Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Prestigious Employer Preference
The Theory, Measurement, and Consequences
of Conspicuous Employment
D I S S E R T A T I O N
of the University of St. Gallen,
School of Management,
Economics, Law, Social Sciences
and International Affairs
to obtain the title of
Doctor of Philosophy in Management
submitted by
Benjamin Berghaus
from
Germany
Approved on the application of
Prof. Dr. Sven Reinecke
and
Prof. Dr. Günter Müller-Stewens
Dissertation no. 4579
Difo-Druck GmbH, Bamberg
ii
The University of St. Gallen, School of Management, Economics, Law, Social Sciences
and International Affairs hereby consents to the printing of the present dissertation, with-
out hereby expressing any opinion on the views herein expressed.
St. Gallen, October 24, 2016
The President:
Prof. Dr. Thomas Bieger
iii
Nobody said it was easy.
It’s such a shame for us to part.
Nobody said it was easy.
Noone ever said it would be so hard.
- I’m going back to the start.
The Scientist (Coldplay)
iv
Abstract
Places of employment play an important role in people’s construction of their social iden-
tity. With increasing competitive pressure in the job market, employers are increasingly
turning to marketing methodology to improve their recruitment positioning. Vice versa,
job-seekers are expected to provide impressive track records of past performances to be
considered by the most attractive employers. This combination of businesses fighting the
“war for talent” more fiercely and job-seekers needing to generate a valuable track record
provides the foundation for a growing role of prestige in employment. However, this phe-
nomenon’s theory, mechanisms, and consequences are understudied: while there is a siz-
able body of extant research on status, there has been very little research on both the nature
and the consequences of individuals’ preference for prestigious employers.
This dissertation addresses this research gap by providing two preparatory and four con-
sequential contributions: first, as a preparation, I present a cross-discipline literature re-
view on prior insight on status to arrive at key contributions, scholars, and definitions of
key terms in this extensive field. Second, focusing the literature review on the field of
application, I highlight key contributions on status in the employment setting. On that
basis, I outline the research gap in greater detail. As the first consequential contributions,
I build upon insight from consumer behavior by Vigneron and Johnson (1999) to provide
a rigorously theorized, conceptualized, and operationalized measurement construct which
I evaluate and contextualize in terms of its nomological network. Second, I follow the first
vein of the nomological network to investigate both prestige and value-based person-or-
ganization fit in their effect on organizational attractiveness. Third, I follow the second
vein of the nomological network to investigate the effect of regulatory focus on confi-
dence in group decision making. Finally, I provide a discussion in which I integrate, con-
textualize, and operationalize my findings. This dissertation finds that individuals’
preference for prestigious employers can be aptly described in terms of five factors: per-
fectionism, hedonism, association, uniqueness, and conspicuousness. The construct pre-
dicts self-enhancement work-oriented values, correlates in its individual part with
regulatory focus and in its social part with social comparison orientation. In direct com-
parison, the satisfaction of prestige preference is found to have a substantially stronger
effect on employer attractiveness than value-based PO fit – with both being significant
predictors. Furthermore, the related regulatory focus on promotion predicts overconfi-
dence in decision making. Overall, these contributions illustrate the theory, measurement,
and consequences of prestigious employer preference – the core construct of a phenome-
non akin to Veblen’s conspicuous consumption, but in an employment context: conspic-
uous employment.
v
Zusammenfassung
Arbeitsplätze spielen eine wichtige Rolle in der Gestaltung sozialer Identitäten. Mit dem
steigenden Wettbewerbsdruck auf dem Arbeitsmarkt wenden sich Arbeitgeber zuneh-
mend den Ansätzen der Marketingfachleute zu, um so die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit ihres
Unternehmens im Arbeitsmarkt zu stärken. Auf der anderen Seite des Marktes bemühen
sich Arbeitnehmer zunehmend um die Gestaltung eines eindrucksvollen Lebenslaufs, da
nur so um die wertvollsten Stellen konkurriert werden kann. Diese Kombination von sich
intensivierenden Wettbewerben bereitet die Grundlage für eine wachsende Rolle von
Prestige in Arbeitgeber-Arbeitnehmer-Beziehungen. Die Reichweite dieser Entwicklung
spiegelt sich jedoch noch nicht ausreichend in der wissenschaftlichen Würdigung wider:
während eine grosse Menge an wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen zu Status vorliegt,
wurde bisher die Prestigeorientierung von Arbeitnehmern und den daraus erwachsenden
Implikationen unzureichend erforscht.
Diese Dissertation geht auf diese Forschungslücke ein, indem zwei vorbereitende und vier
hauptsächliche Beiträge geleistet werden: erstens wird als Vorbereitung ein Überblick der
Forschung zu Status vorgestellt. Darauf aufbauend fokussiert eine Rückschau auf die Li-
teratur zu Status in der Personalwerbung, die ihrerseits die Basis für die genauere Be-
schreibung der Forschungslücke bildet. Als ersten Hauptbeitrag entwickle ich auf der
Basis des auf Statuskonsum spezialisierten Konzepts in der Konsumentenforschung von
Vigneron und Johnson (1999) ein Konstrukt zur Messung der individuellen Präferenz für
prestigereiche Arbeitgeber. Um das Konstrukt zu kontextualisieren, untersuche ich dessen
nomologisches Netzwerk. Weiterhin folge ich den Erkenntnissen über das nomologische
Netzwerk, vergleiche die Effekte des wertbasierten Fit zwischen Bewerber und Arbeitge-
ber sowie der Befriedigung von Prestigepräferenzen und untersuche den Einfluss des re-
gulatorischen Fokus auf das Entscheidungsverhalten in Gruppen. Abschliessend
diskutiere und operationalisiere ich die Ergebnisse. Die Ergebnisse der Dissertation um-
fassen zunächst, dass sich die Prestigepräferenz von Arbeitnehmern zutreffend im vorge-
stellten Konstrukt abbilden lässt. Das Konstrukt steht weiterhin im Zusammenhang mit
grundliegenden und arbeitsbezogenen Werten der Selbsterhöhung sowie mit regulatori-
schem Fokus auf das Erreichen von Zielen und Sozialvergleichsverhalten. Im direkten
Vergleich wirkt die Befriedigung von Prestigepräferenzen stärker als diejenige des wert-
basierten Fit auf die Attraktivität von Arbeitgebern. Regulatorischer Fokus auf das Errei-
chen von Zielen nimmt darüber hinaus einen Einfluss auf das Entscheidungsverhalten in
Gruppen. Insgesamt leistet diese Dissertation damit einen Beitrag, um die Theorie, die
Messung und die Auswirkungen von Prestigepräferenz von Arbeitnehmern – in Anleh-
nung an Veblen mit „Conspicuous Employment“ untertitelt – besser zu verstehen.
vi
vii
Preface
Marketing has matured. In its more modern frame of market-oriented management, mar-
keting is not anymore restricted to apply theory to advertise or sell better, but at a greater
liberty – and, indeed, demand – to provide value across the organization (Becker & Hom-
burg, 1999). Market-oriented management has made marketing more valuable in the or-
ganization because market-oriented management makes organizations more valuable to
their stakeholders. This dissertation is my attempt to join those who, more capable,
transport marketing ideas to those regions of management that may generate greatest ben-
efit from it. Recruitment emerged as the application for this research as it is advancing to
become the key managerial setting in need of insight to successfully navigate the chal-
lenges of decades to come. Through the development of my dissertation, two convictions
emerged and shaped its implementation: first, applied sciences should not be limited to
applying theory. More fundamental disciplines may benefit greatly from interdisciplinary
transfer that applied fields can provide. Strengthening the circulating currents of thought
between fundamental and applied disciplines is worthwhile. Second, prior research is gen-
erally underappreciated. What has been explored in the past is not only of value as a frame
for future innovation. Rather, it holds the greatest potential for increasing efficiency in
scientific advancement.
Luckily, I was allowed to complete my dissertation in an environment that never stopped
challenging my convictions but likewise never stopped encouraging me to find my own
way. The result has been one of perceived personal advancement and not one of indoctri-
nation. For that, I am indebted to my helpful referees and generous colleagues Sven
Reinecke and Günter Müller-Stewens – our collaboration has been my privilege.
This dissertation documents more than what is written within. It represents what were
some of the best years of my life. Neither this research nor its circumstances have been
difficult. Rather, it has been difficult for me to grow into the person it took to complete it.
I am grateful to those who inspired, accompanied, supported, and joined me in laughter.
In one way or another, you helped me complete this to the best of my abilities:
Peter M. Fischer, Jasmin Eberharter, Carsten Paulus, and Sophie Schüller. Verena Batt
and Markus Kühne. Kirsten Mrkwicka, You-Cheong Lee, Julius Schröder, Christoph
Wortmann, Laura Braun, and Dennis Herhausen. Alexander Schagen, Erik Klautzsch, and
Robert Hohenauer. Christian Belz and Marcus Schögel. Jürgen Gessler and Jan Becker.
Thomas Mandl, Klaus Wallraven, and Wolfgang Uwe Friedrich.
My closest friends. My parents. Sabine.
