2 R2 Change B SE β t Step 1 .207 .043 Gender .204 .255 .085 .798 Age -.012 .015 -.103 -.820 Tenure .056 .031 .226 1.827 Step 2 .369 .136* .093** Gender .373 .250 .155 1.491 Age -.007 .014 -.063 -.523 Tenure .039 .030 .158 1.310 SD .172 .056 .319** 3.082
Note. Statistical significance: *p <.05, **p < .01, B is the unstandardized coefficient, β is the standardized coefficient.
model, only pride reported a significant coefficient (B = -.281, t = -4.11, 95% CI [-.417, -.145]) (table 5). Thus, pride occurs independently from status distance, but there is a negative relation between pride and stress, such that higher stress levels are reported when individuals reported lower pride levels. The effect of positive status distance on opportunity was not significant (F (1, 92) = .151, p = .698). The mediating effect of opportunity on stress to ties to high-status individuals was not significant (F (2, 91) = 1.06, p = .352) (table 5).
Thus, even though there was a significant difference between the means of the variables, the regression analysis did not provide support for the mediating effect of opportunity. The analysis provided support for the mediating effect of pride. However, against expectations, positive status distance led to higher degrees of stress when individuals reported lower levels of pride.
Table 5. Regression with pride and opportunity as mediators
H3: Mediating effect of perceived threat
To analyze model 2, a paired sample t-test was performed to measure the differences in means between ties to similar and low-status individuals. Results showed a significant effect
R R2
B SE t 95% CI
Direct effect Total model .061 .004
SD_positive .041 .070 .586 [-.048, .905] Mediator 1 Pride .145 .021 SD_positive -.139 .099 -1.40 [-.334, .058] Stress_high .400 .160** Pride -.281** .068 -4.11 [-.417, -.145] SD_positive .002 .065 .033 [-.128, .132] Mediator 2 Opportunity .041 .002 SD_positive -.039 .101 -.389 [-240, .161] Stress_high .151 .023 Opportunity .096 .072 1.33 [-.047, .239] SD_positive .045 .070 .642 [-.094, .184]
for status distance (t = 11.4, p = .000), threat (t = 2.65, p = .009), threat total (t = 2.69, p = .008) and stress (t = 2.68, p = .008). Shame was not significant (t = 1.25, p = .212) (table 1).
To examine to what extent individuals perceive more stress in a negative status distance mediated by threat, a regression analysis was conducted. The mediator threat was used instead of threat total (shame and threat together) due to the lack of significant difference in shame. The direct effect of negative status distance on stress was not statistically significant (F (1, 92) = .211; 95% CI [-.108, .068]) and explained 4.8% of variance in stress to lower ties. The indirect effect of threat predicted by negative status distance was significant (F (1, 92) = 6.16; p < .05). The mediating effect of threat on stress was significant (F (2, 91) = 8.26; p < .001). In the final model, threat was significant (B = .359, t = 4.03, 95% CI [.182 - .536]) (table 6). Thus, for high-status individuals of ties, the threat to lose status mediates the relationship between status distance and stress, such that the positive relationship between status distance and stress is the strongest when the extent to which these individuals perceive these ties as a threat to lose status is the highest.
Both analyses provided support for threat as mediating effect, so that higher levels of stress were perceived when higher levels of threat were perceived.
Table 6. Regression with threat as mediator
R R2
B SE t 95% CI
Direct effect Total model .048 .002
SD_negative -.020 .044 -.460 [-.108, .068] Mediator 1 Threat .251 .063* SD_negative -.119* .048 -2.48 [-.210, -.024] Stress_low .392 .154** Threat .359** .089 4.03 [.182, .536] SD_negative .023 .042 .597 [-.062, .107]
H4: Moderating effect of need for status
To analyze the extent to which need for status moderates the relation between status distance and stress, mediated by either opportunity or threat, PROCESS model 8 was used for regression analyses.
The moderating effect of need for status on stress in model 1 was measured twice, because the different directions of the two scales for opportunity. Firstly, pride was used as mediator. Need for status showed a non-significant interaction effect with positive status distance on pride (B = -.136, t = -1.68, 95% CI [-.298, .025]). Also, the interaction effect between positive status distance and need for status on stress was not significant (B = .034, t = .630, 95% CI [-.073, .142]). This means that pride and stress occurred independently from the need for status. Secondly, perceived opportunity was used as mediator. A significant effect was found of the interaction between positive status distance and need for status on perceived opportunity (B = .2166, t = 2.74, 95% CI [.060, .374]). However, this interaction effect was not significant on stress (B = .060, t = 1.00, 95% CI [-.059, .179]). So, for low-status individuals of ties, the need for status moderates the relation between positive status distance and perceived opportunity such that this relation was most pronounced when participants reported higher levels of need for status. However, stress occurs independently from need for status.
