Introduction
John worked at a marketing firm for several years, but his specialized skills in database management were not initially considered crucial to the company's main business activities. This left him in a middle-status position within the company. However, when the company's focus shifted, John's expertise suddenly became highly valuable. He devoted himself to work and experienced a positive status change, which comes along with respect, esteem, and prestige from others (Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, Reference Anderson, John, Keltner and Kring2001).
Prior literature on status has primarily focused on the concept of status (e.g., Anicich, Fast, Halevy, & Galinsky, Reference Anicich, Fast, Halevy and Galinsky2016; Hays & Blader, Reference Hays and Blader2017). These studies mainly take a cognitive perspective and examine the effect of status on justice toward others (Blader & Chen, Reference Blader and Chen2012), efforts in social exchange (Castellucci & Ertug, Reference Castellucci and Ertug2010), and sense of insecurity (Prato, Kypraios, Ertug, & Lee, Reference Prato, Kypraios, Ertug and Lee2019), ignoring gaining status, namely positive status change (Doyle & Lount, Reference Doyle and Lount2023), and its underlying emotional-based process. That said, we contend that, to paint a more complete picture, it is imperative to also take into account the construct of positive status and its underlying emotional mechanism (beyond the traditional construct of status and its cognitive perspectives; e.g., justice perspective or social exchange perspective). Toward this end, we take a novel lens – the perspective of pride (Tracy, Shariff, & Cheng, Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010) – to better understand how positive status change affects new status holders' discrete emotions and in turn their behaviors.
Following from the above, we draw specifically on the two-facet model of pride (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010), a theory that outlines when and how a positive event (i.e., an achievement) can induce different types of pride, which are functional in people's distinct behaviors, to develop and test a model proposing the impact of positive status change on new status holders. Drawing on the two-facet model of pride (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010), key contextual factors may shape new status holders' interpretation, which influences their types of pride and subsequent behaviors. We focus on how status is distributed given its relevance to the Chinese management context. In practice, there may exist an uneven distribution of status in Chinese organizations because China is characterized by high-power distance, that is, an uneven distribution of power (Brockner et al., Reference Brockner, Ackerman, Greenberg, Gelfand, Francesco, Chen, Leung, Bierbrauer, Gomez, Kirkman and Shapiro2001; Farh, Hackett, & Liang, Reference Farh, Hackett and Liang2007). Moreover, status and power are both sources of influence over others (Hays et al., Reference Hays, Li, Yang, Oh, Yu, Chen, Hollenbeck and Jamieson2022; Magee & Galinsky, Reference Magee and Galinsky2008). Therefore, we propose status differentiation as the key contextual factor that determines whether new status holders experience authentic pride or hubristic pride, which in turn affects their behaviors. Specifically, when status differentiation is low, a positive new status change can be regarded as a result of new status holders' unstable efforts or specific strength and thus evokes their authentic pride, which in turn encourages new status holders to continue to do good things and devote their efforts and thus increases their prosocial behavior (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010). When status differentiation is high, new status holders may interpret their stable and global ability as contributing to their positive status change and thus experience hubristic pride, which leads to self-interested behavior (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010) (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Conceptual framework
In sum, we draw on the two-facet model of pride (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010) to suggest that when status differentiation is low, positive status change is more likely to induce new status holders' authentic pride, which motivates their prosocial behavior. However, when status differentiation is high, a positive status change may lead to hubristic pride among new status holders, which in turn leads to their self-interested behavior. To robustly test our model, we adopted a ‘full cycle research approach’ (Chatman & Flynn, Reference Chatman and Flynn2005: 774) to examine our research questions using field and experimental settings to enhance both the internal and external validity of the findings. Specifically, we conducted three studies that (a) employ different methodologies (i.e., a laboratory experiment, a scenario experiment, and a multilevel and multiwave field study) and (b) recruit participants from different research settings (i.e., laboratory and field). Overall, these studies provide a thorough examination of our model across research methods and contexts.
This research makes significant contributions to the research of status in organizational literature and the two-facet model of pride in three meaningful ways. First, we contribute to the status literature by adopting a person-in-context interactionist perspective to demonstrate that status differentiation is a crucial context that shapes new status holders' distinct types of pride and behavior. Second, we meaningfully anchor on an emotional (pride)-based perspective (via the two-facet model of pride; Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010) to provide a deeper understanding of the complex effects of positive status change on individuals' behavior. In doing so, we offer a more nuanced understanding of how positive status change can elicit two contrasting behaviors through the experience of two types of pride. Third, while previous literature on the two-facet model of pride (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010) has primarily focused on the outcomes of pride, we meaningfully extend the two-facet model of pride (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010) by highlighting the antecedent of different types of pride and the important contextual factor.
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Theoretical Background: Two-Facet Model of Pride
According to the two-facet model of pride (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010), emotions are usually generated by events. However, discrete emotions are uniquely elicited and distinguished from each other – not based on distinct events, but rather by how those events are interpreted or appraised. That is, the same event can elicit distinct emotions, depending on how it is appraised. To this end, the two-facet model of pride has uncovered two types of pride, namely, authentic and hubristic pride, which are theorized to be elicited by two different interpretations of a positive event and motivate distinct behavioral reactions (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010). Specifically, pride (including two types) is generated by a positive event, such as a positive outcome. However, individuals may interpret or appraise positive events differently. Specifically, when individuals appraise that their good outcomes result from unstable, specific, and controllable factors, they experience authentic pride. Conversely, when they believe that success is due to stable, global, and uncontrollable factors, they experience hubristic pride (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010). Furthermore, the two-facet model of pride (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010) and related research suggest that social context plays a vital role in shaping the interpretation and appraisal of emotion-eliciting events. The way individuals view and construe such events is highly influenced by contextual factors (Bolló, Bőthe, Tóth-Király, & Orosz, Reference Bolló, Bőthe, Tóth-Király and Orosz2018; Figure 2).
Figure 2. Two-facet model of pride
In terms of positive status change, it is often desirable because people seek to receive respect and deference from others (Bai, Ho, & Liu, Reference Bai, Ho and Liu2020; Kim & Pettit, Reference Kim and Pettit2015; Pettit, Doyle, Lount Jr., & To, Reference Pettit, Doyle, Lount and To2016). In essence, achieving status is a fundamental human goal (Bai et al., Reference Bai, Ho and Liu2020). In line with this, scholars have argued that ‘high status is so desirable, individuals do “many things” (Barkow et al., Reference Barkow, Akiwowo, Barua, Chance, Chapple, Chattopadhyay, Freedman, Geddes, Goswami and Isichei1975) to fulfill their fundamental motive to attain status’ (Bai et al., Reference Bai, Ho and Liu2020: 127). Moreover, individuals stand to gain several advantages from the status they acquire. For example, positive status change often brings individuals self-esteem, opportunities, promising careers, and even good health (Hardy & Van Vugt, Reference Hardy and Van Vugt2006; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, Reference Keltner, Gruenfeld and Anderson2003; Magee & Galinsky, Reference Magee and Galinsky2008; Ouyang, Xu, Huang, Liu, & Tang, Reference Ouyang, Xu, Huang, Liu and Tang2018).