viii
ix
Content overview
Abstract .................................................................................................................... iv
Zusammenfassung......................................................................................................v
Preface ..................................................................................................................... vii
Indices .................................................................................................................... xvii
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................1
2 Theory ........................................................................................................... 16
3 Measurement ................................................................................................ 62
4 Prestige preference and person-organization fit ....................................... 131
5 Prestige preference and confidence ........................................................... 156
6 Discussion ................................................................................................... 176
7 Appendix ......................................................................................................... I
8 Bibliography ............................................................................................... XL
x
Table of contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................... iv
Zusammenfassung......................................................................................................v
Preface ..................................................................................................................... vii
Indices .................................................................................................................... xvii
List of figures ....................................................................................................... xvii
List of tables .......................................................................................................... xix
Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... xx
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................1
1.1 Setting ..........................................................................................................3
1.2 Problem statement ........................................................................................5
1.3 Prior research ..............................................................................................7
1.4 Aim ...............................................................................................................9
1.5 Contribution ............................................................................................... 10
1.6 Research design.......................................................................................... 11
1.6.1 Phenomenon’s characteristics ................................................................. 11
1.6.2 Scientific advancement ........................................................................... 12
1.6.3 Requirements for relevant research ......................................................... 12
1.6.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 13
1.7 Overview of results ..................................................................................... 14
2 Theory ............................................................................................................... 16
2.1 Status.......................................................................................................... 16
2.1.1 Methodology .......................................................................................... 18
2.1.2 Key contributions ................................................................................... 19
2.1.2.1 An introductory overview ............................................................... 21
2.1.2.2 Roots .............................................................................................. 21
2.1.2.3 Advances in sociology .................................................................... 22
2.1.2.3.1 First interdisciplinary resonance ................................................ 22
2.1.2.3.2 Consolidation ............................................................................ 23
2.1.2.3.3 Second interdisciplinary resonance ............................................ 25
2.1.2.3.4 Establishment ............................................................................ 26
xi
2.1.2.4 Advances in social psychology ....................................................... 27
2.1.2.5 Advances in psychology ................................................................. 30
2.1.2.6 Advances in ethology and anthropology.......................................... 33
2.1.2.7 Advances in economics ................................................................... 34
2.1.2.8 Advances in organizational sciences ............................................... 36
2.1.2.9 Advances in management research .................................................. 37
2.1.2.10 Conclusion on key contributions ................................................. 40
2.1.3 Definitions .............................................................................................. 43
2.1.3.1 Social hierarchy .............................................................................. 43
2.1.3.2 Legitimacy ...................................................................................... 44
2.1.3.3 Reputation ...................................................................................... 44
2.1.3.4 Prestige ........................................................................................... 45
2.1.3.5 Deference........................................................................................ 45
2.1.3.6 Power.............................................................................................. 46
2.1.3.7 Dominance...................................................................................... 46
2.1.3.8 Status .............................................................................................. 47
2.1.3.8.1 Social constructionist perspective .............................................. 47
2.1.3.8.2 Evaluative perspective ............................................................... 47
2.1.3.8.3 Functional perspective ............................................................... 48
2.1.3.8.4 Motivational perspective ............................................................ 49
2.1.3.8.5 Signaling perspective ................................................................. 49
2.1.3.8.6 Integrating perspectives on status............................................... 50
2.1.4 Integration of findings on status research ................................................ 50
2.2 Status and recruitment ................................................................................ 51
2.2.1 Streams ................................................................................................... 52
2.2.1.1 Fundamental fields: status in sociology and social psychology ....... 52
2.2.1.1.1 Occupational prestige ................................................................ 52
2.2.1.1.2 Related socio-psychological theories ......................................... 53
2.2.1.2 Applied fields: status in recruitment research .................................. 55
2.2.1.2.1 Brand equity approach and employer branding .......................... 55
2.2.1.2.2 Reputation in recruitment .......................................................... 56
2.2.1.2.3 Symbolic and instrumental framework in recruiting ................... 57
2.2.1.3 Perceived external prestige.............................................................. 57
2.2.2 Integration of findings and delineation of research gap ........................... 58
xii
3 Measurement .................................................................................................... 62
3.1 Theory ........................................................................................................ 63
3.1.1 Review of factors .................................................................................... 65
3.1.1.1 Individual factors ............................................................................ 66
3.1.1.1.1 Perfectionism: achieving the ideal-functioning self .................... 67
3.1.1.1.2 Hedonism: aspiring to a positive emotional experience .............. 69
3.1.1.2 Social factors .................................................................................. 72
3.1.1.2.1 Association: attaining a valuable social identity ......................... 72
3.1.1.2.2 Uniqueness: construing a differentiated identity ........................ 75
3.1.1.2.3 Conspicuousness: collecting symbols ........................................ 77
3.1.2 Prestigious employer preference (PEP) construct .................................... 79
3.1.3 Nomological network ............................................................................. 80
3.1.3.1 Individual factors and regulatory focus ........................................... 81
3.1.3.2 Social factors and social comparison orientation ............................. 83
3.1.3.3 Prestigious employer preference and values .................................... 84
3.2 Studies ........................................................................................................ 88
3.2.1 1st Study – Exploratory interviews with job-seekers ................................ 90
3.2.1.1 Methodology................................................................................... 90
3.2.1.2 Results ............................................................................................ 90
3.2.1.2.1 Participants’ motivations ........................................................... 91
3.2.1.2.2 Participants’ perception of employer attractivity ........................ 92
3.2.1.2.3 Participants’ perception of employer values ............................... 93
3.2.1.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 93
3.2.2 2nd Study – Integration of PEP scale with other scales ............................ 94
3.2.2.1 Methodology................................................................................... 94
3.2.2.2 Results ............................................................................................ 95
3.2.2.2.1 Scales related to individual factors ............................................. 95
3.2.2.2.2 Previously identified related scales ............................................ 97
3.2.2.2.3 Additional search for related scales ............................................ 98
3.2.2.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 99
3.2.3 Construct architecture and evaluation procedure ................................... 100
3.2.3.1 Construct definition ...................................................................... 100
3.2.3.2 Evaluation procedure .................................................................... 101
3.2.3.3 Statistical approach ....................................................................... 101
xiii
3.2.4 3rd Study – Pre-test of the PEP scale’s draft version .............................. 102
3.2.4.1 Methodology................................................................................. 102
3.2.4.2 Results .......................................................................................... 103
3.2.4.2.1 Measurement task variants ....................................................... 103
3.2.4.2.2 Structural validity .................................................................... 104
3.2.4.3 Conclusion .................................................................................... 106
3.2.5 4th Study – Evaluation of the PEP scale’s pilot version ......................... 106
3.2.5.1 Methodology................................................................................. 106
3.2.5.2 Results .......................................................................................... 107
3.2.5.2.1 Exploratory factor analysis ...................................................... 108
3.2.5.2.2 Confirmatory factor analysis .................................................... 109
3.2.5.3 Implications for further development of the scale.......................... 110
3.2.5.4 Conclusion .................................................................................... 112
3.2.6 5th Study – Evaluation of the PEP scale’s revised version ..................... 112
3.2.6.1 Methodology................................................................................. 112
3.2.6.2 Results .......................................................................................... 114
3.2.6.2.1 Exploratory factor analysis ...................................................... 114
3.2.6.2.2 Confirmatory factor analysis .................................................... 115
3.2.6.2.3 Group comparisons .................................................................. 115
3.2.6.3 Conclusion .................................................................................... 116
3.2.7 6th Study – Evaluation of the PEP scale’s nomological network ............ 116
3.2.7.1 Methodology................................................................................. 117
3.2.7.1.1 Measurements of correlates ..................................................... 117
3.2.7.1.2 Preparation, participants, and procedure .................................. 119
3.2.7.2 Results .......................................................................................... 120
3.2.7.2.1 PEP, social comparison orientation, and regulatory focus ........ 120
3.2.7.2.2 PEP, basic human values, and work-related values .................. 121
3.2.7.3 Conclusion .................................................................................... 122
3.3 Discussion ................................................................................................ 123
3.3.1 Prestige preference in employment ....................................................... 123
3.3.2 Five factors: from outperforming everyone to having it known ............. 124
3.3.3 Nomological network ........................................................................... 125
3.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 127
3.4.1 Findings................................................................................................ 128
xiv
3.4.2 Limitations ........................................................................................... 129
3.4.3 Practical implications ........................................................................... 130
3.4.4 Theoretical implications and outlook .................................................... 130
4 Prestige preference and person-organization fit ........................................... 131
4.1 Theory ...................................................................................................... 134
4.1.1 Person-organization fit.......................................................................... 134
4.1.1.1 Origins of the field ........................................................................ 134
4.1.1.2 Recent contributions ..................................................................... 137
4.1.2 Prestigious employer preference ........................................................... 141
4.1.3 Hypotheses ........................................................................................... 141
4.2 Methodology............................................................................................. 143
4.2.1 Measurement ........................................................................................ 143
4.2.1.1 Person-organization fit .................................................................. 144
4.2.1.2 Prestige ......................................................................................... 145
4.2.1.3 Evaluation of employer ................................................................. 146
4.2.2 Participants ........................................................................................... 146
4.2.3 Procedure ............................................................................................. 146
4.3 Results ...................................................................................................... 147
4.4 Discussion ................................................................................................ 149
4.4.1 Employer prestige and work value perceptions ..................................... 150
4.4.2 Value fit, prestige preference satisfaction, and attractiveness ................ 151
4.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 152
4.5.1 Findings................................................................................................ 152
4.5.2 Limitations ........................................................................................... 153
4.5.3 Practical implications ........................................................................... 153
4.5.4 Theoretical implications and outlook .................................................... 154
5 Prestige preference and confidence ............................................................... 156
5.1 Theory ...................................................................................................... 159
5.1.1 Regulatory focus ................................................................................... 160
5.1.2 Overconfidence .................................................................................... 161
5.1.3 Hypotheses ........................................................................................... 162
5.2 Methodology............................................................................................. 164
5.2.1 Participants ........................................................................................... 165
xv
5.2.2 Procedure ............................................................................................. 165