For the moderating effect of need for status to lower ties (model 2), the mediator threat was used again instead of threat total. Need for status showed a non-significant interaction effect with negative status distance on threat (B = -.025, t = -867, 95% CI [-.081, .032]). Also the interaction effect between negative status distance and need for status on stress was not significant (B = -.015, t = .604, CI [-.065, .035]). Thus, need for status did not have an influence on the strength of the relationship between status distance on stress, while mediated by perceived threat.
Thus, the moderation effect of need for status did not find support in the analyses with all mediators. Despite the significance of the interaction between status distance and need for status on perceived opportunity, this did not have an effect on the stress an individual perceives.
H5: Moderating effect of competitiveness
The predictive value of competitiveness on the moderated mediating model of status distance on stress was tested with model 29 in PROCESS.
The effects for model 1 were again analyzed with both pride and opportunity. The interaction effect between pride and competitiveness was not significant (B = .042, t = .675, 95% CI [-.082, .166]). However, the interaction effect between positive status distance and competitiveness showed a significant effect (B = .225, t = 2.56, 95% CI [.050, .400]). So, competitiveness did not have an influence on the strength of the relationship of pride on stress, but it strengthened the relationship between status distance and competitiveness, such that higher degrees of competitiveness instilled a stronger positive relationship of status distance on stress. In the second test for model 1, the interaction between opportunity and competitiveness on stress did not show significant results (B = .134, t = 1.78, 95% CI [-.016, .284]). The interaction effect between positive status distance and competitiveness was significant (B = .241, t = 2.44, 95% CI [.045, .437]). Similar to pride, competitiveness did not have a moderating effect on the relation between opportunity and stress, but higher degrees of of competitiveness predicted a strong positive relationship between status distance on stress.
To investigate the influence of competitiveness in model 2, the mediator threat was used. Competitiveness as a moderator on stress to lower ties did not show significant results: interaction threat and competitiveness: B = -.061, t = -.668, 95% CI [-.243, .121]; interaction status distance and competitiveness: B = -.066, t = -1.14, 95% CI [-.182, .049]. Thus, the
strength of the relations in the proposed model were not affected by the competitiveness of the environment.
The moderating effect between competitiveness and pride and opportunity was not supported. However, the hypotheses that competitiveness of the environment strengthens the relation between positive status distance and stress to high status individuals was confirmed by the regression analysis. The hypothesis of the moderating effect of competitiveness in conditions of ties to low-status individuals was not supported.
Discussion study 1
Study 1 showed that an increase in status distance predicts an increase is stress when controlled for gender, age, and tenure. However, this effect was only significant with the total status distance, and not when this was divided in status distance to either high or low-status individuals. Pride showed a direct negative effect on stress, so that higher levels of pride are related to lower levels of stress. Status distance did not have a significant effect on pride. So, the hypothesis that pride mediates the relation between status distance and stress is only partially supported. The perception that a tie to high-status individuals is an opportunity to gain status did not find support as mediator in model 1. The mediating effect of a threat perception in ties to low-status individuals was supported. Status distance showed a direct negative effect on threat and threat showed a direct positive effect on stress. The direct effect of status distance on stress, however, was not significant. Thus, lower levels of status distance relate to higher levels of threat, which is related to higher levels of stress. Need for status only showed a significant interaction effect with status distance on perceived opportunity, so it did not have a moderating effect in model 2 and only partially in model 1. Competitiveness only showed a significant positive interaction effect with positive status distance on stress, providing no support for competitiveness as moderator in model 2 and only partially in model 1.
Results Study 2
Study 1 was a highly heterogeneous global sample, in which effects could have faded because the diversity in attitudes, perceptions and preferences. Therefore, I conducted a follow-up study with a relative homophilous sample to address this weakness. Study 2 was conducted in The Netherlands to investigate the replicability to a specific organizational culture. Preferences for hierarchy are cultural-specific, and hence the effects might differ between (organizational)cultures (Hofstede, 2001; Schneider & Barsoux, 2003). Therefore, study 2 was conducted among 36 participants working in a Dutch hospital (26 females, average age = 43 years, average tenure = 12), covering a broad range of hierarchy levels (min status distance = 0; max status distance = 9). The majority of the participants (25 participants) worked as a nurse or doctor. The remaining participants worked in the research department of this same institute. The buildings are next to each other and there is much interaction between the two departments. Hence, I assume a high level of similarity within this sample.