Drawing on the two-facet model of pride, positive status change can be seen as a positive event or outcome that triggers new status holders' pride. However, new status holders may interpret or appraise this event differently and experience distinct types of pride (i.e., authentic pride and hubristic pride) and this interpretation or appraisal is determined by contextual factors. That is, given that status is socially determined and conferred by others in a team (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch Jr, Reference Berger, Cohen and Zelditch1972; Correll & Ridgeway, Reference Correll and Ridgeway2006; Hays et al., Reference Hays, Li, Yang, Oh, Yu, Chen, Hollenbeck and Jamieson2022), how positive status change is interpreted is likely to be affected by the context of the team (Bunderson, Reference Bunderson2003; Campbell, Liao, Chuang, Zhou, & Dong, Reference Campbell, Liao, Chuang, Zhou and Dong2017; Kim & Wiesenfeld, Reference Kim and Wiesenfeld2017; Kim, McClean, Doyle, Podsakoff, Lin, & Woodruff, Reference Kim, McClean, Doyle, Podsakoff, Lin and Woodruff2021; Swaab, Schaerer, Anicich, Ronay, & Galinsky, Reference Swaab, Schaerer, Anicich, Ronay and Galinsky2014). Building on the above, we use the two-facet model of pride (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010) to recognize status differentiation as a crucial contextual factor that significantly affects how new status holders interpret their status changes. Status differentiation was defined as the relative concentration of status among members of a team (Hays et al., Reference Hays, Li, Yang, Oh, Yu, Chen, Hollenbeck and Jamieson2022). Higher status differentiation is observed in teams where status is concentrated in one or two members, whereas lower status differentiation is observed in teams where status is relatively evenly distributed among all members (Hays et al., Reference Hays, Li, Yang, Oh, Yu, Chen, Hollenbeck and Jamieson2022). Furthermore, since status shares similar characteristics with power as a form of influence (Hays et al., Reference Hays, Li, Yang, Oh, Yu, Chen, Hollenbeck and Jamieson2022; Magee & Galinsky, Reference Magee and Galinsky2008), the distribution of status could raise significant concerns for organizations operating in China.
Our research employs the two-facet model of pride to propose that status differentiation can play a crucial role in shaping teams' climate and goals, shifting them from the self-oriented to the other-oriented (Hays & Bendersky, Reference Hays and Bendersky2015). In turn, this factor can determine whether new status holders experience authentic (hubristic) pride and engage in prosocial (self-interested) behavior after a positive status change.
Authentically Proud Reaction: Positive Status Change in Teams with Low Status Differentiation
As outlined above, the core argument of the two-facet model of pride is that authentic pride is experienced because the interpretation of a positive event is based on unstable, specific, and controllable factors (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010). Accordingly, we explain why positive status change evokes authentic pride in teams with a low level of status differentiation.
When teams have a low level of status differentiation, a positive status change can motivate employees to interpret their status gain more objectively and authentically, resulting in a greater experience of authentic pride. In these teams, where all team members are held in relatively equal regard, minimizing status differentiation can reduce the salience of status gain (Hays et al., Reference Hays, Li, Yang, Oh, Yu, Chen, Hollenbeck and Jamieson2022). This can prompt new status holders to view their positive status change more authentically and interpret it as the outcome of their unstable yet controllable factors such as their efforts (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010). Specifically, prior studies have suggested that employees are likely to believe that they devote more time to help their team achieve a goal and thus attain a positive status change (Flynn, Reference Flynn2003; Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah, & Ames, Reference Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah and Ames2006; Willer, Reference Willer2009). Such unstable yet controllable factors generate feelings of achievement and fulfillment, which can lead to the experience of authentic pride (Verbeke, Belschak, & Bagozzi, Reference Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi2004).
Furthermore, when status differentiation is low, new status holders are more likely to evaluate the specific skills or advantages that contribute to their positive status change and enhance their authentic pride. Supporting this, the two-facet model of pride also highlights that authentic pride is experienced when the interpretation of a positive event is a specific strength (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010). Accordingly, employees who are on teams with low differentiation are more likely to cautiously see their positive status change and attribute such achievement to a specific skill (Bunderson, Reference Bunderson2003), fostering a sense of accomplishment and authentic pride. In sum, we draw on the two-facet model of pride (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010) to submit that a team with low levels of status differentiation, where status is distributed more evenly among team members (Hays et al., Reference Hays, Li, Yang, Oh, Yu, Chen, Hollenbeck and Jamieson2022), new status holders can authentically interpret this positive event and consequently experience heightened authentic pride. Based on these arguments, we predict that:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): The effect of positive status change on authentic pride is more (vs. less) positive in teams with lower (vs. higher) status differentiation.
Hubristically Proud Reaction: Positive Status Change in Teams with High Status Differentiation
We further draw on the two-facet model of pride (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010) to submit that positive status change can also elicit hubristic pride in teams with a high level of status differentiation. In teams with high levels of status differentiation, a positive status change motivates employees to interpret their status gain more hubristically, which induces new status holders' hubristic pride. In such teams, where only a select few team members are given respect, the high status differentiation makes a positive status change much more salient (Hays et al., Reference Hays, Li, Yang, Oh, Yu, Chen, Hollenbeck and Jamieson2022). This can lead new status holders to hubristically overestimate their contribution to the positive status change, attributing it to their stable and uncontrollable factors, such as innate ability or talent (Nijs, Dries, Van Vlasselaer, & Sels, Reference Nijs, Dries, Van Vlasselaer and Sels2022). That is, when gaining status, employees in such teams may view themselves as superior and believe they possess higher intelligence and are more competent than other members of the organization (Anderson & Kilduff, Reference Anderson and Kilduff2009). As a result, these new status holders in a team with high levels of status differentiation are likely to experience hubristic pride.
Moreover, when status differentiation is high, new status holders are more likely to interpret that their global strengths contributed to their success, that is, positive status change (Judge & Bono, Reference Judge and Bono2001). This interpretation involving an individual's global strengths elicits feelings of pride, which include arrogance and conceitedness, leading to the hubristic pride of new status holders in teams with high levels of status differentiation (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010). Supporting this idea, the two-facet model of pride points out that hubristic pride is experienced when the interpretation of a positive event is the global strength (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010). In sum, when new status holders are in a team with a highly imbalanced status distribution where only a few are able to be respected by others, positive status change becomes an exceedingly rare and difficult achievement (Hays et al., Reference Hays, Li, Yang, Oh, Yu, Chen, Hollenbeck and Jamieson2022). This leads to an overestimation of the significance of the positive status change, causing new status holders to develop a hubristic view of themselves, ultimately resulting in hubristic pride. Based on these arguments, we suggest that:
Hypothesis 2 (H2): The effect of positive status change on hubristic pride is more (vs. less) positive in teams with higher (vs. lower) status differentiation.
Downstream Outcome of Authentic Pride
We also draw on the two-facet model of pride and its relevant research to shed light on how authentic pride can lead to new status holders' prosocial behavior (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010; Tracy & Robins, Reference Tracy and Robins2007a, Reference Tracy and Robins2007b). The two-facet model of pride posits that two types of pride, namely, authentic and hubristic, can motivate distinct behaviors (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010). The two-facet model of pride and its relevant research has shown that pride, regardless of type, facilitates navigation in the social hierarchy (Bolló et al., Reference Bolló, Bőthe, Tóth-Király and Orosz2018). In terms of positive status change, pride encourages new status holders to maintain or enhance their status (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010). However, the two-facet model of pride highlights that different types of pride motivate new status holders to do it in different manners (Bolló et al., Reference Bolló, Bőthe, Tóth-Király and Orosz2018; Tracy & Robins, Reference Tracy and Robins2007a, Reference Tracy and Robins2007b). Specifically, authentic pride (e.g., feeling ‘accomplished’ and ‘successful’) triggers a prosocial reaction, which helps new status holders maintain and enhance their status through a prestige-based strategy such as displaying desirable traits and abilities that benefit the organization (Maner & Mead, Reference Maner and Mead2010; Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010). By contrast, hubristic pride (e.g., feeling ‘arrogant’ and ‘conceited’) triggers a self-interested reaction that motivates new status holders to maintain their status through a dominance-based strategy, that is, prioritizing personal capacities for dominance over the needs of the organization (Cheng, Tracy, & Henrich, Reference Cheng, Tracy and Henrich2010; Maner & Mead, Reference Maner and Mead2010; Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010; Yeung & Shen, Reference Yeung and Shen2019).