5.3 Results ...................................................................................................... 166
5.4 Discussion ................................................................................................ 170
5.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 171
5.5.1 Findings................................................................................................ 172
5.5.2 Limitations ........................................................................................... 172
5.5.3 Practical implications ........................................................................... 173
5.5.4 Theoretical implications and outlook .................................................... 174
6 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 176
6.1 Findings ................................................................................................... 176
6.2 Limitations ............................................................................................... 180
6.3 Practical implications .............................................................................. 181
6.3.1 Employer perspective ........................................................................... 181
6.3.2 Job-seeker perspective .......................................................................... 183
6.4 Theoretical implications and outlook ........................................................ 185
6.4.1 Further investigating prestigious employer preference .......................... 186
6.4.2 Investigating the context of prestigious employer preference ................ 186
6.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 188
7 Appendix ............................................................................................................. I
7.1 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................... I
7.2 Swiss Student Value Survey ......................................................................... II
7.2.1 Research design ...................................................................................... III
7.3 Listing of definitions ................................................................................... IV
7.4 Journal listing ............................................................................................ IX
7.5 Key contributors .......................................................................................... X
7.5.1 The emergence of status structures: Cecilia L. Ridgeway ........................ X
7.5.2 Integration of research in status: Adam D. Galinsky .............................. XI
7.5.3 Status characteristics and expectation states: Joseph Berger .................. XII
7.5.4 Psychology of status: Cameron Anderson ............................................. XII
7.5.5 Status as competitive advantage: Joel M. Podolny ............................... XIII
7.5.6 The self-reinforcing nature of status: Joe C. Magee ............................. XIII
7.5.7 Critical appreciation of status: Matthew S. Bothner ............................. XIV
7.5.8 Status-performance relationships: Damon J. Phillips ........................... XIV
xvi
7.5.9 Ethological signaling: Amotz Zahavi .................................................... XV
7.5.10 Conclusion on key contributors ...................................................... XVII
7.6 Item listings ........................................................................................... XVIII
7.6.1 Development influences on draft scale .............................................. XVIII
7.6.2 Pilot version of prestigious employer preference scale .......................... XX
7.6.3 Revised version of prestigious employer preference scale .................... XXI
7.7 Core measurement for work values ......................................................... XXII
7.8 Results of empirical investigation .......................................................... XXIII
7.8.1 Empirical analysis on pre-study ........................................................ XXIII
7.8.1.1 Exploratory factor analysis on pre-study ................................... XXIII
7.8.2 Empirical analysis on revised scale .................................................... XXV
7.8.2.1 Exploratory factor analysis ........................................................ XXV
7.8.2.2 Confirmatory factor analysis ....................................................XXVII
7.8.3 Empirical analysis on revised scale .................................................... XXX
7.8.3.1 Exploratory factor analysis ........................................................ XXX
7.8.3.2 Confirmatory factor analysis ....................................................XXXII
7.8.4 Empirical analysis of the scale’s nomological network .................. XXXVI
7.8.4.1 Pilot study: correlation plots of PEP with values .................... XXXVI
7.8.4.2 Revision study: correlation plots of PEP with values........... XXXVIII
8 Bibliography ................................................................................................... XL
Author’s curriculum vitae ................................................................................. LXXI
xvii
Indices
List of figures
Figure 1 – Own illustration of recognized contributions to status research .............................. 20
Figure 2 – Own illustration of the segments of scientific advance on status ............................ 41
Figure 3 – Own illustration on theoretical positiong and delineation of research gap ............. 59
Figure 4 – Own illustration: conceptual draft of prestigious employer preference construct .. 79
Figure 5 – Own illustration on theorized relation of PEP's individual motives and RF........... 82
Figure 6 – Own illustration on theorized relation of PEP's social motives and SCO ............... 84
Figure 7 – "Proposed circular motivational continuum of 19 values with sources that underly
their order." (Schwartz et al., 2012, p. 669) .............................................................. 86
Figure 8 – Own illustration on theorized relation among PEP and work-related values ......... 88
Figure 9 – Own illustration of prestigious employer preference construct ............................. 100
Figure 10 – Evaluated construct model variants ....................................................................... 109
Figure 11 – PEP social/invidual motives, social comparison, and regulatory focus .............. 120
Figure 12 – Perceived values of leading (line) and mid-range (dotted) businesses ................ 148
Figure 13 – Own illustration of linear trend in group composition on entry decision ........... 167
Figure 14 – Own illustration of SEM results for individual-level analysis. ............................ 169
Figure 15 – Own illustration of SEM results for group-level analysis .................................... 170
Figure 16 – Own illustration of theoretical positioning, research gap, and contribution ....... 179
Figure 17 – Own illustration of typical SSVS study process ..................................................... III
Figure 18 – Own illustration of recognized contributors on status research .......................... XVI
Figure 19 – Pre-study: scree plot............................................................................................ XXIII
Figure 20 – Pilot study: scree plot ........................................................................................... XXV
Figure 21 – Pilot study: path diagram and loadings for single factor model (A).............. XXVII
Figure 22 – Pilot study: path diagram and loadings for dual factor model (B) ................ XXVII
Figure 23 – Pilot study: path diagram and loadings for five factor model (C) ................ XXVIII
Figure 24 – Pilot study: path diagram and loadings for simple 2nd order model (D) ...... XXVIII
Figure 25 – Pilot study: path diagram and loadings for complex 2nd order model (E) ....... XXIX
Figure 26 – Pilot study: path diagram and loadings for third order model (F) ................... XXIX
Figure 27 – Revision study: scree plot.................................................................................... XXX
Figure 28 – Revision study: path diagram and loadings for single factor model (A) ...... XXXII
Figure 29 – Revision study: path diagram and loadings for dual factor model (B) ......... XXXII
Figure 30 – Revision study: path diagram and loadings for five factor model (C) ......... XXXIII
Figure 31 – Revision study: path diagram and loadings for simple 2nd order model (D) XXXIII
xviii
Figure 32 – Revision study: additional investigation into the loadings of social factors XXXIV
Figure 33 – Revision study: add. investigation into the loadings of individual factors ... XXXIV
Figure 34 – Revision study: path diagram, loadings for complex 2nd order model (E).... XXXV
Figure 35 – Revision study: path diagram and loadings for third order model (F) .......... XXXV
xix
List of tables
Table 1 – Overview of theoretical development on status and status in recruitment ............... 17
Table 2 – Overview of theoretical development on prestigious employer preference ............. 65
Table 3 – "Conceptual Definitions of 10 Basic Values", added higher-order values (Schwartz
et al., 2012) ................................................................................................................... 86
Table 4 – Overview of studies in scale development, evaluation, and revision ....................... 89
Table 5 – Perfectionism in extant literature ................................................................................. 96
Table 6 – Hedonism, belonging, uniqueness, and conspicousness in extant literature ............ 97
Table 7 – Related, established scales in extant literature ............................................................ 97
Table 8 – Related extant literature found in broad-scope search ............................................... 99
Table 9 – Pilot Study: variance explained in factor extractions by model .............................. 108
Table 10 – Pilot study: fit statistics (selection) of evaluated models ....................................... 110
Table 11 – Pilot version vs. revision version: comparison of PEP scale item batteries ......... 111
Table 12 – Revision study: study code, sample sizes, locations, and incentive...................... 113
Table 13 – Revision study: variance explained in factor extractions by model ..................... 114
Table 14 – Revision study: fit statistics (selection) by model .................................................. 115
Table 15 – T-test statistics: prestige information on value estimates ...................................... 148
Table 16 – Development from long list to first item battery ................................................... XIX
Table 17 – Pilot version of the prestigious employer preference scale (de/en) ...................... XX
Table 18 – Revised version of the prestigious employer preference scale (de/en) ................ XXI
Table 19 – Core measurement for work values (Batt & Berghaus) ..................................... XXII
Table 20 – Pre-study: obliquely rotated loadings of two-factor-model (B) ........................ XXIV
Table 21 – Pre-study: obliquely rotated loadings of five-factor-model (C) ........................ XXIV
Table 22 – Pilot study: obliquely rotated loadings of two-factor-model (B) ...................... XXVI
Table 23 – Pilot study: obliquely rotated loadings of five-factor model (C) ...................... XXVI
Table 24 – Revision study: obliquely rotated loadings of two factor model (B) ................ XXXI
Table 25 – Revision study: obliquely rotated loadings of five factor model (C) ................ XXXI
Table 26 – Pilot study: correlations among PEP and basic values (n=241)..................... XXXVI
Table 27 – Pilot study: correlations among PEP and work values (n=241) .................. XXXVII
Table 28 – Revision study: correlations among PEP and basic values (n=167) .......... XXXVIII
Table 29 – Revision study: correlations among PEP and work values (n=167) ............. XXXIX
xx
Abbreviations
EFA Exploratory factor analysis
Fit types PO fit .......... Person-organization fit
PE fit .......... Person-environment fit
PJ fit ........... Person-job fit
PG fit .......... Person-group fit
FPSCB ..... Framework of prestige-seeking consumer behavior
(Vigneron & Johnson, 1999)
PCA .......... Principal component analysis
PEP .......... Prestigious employer preference, construct developed and scale
operationalized and evaluated in chapter 2.2.2,
factors abbreviated as follows: PER ........... Perfectionism
HED .......... Hedonism
ASC ........... Association
UNI ............ Uniqueness
CON .......... Conspicousness
IND ............ Individual factors (perfectionism and hedonism)
SOC ........... Social factors (assocation, uniqueness, and conspicuousness)
RF ............ Regulatory focus, see (Higgins, 2012), components: RFprom ...... Regulatory focus on promotion RFprev ........ Regulatory focus on prevention RFrel .......... Relative regulatory focus: focus on promotion – focus on prevention
SCO .......... Social comparison orientation, see (Buunk & Gibbons, 2010)
SIT ............ Social identity theory, see (Ashforth & Mael, 1989)
SSVS ........ Swiss Student Value Survey, see appendix, section 7.2, key
measurement based on (Schwartz et al., 2012), factors: HED .......... Hedonism ACH .......... Achievement PWR .......... Power SEC ........... Security TRA ........... Tradition CON .......... Conformity BEN ........... Benevolence UNI ............ Uniqueness SDR ........... Self-direction STI ............. Stimulation
Abbreviations as used in the documentation of interviews, section 3.2.1 BCGMcK ... Boston Constuling Group or McKinsey and Company (leading consulting firms) GIZ ............ Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (example of NGOs) LVMH ........ Moet Hennessy – Louis Vuitton (example of leading luxury goods corporations) MKF .......... Mars Kraft Foods (example of leading providers of fast moving consumer goods) P&G .......... Procter & Gamble (example of leading providers of fast moving consumer goods) UN ............. United Nations Organization (example of NGOs)
1
1 Introduction
The relevance of this dissertation’s positioning emerges at the crossroads of two
fundamental trends: first, people’s increasing role in the performance of businesses, and
second, work’s increasing role in people’s lives. Both trends have grown in impetus and
influence in the past decades, fueled by the evolution of societies and economies around
the world. Both trends do not show signs of subsiding. Instead, substantial and long-
term changes in demography in most economies provide seminal grounds for
sustainably shifting management priorities. This dissertation provides a marketeer’s
perspective on navigating the managerial challenges involved.
Businesses are sites of productivity, but more fundamentally, they are sites of productive
collaboration among people (Drucker, 1995). As economies around the world increase
their share of tertiary industry segments, a global and well-networked economy
generates an ever-increasing number of business opportunities to profit from.
Decreasing frictions in aquiring the means to start a business lead to a substantial shift
in which factors remain to be key differentiators: the essential determinant to business
performance is not (limited to) access to resources, costly production facilities, or
sizeable investments anymore. Instead, the fundamental determinant to business
performance is attracting and retaining those people who know how to generate
competitive advantages: people that make businesses perform well (Barney, 1986;
Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Carmeli, 2004; Delery & Shaw, 2001; Huselid, 1995; Lado
& Wilson, 1994; OECD, 2000; Pfeffer, 1998, Pfeffer, 1994; Schneider, 1987; Taylor &
Collins, 2000).
On the other hand, people are the authors of their biographies. In the context of a
productive society, these biographies revolve to a great degree around their professional
careers (Hauser & Warren, 1996). Most established economies have suffered through
and recovered from the substantial social implications of prolongued phases of
unemployment. As a result, the average professional tenure with an employer has
decreased to a fraction as loyalties diminished from growing flexibilities of businesses’
personnel commitments (Michaels, Handfield-Jones, & Axelrod, 2001). With decreased
organizational tenure and increasing volatility in the employer-employee relationship,
the chance to attain the “right” position at the “right” employer appears more feasible,
but also becomes more competitive as there is a general consensus on which positions
are in high demand. Consequentially, an engagement to work for an employer, today,
has become a commitment of limited time horizon and follows an ever more dire
2
competition to generate a social identity through accumulation of symbolic capital:
people build a substantial share of their identities upon their professional affiliations to
businesses and their brands (Albert, Ashforth, & Dutton, 2000; Bidwell, Won,
Barbulescu, & Mollick, 2014; Bloom, 2016; Brannan, Parsons, & Priola, 2014; Budd &
Spencer, 2015; Cable & Kay, 2012).
Thus, as businesses identify their people’s talent as a fundamental determinant of
performance at one end of the market, people increasingly identify their professional
career as both a canvas for designing the quality of their social identity and the
productive performance of their personal biography on the other end of the market. Both
implications lead to an increase of competitive pressure which becomes particularly
pronounced in the segment of knowledge workers that account for the largest share of
productive personnell in tertiary sectors (Collins & Kanar, 2014). This competitive
pressure accelerates due to the demographic change which diminishes the number of
people available for employment in ever more complex and demanding positions. This
dissertation aims to aid organizations’ competitiveness in this market by following the
market-oriented management approach and, consequently, adding to the marketing
insight in the setting of recruitment (App, Merk, & Büttgen, 2012).