H1: Direct effect of status distance on stress
In addition to a correlation test between status distance and stress (ρ = .255, p < .152), a hierarchical multiple regression was performed to investigate the ability of status distance to predict levels of stress. In the first step of hierarchical multiple regression, three control variables were entered: gender, age and tenure (table 7). This model was not statistically significant (F (3, 25) = 1.15; p = .349) and explained 12.1% of variance in stress. After entry of status distance at Step 2, the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 17.4% (F (4, 24) = 1.27; p = .310). The introduction of status distance explained additional 5.30% in stress, after controlling for gender, age and tenure (F (1, 24) = 1.15; p = .225). In the final model, none of the variables were significant, meaning that stress occurred independently from status distance.
Even though the correlation was not significant when looking at the model to higher ties (ρ = .300, p < .090), positive status distance explained an additional 20.1% (F (1, 24) = 8.54, p < .01) after controlling for gender, age and tenure (table 8). In the final model, only status distance was significant (B = .315, β = .458, p < .01). This means that for every unit of increase in status distance, a .315-unit increase in stress is predicted, holding all the other variables constant. With a maximum status distance of 9 units, this means that the maximum increase in stress that can be predicted is almost 3 out of 7 units. Status distance in this study is able to predict a 1-unit increase more than in study 1, but is still not able to predict increases from low stress levels to high stress levels.
No significant correlations were found when the variables where specified to low ties, ρlow = .202, p = .238. Similar results were found in the regression analysis with gender, age and tenure as control variables: R2
change = .001, p = .827.
Thus, participants reported higher stress levels to higher ties, which was also confirmed in the regression analysis with positive status distance as a predictor. However, no significant effect was found in a regression analysis to low-status individuals or in the model with negative
status distance and stress entirely.
Table 7. Hierarchical Regression Model of Stress
R R2 R2 Change B SE β t Step 1 .348 .121 Gender -.897 .756 -.232 .247 Age .012 .025 .115 .641 Tenure -.041 .028 -.352 .157 Step 2 .418 .171 .053 Gender -645 .775 -.167 -.833 Age .004 .025 .040 .158 Tenure -.037 .028 -.322 1.34 SD .156 .126 .244 1.25
Table 8. Hierarchical Regression Model of Stress to higher ties
H2: Mediating effect of perceived opportunity
A paired sample t-test was performed to test analyze the differences in means between ties to individuals of a similar and higher status in model 1. All the conditions showed significant differences in means (table 1). Participants reported significantly higher status to higher ties than to themselves (t = -11.1, p < .000). Significant lower degrees of pride were measured in conditions to higher status individuals than to similar status individuals (t = 4.56, p < .000). Opportunity perception to higher individuals was significantly higher than to similar individuals (t = -2.16, p < .05). There was not performed a test for the overall opportunity perception, due to the opposite directions of pride and opportunity. Stress levels were significantly higher in ties to high-status individuals than to similar status individuals (p < .000).
A regression analysis was performed to investigate the ability of positive status distance to predict higher levels of stress to higher ties, while mediated by pride or the perception of an opportunity to enhance status. The direct effect of positive status distance to higher ties on stress to higher ties was not statistically significant (F (1, 30) = 2.97; p = .095) and explained 9.02% of variance in stress to higher ties. The effect of positive status distance on pride was not significant (F (1, 30) = .423, p = .521). The mediating effect of pride on stress to higher
R R2 R2 Change B SE β t Step 1 .484 .234 Gender -.190 .645 -.054 -.294 Age -.015 .021 -.165 -.722 Tenure -.039 .024 -.363 -1.61 Step 2 .660 .435** .201** Gender -.297 .556 -.084 -.524 Age -.014 .019 -.154 -769 Tenure -.049 .021 -.461 -2.31 SD_positive .315 .108 .458** 2.92
ties was significant (F (2, 29) = 6.61, p < .01). In the final model, both variables reported significant coefficients (table 9). Thus, in model 1, the opportunity to gain status mediates the relationship between status distance and stress, such that higher degrees of status distance lead to higher degrees of pride, which predicted lower levels of stress.
The effect of positive status distance on opportunity was not significant (F (1, 30) = .211, p = .649). The mediating effect of opportunity on stress was not significant (F (2, 29) = 1.98, p = .155) (table 9). Subsequently, the degree of perceived opportunity was not related to status distance and could not predict stress levels.
Thus, even though there was a significant difference between the means of the variables, the regression analysis did not provide support for the mediating effect of opportunity on stress. The analysis provided support for the mediating effect of pride on stress.