We accordingly suggest that authentic pride guides new status holders to maintain and enhance their status in a prosocial way, such as through prestige-based status maintenance (Tracy & Robins, Reference Tracy and Robins2007a, Reference Tracy and Robins2007b). Specifically, new status holders who experience authentic pride tend to engage in prosocial behaviors, such as sharing their expertise and helping others, thus maintaining respect and recognition from others (Yeung & Shen, Reference Yeung and Shen2019). As an old Chinese saying goes, the water that bears the boat is the same water that swallows it up (Hutton, Reference Hutton2014). In this saying, new status holders who experience authentic pride regard themselves as the boat (i.e., receiving admiration and respect from others), whereas the other members consider themselves as the water that determines whether or not to continue conferring status. In line with this, prior research shows that authentic pride is related to many prosocial traits or behaviors. For example, Wubben, De Cremer, and Van Dijk's (Reference Wubben, De Cremer and Van Dijk2012) experimental research found that authentic pride is related to prosocial behavior (Wubben et al., Reference Wubben, De Cremer and Van Dijk2012). Yeung and Shen (Reference Yeung and Shen2019) further linked authentic pride to prosocial traits, such as consideration. Therefore, we draw upon the two-facet model of pride to suggest that positive status change is positively related to prosocial behavior through authentic pride.
In addition, new status holders who feel authentically proud tend to have an accurate self-view (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010), which informs them that they are not superior to the other members of their organization and that they need to continue their efforts. Consequently, authentic pride encourages new status holders to keep contributing to their organization and engage in some prosocial behaviors (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010). Thus, we suggest:
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Authentic pride is positively related to new status holders’ prosocial behavior.
Downstream Outcome of Hubristic Pride
We also draw on the two-facet model of pride to submit that new status holders who experience hubristic pride believe that they have the global capability to control their future outcomes (Tracy & Robins, Reference Tracy and Robins2007a), such as status maintenance, hence motivating them to maintain and enhance their status through a dominance-based strategy, specifically via intimidation, aggression, and coercion, to create fear in others (Cheng et al., Reference Cheng, Tracy and Henrich2010; Yeung & Shen, Reference Yeung and Shen2019). By doing so, status-gainers who experience hubristic pride tend to extract and overexploit the advantages of their status and maintain their status via dominance. For this purpose, they tend to enhance their self-interested behavior to greedily control more resources for themselves (Graffin et al., Reference Graffin, Bundy, Porac, Wade and Quinn2013). Therefore, we draw upon the two-facet model of pride (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010) to predict that positive status change is positively associated with new status holders' self-interested behavior through hubristic pride.
In addition, hubristic pride also breeds an inflated self-view among new status holders (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010). That is, hubristic feelings encourage new status holders to believe they are superior to others, which leads them to overlook others, become self-centered (Bowles, Thomason, & Al Dabbagh, Reference Bowles, Thomason and Al Dabbagh2017; Graffin, Bundy, Porac, Wade, & Quinn, Reference Graffin, Bundy, Porac, Wade and Quinn2013), and act in a self-interested manner because they do not care about others. In line with this view, prior status studies have shown that high-status people tend to ignore those coming from the low status group (e.g., increased feelings of isolation from low status employees; Galperin, Bennett, & Aquino, Reference Galperin, Bennett and Aquino2011) and engage in unethical behavior and law-breaking for their own interests (Galperin et al., Reference Galperin, Bennett and Aquino2011; Piff, Stancato, Côté, Mendoza-Denton, & Keltner, Reference Piff, Stancato, Côté, Mendoza-Denton and Keltner2012). Thus, we suggest:
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Hubristic pride is positively related to new status holders' self-interested behavior.
Taken together, we suggest that status differentiation determines how positive status change affects new status holders. When status differentiation is low, new status holders are more likely to experience authentic pride, which leads to an increase in prosocial behavior. On the other hand, when status differentiation is high, new status holders are more likely to experience hubristic pride, which leads to an increase in self-interested behavior. Our model clarifies contextual characteristics (i.e., high or low status differentiation) and emotional pathways (i.e., authentic pride and hubristic pride) that affect new status holders' behaviors. Thus, we suggest the following:
Hypothesis 5 (H5): The indirect effect of positive status change on prosocial behavior is more (vs. less) positive in teams with low (vs. high) status differentiation due to increased (vs. decreased) authentic pride.
Hypothesis 6 (H6): The indirect effect of positive status change on self-interested behavior is more (vs. less) positive in teams with high (vs. low) status differentiation due to increased (vs. decreased) hubristic pride.
Overview of Studies
To examine our hypothesized model, we conducted three studies that employ different research methodologies (i.e., laboratory experimental, scenario experimental, and field design) and recruited participants from various research settings (i.e., participants in universities and full-time employees). Our research employs both experimental and field settings to examine the phenomenon in what Chatman and Flynn (Reference Chatman and Flynn2005: 774) called ‘full cycle’ research. This approach enhances the internal and external validity of the findings.
In Study 1, a laboratory experiment, we manipulated positive status change and status differentiation to examine the effects on new status holders' emotions and behaviors. In Study 2, the scenario experiment, we replicated the findings of Study 1 and further demonstrated the moderating effect of status differentiation on the relationship between positive status change and authentic pride. In Study 3, the time-lagged multilevel and multisource field study, we tested our full model in a field setting. This mixed-method design (i.e., experimental and field studies) helped establish both the internal and external validity of our theoretical model. The mixed-method approach we have adopted provides strong evidence for our hypothesized relationships. The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is available in the Open Science Framework repository, accessible via DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/JTX8W. We next discuss the methods and results of the three studies.
Methods
Study 1
Participants and procedure
We recruited 219 students from a large university in China. Before collecting data, a power analysis was conducted with G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, Reference Faul, Erdfelder, Lang and Buchner2007). The analysis indicated that for tests using an F statistic across six conditions, a sample size exceeding 211 is required to achieve adequate statistical power, set at 0.80, with an alpha of 0.05, for detecting a medium effect size of 0.25 (Cohen, Reference Cohen1988). A total of 220 students registered for our experiment, but 219 students completed it. Each participant was offered 20 RMB as a reward for his/her participation. The participants had a mean age of 23.08 years (SD = 1.78) and 39.73% were men. Among them, 57.08% were undergraduate students and 42.92% were graduate students.
They were randomly assigned to a 3 (positive status change versus high status with no change versus low status with no change) × 2 (high status differentiation versus low status differentiation) design. Thirty-seven participants were in the high status differentiation group, moving from low to high status (i.e., positive status change); 37 participants were in the high status differentiation group, remaining at low status; 36 participants were in the high status differentiation group, remaining at high status; 36 participants were in the low status differentiation group, moving from low to high status; 37 participants were in the low status differentiation group, remaining at low status; 36 participants were in the low status differentiation group, remaining at high status.
Upon their arrival at the laboratory, the participants were led to believe that they would be divided into groups of six to complete some tasks. However, in reality, their group members were all virtual. Consistent with the practices of Marr and Thau (Reference Marr and Thau2014) and Pettit et al. (Reference Pettit, Doyle, Lount and To2016) participants were asked to write a brief self-introduction to their group members, after which they also received ostensible introductions from their group members. Following the computer-based introductions, participants were informed that they would be working together in a nearby breakout room later in the study. However, prior to the group's main task, they would each complete a series of tasks that would assess each group member's status.
Manipulation
Positive status change
To manipulate status change, we followed Marr and Thau (Reference Marr and Thau2014), asking the participants to complete two ‘idea persuasion tasks’. Participants were told they would initially be networked with other participants and would have interactions with their group members after tasks. In reality, participants were not networked together, and no group interaction was ever to take place. In the experiment, participants were asked to write a persuasive argument about their stance on the topic (e.g., ‘Should euthanasia be legal?’) and a few minutes later, they would be shown arguments written by their group members (actually, all group members' arguments were pre-programmed) and were allowed to award their group members ‘respect points’. Participants were instructed in advance that the respect points meant their respect and admiration toward other group members (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, John, Keltner and Kring2001). That is, participants were told that the respect points represented their status in the group.