I subtitled my research coining the term “Conspicuous Employment” to capture this
complex system of rising pressures and the increasing role of status1 and symbolism in
employment in homage to the contribution which remains the cornerstone to modern
scientific elaboration on status and signaling, “The Theory of the Leisure Class” by
Thorstein Veblen (1915). This is not to inappropriately muddy the term of conspicuous
consumption. Instead, with the title I intend to highlight the evolution Western societies
underwent in the past century: where Veblen identified the “Leisure Class” to ostenta-
tiously enjoy their lives devoid of work and devoted to conspicuous consumption, we
see today that the proliferation of productivity, the increasing role of work in people’s
lives, and the rise of symbolism in efficient social exchange have turned the tables en-
tirely. Today, the absence of productive employment is equivalent to social ruin and the
ultimate position with the best employer is the true luxury of self-realization in a social
identity – captured in one term: conspicuous employment.
1 For this dissertation, I employ the term “status” as a wider concept of social hierarchy and focus on “prestige” as
the narrower concept of deference-generating status. See section 2.1.3 for an elaboration on definitions for this
dissertation.
3
1.1 Setting
The above illustrated increase of competitive pressure in both sides of the job market
warrants closer inspection of its setting and observations on its consequences. To
structure the discussion of these consequences, I build upon an established economic
model of the nature of the job market as a two-sided matching market which is notorious
for being fraught with multiple types of inefficiencies (Chatman, 1991; Roth, 1985).
Most fundamentally, this model states that job markets are – unlike markets for
commodities – subject to mutual competition, selection, and agreement among two
groups of actors: employers and employees. Consequently, I discuss the implications of
the increased competitive pressure in the job market first from the perspective of the
employer and then from the perspective of job-seekers.
From the employers’ perspective, the increasing competitive pressure has been most
thoroughly illustrated as a “war for talent” (Chambers, Foulon, Handfield-Jones,
Hankin, & Micheals, 1998). This war for talent has encouraged employers’ efforts to
professionalize the conceptualization and advertising of offers on the job market by
transfering insight from marketing on how businesses position their offers toward
customers. Consequently, employee value propositions emerged as a variant of unique
selling propositions (Michaels, Handfield-Jones, & Axelrod, 2001), employer branding
emerged as a variant of traditional commercial branding (Ambler & Barrow, 1996;
Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004) and increased the experiential, symbolic, and communicative
function of employment (Lievens, 2007). In this setting of increasing competitiveness,
organizational reputation plays an important role in supporting the competitive
advantages of employers as reputation has been found to attract applicants (Turban,
1998), increase the quality of attracted applicants (Turban & Cable, 2003), decrease
recruitment cost (Podolny, 1993) and personnell cost (Bidwell, Won, Barbulescu, &
Mollick, 2014), decrease personnel turnover (Ciftcioglu, 2011), and provide a host of
further benefits from organizational citizenship behavior (Carmeli, 2005) to suggestions
of higher performance (Carmeli, 2004). Consequentially, many modern weapons of
recruitment emerged in the war for talent, but seemingly none as powerful and
comprehensive in its benefits as an exceptionally prestigious image.
From the job-seekers’ perspective, the rising emphasis on prestige in recruitment did not
go unnoticed. Hand in hand with the increasing amount of advertising and complexity
of the advertised offers, methods of commensuration and simplification emerged in form
of numerous employer surveys, rankings, awards, and certifications. Anecdotally, this
great number of tools to simplify the evaluation of an employer’s quality inspired
4
rankings of rankings, pointing job-seekers to the best ranking in order to then aim for
the best employer (Ventura, 2016). In parallel, institutions of education have found
themselves in contests to strive for top positions, too (O'Meara & Bloomgarden, 2011).
This creates a seamless experience of a stratified market of educational institutions and
offers as well as a stratified market of employment institutions and offers (Wainer,
2005). The stratification of educational offers provides an insight into the degree to
which aspiring professionals value a high-prestige track record as a foundation to their
future career as the increase of tuition cost inflated the sum of fees needed to complete
an education with a leading college to be among the most costly investments of a lifetime
(Boliver, 2013). The sum of 1.2 trillion USD of student loan debt in the United States
alone is an indicator that career-minded young people are willing to invest into not just
any education, but an education among the best (Jackson, 2016). While the place and
subject of education is a key determinant of a job-seeker’s chances to become accepted
at a leading employer, it is only the first of many symbols he or she will collect in their
resumé (Tsai, Chi, Huang, & Hsu, 2011) throughout their careers. This accrueing of
symbols goes far beyond boosting self-esteem (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) and serves both
psychological functions of completing a desired social identity (Wicklund & Gollwitzer,
1981) and strategic functions of providing the necessary collection of signals for future
application processes (Spence, 1973).
Consequentially, we find a pronounced role of social hierarchy (Barkow, 1975; Gould,
2002; Leavitt, 2003; Magee & Galinsky, 2008) for both sides of the market: in a war for
talent, it tends to matter more that a company is at the top of a market than what it may
stand for, substantially. At the same time, it tends to matter more that a job-seeker can
provide those signals that allow her or his expected performance to be efficiently
assessed as above-all-competitors.
In the setting of the job market, we find that increasing competition gives rise to the role
of social structure due to at least three distinct reasons: first, organizational status is a
strategic resource of employers (Podolny, 1993) in attracting associates as it provides
those associates a range of valuable benefits such as access to a network of valuable
resources (Lin, 1999), validation (Rao, 1994), symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 2012), access
to unique resources (Tortoriello, Perrone, & McEvily, 2011), etc.; second, employment-
derived prestige can act as a compensatory incentive (Bidwell et al., 2014) and, thus,
help optimize personnel cost; third, prestige is efficient in communicating and evaluat-
ing performance to be expected (Spence, 1973). Consequently, with increasing compet-
itive pressure, an increasing role of status in the context of employment and recruitment
is expected if not inevitable.
5
1.2 Problem statement
Status is associated with a diverse set of substantial advantages for those who enjoy it
(Chen, Peterson, Phillips, Podolny, & Ridgeway, 2012; Pearce, 2011; Piazza & Castel-
lucci, 2014; Sauder, Lynn, & Podolny, 2012). Furthermore, status has been subject to
an extensive research tradition across multiple disciplines (Magee & Galinsky, 2008).
However, as mature the field of research on status may appear due to its seniority, a
closer investigation reveals that, for the better part of its development, research on status
has lacked a critical perspective upon its implications. This critical perspective has only
been emerging in the past few years, mostly advanced by management and organiza-
tional sciences scholars. Several streams may be identified, each represented by only
one of a small group of contributions: status as a reason for commensuration (Espeland
& Stevens, 1998), as a motivator for faking (Donovan, Dwight, & Schneider, 2014), as
distinct from factual quality (Lynn, Podolny, & Tao, 2009), as a root of unethical be-
havior (Charness, Masclet, & Villeval, 2014), as a foundation for hubris (Anderson,
Ames, & Gosling, 2008), as a precursor for narcissism (Blair, Hoffman, & Helland,
2008; Stein, 2003), as a cause of risky behavior (Bothner, Kang, & Stuart, 2007), as a
detriment to performance (Bothner, Kim, & Smith, 2012), and as a potential root of
workaholism (Neate, 2015; Yüksel, 2014). This critical perspective did not emerge from
any individual significant advancement, but rather from the traditional evolution of sci-
entific fields to move from the general effects to the border conditions of the construct.
Here, research into particularly high status environments has been identified to provide
the foundation of both positive and detrimental effects.
Taking into account this recent, more critical findings on status and weighing it with the
advantages, we find that status connects four characteristics that make it particularly
relevant to high-status organizations with regard to the job market: first, status carries
value and the awarding of status has been shown to substitute for other, potentially cost-
lier incentives (Bidwell et al., 2014; Podolny, 1993). Second, status drives behavior in
both beneficial and detrimental directions (e.g., Bothner et al., 2012; Charness et al.,
2014). Third, status becomes increasingly important as the competitive pressures on
both sides – employees and employers – of the employment market rise (Chambers et
al., 1998; Podolny, 1993; Spence, 1973). Fourth, status assumes a particularly critical
position in the job market as a matching market as the core process of matching tends
to become commensurate to focus on simpler unidimensional preference satisfaction
instead of more complex multidimensional fit assessments (Espeland & Stevens, 1998;
Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). These four characteristics point to four
6
distinct questions that prior research has not yet provided substantial answers to. Con-
sequentially, I investigate four specific challenges in order to provide insight and derive
recommendations on how to alleviate detrimental effects:
First, there is a large body on scientific investigation into status (Magee & Galinsky,
2008) and an emergent group of researchers investigating status in the specific setting
of recruitment (Carmeli, 2005; Highhouse, Thornbury, & Little, 2007). However, as
other reviews have lamented repeatedly (Piazza & Castellucci, 2014; Sauder et al.,
2012), limited exchange among researchers in the field of status have left the field
lacking integration and, consequentially, effiency in development. Given the potential
residing in status-driven behavior for both beneficial and detrimental outcomes as well
as the potential locked inside the over-a-century worth of research, making this
generated insight more accessible to both scholars and practitioners is the first key
challenge that this dissertation aims to help address.
Second, interpersonal differences in ascribing more or less priority to status in an
employer have been neglected in scientific exploration beyond the immediate
investigation of personality traits (Anderson & Cowan, 2014; Hogan & Hogan, 1991;
Hyman, 1942). There is no substantial and well-integrated construct that evaluates the
degree to which individuals consider status an important factor in their employer
selection. Through this lack of investigation on individuals’ propensity to assign priority
to status over other symbolic or functional returns, there is no conclusive insight on what
drives status-driven career decisions beyond somewhat lenient considerations of self-
esteem (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) and self-presentation (Leary, Jongman-Sereno, &
Diebels, 2014). Generating insight into prestigious employer preference among job-
seekers is the second key challenge that this dissertation addresses.
Third, investigation of fit-considerations’ alongside prestige-considerations’ impact
upon employer attractiveness have not received the attention their impact warrants. Fit
between a job-seeker and an employer is a difficult metric to assess due to its
multidimensionality. However, the fit among a person and the respective organization
(person-organization fit, PO fit) has been found to provide the basis for decreased
turnover, increased identification, and, in the long term, higher performance (Kristof,
1996; Kristof-Brown, 2000; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Finally, PO fit is rooted in both
the person’s and the organization’s factual identities, beliefs, and values (Dose, 1997)
and not in the symbolic signals they collect and send. Instead, the satisfaction of
prestige-preferences of a job-seeker in an employer is a simple metric to assess due to
its unidimensionality. Two sets of challenges arise: first, a pronounced preference for
prestige over fit suggest founding fit considerations on signals instead of substance,
7
leading to implications for challenges in organizational socialization, turnover, and the
reasoning of loyalty. Second, extensive prestigious employer preference among job-
seekers suggests decreasing opportunities for employer brands to differentiate from
competitiors beyond commensurated rankings, ratings, and certificates. Generating
insight into how prestigious employer preference compares with considerations on PO
fit is the third key challenge that this dissertation addresses.