Table 9. Regression with pride and opportunity as mediators
H3: Mediating effect of perceived threat
A paired sample t-test was performed to analyze the differences in means between ties to individuals of a similar and lower status in model 2. On average, lower levels of status were measured in ties to low status individuals than to similar status individuals, t = 6.97, p < .000.
R R2
B SE t 95% CI
Direct effect Total model .300 .090
SD_high .204 .118 1.72 [-.038, .446] Mediator 1 Pride .118 .014 SD_high .107 .165 .650 [-.229, .443] Stress_high .560 .313** Pride -.356** .116 -3.07 [.005, .593] SD_high .242* .105 2.30 [.027, 458] Mediator 2 Opportunity .084 .007 SD_high .066 .144 .459 [-.229, .361] Stress_high .347 .121 Opportunity -.150 .150 -1.00 [-.456, .157] SD_high .214 .119 1.80 [-.029, .457]
All the other conditions did not differ significantly: shame (t = -.512, p = 612), threat (t =1.20, p = .202), threat total (t = .756, p =.455), and stress (t = 1.08, p = .288) (table 1).
To examine to what extent individuals perceive stress based on negative status distance mediated by threat, a regression analysis was performed similar to study 1. The direct effect of negative status distance on stress to higher ties was not statistically significant (F (1, 34) = 1.44; p = .238) and explained 4.06% of variance in stress to lower ties. The indirect effect of negative status distance on threat was not significant (F (1, 34) = .209; p = .582). The mediating effect of threat on stress was significant (F (2, 33) = 11.3; p < .001). In the final model, threat was significant (B = .803, t = 4.52, 95% CI [.441, 1.16]) (table 10). So, threat occurred independently from status distance, but high reports of threat predicted a higher stress levels. This latter effect has a noteworthy strong influence: stress increased with .803-unit s per 1-unit increase in threat).
In contrast to the paired sample t-test, the regression analyses provided support for threat as mediator, so that high levels stress were predicted by high levels of perceived threat. However, perceived threat did not stem from negative status distance.
Table 10. Regression with threat total and threat as mediators
H4: Moderating effect of need for status
To analyze the extent to which need for status moderates the relation between status distance and stress in model 1 and model 2, a regression analysis was performed.
R R2
B SE t 95% CI
Direct effect Total model .202 .041
SD_low -.080 .067 -1.20 [-.216, .056] Mediator 1 Threat .095 .009 SD_low -.029 .051 -.556 [-.122, .076] Stress_low .638 .407*** Threat .803*** .178 4.52 [.441, 1.16] SD_low -.057 .054 -1.07 [-.167, .052]
The moderating effect of need for status on stress of higher ties was measured twice. Firstly, pride was used as mediator. Need for status showed a non-significant interaction effect with positive status distance on pride (B = -.148, t = - .786, 95% CI [-.534, .238]). Also the interaction effect between positive status distance and need for status on stress was not significant (B = .149, t = 1.22, 95% CI [-.101, 400]). This means that need for status did not have an influence on the occurrence of stress by having an interaction effect with either pride or status distance. Secondly, perceived opportunity was used as mediator. Both interaction effects with need for status as moderator were not significant: opportunity, B = -.001, t = -.008, 95% CI [-.342, .339]; stress, B = .195, t = 1.51, 95% CI [-.071, .460]. Similar to pride, need for status did not show a relation to the proposed model 1.
For the moderating effect of need for status on negative status distance, the mediator threat was used. Need for status showed a non-significant interaction effect with negative status distance on threat (B = -.005, t = -.-.083, 95% CI [-.123, .114]). Also the interaction effect between status distance and need for status on stress was not significant (B = .052, t = .857, 95% CI [-.072, .175]), meaning that model 2 was not influenced by the the need for status.
Thus, the moderation effect of need for status did not find support in the analyses with all mediators.
Discussion study 2
Generally, the results coming from the Dutch medical center show similar outcomes as the cross-sectional data collected globally (though, there is a trend towards American citizen). There are some minor differences. Firstly, the hypothesis that status distance is associated with higher levels of stress found support in study 1, but not in study 2. However, in study 2, the model with positive status distances found support for predicting higher levels of stress to high-status individuals. Secondly, study 1 reported a significant difference in means of threat, threat
total and stress, while these differences were not significant in study 2. Thirdly, in study 1, shame and threat were both higher in similar ties than in lower ties. In study 2, threat was higher, but shame was lower in similar ties. However, the mean in differences of shame in study 2 was so low, that no value should be attached to this number. Unfortunately, the reliability of competitiveness of the environment was so low in study 2 that it was left out of the analyses.