After the first task, the participants evaluated one another as they had done in the first task, which served to establish an initial status for each participant. Subsequently, they engaged in a second task, during which they experienced a positive change or remained at their initial status level.
In the positive-status-change group, the participants were shown the message, ‘Congratulations! You gain more respect points and you are respected and admired by your group members’, and were offered a large blue name tag that presented their names in a more prominent font and accentuated by gold stars (Hays et al., Reference Hays, Li, Yang, Oh, Yu, Chen, Hollenbeck and Jamieson2022).
In the from-high-status-to-high-status group, the participants were shown the message, ‘You maintain the same level of respect and admiration from your group members towards you’, and were offered a large blue name tag that presented their names in a more prominent font and accentuated by gold stars across two tasks (Hays et al., Reference Hays, Li, Yang, Oh, Yu, Chen, Hollenbeck and Jamieson2022).
In the from-low-status-to-low-status group, the participants were shown the message, ‘You maintain the same level of respect and admiration from your group members towards you’ and were offered a red name tag without any prominent font or accentuating stars. Thus, the two latter groups experienced no status change (Hays et al., Reference Hays, Li, Yang, Oh, Yu, Chen, Hollenbeck and Jamieson2022).
Status differentiation
Following Ronay, Greenaway, Anicich, and Galinsky's (Reference Ronay, Greenaway, Anicich and Galinsky2012) manipulation of hierarchical differentiation, we manipulated status differentiation by varying the proportion of high status individuals, which is consistent with the concept of status differentiation (i.e., a team's distribution of status; Hays et al., Reference Hays, Li, Yang, Oh, Yu, Chen, Hollenbeck and Jamieson2022). The participants were randomly assigned into high versus low status differentiation groups before performing their tasks. In the high status differentiation condition, only one out of six members had high status, representing less than 20% of the group. However, in the low status differentiation condition, five out of six members had high status, representing more than 80% of the group.
After the positive status change and status differentiation manipulation and measurements of behaviors, the participants completed the manipulation checks, reported their two types of pride, prosocial behavior, and self-interested behavior, and finished some demographic questions.
Manipulation checks
Positive status change
Positive status change was measured using an adapted version of Marr and Thau's (2014) two-item scale, which was originally designed to check status loss manipulation. We adapted this scale by changing the word ‘decrease’ to ‘increase’ in the items to check the degree of gaining status, that is, positive status change. A sample item is ‘To what extent do you feel like your status in the group increased after the second task’ (1 = ‘not at all’ and 5 = ‘very much’, α = 0.90) (Marr & Thau, 2014). The results of one-way ANOVA on the positive status change manipulation check revealed that the participants in the positive status change condition reported that they experienced a greater extent of positive status change (M = 3.84, SD = 0.90) than the participants in the from-high-status-to-high-status condition (M = 2.98, SD = 1.15), and the participants in the from-low-status-to-low-status condition (M = 3.16, SD = 1.08), F(2, 216) = 13.35, p = 0.00, η 2 = 0.11. Moreover, we also compared the positive status change for the two control groups (i.e., the from-high-status-to-high-status condition and the from-low-status-to-low-status condition, M = 3.16 versus M = 2.98, SD = 1.08 versus 1.15, F(1, 144) = 0.88, p = 0.35, η 2 = 0.01). These results showed that participants in these two control groups did not vary in perceptions of their status changes.
Status differentiation
The participants were asked, ‘To what extent do you agree that status in our group is concentrated in one group member’ (1 = ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 = ‘strongly agree’, α = 0.82) (Hays et al., Reference Hays, Li, Yang, Oh, Yu, Chen, Hollenbeck and Jamieson2022). A t-test on the status differentiation manipulation check revealed a significant effect, t(217) = 18.03, p = 0.00. The participants in the high status differentiation condition reported that their group had a higher status differentiation (M = 3.52, SD = 0.54) than those under the control condition (M = 2.18, SD = 0.56).
Measures
Hubristic pride
Hubristic pride was assessed using Tracy and Robins's (Reference Tracy and Robins2007b) 7-item scale. A sample item is ‘smug’ (1 = ‘not at all’, and 5 = ‘very much’; α = 0.88).
Authentic pride
Authentic pride was assessed using Tracy and Robins's (Reference Tracy and Robins2007b) 7-item scale. A sample item is ‘accomplished’ (1 = ‘not at all’, and 5 = ‘very much’; α = 0.88).
Prosocial behavior
Prosocial behavior was measured using Rodell's (Reference Rodell2013) 5-item scale. A sample item is ‘Give your time to help the group’ (1 = ‘not agree at all’, and 5 = ‘very agree’; α = 0.93).
Self-interested behavior
Self-interested behavior was measured using Rus, Van Knippenberg, and Wisse (Reference Rus, Van Knippenberg and Wisse2010) 8-item scale. A sample item is ‘Negotiate a bonus for yourself that is substantially higher than the bonus received by other group members’ (1 = ‘not agree at all’, and 5 = ‘very agree’; α = 0.99). Given that the original scale focuses more on leaders' self-interested behavior, we adapted the items to the context of employees' or individuals' self-interested behavior. To examine that this measure mapped onto the definition of employees' self-interested behavior (i.e., employees' actions that benefit the self and come at a cost to the common good, DeCelles, DeRue, Margolis, & Ceranic, Reference DeCelles, DeRue, Margolis and Ceranic2012) and to ensure that it did not inadvertently conflate employee self-interested behavior with other relevant (i.e., leader self-interested behavior), we have conducted a content validation study following the procedures developed by Colquitt, Sabey, Rodell, and Hill, (Reference Colquitt, Sabey, Rodell and Hill2019). Specifically, we recruited 220 working adults in China. Participants were presented with the definitions of employees' self-interested behavior and asked to rate how good of a job each item did in matching the construct's definition (1 = ‘extremely bad’ and 5 = ‘extremely good’). Mean definitional correspondence for our items was 4.36, which was greater than the alternatives (2.91 for leader self-interested behavior). Results further revealed that our 8-item scale of employees' self-interested behavior showed good correspondence with its definition (Hinkin Tracey correspondence index (htc) = 0.87) and strong distinctiveness from the alternative measurements (Hinkin Tracey distinctiveness index (htd) = 0.36). Together, this evidence suggests that our eight-item employees' self-interested scale has strong content validity (Colquitt et al., Reference Colquitt, Sabey, Rodell and Hill2019).
Results
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables for Study 1
Notes: n = 219.
* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01. Two-tailed tests.
Given the three-condition independent variable (i.e., positive status change condition, from-high-status-to-high-status condition, and from-low-status-to-low-status condition) in the experiment, we created two dummy-coded variables: The first (independent variable) had status change (i.e., from-low-status-to-high-status) coded as 1, and the no-change conditions coded as 0. In the second variable (the control), the high initial status was coded as 1, while the low initial status was coded as 0. We controlled for the initial status.
We began by conducting two-way ANOVAs to test H1 and H2. H1 predicted that status differentiation would moderate the relationships between positive status change and authentic pride. The results show that when status differentiation is low, the participants in the positive status change condition reported that they experienced a greater extent of authentic pride (M = 4.13, SD = 0.45) than the participants in the from-high-status-to-high-status condition (M = 4.00, SD = 0.37), and the participants in the from-low-status-to-low-status condition (M = 3.55, SD = 0.90). When status differentiation is high, the participants in the positive status change condition reported that they experienced a similar extent of authentic pride (M = 3.96, SD = 0.72) with the participants in the from-high-status-to-high-status condition (M = 3.55, SD = 0.90) and the participants in the from-low-status-to-low-status condition (M = 3.69, SD = 0.73). However, the ANOVA results did not indicate a significant interaction effect, with F(2, 213) = 0.01, p = 0.92, and η² = 0.00. Thus, H1 was not supported.