Fourth, behavioral obeservations and experimental studies have just recently broken
ground on the implications of prestige-driven individuals upon their strategies to acquire
status. Here, striving for status has been found to produce more risk affine behavior. The
theoretical foundation for the link between status- and risk-affinity has been initially
prepared by those psychological contributions pointing to the generation of self-esteem
as one of the key outputs of status and to elaborations on vanity, pride, organizational
narcissism (Bothner, Kim, & Smith, 2012; Charness et al., 2014; Finn, 1961; Lea &
Webley, 1997) as well as by those economic and sociological contributions disucssing
small-group dynamics. The connection linking status with risk affinity is, however, a
distinct challenge to those organizations that find themselves at the top of their sector
and, consequently, experience exceptionally high status imprinting on decreased
performance, scandals, or business failure alltogether. Generating insight into how
prestigious employer preference and its related psychological concepts impacts on
decision making performance is the fourth key challenge that this dissertation aims to
help address.
1.3 Prior research
With regard to the above illustrated challenges, the frame of scientific reference has
been prepared by the extant literature: first, the breadth of the individual streams, but
also their lacking integration have been illustrated by a range of reviews and conceptual
articles illustrating the evolution of the topic among individual disciplines, e.g. (Pearce,
2011; Piazza & Castellucci, 2014; Sauder, Lynn, & Podolny, 2012).
Second, investigation of interpersonal differences in the drive to attain status has been
investigated in terms of personality traits (Anderson & Cowan, 2014; Highhouse,
Thornbury, & Little, 2007) and thus considered in a more static context. While there
have been two approaches into the investigation of interpersonal difference among
preference for prestige induced by employer association (Alba, McIlwain, Wheeler, &
Jones, 2014), these approaches appear limited in terms of either foundation or
conceptual breadth. However, so far, the topic has been largely neglected in terms of the
8
more tactical context of immediate motives, related psychological patterns, basic and
work-related values.
Third, while fit theories are a well-developed field of research (Kristof, 1996; Kristof-
Brown, 2000; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005), this theoretical domain
has not seen the development of a focus on status challenging the influence of fit on
perceptions of attractiveness, affiliation, and retention of employees. This research
combines insight from research related to fit theories with the aggregated insight from
status research in recruitment.
Fourth, research has emerged recently on the link among status attainment and
emergence of risk affinity (Bothner, Kang, & Stuart, 2007; Bothner et al., 2012; Bothner,
Podolny, & Smith, 2011) as well as the related chain of implications in terms of
organizational narcissism (Blair, Hoffman, & Helland, 2008; Hamedoglu & Potas, 2012;
Resick, Whitman, Weingarden, & Hiller, 2009) not to mention the sizable literature on
management hubris, instilling within-organizational position as source of status and
consequential behavior (Haynes, Hitt, & Campbell, 2015; Hiller & Hambrick, 2005;
Hoorens, Pandelaere, Oldersma, & Sedikides, 2012). Within this productive scientific
context, I position my extension on the prestigious employer preference research into
the relationship with risk affinity based on the findings on the nomological network of
the central construct, specifically regulatory focus (RF) and social comparison
orientation (SCO).
Furthermore, this research enjoys the advantage of following in the footsteps and
extending research streams that are both well-established and remain presenting
distinctive research gaps. Thus, the dissertation as a whole appreciates the foundation of
previous findings not only in a dedicated chapter discussing research on status (section
2.1), consequentially derived term definitions (section 2.1.3), more specifically research
on status in recruiting (section 2.2), and a delineation of the research gap (section 2.2.2),
but also in form of the more detailed discussions on theory on factors and the
nomological network of the prestigious employer preference construct (section 3.1 and
subsections), fit theories (section 4.1.1), RF (section 5.1.1), and overconfidence (section
5.1.2).
9
Based on the problem statement as well as the briefly introduced state of research, the
guiding research questions of this dissertation are:
1) Why do individuals prefer prestigious employers?
2) What does prestigious employer preference (PEP) entail with regard to individ-
uals’ values and orientation?
3) What does PEP entail with regard to individuals’ attitudes and behavior?
The applicability of these research questions is being investigated in chapter 2 which
provides a more thorough investigation of extant research and results. These results
include a thorough development and further differentiation of the above presented
questions.
1.4 Aim
In this dissertation I aim to help solve the above presented challenges by generating
insight through employing appropriately framed theoretical elaborations as well as
empirical studies. First, in order to make the substantial body of extant research more
readily available to both the scientific community and practitioners, I provide a two-part
elaboration on key contributions and scholars in status and, more focused, status in
recruitment. To allow both parts to reach their audience, I aim to gradually reframe and
independently submit both contributions to appropriate publication venues, such as the
Corporate Reputation Review for the illustration of research on status and the Journal
of Brand Management for an extended version of the illustration of research on status
in recruitment.
Second, I provide insight into prestigious employer preference among job-seekers. To
achieve this aim, I initially provide a thorough theoretical investigation of the framework
of prestige-seeking customer behavior (FPSCB) (Vigneron & Johnson, 1999) in the
setting of job-seeking. Building upon this investigation, I develop, operationalize,
evaluate, and contextualize the resulting prestigious employer preference (PEP) scale
through the course of six empirical studies. An integrative discussion concludes the
development of this novel measurement. Target publication venues for this key
contribution of this dissertation are Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Applied Psychological Measurement, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
or Journal of Individual Differences due to the presence of comparable and referenced
previous publications.
Third, in a simple 2x1 randomized experiment, I investigate the impact of prestige
information on work-related value estimates on employers. I compare the influence of
10
the satisfaction of prestige preferences upon employer attractiveness with that of the
degree of estimated PO fit. Target publication venues for this contribution are journals
in the recruiting domain, such as the Journal of Human Resources or Human Resource
Management.
Fourth, I follow the insight of the nomological analysis on the prestigious employer
preference scale and theoretically elaborate on the link connecting status-driven
behavior and confidence. In a more complex within/between, quasi-experimental
setting, I investigate the influence of regulatory promotion focus, a key correlated factor
of prestigious employer preference, on decision making by manipulating constellations
of decision making groups with regard to their members’ RF. Target publication venues
for this contribution are Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes and
the Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
1.5 Contribution
The contribution of this dissertation is versatile. More practical elements of the
contribution have already been provided, others are subject to publication and reception
of its findings while a third set of contributions provides the context to this scientific
work. Most tangibly, this dissertation inspired a series of studies, a project called Swiss
Student Value Survey (SSVS), that both helped generate the data investigated in this
dissertation, but also provided immediate insight and guidance to every participant of
the studies. Through a collaboration with career institutions of four universities, the in-
volved parties offered workshops on how to approach value-driven decisions on enter-
ing the job market to over 1’500 young job-seekers with the engaged universities. The
basic framework of the SSVS has been implemented into the regular consultation pro-
cess of the Career and Corporate Services Center at the University of St. Gallen (HSG)
and has, until mid-2016, helped serve more than 600 additional students in considering
their value profiles. Finally, based on the SSVS, the Career and Corporate Services Cen-
ter of University of St. Gallen (HSG) is developing and establishing a spin-off offer to
corporate partners, “Work Value Insights”, to interface with the regularly established
studies carried out at the university.
Beyond the immediate contribution in exchange with job-seekers, career consultants,
and employers, this dissertation provides the nucleus of several key contributions to both
scientific and managerial stakeholders: first, this dissertation makes a contribution to a
field dealing with questions of critical relevance to a business’ positioning in the job
market. In doing so, I contribute a basis for greater exchange and proliferation on prior
11
scientific thought on status, a topic of ever increasing relevance, but lacking integration.
More specifically, I integrate the prior findings that touch on status in recruitment re-
search. Moreover, I transfer conceptual insight from consumer behavior research and
review, operationalize, evaluate, and contextualize it in the recruitment context. Then, I
apply the previously provided tools in two contexts – one investigating the impact of
prestige information on value perceptions and comparing the strength of influences of
prestige preference satisfaction with PO fit evaluations; the other following the findings
on PEP’s nomological network and extending research on the link connecting status-
driven behavior and confidence.
These two core contributions emerged before the backdrop of the community-oriented
contribution of co-founding the Competence Center for Luxury Management during the
course of developing this dissertation. This center provides education, research, ex-
change, and recruitment services to best support its stakeholders who are pursuing re-
search on status-driven consumer behavior or resulting management strategies, those
who study management with the aim of providing status-driven offers, those who take
on responsibilities in their positions as managers in the luxury market and many more.
1.6 Research design
The research design of this dissertation is a consequence of the investigated
phenomenon’s characteristics, the state of the scientific advancement in the field, and
the requirements for relevant and impactful insights as this project’s outcome.
1.6.1 Phenomenon’s characteristics
The characteristics of the phenomenon of prestige-driven behavior in the employer-
employee relationship are threefold. First, prestige-driven behavior is a social phe-
nomenon. Prestige is not solely driven by individuals’ considerations on themselves, but
results from social considerations of an individual’s standing within a group of competi-
tors. Thus, the behavior under analysis is, at least in the setting of this research project,
topically rooted in the domain of social psychology.
Second, prestige-driven behavior is evaluative. Given that the nature of prestige is to
operationalize the antecedents, condition, and impact of individuals’ relative standing,
the necessity of a pre-existing normative framework of conventions on what is valued
in the group becomes apparent. Thus, prestige-driven behavior cannot be discussed
without previously taking into account the context in which the prestige is being
assigned.
12
Third, prestige steers behavior. As research from fundamental disciplines such as
evolutionary biology and ethology has shown, prestige appears to have evolved as a
fundamental mechanism of social organization. As such, the positive attributes of
prestige facilitate social exchange processes for the benefit of the whole group. As a
consequence, prestige-considerations have engrained themselves into human social
interactions to a degree that they become close to unavoidable or, if avoided,
conspicuously absent.
1.6.2 Scientific advancement
The state of the scientific advancement in the field of prestige-driven behavior can be
characterized by three preliminary findings. First, prestige-driven behavior in its
fundamental nature is well-explored. Prestige-driven behavior has been previously
researched in a broad range of scientific domains. Previous literature indicates that the
foundations for this dissertation project have been provided by a long standing scientific
interest and dedicated tradition of researchers from a range of disciplines.
However, while the social science fields of psychology and sociology as well as the
applied fields of human resource management, marketing, and management slowly
converge on the topic, the phenomenon of prestige-preferences itself has not yet been
approached in focus to explain motives of prestige-striving. Second, prestige-driven
behavior lacks measurement methodology. There is a wide range of published
psychometric scales dealing with prestige-related topics. Prestige-preference of the
individual is, however, largely neglected. This gap apparently has not been filled yet as
none of the previously engaged disciplines were driven by the motivation to arrive at a
better understanding of the individual’s desire for prestige and its impact in applied
scenarios, but rather more fundamental scientific exploration. Third, insight on prestige-
driven behavior lacks integration with adjacent psychological theory. Given the lack of
conceptualization, constructs, and measurement instruments for prestige-driven
behavior, prior research has not integrated this construct with other psychological
theory. However, given the centrality and criticality of prestige as a motivator of social
behavior, integration with other fields of psychology yield the greatest return of research
on this topic.