The overall alignment found in both studies increases the generalizability of the findings. Study 1 shows robustness; whereas study 1 consisted of a highly heterogeneous sample, e.g. having a wide variety in nationalities, industries and organizational cultures, study 2 gave similar results while this sample was very homogeneous, i.e. working in the same city, same industry, same organization, etc. Moreover, the study showed robustness while being performed in different languages, i.e. English in study 1 and mostly Dutch in study 2. The minor differences between study 1 and 2 can be explained by the low sample size. Figure 3 shows the proposed model based on the results of study 1 and 2.
Figure 3. Conclusions drawn from the findings of both studies. Signs represent supported relations.
Model 2. Relating variables in ties to low-status individuals
Discussion
The aim of this research was to investigate the effect of status distance on stress. This research provides support that people perceive more stress when status distance increases. Individuals perceive the least stress to low-status individuals and the most stress in ties to high-status individuals. Even though the mediating variable perceived threat to lose high-status was not significant in the interaction with negative status distance, support was found in the interaction with the levels of stress in such a way that higher levels of threat are related to higher levels of stress. People perceive higher levels of opportunity to gain status in high-status ties, but was neither predicted by positive status distance nor could it predict stress levels. Pride, on the other hand, predicted the extent to which individuals perceived stress: low levels of pride implied high levels of stress. A possible explanation for the lack of predicting value of status distance can be found in the linear approach used in this study, while a circular approach might have been more realistic.
The results did not report a significant predictive value of status distance on the perception of an opportunity to gain or threat to lose status, but different group means were found between different status groups. In this study status distance was regarded as the starting point of the circle: status distance leads to the perception of an opportunity or threat, which leads to higher stress levels. Higher stress levels might increase the awareness of status distance
and the need for status, which completes the circle. According to this circle, the absolute status distance loses predictive value after a while, because once individuals have stress, the slightest differences might be noticed. An experimental setting could provide more insight in these interaction, though the issue that participants start with different sensitivity for all these concepts will stay.
Relative status position
The results gave several unexpected insights, which all can be explained by social comparison. Based on the literature of impression management, people were expected to report higher levels of pride when they worked with high-status people (Belsky, Domitrovich & Crnic, 1997; Tracy & Matsumoto, 2008). However, both studies reported significantly lower levels of pride when individuals worked with high-status individuals. An explanation could be found in the social comparison theory, meaning that people asses themselves in relation to others (Frank, 1985 in Spataro et al., 2014). People are rather eager to enhance their relative status to others than to gain more absolute status. Being the high-status part of a tie provides an individual with an advantage, giving individuals confidence and certainty. Low-status individuals are, for example, more often blamed for group failure (Weisband, Schneider & Connolly, 1995). From this point of view, it is favorable for people to be the higher part of a tie and thus they might feel proud when they are. Consequently, high levels of pride are expected in relation to low-status individuals. This theory could not be tested in this research, because questions regarding status enhancement were only asked to similar and high-status individuals, and questions regarding status threat were only asked to similar and low-status individuals. With this relativity in mind, future research should conduct the research on dyadic or group level, so that special attention could be paid to the composition and ratio of different statuses in a group.
Related to the notion of pride, higher levels of threat are perceived in similar ties than in ties to low-status individuals. This implies that people find it less threatening to work with low-status colleagues than with coworkers of a similar status. If people think they could enhance their status by being the best of their group, it is likely that they perceive a homophilous tie as more threatening, because it is less likely that they will outperform the other person. Moreover, working with a colleague of the same status makes someone more vulnerable to be the scapegoat than when the relation is with someone of a lower status. It is noteworthy though, that this difference was only significant for the questions about the threat perception. The shame scale did not differ significantly.
Another unexpected result is the lower degree of stress in low status individuals than similar status individuals. However, based on the social comparison theory as just explained, this is completely logical: people feel less insecure about their ability to perform well in comparison to low-status individuals, and hence perceive less stress due to this relation. This ‘relaxed’ feeling must then overrule the stress of possibly losing status.
Paradoxically, in both studies participants reported on average 4.5 on their need for status, which is one point higher than the half. Thinking this more through, people might have reported those higher levels with the idea that they want to be the best of their group rather than increase their absolute status.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. Firstly, this research used two separate models for perceptions regarding higher and lower status individuals. Questions regarding the opportunity to gain status were only asked about high-status individuals and questions regarding a perceived threat to lose status were only asked about low-status individuals. Hence, both mediators could not be added in one integrated model. Such a model could give a more refined
