Reflecting glory or deflecting stigma? The interplay between status and social proximity in peer evaluations.


Journal

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2020
Historique:
received: 07 04 2020
accepted: 20 08 2020
entrez: 25 9 2020
pubmed: 26 9 2020
medline: 28 10 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

How do candidates' status and social proximity to members of the evaluating audience interact to shape recognition in peer-based evaluative settings? In this study, we shed light on this question by adopting a mixed-method approach. We first examined field data on the conferral of awards in a peer-based evaluative contest-"The Silver Tag"-which is one of the most prestigious digital advertising awards contests in Norway. The field study revealed the existence of a negative interaction between status and social proximity on the allocation of awards. We then conducted two experiments to probe the mechanisms responsible for this finding. In the first experiment, we replicated the main pattern observed in the field study. In the second experiment, we showed that the interaction effect is contingent on the nature of the evaluative setting. When audience members' decisions were in the public domain (i.e., the other audience members knew them), social proximity tempered the effect of status on candidates' recognition, but it did not when decisions were private (i.e., the other audience members did not know them). We conclude by discussing several implications of our study for research on the socio-psychological processes underlying evaluative outcomes in tournament rituals.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32976504
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238651
pii: PONE-D-20-09850
pmc: PMC7518619
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e0238651

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript do not have competing interests.

Références

Science. 1968 Jan 5;159(3810):56-63
pubmed: 5634379
Soc Sci Res. 2017 May;64:96-118
pubmed: 28364857
J Appl Psychol. 2014 Sep;99(5):831-46
pubmed: 24684668
J Exp Soc Psychol. 2016 Sep;66:145-147
pubmed: 30555180
Behav Res Methods. 2012 Mar;44(1):1-23
pubmed: 21717266
Am Sociol Rev. 1967 Jun;32(3):391-403
pubmed: 6046812
Nature. 1997 May 22;387(6631):341-3
pubmed: 9163412

Auteurs

Erik Aadland (E)

Department of Strategy and Entrepreneurship, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway.

Gino Cattani (G)

Department of Management & Organizations, Stern School of Business-NYU, New York, New York, United States of America.

Denise Falchetti (D)

Department of Strategy & Innovation, Questrom School of Business-Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.

Simone Ferriani (S)

Department of 'Scienze Aziendali', University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH