Two of the recent research - one, an article by Graffin & Colleagues (2013) and another by Blader and Chen (2012) - seem to offer contradicting propositions on the relationship between status and fairness perceptions.
In the former, the authors examining the 2009 British Member of Parliament(MP) scandal, hypothesized that high-status is associated with a sense of invulnerability and feelings of entitlement, and thereby with more opportunistic behaviors that further self-interests. Though no evidence was found for the proposed "elite opportunism," the article nevertheless outlines the reasons for absence of such a relationship in their study, and contends that such a self-serving behavior is plausible.
On the other hand, the latter study proposes that high-status individuals are more likely to enact justice due to their "status maintenance" concerns. While the article, through five experimental studies, provides consistent evidence for positive relationship between status and justice towards others, it does find that this relationship does not hold good under when the individual also has high power.
When the two studies are taken in conjunction, there appears to be scope for some "consensus building" and empirical replications. Some thoughts that come to mind:
In sum, are high status individuals actually more fair in their actions or are they perceived to be distributively and procedurally more fair than low-status actors? Hope to read studies that provide a theoretical explanation for the effects of "psychology of status" on justice enactments.
References:
Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y. R. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102(5), 994.
Graffin, S. D., Bundy, J., Porac, J. F., Wade, J. B., & Quinn, D. P. (2013). Falls from Grace and the Hazards of High Status The 2009 British MP Expense Scandal and Its Impact on Parliamentary Elites. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(3), 313-345.
In the former, the authors examining the 2009 British Member of Parliament(MP) scandal, hypothesized that high-status is associated with a sense of invulnerability and feelings of entitlement, and thereby with more opportunistic behaviors that further self-interests. Though no evidence was found for the proposed "elite opportunism," the article nevertheless outlines the reasons for absence of such a relationship in their study, and contends that such a self-serving behavior is plausible.
On the other hand, the latter study proposes that high-status individuals are more likely to enact justice due to their "status maintenance" concerns. While the article, through five experimental studies, provides consistent evidence for positive relationship between status and justice towards others, it does find that this relationship does not hold good under when the individual also has high power.
When the two studies are taken in conjunction, there appears to be scope for some "consensus building" and empirical replications. Some thoughts that come to mind:
- In the Blader & Chen (2012) study, it is not clear what the fairness ratings of high-status actors would have been if the partner in the dyadic negotiation was aware of actor's status. Since status is consensual in nature, I am not sure why the study was designed to keep the partner unaware of actor's status. Also,as Graffin & Colleagues (2013) show in their article, high-status individuals are more scrutinized than others for the same behaviors and are held to higher standards of conduct. Lab settings could perhaps be more useful in disentangling the unique effects of "elite opportunism" and "elite targeting."
- The Graffin & Colleagues (2013) study does not account for possible effects of perceived power of the MPs in the scandal engagement. Were some MPs targeted because they had greater power and/or higher status? Perhaps as shown in the experimental study, actor's power may be more dominant in its effect than status on the partner's perceptions of justice.
- In the MP study, the elite targeting was a result of attention by media. This audience was not in the same "status hierarchy" as the MPs, and hence this third-party's fairness perceptions may be different from those of low-status actors in the same hierarchy (e.g. non-MPs who were unelected or aspiring politicians). It would be interesting to study these two, perhaps distinct, perceptions in a lab setting.
In sum, are high status individuals actually more fair in their actions or are they perceived to be distributively and procedurally more fair than low-status actors? Hope to read studies that provide a theoretical explanation for the effects of "psychology of status" on justice enactments.
References:
Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y. R. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102(5), 994.
Graffin, S. D., Bundy, J., Porac, J. F., Wade, J. B., & Quinn, D. P. (2013). Falls from Grace and the Hazards of High Status The 2009 British MP Expense Scandal and Its Impact on Parliamentary Elites. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(3), 313-345.