H2 predicted that status differentiation would moderate the relationships between positive status change and hubristic pride. The ANOVA results indicated that with a significant positive status change × status differentiation, F(2, 213) = 29.87, p = 0.00, η 2 = 0.12. Specifically, when status differentiation is high, the participants in the positive status change condition reported that they experienced a greater extent of hubristic pride (M = 4.50, SD = 0.49) than the participants in the from-high-status-to-high-status condition (M = 3.71, SD = 0.85), and the participants in the from-low-status-to-low-status condition (M = 3.81, SD = 0.73). When status differentiation is low, the participants in the positive status change condition reported that they experienced a similar extent of hubristic pride (M = 3.11, SD = 1.00) with the participants in the from-high-status-to-high-status condition (M = 3.56, SD = 0.71) and the participants in the from-low-status-to-low-status condition (M = 3.62, SD = 0.81). These results supported H2 (Figures 3 and 4).
Figure 3. The moderating effect of status differentiation on the relationship between positive status change and authentic pride for Study 1
Figure 4. The moderating effect of status differentiation on the relationship between positive status change and hubristic pride for Study 1
To test H3 and H4, we conducted regressions. H3 predicted that authentic pride would increase new status holders' prosocial behavior. In support of this hypothesis, the effect of authentic pride (B = 0.73, SE = 0.05, p = 0.00) on prosocial behavior was positive. H4 predicted that hubristic pride would enhance new status holders' self-interested behavior. In support of this hypothesis, the effect of hubristic pride (B = 0.80, SE = 0.05, p = 0.00) on self-interested behavior was positive.
We further used the PROCESS macro (Model 7) to conduct moderated mediation analyses. The number of bootstrap samples extracted was 5,000. H5 predicts that the indirect relationship between positive status change and prosocial behavior through authentic pride is moderated by status differentiation, such that the relationship is stronger when status differentiation is low. The conditional indirect effect of positive status change and prosocial behavior through authentic pride was significant when status differentiation was low (estimate = 0.31, 95% CI [0.128, 0.524]) and high (estimate = 0.30, 95% CI [0.077, 0.536]). Moreover, the difference between conditional indirect effects was not significant (estimate = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.300, 0.235]). Thus, H5 was unsupported.
H6 predicts that status differentiation moderates the indirect relationship between positive status change and self-interested behavior through hubristic pride, such that the indirect relationship is stronger when status differentiation is high. Specifically, the conditional indirect effect of positive status change and self-interested behavior through hubristic pride was significantly positive when status differentiation was high (estimate = 0.56, 95% CI [0.354, 0.765]) rather than low (estimate = −0.41, 95% CI [−0.762, −0.090]). Moreover, the difference between conditional indirect effects was significant (estimate = 0.97, 95% CI [0.600, 1.378]).
In sum, the results from Study 1 supported H2, H3, H4, and H6. One limitation of this study is that positive status change and status differentiation were manipulated in a laboratory setting. This setting may have constrained us to effectively observe authentic pride, which could explain why H1 and H5 did not yield significant results. To examine our hypotheses in a real-world setting, we designed Study 2 based on scenarios from Pettit et al. (Reference Pettit, Doyle, Lount and To2016) to better manipulate positive status change and status differentiation by using a full-time employee sample.
Study 2
Participants and procedure
Before collecting data, a power analysis was conducted with G*Power (Faul et al., Reference Faul, Erdfelder, Lang and Buchner2007). The analysis indicated that for tests using an F statistic across four conditions, a sample size exceeding 128 is required to achieve adequate statistical power, set at 0.80, with an alpha of 0.05, for detecting a medium effect size of 0.25 (Cohen, Reference Cohen1988). A total of 180 employees registered for this study, but 176 employees completed the experiment. Therefore, a total of 176 full-time employees from various industries, including mechanical, educational, aviation, information technology, financial, and service industries, were recruited. These participants had a mean age of 29.73 years (SD = 6.53) and comprised 42.6% males, 75% holding undergraduate degrees, and 25% holding postgraduate degrees. They were randomly assigned to a 2 (positive status change versus control) × 2 (high status differentiation versus low status differentiation) design. Specifically, the group experiencing a positive status change coupled with high status differentiation comprised 45 participants. Similarly, the group subjected to a positive status change but with low status differentiation also included 45 participants. In contrast, the control group with high status differentiation consisted of 43 participants, and the control group with low status differentiation also included 43 participants.
At the beginning of the task, the participants were instructed to read a description of a realistic workplace scenario, which was varied based on manipulations of positive status change and status differentiation. We created the following description based on Pettit et al. (Reference Pettit, Doyle, Lount and To2016) at the beginning of the scenario: ‘Although you were not the highest status member in the group, you were certainly not the lowest’. Consistent with Pettit et al. (Reference Pettit, Doyle, Lount and To2016), we also created a realistic situation that participants have contributed to the organization and are therefore very likely to gain status, ‘You had picked up additional work separate from your duties in the main workgroup to make up for a couple of employees in another part of the group, one who had been sick and another who went on vacation’. We finally introduced the real positive status change, ‘You made a successful presentation and gained status’ (see Appendix for the full description). Consistent with Emery, Booth, Michaelides, and Swabb's (Reference Emery, Booth, Michaelides and Swaab2019) LMX differentiation, we used a similar approach to manipulate status differentiation. The scenarios included full descriptions of both positive status change and status differentiation (see Appendix).
After reading the vignette scenario, the participants reported their authentic pride, hubristic pride, prosocial behavior, self-interested behavior, and demographic profiles.
Manipulation checks
Positive status change
Positive status change was measured using the same items in Study 1 (α = 0.95). A t-test on the positive status change manipulation check revealed a significant effect, t (174) = 31.20, p = 0.00. The participants under the positive status change condition reported that they experienced a greater positive status change compared with those under the control condition (M = 4.07 versus 1.24, SD = 0.66 versus 0.54).
Status differentiation
Status differentiation was measured using the same items in Study 1. A t-test on the status differentiation manipulation check revealed a significant effect, t (174) = 8.77, p = 0.00. The participants in the high status differentiation condition reported a higher status differentiation (M = 3.60, SD = 0.64) compared with those under the control condition (M = 2.82, SD = 0.55).
Measures
Authentic pride
Authentic pride was measured using the same items in Study 1 (α = 0.94).
Hubristic pride
Hubristic pride was measured using the same items in Study 1 (α = 0.81).
Self-interested behavior
Self-interested behavior was measured using the same items in Study 1 (α = 0.87).
Prosocial behavior
Prosocial behavior was measured using the same items in Study 1 (α = 0.93).
Results
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations.
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables for Study 2
Notes: n = 176.
* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01. Two-tailed tests.
We began by conducting a two-way ANOVA to test H1 and H2. H1 predicted that status differentiation would moderate the relationships between positive status change and authentic pride. The result revealed that participants in the condition of positive status change experienced significantly more authentic pride (M = 4.35, SD = 0.44) than participants in the control condition (M = 3.39, SD = 1.11), F(1, 172) = 10.97, p = 0.00, η 2 = 0.06, when status differentiation is low.
H2 predicted that status differentiation would moderate the relationships between positive status change and hubristic pride. The result revealed that participants in the condition of positive status change experienced significantly more hubristic pride (M = 3.11, SD = 0.58) than participants in the control condition (M = 1.94, SD = 0.48), F(1, 172) = 27.42, p = 0.00, η 2 = 0.14, when status differentiation is high. These results supported H1 and H2 (Figures 5 and 6).
Figure 5. The moderating effect of status differentiation on the relationship between positive status change and authentic pride for Study 2
Figure 6. The moderating effect of status differentiation on the relationship between positive status change and hubristic pride for Study 2
We further used the PROCESS macro (Model 7) to conduct moderated mediation analyses. The number of bootstrap samples extracted was 5,000. H3 predicted that authentic pride would increase new status holders' prosocial behavior. In support of this hypothesis, the effect of authentic pride (B = 0.66, SE = 0.04, p = 0.00) on prosocial behavior was positive.