1.6.3 Requirements for relevant research
Finally, the requirements for relevant and impactful insights as this project’s outcome
appear as a result from the generic recommendations on relevance in research. Here, I
13
adhere to the recommendations generally set forth in organizational research, which is
commonly described to be fivefold (Thomas & Tymon, 1982): first, this research is
required to achieve descriptive relevance; second, it is required to achieve goal
relevance; third, it shall achieve operational validity; fourth, this dissertation aims to
generate non-obvious insight; fifth, this research is required to contribute timely insight.
1.6.4 Conclusion
Based on the characteristics of the phenomenon, the research design of this dissertation
project is theoretically and methodologically anchored in the domain of social
psychology. Furthermore, because this research focuses on prestige-considerations, it
cannot avoid also touching on individuals’ considerations of values. Finally, due to the
assessment of the general applicability of prestige-considerations, the research design
assumes a certain freedom in selecting samples and scenarios. Based on the state of the
scientific advancement, the research design of this dissertation project is substantially
informed by previous research in closely related fields while still remaining focused on
a substantial gap. This informs the research design insofar as prior research warrants an
emphasis on hypothesis testing designs instead of exploration. To facilitate this
approach, I conceptualize, operationalize, evaluate, and document an appropriate
measurement for the individual’s propensity to orient its behavior on prestige-
considerations. Then, I investigate the constructs relationship with a widely established
and holistic value model as well as with social interaction and goal attainment theory.
Taking into account factors antecedent to an appropriate research design, I arrive at a
three-phase approach: in the first phase, I conduct a cross-discipline literature research
on published insight on status and, more specifically, on status in recruitment. This
literature research consists of two segments: first, a com- prehensive broad-spectrum
review on research dealing with status without delineation in terms of scientific
disciplines, and, second, a focused review on research dealing with status in the
employer-employee relationship. In the second phase, I build upon this literature
research and introduce insight from consumer behavior research in order to construct,
evaluate, and investigate the central measurement construct on prestigious employer
preference. In the third phase, I use the developed measurement and related insight in
order to investigate the impact of prestige preference upon employer attractivity and
decision making performance.
The hypothesis-testing research builds upon a supporting research project, the Swiss
Student Value Survey (SSVS), used for the data gathering of the psychometric scale
14
development, the investigation of antecedents and the first impact analysis of prestigious
employer preference (impact on organizational fit). An adjacent experiment supports the
analysis of the second impact of prestigious employer preference (impact on
confidence).
1.7 Overview of results
This dissertation provides insight with regard to the theory, measurement, and a selec-
tion of consequences of prestigious employer preference as the central construct of the
phenomenon titled conspicuous employment.
First, the dissertation provides a cross-disciplinary literature review to provide an over-
view of the key scientific advances in the field as well as its scholars. This result is
extended by a more in-depth review of findings on status in the recruitment setting. This
extension leads to a more detailed definition of the research gap.
Second, this dissertation provides a thorough theoretical review and conceptualization
of PEP as a measurement construct. The key result of this segment of the dissertation is
the measurement scale itself, including the findings on its validity. These findings are
extended by the investigation into the construct’s nomological network. Here, we find
support for the relationships between the social factors of PEP and SCO as well as PEP’s
individual factors and RF as well as the overall construct of PEP with self-enhancement
values.
Finally, I use both the PEP construct as well as the insight generated on the nomological
network around the construct in order to investigate two consequences of prestige-ori-
entation: first, I find that even slight hints at the positioning of an employer in a social
frame of reference will shift the assumed value profile of that employer. Second, I find
that both value-based fit and satisfaction of prestige preference satisfaction drive attrac-
tiveness of employers. However, third, in direct comparison, the effect of satisfying
prestige preference on attractiveness is substantially stronger than that of value-based
fit.
As a second consequential study, I follow the findings of the nomological network with
regard to regulatory focus and combine those findings with recent contributions linking
status with risk-affinity. I find that, in a quasi-experimental set-up, groups that were
manipulated with regard to their member’s regulatory focus predisposition changed their
decision making behavior. Manipulating the regulatory focus of decision groups had the
power to reverse prior decisions that did not fit the regulatory focus- based hypotheses.
15
In the closing passage of this dissertation, I discuss specific recommendations on the
basis of my findings as they direct themselves toward both employers and job-seekers,
provide an assessment of limitations and the outlook for further research.
16
2 Theory
Scientific investigation into status has a tradition of just about 200 years, provided one
is to draw the line between those contributions following a more modern scientific style
and those contributions focusing on philosophical elaborations in classical antiquity as
illustrated by, e.g., Berry (1994). The amount of scientific thought on this topic is diffi-
cult to overlook due to its vast dimensions and multidisciplinary origins but, at the same
time, essential to review in order to achieve two crucial goals: first, to derive key theo-
retical concepts, perspectives, and definitions and second, to confirm the proposed re-
search gap and delineate it against cognate fields.
Consequently, this chapter on theory is divided in two parts: in the following section, I
present the findings of a systematic review of key concepts as they are recognized today
by a range of 25 reviews on the subject. This sample takes into account those scientific
disciplines that provided the foundations to research in status. The result of this section
is the identification of key concepts and an integrative system of definitions built from
those definitions found among the range of reviewed articles published most recently.
In the second section, I present an account on the literature in those scientific streams
that deal with the application of status to the recruitment context. As the conclusion, I
present the delineation of this research against findings of other established fields. For
a detailed overview of this chapter, please confer to Table 1 on the next page.
2.1 Status
While research on status has a grand heritage, many recent attempts to foster the field’s
advancement have identified that status research suffers from lacking integration across
sub-fields (Pearce, 2011; Piazza & Castellucci, 2014; Sauder et al., 2012). This lack of
integrative perspectives hinders the exchange of new advances as well as the identifica-
tion of those questions that have not been answered. As a result, the advancement in the
research on status does not advance as efficiently as it could. This section is as much an
effort to identify this dissertation’s theoretical foundations as it is an attempt to provide
an integrative perspective to the community.
This section illustrates how status has been discussed through the development of the
field, how the term itself has been interpreted by a range of scholars2, and in which
2 For an overview of the ten most visible and impactful researchers on status derived on the basis of the following
literature review, refer to section 7.5 in the appendix.
17
constellations it has been investigated in. This aim is opposed by at least three chal-
lenges: first, literature on status may be considered too broad to be appreciated as a
whole. Second, literature on status emerged from a range of disciplines. Third, research
on status is fraught with many cognate concepts that are commonly used interchangea-
bly across and sometimes within schools.
Overview of theoretical development
Status, pp. 16
Methodology, pp. 18
Roots, pp. 21 Advances in sociol-
ogy, pp. 22 Advances in social
psychology, pp. 27 Advances in psy-
chology, pp. 30
Advances in ethol-
ogy and anthropol-
ogy,
pp. 33
Advances in eco-
nomics, pp. 34 Advances in organi-
zational sciences, pp.
36
Advances in man-
agement research,
pp. 37
Definitions, pp. 43 Integration of findings on status research, pp. 50
Status and recruitment pp. 51
Occupational prestige, pp. 52 Related socio-psychological theories, pp. 53
Brand equity ap-
proach and em-
ployer branding, pp.
55
Reputation in re-
cruitment, pp. 56 Symbolic and in-
strumental frame-
work in recruiting,
pp. 57
Perceived external
prestige, pp. 57
Integration of findings and delineation of research gap, pp. 58
Table 1 – Overview of theoretical development on status and status in recruitment
This project’s challenges inspired its goals and, in turn, shaped its design: the first chal-
lenge is met by approaching this literature study as a task in reduction of complexity.
This reduction of complexity is attempted by relying on the theoretical insight of those
just under 50 eminent researchers engaged in the research of either the conceptual, struc-
tural or behavioral aspects of status who co-authored recently published reviews follow-
ing their individual perspective of the field. The second challenge is met by selecting
the aforementioned reviews and scientific perspectives from those seven different dis-
ciplines that either contributed most to the field’s emergence or provided most fruitful
application of its insights. The third significant challenge to this project was met by
18
engaging this project with a more relaxed conception of key definitions and, in turn,
generating those key definitions through the project’s outcome.
2.1.1 Methodology
This attempt at describing status as a phenomenon aims to integrate multiple disciplines. This
is due to a key challenge of the scientific advancement of the topic: status’ roots, characteris-
tics, academic applications, implications for the individual as well as for the member of the
group, and implications in economic, organizational and managerial contexts have been dis-
cussed in a range of disciplines that are hardly interconnected. To understand the origins of
status, ethological studies provide the best insight; to appreciate status’ specific value in de-
scribing societal structures, sociological contributions become important; to assess the impact
of status on managerial behavior, management literature cannot be ignored: status is best un-
derstood when traced from origin to impact, when considered for its different facets and not
only for a single one.
Research on status has not only seen a quickly rising resonance with the academic commu-
nity, it has also sparked a range of valuable literature reviews, conceptual integrations, and
reiterations of the key advances of the individual fields. This integration of the prior contri-
butions, fields, scholars, and schools, the resulting cognate concepts and definitions build
upon 25 of those literature reviews and, more specifically, an analysis of its 2’793 literature
references.
The incorporated reviews and conceptual integrations consisted of two contributions from
ethology (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001; Smith & Harper, 1995), one from psychology (An-
derson & Cowan, 2014), six from social psychology (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Barkow,
2014; Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Leary, Jongman-Sereno, & Diebels, 2014; Rueden, 2014; Fiske,
Gilbert, Lindzey, & Jongsma, 2010), four from sociology (Gambetta, 2009; Jasso, 2001; Lin,
1999b; Podolny & Lynn, 2009), four from economics (Fershtman, Murphy, & Weiss, 1996;
Riley, 2001; Truyts, 2010; Weiss & Fershtman, 1998), three from organizational sciences
(Pearce, 2011; Piazza & Castellucci, 2014; Sauder et al., 2012), and five from management
(Chen, Peterson, Phillips, Podolny, & Ridgeway, 2012; Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel,
2011; Kirmani & Zhu, 2007; Lange, Lee, & Dai, 2010; Walker, 2010). Among these articles,
nine contributions where published within the past five years and an additional nine contri-
butions within the past decade, leaving the remaining seven articles to be published between
1998 and 2001. Articles appeared in journals and edited books.
References of these reviews where extracted, parsed, and analyzed with regard to frequency
of references per contribution as well as collaborations among authors. From that, reviews of
19
the presented articles allowed the documentation of the contribution’s coordinates as well as
its theoretical perspective and context. For an initial impression of those articles who found
consensus among at least three reviews and thus were included in this review, please refer to
Figure 1. The findings from this analysis, combined with contextualization, makes up the
foundation of the following sections on contributions, scholars, and resulting cognate con-
cepts and definitions.
