Prelims

Half Title Page

Advances in Group Processes

Series Title Page

Advances in Group Processes

Editors: Shane R. Thye

Department of Sociology

University of South Carolina

Edward J. Lawler

School of Industrial and Labor Relations, and

Department of Sociology

Cornell University

Series Coeditors: Edward J. Lawler and Shane R. Thye

Recent Volumes

Editorial Advisory Board

Title Page

Advances in Group Processes, Volume 38

Advances in Group Processes

Edited by

Shane R. Thye

University of South Carolina, USA

And

Edward J. Lawler

Cornell University, USA

United Kingdom – North America – Japan – India – Malaysia – China

Copyright Page

Emerald Publishing Limited

Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK

First edition 2021

Copyright © 2021 by Emerald Publishing Limited

Reprints and permissions service

Contact: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters' suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-80071-678-0 (Print)

ISBN: 978-1-80071-677-3 (Online)

ISBN: 978-1-80071-679-7 (Epub)

ISSN: 0882-6145 (Series)

List of Contributors

Preface

Advances in Group Processes is a peer-reviewed annual volume that publishes theoretical analyses, reviews, and theory-based empirical chapters on group phenomena. The series adopts a broad conception of “group processes.” This includes work on groups ranging from the very small to the very large and on classic and contemporary topics such as status, power, trust, justice, conflict, social influence, heuristics, identity, decision-making, intergroup relations, and social networks. Previous contributors have included scholars from diverse fields including sociology, psychology, political science, economics, business, philosophy, computer science, mathematics, and organizational behavior.

Several years ago, we added an editorial board to the series to broaden the review process and draw upon the collective expertise of some of the top scholars in the discipline. That board consists of Jessica Collett, Joseph Dippong, Ashley Harrell, Karen Hegtvedt, Will Kalkhoff, Jeff Lucas, Jennifer McLeer, and Jane Sell. This group of scholars has made the series better and we are grateful for their service, guidance, and advice.

The volume opens with three papers that add to theory and research on emotions and emotional phenomena. First, Emily Maloney and Lynn Smith-Lovin examine how occupational class impacts both general and specific emotions in “The Emotional Implications of Occupational Deference Structures.” Using affect control theory simulations, they reveal the emotions associated with four occupational classes and compare these predictions to data from the 1996 emotions module from the General Social Survey. They find that the theoretical predictions are partially supported. Overall, this line of work promises to shed light on the mechanisms that underlay health disparities across occupational strata. Next, Kimberly B. Rogers uses affect control theory to examine the micro-level mechanisms that undergird categorical inequalities in “Separate and Unequal: Predicting Intergroup Behavior and Emotions from Social Identity Meanings.” Drawing upon data from 55 undergraduates, she examines whether inequality is reflected in the sentiments associated with social groups, whether these categories differ in terms of social treatment and normative behavior, and if social interactions produce variant emotions across categorical membership. In general, this research adds to our understanding of how inequality is reproduced and sustained. Finally, Ashley V. Reichelmann and Matthew O. Hunt explore the affective underpinnings of racial threat in “The Multi-Dimensionality of Racial Threat: A Consideration of its Affective Dimension.” They offer a conceptualization of threat’s affective dimension and develop new survey items to measure this construct. Using factor analysis and regression techniques they conclusively demonstrate that affect is distinct from perceived racial competition. This finding coheres with Blumer's theory regarding racial prejudice and resentment. All three papers make a significant contribution to our understanding of affect and emotion.

The next three papers address issues of status, influence, and response latency. First, Daniel Burrill asks if high status actors are more likely to ignore new status information that contradicts their position in the status hierarchy in “Sticky Expectations.” A laboratory experiment is used to introduce status information to participants that contradicts a previously established status position. He finds that contradictory information is less likely to impact high status actors in terms of their resistance to influence and response latency. This finding coheres with prior work on status hierarchies and suggests high status actors are resistant to status decline. He concludes by exploring several mechanisms that may account for these effects. Next, Kayla D. R. Pierce investigates the impact of a partner's response latency in “Are They High Status or Just Assertive? Response Latency in Task Groups.” Specifically, she asks how a partner's response latency affects behavioral influence, the participants' own response latency, and perceptions of assertiveness. Importantly, she conducts follow-up interviews to determine how participants interpret their partner's response latency. She finds that response latency has a significant effect on participants' own response latency and their perceptions of the partner's assertiveness. For the last paper in this trio, Jessica Pfaffendorf offers a fresh look on status-based disadvantages in “The Double Disadvantage: Using Status and Stigma Processes to Understand Race, Criminal Record, and Moral Expectations in Employment.” She applies and integrates theories of stigma and status seeking to better understand how race and criminal record combine for individuals seeking employment in the labor market. Importantly, her analysis focuses on two underlying mechanisms that could, jointly or independently, produce disadvantage – those being moral expectations and performance expectations. The results of a laboratory experiment where subjects evaluate mock job applicants indicate that race and criminal record heavily disadvantage black applicants and that the key mechanism producing this disadvantage is lowered moral expectations. Together, these papers represent important contributions to theory and research on the formation of status hierarchies in groups.

Next, Patricia Chen, Stephen M. Garcia, Valentino E. Chai, and Richard Gonzalez develop a dual process model that links comparison process to competitive motivation in “Comparing and Being Compared: A Dual Process Framework of Competition.” They assert that comparing another and being compared are mutually related and that each can propel the other. An important contribution of this work is to integrate and synthesize literatures that have previously been distinct. Finally, Zbigniew Karpiński, John Skvoretz, Adam Kęska, and Dariusz Przybysz examine macro models of intergroup association in “The Big Tent: Integrating Macro Models for Intergroup Association with Experimental Data on Exchange Relations in a Minimal Group Setting.” This paper uses biased net theory to model homophily in complete networks. Along the way they link models of repulsion and attraction to a standard model of logistic regression. These models are used to examine exchange data collected in a small group laboratory setting. This paper will surely interest scholars of networks, homophily, and the underpinnings of social exchange relations.

Shane R. Thye and Edward J. Lawler

Series and Volume Co-Editors