H4 predicted that hubristic pride would enhance new status holders' self-interested behavior. In support of this hypothesis, the effect of hubristic pride (B = 0.47, SE = 0.08, p = 0.00) on self-interested behavior was positive.
We then estimated the conditional indirect effects. H5 predicts that the indirect relationship between positive status change and prosocial behavior through authentic pride is moderated by status differentiation, such that the relationship is stronger when status differentiation is low. As predicted, the conditional indirect effect of positive status change and prosocial behavior through authentic pride was significant when status differentiation was low (estimate = 0.64, 95% CI [0.371, 0.940]) rather than high (estimate = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.252, 0.279]), thereby supporting H5.
H6 predicts that status differentiation moderates the indirect relationship between positive status change and self-interested behavior through hubristic pride, such that the indirect relationship is stronger when status differentiation is high. As predicted, the conditional indirect effect of positive status change and self-interested behavior through hubristic pride was significant when status differentiation was high (estimate = 0.55, 95% CI [0.240, 0.870]) rather than low (estimate = 0.11, 95% CI [−0.021, 0.270]), thereby supporting H6.
Both Study 1 and Study 2 provide evidence supporting the internal validity of the effect of positive status change on employees' hubristic pride and self-interested behavior. Moreover, we find that status differentiation moderates the relationship between positive status change and authentic pride and the indirect effect between positive status change and self-interested behavior. To increase the external validity, we performed a field study in Study 3.
Study 3
Sample and procedure
We conducted a time-lagged multilevel and multisource field study to test our theoretical model. The data were collected from multiple divisions of a large company in China. Management provided a list of 109 work groups that were eligible for the study. In the sample group selection, only those group members who work and interact with one another frequently were entitled to confer status to another group member. In this way, positive status change and status differentiation can be observed from the sample. Among the 109 groups and their leaders, 90 groups comprising 535 employees agreed to participate in the study.
Surveys were administered across three time periods. At Time 1, we assessed the participants' positive status change, statusFootnote 1, and control variables, including their age, gender, education, organizational tenure, and the group mean status. In this study, we identified status differentiation as a relatively stable trait of a team and followed Gray, Bunderson, Van der Vegt, Rink, and Gedik (Reference Gray, Bunderson, Van der Vegt, Rink and Gedik2023) to measure status differentiation at Time 1. After two weeks (Time 2), we assessed their authentic and hubristic pride. After another two weeks (Time 3), following prior studies on prosocial behavior and self-interested behavior (Chen, Zou, & Liu, Reference Chen, Zou and Liu2022; Hafenbrack, Cameron, Spreitzer, Zhang, Noval, & Shaffakat, Reference Hafenbrack, Cameron, Spreitzer, Zhang, Noval and Shaffakat2020; van Dijke, De Cremer, Langendijk, & Anderson, Reference Van Dijke, De Cremer, Langendijk and Anderson2018), we invited group leaders to assess the participants' self-interested and prosocial behaviors.
After matching the responses from the three time points and excluding the invalid responses, 474 employees nested in 85 groups completed all three waves of the investigation, thereby yielding a final response rate of 88.6%. These participants had a mean age of 39.88 years (SD = 9.21), and 53.6% of whom were men. Their average tenure was 8.51 years (SD = 6.95). In terms of education, 19% of the participants completed their high school education, 32.3% held associate degrees, 41.6% held undergraduate degrees, and 7.2% received postgraduate degrees. The average group size was 5.3 members.
Measures
Positive status change
We used the same items in Studies 1 and 2 to measure participants' recent positive status change (α = 0.75).
Status
Following Hays et al. (Reference Hays, Li, Yang, Oh, Yu, Chen, Hollenbeck and Jamieson2022), we assessed the participants' status using Hays and Blader's (Reference Hays and Blader2017) 3-item scale. A sample item is ‘How much respect do you usually have in the group over the past few months?’ (1 = not at all, 5 = very much; α = 0.75).
Status differentiation
Following Hays et al. (Reference Hays, Li, Yang, Oh, Yu, Chen, Hollenbeck and Jamieson2022), we calculated the status differentiation values for each group as the coefficient of variation (CV), a standard measure of differentiation on a valued attribute, that is, status (Harrison & Klein, Reference Harrison and Klein2007; Hays et al., Reference Hays, Li, Yang, Oh, Yu, Chen, Hollenbeck and Jamieson2022). Therefore, status differentiation was computed as the CV of the participants' status scores in each group.
Authentic pride
Authentic pride was measured using the same items in Studies 1 and 2 (α = 0.81).
Hubristic pride
Hubristic pride was measured using the same items in Studies 1 and 2 (α = 0.80).
Prosocial behavior
Prosocial behavior was measured using the same items in Studies 1 and 2 (α = 0.76).
Self-interested behavior
Self-interested behavior was measured using the same items in Studies 1 and 2 (α = 0.82).
Internal attribution
We assessed the participants' internal attribution using Liu, Wang, Liao, and Shi's (Reference Liu, Wang, Liao and Shi2014) 3-item scale. A sample item is ‘To what extent do you agree that your positive status change was due to your own effort’ (1 = not at all, 5 = very much; α = 0.89).
Analytic strategy
Our theoretical model encompasses constructs at both the individual and group levels of analysis, making it multilevel in nature. Therefore, we conducted multilevel modeling analyses to test our hypotheses. We used the Mplus 8.3 to analyze our data. The key variables in our model were at the individual level (Level 1), including positive status change, authentic pride, hubristic pride, prosocial behavior, self-interested behavior, status, and internal attribution. The moderator, status differentiation, and mean status of the group were placed at the group level (Level 2). We controlled for the participants' age, gender, education, tenure, status, internal attribution, and mean status of the group. We initially performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to establish the discriminant validity of our key variables and then partitioned the variance at the individual and group levels. Afterward, we conducted multilevel mediation and multilevel moderated mediation analyses to test our hypotheses.
Results
CFA results
Following Anderson and Gerbing (Reference Anderson and Gerbing1988), we examined the construct validity of our variables before testing our hypotheses. We conducted a series of CFA by using AMOS 18.0 to examine the construct distinctiveness of major variables in our model (i.e., positive status change, status, internal attribution, authentic pride, hubristic pride, prosocial behavior, and self-interested behaviorFootnote 2). The predicted seven-factor model had a greater fit to the data (x 2 [539] = 634.92, p < 0.01, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.02) compared with all possible alternative models (e.g., the six-factor model that combines authentic and hubristic pride; x 2 [545] = 1,363.90, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.85, TLI = 0.83, RMSEA = 0.06), hence confirming that all measurements have good discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, Reference Fornell and Larcker1981).
Hypothesis testing results
We followed established procedures in all analyses (Hofmann, Reference Hofmann1997; Raudenbush & Bryk, Reference Raudenbush and Bryk2002). We tested a null (one-way analysis of variance [ANOVA]) model without predictor variables to estimate the amount of variance in outcomes predicted by the variation among groups. We estimated the amount of between-group variance in the outcome variables by computing ICC1. The ICC1 values for authentic pride, hubristic pride, prosocial behavior, and self-interested behavior were 28.78%, 31.54%, 18.21%, and 20.33%, respectively, hence confirming that multilevel modeling analysis is appropriate for this study.
Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations.
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables for Study 3
Notes: n = 474.
* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01. Two-tailed tests.
To test our hypotheses, we conduct multilevel analyses. Following typical practice for multilevel analyses, we group mean centered our exogenous level 1 predictors including positive status change, and other level-1 control variables (e.g., age, gender, education, tenure, status, and internal attribution), while allowing Mplus to latently center our endogenous mediators (Lanaj, Gabriel, & Chawla, Reference Lanaj, Gabriel and Chawla2021; Tang, Yam, Koopman, & Ilies, Reference Tang, Yam, Koopman and Ilies2022). We grand-mean centered our level-2 moderator (i.e., status differentiation) and the control (i.e., mean status). The number of samples extracted was 10,000.