2.1.2 Key contributions
Status as a concept has found resonance with a number of scientific disciplines. Since
the 19th century, the description of status as a phenomenon emerged at the overlap of
both economics and sociology. After this time period, the phenomenon proved fertile
for scientific thought in emerging social psychology, individual psychology, ethology,
organizational, and management literature.
The broad design of this review warrants a delineation of its scope: First, status also
inspired some investigation in more recent historical and philosophical reflection. How-
ever, for the purpose of this review, these particular advances appear too descriptive as
to provide particular contribution to the advancement of the understanding of status. In
order to arrive at a multidisciplinary and integrative review of contributions to the field,
contributions beyond the fundamental (ethology, psychology, sociology, and econom-
ics) and more applied fields (organizational science and management) were omitted.
Second, status has been subject of the philosophical discourse in antiquity. Indeed, the
philosophical discourse on status provides an extensive and versatile logical and ethical
backdrop that offers substantial grounds for modern reflection. However, both its scope
and trajectory go beyond this attempt to integrate the more modern schools of thought
on the subject and has, thus, likewise, been excluded from this review.
Third, research on status appears largely fragmented in a number of streams, sub-
streams, and individual contributions: the references indicated by the 25 reviews under
investigation reference 2’395 individual documents, out of which 89% references are
only referenced by one review. This integration takes into account those 81 articles that
are referenced in three or more reviews. This attempt at a more integrative approach
provides an advantage over a less multidisciplinary approach as there are several disci-
pline-focused reviews available per discipline, but none to my knowledge that attempt
to integrate all disciplines that provided major contributions to the field as a whole.
Within these boundaries, the following sections illustrate the key advances in each sci-
entific discipline.
20
Figure 1 – Own illustration of recognized contributions to status research
21
2.1.2.1 An introductory overview
Modern scientific thought on status – i.e., contributions that are consentaneously recog-
nized by key scholars of the field today – spans close to 200 years. Consequently, it is
appropriate to differentiate contributions not only by disciplines, individual fields, au-
thors or schools, but also by phases of advancement as every contribution and every
advancement is most telling if considered against the backdrop of its time. In the below
elaboration, I follow the approach to use Veblen’s seminal contribution as a watershed
between a prologue on the topic in the 19th century and the early phase of scientific
elaboration. Consequently, the field entered a first phase of greater interdisciplinary
resonance during a wave of extending prior thought on rational behavior after the 2nd
world war and until 1960. Thereafter, publications suggest a phase of consolidation of
the discussion within sociology with some notable exceptions such as Spence and Bar-
kow. This consolidation continued until Frank’s book “Choosing the Right Pond”
opened and introduced the field to a second phase of greater interdisciplinary resonance
range of scholars for a more diverse discussion, including sparking a discussion of status
in organizational and management sciences. Finally, and most recently, status appears
as a phenomenon that finds frequent and substantial attention across all investigated
disciplines and enters a phase of establishment that, in turn, warrants the institutionali-
zation of research streams in reviews, edited volumes dedicated to the topic or inclusion
of articles on key concepts in edited volumes in disciplines such as organizational sci-
ences, management, psychology or sociology. It is now, that status appears as a cross-
discipline research stream that – while not yet being thoroughly interwoven – has arrived
both in more fundamental and in more applied research disciplines.
2.1.2.2 Roots
Scientific thought on status did not originate at Rae’s observations in 1834 and neither
did his contribution provide that seminal impact that others could build upon. Rather,
Rae (1834), Marx (1969 [1848]), Marshall (1890) and also Cunynghame (1892) pro-
vided a prologue to the modern thought on status which later echoed throughout Veb-
len’s, Weber’s, and Leibenstein’s contributions. Thus, a selection of the investigated
range of reviews point to Rae as the earliest significant contribution – a suitable starting
point for this review.
Following this prologue, the remainder of the early phase of scientific elaboration with
relation to status extends from mid-19th-century to the end of the Second World War.
Here, contributions ought to be considered in context of Veblen’s key contribution of
22
1899. In his “Theory of the Leisure Class”, Veblen contributed both an ethnographical
analysis and a critique of upper classes’ detrimental impact on society, values, and the
environment (1915). Veblen’s contribution still commonly serves as the foundation to
illustrating signaling behavior among humans through consumption and is widely rec-
ognized by scholars of all represented disciplines.
Next to Veblen, Weber contributed a key contribution to the discourse of sociology,
introducing a broad range of sociological concepts (1946b) that represents, together with
Marx and Durkheim, one of the key pillars of modern sociological thought. While We-
ber’s contribution did not focus on status, but employed status in a range of different
approaches to operationalization from class to estate, it did provide the broadest set of
theoretical concepts to advance in describing individual facets of societies’ stratifica-
tion. In this, he provided a more nuanced and less politically directed contribution to the
analysis of social structure than, e.g., Marx.
2.1.2.3 Advances in sociology
Both Marx and Weber contributed early accounts that provided foundations to sociolog-
ical thought on status. While both contributions could hardly be more different from one
another in style, objective, and substance of contribution, it may be argued that both
contributed to comparable degrees to the discussion – even if only for scholars to sub-
scribe to one or the other approach of considering the structure of societies and resulting
implications.
2.1.2.3.1 First interdisciplinary resonance
Later, in a first phase of greater resonance of the topic with multiple scientific disci-
plines, scholars from the field of sociology contributed a cluster of four noteworthy ar-
ticles focusing on power. Chronologically first, Goldhammer and Shils introduced the
critical differentiation of power (the potential to coerce desired behavior through domi-
nance of force) from status (the potential to receive desired behavior as gestures of def-
erence). While this resembles an important contribution by itself, the authors added a
rather complete ontology integrating both power and status within the context of legiti-
macy (Goldhammer & Shils, 1939). Davis and Moore, on the other hand, focused on the
necessity and implications of scientific analysis of social stratification. Following the
traditional approach of considering the individual’s positional rank in light of productive
contribution to the society, the authors concluded that “the two determinants of posi-
tional rank” are linked to offices and functions that represent the “greatest importance
23
for society” and that require “the greatest training or talent” (Davis & Moore, 1944,
p. 243). The authors extend their contribution by integrating a range of proposals for the
characterization of stratified systems and, thus, advance the structuralist tradition, relat-
ing “to the system of positions, not to the individuals occupying those positions”. In
conclusion, they complement their perspective with an integration on how their contri-
bution can help evaluating societies not as static and homogenous types, but rather as
combinations of structural types. Once again, employment, driven by scarcity of per-
sonnel, assumes – next to religion, government, wealth, and poverty – a key function to
determine society’s structure. Finally, Emerson provides an integration of “power, au-
thority, legitimacy and power structures”, further advancing and solidifying the concepts
for application in sociology (Emerson, 1962). Herein, the author introduces the power-
dependence relation, highlighting the implicit requirement of dependence of dominant
actors on subordinates as they appear as the most viable option to reach a goal – thus
shifting the focus from active dominance to the passive power of dependence and re-
sulting consequences. The author illustrates these consequences as a self-balancing sys-
tem that aims for cost reduction, leading to withdrawal, extension or power-networks,
coalition formation, and emergence of status. With this contribution, Emerson provided
the basis for a more elaborate discussion on dynamics among actors in small groups.
Emerging in the same time as the previous cluster, Homans’ contribution added to the
discussion on status in a different way. In his monograph on the sociological dynamics
of the human group, social status recurs in a range of settings throughout the book, how-
ever framed in the more traditional sense of “social rank” (Homans, 1951). Homan dis-
cusses status in its relation to leadership, norms and legitimation, authority and
interaction among other contexts.
2.1.2.3.2 Consolidation
Chronologically after the contributions illustrated above, Blau’s work “Exchange and
Power in Social Life”, published in 1964, introduced the next milestone to the discussion
on status (Blau, 2012). With his contribution, Blau introduced an ever more intricate
reflection upon the role of power in exchange relations within social groups, and, spe-
cifically organizations. Blau discussed these more complex exchange relationships on
the basis of more basic psychological fundamentals such as attraction and desires for
reward. This interconnection of psychological and sociological theory with the former
serving as a foundation for the development of the latter remained a characteristic of
Blau’s work that combined both conceptual advances and sizeable empirical structural-
ist research, e.g., his extensive study with Duncan (Blau & Duncan, 1964). Like Blau,
24
Hirsch considered power in his monograph on “The Social Limits to Growth” in 1967
(Hirsch, 2014) and discussed it not only as a fundamental driver to societal structure and
coordination, but also in the sense of market productivity.
Shortly after Blau, Merton introduced his theory on the allocation of rewards and illus-
trates it in application to the distribution of scientific merits. Merton observes that “em-
inent scientists get disproportionately great credit for their contributions to science while
relatively unknown scientists tend to get disproportionately little credit for comparable
contributions” (Merton, 1968, p. 57). Again, career advancement becomes the setting of
application as the recognition of scientific contributions is a central means to the ad-
vancement of academic careers. Consequentially, the disproportionate advantage en-
joyed by scientists of higher renown also aids the emergence and rise of younger
colleagues by not only creating, but focusing awareness on their work.
In 1972 and 1980, two contributions by Berger et al. further contributed to the founda-
tions of status-oriented research by extending the previous literature on small groups.
Berger and his colleagues first considered status as an aggregate of rather basal charac-
teristics such as demographics that determines performance expectations and evalua-
tions (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972). Berger et al. developed their theory on status
characteristics generically, however applied their considerations to the workplace and
follow up with an empirical investigation to support and extend their original evaluation.
In the extension of their theory, they underscored the role of information in assessing a
group member’s status and, in turn, performance expectations. In their contribution of
1980, Berger et al. extended and operationalized their theory to present a foundation for
a more procedural perspective on status organizing processes (Berger, Rosenholtz, &
Zelditch, 1980).
While Berger and his colleagues followed their more individualist perspective of social
structure, Mark Granovetter introduced his structuralist analysis of social groups as net-
works (Granovetter, 1973). One key conclusion from Granovetter’s elaboration is the
importance and potential gained from weak ties for both those inside the social network
in form of group cohesion and for those studying the social network by offering an ad-
ditional layer of analysis – that between groups. In doing so, Granovetter bridged the
divide of connecting both micro, e.g., explored in the small-groups literature, and macro
dimensions, e.g., explored in studies dealing with stratification and social mobility. For
status, Granovetter prepared the way for a valuable tool to better understand the trans-
portation of status as it leaks through the social network.
25
In a less focused and more “grand” contribution3, Bourdieu explores the borders shared
by culture, consumption, politics, and society (Bourdieu, 1984). In his treatise, he dis-
cusses the emergence of taste in context of evaluation and concludes that taste assumes
a function of social orientation – not unlike a perceptive and evaluative commensuration
of those who do or do not possess tastes. From that, Bourdieu underscores that the social
world is a mere construction and as such both essential, but also prone to constant re-
construction and reconfiguration, constantly exchanging “reality of representation and
representation of reality”.