H1 predicted that status differentiation would moderate the relationships between positive status change and authentic pride. Specifically, we expected the relationship between positive status change and authentic pride to be stronger at lower levels of status differentiation, compared with higher levels (H1). H1 was supported (γ = −4.45, SE = 0.85, p = 0.00; see Table 4). As expected, the relationship between positive status change and authentic pride was positive and significant at lower levels of status differentiation (γ = 0.47, SE = 0.10, 95% CI [0.256, 0.666]) but non-significant at higher levels (γ = −0.32, SE = 0.10, 95% CI [−0.514, −0.116]). Specifically, the difference between these two slopes was significant (γ = −0.78, SE = 0.16, 95% CI [−1.082, −0.467]).
Table 4. Regression results for Study 3
Notes: n = 474.
* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01.
H2 predicted that status differentiation would moderate the relationships between positive status change and hubristic pride. Specifically, we expected the relationship between positive status change and hubristic pride to be stronger at higher levels of status differentiation, compared with lower levels (H2). H2 was supported (γ = 2.39, SE = 0.80, p = 0.00; see Table 4). As expected, the relationship between positive status change and hubristic pride was significant at higher levels of status differentiation (γ = 0.26, SE = 0.08, 95% CI [0.097, 0.418]) but non-significant at lower levels (γ = −0.02, SE = 0.09, 95% CI [−0.190, 0.144]). Specifically, the difference between these two slopes was significant (γ = 0.29, SE = 0.13, 95% CI [0.130, 0.532]) (Figures 7 and 8).
Figure 7. The moderating effect of status differentiation on the relationship between positive status change and prosocial behavior for Study 3
Figure 8. The moderating effect of status differentiation on the relationship between positive status change and self-interested behavior for Study 3
H3 predicted that authentic pride would increase new status holders' prosocial behavior. In support of this hypothesis, the effect of authentic pride (γ = 0.45, SE = 0.04, p = 0.00) on prosocial behavior was positive, when hubristic pride was controlled.
H4 predicted that hubristic pride would increase new status holders' self-interested behavior. In support of this hypothesis, the effect of hubristic pride (γ = 0.39, SE = 0.05, p = 0.00) on self-interested behavior was positive, when authentic pride was controlled.
We then estimated the conditional indirect effects. H5 suggests that status differentiation moderates the indirect relationship between positive status change and prosocial behavior through authentic pride, such that this indirect relationship is stronger when status differentiation is low. The conditional indirect effects through authentic pride are positive and significant when status differentiation is lower (B indirect-lower = 0.21, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [0.124, 0.314]), but negative when status differentiation is higher (B indirect-higher = −0.13, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.224, −0.045]). Specifically, the difference between these two slopes was significant (B differentiation = −0.35, SE = 0.07, 95% CI [−0.497, −0.211]).
H6 suggests that status differentiation moderates the indirect relationship between positive status change and self-interested behavior through hubristic pride, such that this indirect relationship is stronger when status differentiation is high. The conditional indirect effects through hubristic pride are positive and significant when status differentiation is higher (B indirect-higher = 0.14, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [0.070, 0.224]), but non-significant when status differentiation is lower (B indirect-lower = −0.02, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.087, 0.054]). Specifically, the difference between these two slopes was significant (B differentiation = 0.16, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.052, 0.278]).
Furthermore, we then did a supplementary analysis to estimate the alternative conditional indirect effects. Specifically, the conditional indirect effect of positive status change on self-interested behavior through authentic pride is positive when status differentiation is higher (B indirect-higher = 0.09, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [0.024, 0.170]), but negative when status differentiation is lower (B indirect-lower = −0.15, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.241, −0.078]). Specifically, the difference between these two slopes was significant (B differentiation = 0.25, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.132, 0.379]). Moreover, the conditional indirect effects on prosocial behavior through hubristic pride are negative and significant when status differentiation is lower (B indirect-higher = −0.19, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.287, −0.114]), but non-significant when status differentiation is higher (B indirect-lower = −0.04, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.027, 0.117]). Specifically, the difference between these two slopes was significant (B differentiation = 0.23, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [−0.364, −0.130]).
Through the use of a field design, Study 3 offers evidence of external validity with regard to our hypothesized relationships. Specifically, similar to Studies 1 and 2, the hypotheses were supported via the sample of participants who had real experiences of status change. Although we observed that positive status change was significantly related to prosocial (self-interested) behavior through authentic (hubristic) pride when status differentiation was high and low, we still found some support for the moderated indirect relationships because the differences between the two slopes (when status differentiation was high versus low) was significant. This is because Study 3 was conducted in a real workplace setting. Data were collected at three different points in time, and although significant differences were observed under conditions of high and low status, the complex nature of real-world work environments may have tempered these differences. As a result, the differences were rendered less pronounced, albeit still significant. We also did the supplementary analysis to examine the moderated indirect relationships between positive status change and prosocial (self-interested) behavior through hubristic (authentic) pride. Overall, the results from Studies 1, 2, and 3 lend strong support to our theorizing that positive status change increases new status holders' authentic pride and prosocial behavior when status differentiation is low. By contrast, positive status change increases new status holders' hubristic pride and self-interested behavior when status differentiation is high.
Discussion
In this research, we report the results of three studies examining how positive status change affects new status holders' behavior. Our laboratory experiment, scenario experiment, and field study show that the presence of a high (versus low) level of status differentiation influences new status holders' emotions and behaviors. This effect is crucial to our arguments about why status differentiation serves as a vital factor that determines new status holders to enhance their prosocial behavior via authentic pride, and their self-interested behavior via hubristic pride.
Theoretical Implications
First, this research contributes to the literature on status by adopting a person-in-context interactionist perspective to examine how a contextual factor (i.e., status differentiation) can play a crucial role in determining the emotions and behaviors exhibited by individuals who have recently gained new status. Of note, prior status-related studies primarily focused on how individual characteristics affect status. For example, how the legitimacy of individuals affects the behaviors of status holders. Given that individuals are embedded in teams within the organizational context, it is essential to adopt a person-in-context interactionist perspective to identify status-related characteristics of context as the important factor. Thus, we specifically add to the status literature by showing that, in teams with low status differentiation, positive status change evokes more positive reactions (i.e., authentic pride and prosocial behavior) among new status holders. While in teams with high status differentiation, positive status change is likely to induce rather negative outcomes, such as hubristic pride and self-interested behavior. Moreover, our findings also contribute to a better understanding of positive status change in China. Given that Confucian values emphasize the responsibilities of individuals who gain status (Yiu, Wan, Ng, Chen, & Su, Reference Yiu, Wan, Ng, Chen and Su2014), we develop and test a theoretical model to examine the double-sword effects of positive status change.
Second, this research contributes to the status literature by better unpacking the mixed influences of positive status change on new status holders' behaviors through a relatively new lens, namely emotion (pride)-based perspective (via the two-facet model of pride; Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010). Whereas the previous research mainly focuses on the cognitive perspective (e.g., Blader & Chen, Reference Blader and Chen2012; Castellucci & Ertug, Reference Castellucci and Ertug2010; Prato et al., Reference Prato, Kypraios, Ertug and Lee2019), we examined and tested that positive status change induces an emotional response, that is, different types of pride shown on new status holders through a laboratory experiment and a field experiment. In doing so, we reveal a ‘black box’ of how positive status change influences the new status holder's behavior. Also, given that Chinese society stresses the duties of status holders (Yiu et al., Reference Yiu, Wan, Ng, Chen and Su2014), we provide a more nuanced understanding of how positive status change may induce positive and negative outcomes in the Chinese context.
Third, this research meaningfully extends the two-facet model of pride (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010) by focusing on the antecedent of different types of pride and the important contextual factor. Of note, previous literature on the two-facet model of pride (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010) has primarily focused on the outcomes of pride, such as how different types of pride motivate people to engage in status-seeking behaviors (Bolló et al., Reference Bolló, Bőthe, Tóth-Király and Orosz2018). In this research, we shift the focus to how to induce different types of pride. Moreover, although the two-facet model of pride (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010) suggests that the interpretation of emotion-eliciting events determines which type of pride (e.g., authentic pride and hubristic pride), we also shed light on the important contextual factor that influences people's interpretation, leading to a deeper understanding of the two types of pride.
Practical Implications
Our research focuses on an important topic of positive status change. We develop a theoretical model specific to the Chinese context that offers valuable insights for organizations operating in China. Our findings have practical implications for constructing teams and managing the consequences of positive status change.
Given that status is dynamic while status changes are prevalent, both Chinese scholars and practitioners have started paying attention to positive status change. For example, Liu, Ge, and Peng (Reference Liu, Ge and Peng2016) investigated how different status-conferral ways influence employees' innovation. However, an equally important and widespread phenomenon is that not all new status holders exhibit prosocial behavior. Therefore, we aim to provide insights to organizations and their managers on how to prevent the negative outcomes of positive status change.
First, organizations and practical managers in China should recognize that while positive status changes can be advantageous, prosocial behavior is not an inevitable outcome. In Chinese society where high status comes with significant responsibility (Yiu et al., Reference Yiu, Wan, Ng, Chen and Su2014), organizations must be vigilant about the potential for newly elevated employees to engage in self-interested behaviors. To mitigate these risks, it is crucial for organizations to provide these employees with a thorough understanding of their new roles and responsibilities, training them to balance their personal interests with the collective good, especially after experiencing positive status changes.
Second, our research highlights effective strategies to curb self-interested behaviors among new status holders in China, while promoting their prosocial actions. We specifically explore status differentiation as a vital contextual factor. Our findings support the notion that in Chinese organizations, where hierarchical respect and collective harmony are highly valued, minimizing status differentiation can act as a lever to modify the emotions and behaviors of new status holders. Specifically, when status differentiation is low, new status holders tend to experience authentic pride and engage in prosocial behavior. Organizations should aim to create a more egalitarian environment with lower status differentiation, where positive status change is attainable for a greater number of employees. High levels of status differentiation may increase the likelihood of new status holders exhibiting negative behaviors, such as experiencing hubristic pride and engaging in self-interested behavior.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Our research also has some limitations. First, although we have controlled for mechanisms pertaining to attribution (i.e., internal attribution), we suggest that the perspective of attribution can be a meaningful avenue for future research to investigate the consequences of positive status change. Specifically, it may be useful to investigate how individuals attribute their status change and how these attributions (i.e., internal attribution and external attribution) influence their subsequent behaviors. Moreover, the attributions of new status holders can be a potentially important factor that affects their interpretation of positive status change and thus affects their emotional and behavioral reactions. Thus, future research on positive status change should take into account the perspective of attribution.
Second, we focus primarily on subjective perceptions of positive status change. However, the literature on status and different types of pride has highlighted that subjective and objective have different effects on status holders' behavior (Bolló et al., Reference Bolló, Bőthe, Tóth-Király and Orosz2018). Thus, future research should also extend this study by including objective measures of status and comparing how objectively and subjectively positive status change affects new status holders' pride and behaviors.
Third, although we have controlled for status, it is important to differentiate positive status change from status. Notably, we assessed status at Time 1 and used it to calculate status differentiation in Study 3, considering such hierarchical differentiation a relatively stable characteristic within teams. Moreover, we draw on the two-facet model of pride (Tracy et al., Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010) to identify status differentiation as the key contextual factor, and thus focus mainly on the status at Time 1, which depicts the stable status distribution before any status changes occur. Given the complex and dynamic nature of status in teams (Doyle & Lount, Reference Doyle and Lount2023), we encourage future research to assess status at multiple time points, particularly before any positive status changes occur. Additionally, exploring how positive status change, along with initial or final status, may independently or jointly influence individual behaviors would be valuable.
Fourth, in our studies (i.e., Study 1), we found that authentic pride is related to hubristic pride. In terms of this, some scholars challenged (Holbrook, Piazza, & Fessler, Reference Holbrook, Piazza and Fessler2014) the authentic pride and hubristic pride scale developed by Tracy and Robins's (Reference Tracy and Robins2007b). To this end, we have controlled for one type of pride when testing the pathway of the other type of pride. Future studies should consider developing an additional scale that effectively distinguishes between authentic pride and hubristic pride.
Finally, our study only investigates the influence of positive status change on authentic (hubristic) pride within a Chinese context. Therefore, we suggest that future research explore these effects across diverse cultural contexts, including Western contexts.
Conclusion
Drawing on the two-facet model of pride, we propose a dual emotional pathway model to illustrate how employees behave following a positive status change. Our research, including a laboratory experiment, a scenario experiment, and a field survey, demonstrates that new status holders in a context with low status differentiation are more likely to experience authentic pride and engage in prosocial behavior. Conversely, new status holders in a context with high status differentiation are more likely to experience hubristic pride and increase their self-interested behavior. We hope that our research will inspire future scholars to explore how employees behave after experiencing positive status changes.
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Open Science Framework at http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JTX8W, reference number 10.17605/OSF.IO/JTX8W
Appendix
The scenario in Study 2
Manipulation of positive status change
Imagine you were an employee working in a 10-person workgroup in a large organization. You and the main workgroup had worked hard over the last year, and you had earned some fellow group members' respect. Although you were not the highest status member in the group, you were certainly not the lowest.
Positive status change condition. Over the last few weeks, you had picked up additional work separate from your duties in the main workgroup to make up for a couple of employees in another part of the group, one who had been sick and another who went on vacation. After that, you on behalf of your group delivered a presentation in front of your group members and other workgroups. You made a successful presentation and gained status.
The control condition. Over the last few weeks, you did your routine tasks and completed your in-role tasks including communicating with your group members and joining a presentation in front of your group members and other workgroups. You finished your in-role tasks as usual and maintained your current status.
Manipulation of status differentiation
Concerning status, status is respect, esteem, and prestige in the eyes of others. In your group, all members [Only one or two members] process status. Everyone [Only one or two members] is respected and admired by other group members.
Zhe Zhang (zhangzhe220@sina.com) is a professor of Organization Management at the School of Management, Xi'an Jiaotong University, China, where she also received her PhD. Her research focuses on public-private partnerships, human resource management, and corporate social responsibility. She has published in the Organization Science, Human Relation, Human Resource Management, Management and Organization Review, and Journal of Business Ethics.
Yueqiao Qiao (qiaoyueqiao@yeah.net) is an assistant professor in Organizational Behaviour at the Nottingham University Business School China, University of Nottingham Ningbo China. She received her PhD from Xi'an Jiaotong University, China. Her research focuses on leadership and moral emotions. She has published in the Journal of Business Ethics and Management and Organization Review.
Ming Jia (jiaming@nwpu.edu.cn) is a professor of Organization Management at the School of Management, Northwestern Polytechnical University, China. He received his PhD from Xi'an Jiaotong University, China. His research focuses on corporate governance and corporate social responsibility. He has published in the Organization Science, Journal of Management, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Business Research, and International Journal of Human Resource Management.
Boyuan Ju (ju.189@osu.edu) is a PhD student in Management and Human Resources at the Fisher College of Business at Ohio State University. Her research interests include hierarchical change, roles, trust, and leadership.
Xingquan Wang (v.wangxq@nus.edu.sg) obtained a Bachelor of Science in Psychology from King's College London and a Master of Science in Human Resources and Organizations from the London School of Economics. Her research interests include the field of motivation and sense of agency.