2.1.2.3.3 Second interdisciplinary resonance
Just like Berger et al. provided a cornerstone in advancement to the status discussion in
the sociological discourse, Ridgeway provided a range of contributions (together with
varying colleagues) that propelled the advancement of the field in the 1980s and 1990s.
In her contributions, Ridgeway built upon what Berger et al. provided in terms of his
status characteristics and expectancy theory: first, Ridgeway elaborates on the limits of
dominant behavior in status attainment within task groups. She anchors her argument in
the findings of her experimental study illustrating that, indeed status was rather con-
ferred by expectations on task performance and not by purely dominant behavior
(Ridgeway, 1987). An insight that underscores the perspectives as they were hypothe-
sized decades before (Davis & Moore, 1944; Emerson, 1962; Goldhammer & Shils,
1939), but challenged by more recent contributions (Mazur, 1985). Ridgeway continued
her contribution on status attainment in small groups in her collaboration with Diekema
in 1989 much in the orientation of her previous findings, concluding that, in her studies,
dominant behavior appears as a source of detrimental reactance to a dominator’s per-
ceived aggression (Ridgeway & Diekema, 1989). In 1991, Ridgeway returned to further
the insight on the antecedents of characteristics-instilled status by combining both
Blau’s structural approach to explain differences in distribution of resources as well as
Berger’s expectancy-states theory. Specifically, she investigates how nominal charac-
teristics, in conjunction with a difference in exchangeable resources, can create “widely
held beliefs that give status value to the nominal characteristic” (Ridgeway, 1991). In
her contribution of 1997, Ridgeway together with Balkwell further establishes and in-
stitutionalizes her previous findings through a formal model and finds support for her
3 As the translator to the English Language Edition introduces the book: “I have every reason to fear that this book
will strike the reader as ‘very French’ – which I know is not always a compliment.”
26
previous assessments (Ridgeway & Balkwell, 1997). In her latest widely recognized
contribution, Ridgeway together with Erickson extend their theory on status construc-
tion to test implications. Both authors find that in the process of creating shared beliefs,
these shared beliefs can be taught by holders of the belief and acquired by witnesses
(Ridgeway & Erickson, 2000). They conclude that, on a macro level, status positions of
groups are being reinforced by fostering the development of widely shared status beliefs.
In more recent notable contributions with relation to status in sociology, Skvoretz and
Fararo follow the same notion as this integrative review: to combine and consolidate
previous theoretical advances. The authors present a novel approach to the challenge of
describing how status orders emerge in task groups. They integrate three prior concepts
(diffuse status and behavior interchange patterns, expectation states theory, as well as
key insights from social network analysis) (Skvoretz & Fararo, 1996). Skvoretz and
Fararo’s research, thus, does not primarily aim at generating new insight, but, instead,
in advancing and perfecting theoretical foundations.
2.1.2.3.4 Establishment
The four most recent contributions are positioned in to discuss status in substantially
more applied contexts: first, Zuckerman investigated the effect of businesses not reach-
ing the necessary legitimization through financial reviews and thus depreciating in at-
tention and, in turn, demand (Zuckerman, 1999). Thus, Zuckermann introduced the
critical topic of legitimization and, in turn, conformity. Conformity with the middle sta-
tus, then, became the topical core of Zuckerman’s second widely regarded contribution
in co-authorship with Phillips. Here, both authors found advantages for firms to fit with
the middle-status as low-status firms fail to attract customers and high-status firms at-
tract increased competition and decreased freedom in strategic decisions (Phillips &
Zuckerman, 2001). Third, Podolny completed this reiteration of contributions on ad-
vancing scientific thought on status in sociology – as it is seen through the lens of this
reference analysis – with his comprehensive treatise on status in the organizational so-
ciology (Podolny, 2005) in which he integrates prior findings and provides a review of
both theoretical foundations and implications for organizations. Finally and most re-
cently, Willer operationalized the challenge of arranging collective action through status
incentives (Willer, 2009). The author found that status, indeed, facilitates pro-social be-
havior as investment into the group’s goals is being rewarded by preferred access to
resources. With his contribution, Willer added an important empirical support to illus-
trate a pathway to group-coordination that had been subject to discussion since socio-
logical elaborations of the 1960s (Reiss, 1961).
27
2.1.2.4 Advances in social psychology
With regard to the joint recognition by the presented sample of reviews, the first notable
emergence of status in literature on social psychology took place in the 1950s. Here,
four publications found their recognition within the first phase of interdisciplinary res-
onance of status as a research topic, three of which emerged in 1959 and shall be dis-
cussed in order of focus upon the core topic of status:
Goffman contributed the fundamental text on the social construction of the self in his
treatise in 1959. In his monograph, he illustrates the results of his collaboration with
both anthropologists and psychologists. This collaboration led to his theoretical contri-
bution which borrowed from theatrical performance as a framework for role-enactment
in social context. Prestige does not assume a focal position in terms of a dedicated chap-
ter, but rather becomes apparent throughout the text as one of the key variables that
individuals aim to optimize for (Goffman, 1959). Thibaut and Kelley, on the other hand,
contributed their monograph on “The Social Psychology of Groups” in 1959 and pro-
vided a comprehensive text on phenomena and contexts in dyadic and complex groups.
Herein, status, prestige, and power play a recurring role among sections of the book
discussing competition, non-voluntary relationships, rivalry, and direction of tasks.
With their contribution, both authors provide one of the seminal documents of early
social psychology (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). In their contribution, French and Raven
differentiate five types of power based on the instilling source: reward, coercive, legiti-
mate, referent, and expert power (French & Raven, 1959). This distinction between
types of power offered a more nuanced conceptualization of the dominance / deference
divide to more aptly describe the relationship and specific implications depending on
the internal and external characteristics of the relationship among two actors (e.g. the
decreasing attraction of a coerced actor toward the dominant actor or the decreasing
resistance toward coercion given legitimacy).
After a two-decade hiatus of notable socio-psychological contributions to the status re-
search stream in the 1960s and 1970s, Lee and Ofshe picked up the baton and contrib-
uted their resonance to Berger’s seminal theoretical contribution in sociology. In 1981,
Lee and Ofshe compared Berger’s theory on status characteristics and expectation states
to their own theoretical construct, the two-process theory when considering their appli-
cation to causal systems depending on social influence. The comparison pivots at its
center on the question about the degree of influence of rational processes in the status-
interpretation process: while status characteristics theory argues that nominal character-
istics lead to power-organization processes and influence attainment, the two-process
theory argues that status characteristics are being processes more implicitly and less
28
rationally as factual information on individuals’ performance is not reliably available.
In their series of experiments, Lee and Ofshe found that, indeed, variations in demeanor
of actors impacted the degree of social influence generated while status characteristics
did not. The authors’ challenge to the limits of applicability of status characteristics the-
ory is a valuable contribution to its theoretical development. However, both perspectives
– the psychological and the sociological – appear limited in immediate comparability as
Berger’s theory provides valuable context in explaining socio-cognitive processes in a
more structural-static perspective just as much as Lee and Ofshe’s approach adds to the
advancement of the field by highlighting the limits of cognitive procedural capacity: two
approaches that rather benefit from complementary appreciation, than exclusivity.
In extension to Lee and Ofshe and a collection of further challenges to status character-
istics and expectation states theory, status-expectations theory emerged from the disci-
pline of social psychology. Driskell and Mullen aggregated these critical contributions
and developed a meta-analysis on those contributions that challenge the premises of
status-expectations theory. Driskell and Mullen find that “status is a strong predictor of
expectations; status is a moderate predictor of behavior; and expectations are a strong
predictor of behavior.” (Driskell & Mullen, 1990, p. 550). The authors, in turn, found
criticism with the challengers as they illustrate that most challenging studies did neither
focus on nor, in most cases, operationalize the measurement of changing expectations –
the core premise of Berger. Finally, Carli et al. contributed their experimental study with
a focus on gender influences in status perceptions and the role of nonverbal styles (Carli,
LaFleur, & Loeber, 1995). The authors found that females who assume a high-task style
(productive, work-oriented, and effective way of speaking and self-presentation) were
perceived as less likeable, more threatening and less influential than males; furthermore,
female participants were threatened to a greater degree by men assuming high task styles
than women assuming high task styles. Overall, the authors found a difference between
male and female participants insofar as male participants factored the gender of the
speaker to a significant degree into their evaluation of likeableness and, in turn, influ-
ence while female participants did not. While this elaboration on the specifics of gender
and influence in groups may appear of little connection with the previous discussion on
status characteristics, it assumed an exemplary position to reconcile both positions of
proponents and challengers to status characteristics theory: given a specific structural
context – e.g., that of gender inequality – status characteristics theory proves valuable
to provide the setting in which psychological investigation can provide greater detail.
It was not until after the turn of the 21st century that the specialized discipline of social
psychology engaged the topic of status with greater intensity. In short succession, nine
29
contributions helped linking sociological forethought with key psychological tenets. All
but two of the following contributions were published in the Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology with both exceptions remaining with the Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin.
Anderson et al. chronologically lead this discussion by presenting the most recent elab-
oration and empirical investigation into the determinants of individual’s status in light
of psychological (big five personality traits) and nominal characteristics. The authors
find substantial links among status with extraversion (positive) and neuroticism (nega-
tive) as well as attractiveness (only a predictor in men) (Anderson, John, Keltner, &
Kring, 2001).
Tiedens and Fargale took up the thread of nonverbal communication of dominance and
submissive response behavior in their investigation into the complementarity of domi-
nance and submission in communication (Tiedens & Fragale, 2003). Their study found
that both submissive responses to dominant behavior and dominant responses to sub-
missive behavior result in more socially productive environments than mimicry of the
respective opposite. While these immediate findings appear plausible, they are not po-
sitioned as their core contribution. Instead, the authors highlight how the benefits of
complementarity reinforce status structures and, thus, highlight hierarchical differences
among actors for the benefit of facilitating exchange. Tiedens et al. extended this theory
on complementary dominance in a later contribution that investigates the perceptive ca-
pacities needed to evaluate dominance complementarity (Tiedens, Unzueta, & Young,
2007). Flynn et al. investigated self-monitoring as a determinant of sensitivity to status-
implications (Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah, & Ames, 2006). They found support for
their hypotheses that those who are more aware of and responsive to the social context
are also more engaged in altering their exchange behavior to benefit from status struc-
tures. Comparably to Tiedens and Fargale’s contribution, the authors argued that these
findings imply status to be a self-reinforcing phenomenon with those emerging as lead-
ers also being those who are sentient of those opportunities to reap the advantages of
their elevated positions.
In a different scientific vein, Hardy and Van Vugt illustrated the application of compet-
itive altruism in the social context of competing for status (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006).
The authors integrated the function of pro-social behavior as a conspicuous signal and
found support for their thesis. Their findings imply that altruists benefit not only from
an increase in status, but also from an increase of social interactions when compared to
selfish persons. Furthermore, competitive altruism serves not only pro-social behavior
on the micro-level of interactions, but also provides a basis to design social contexts in
30
which altruistic behavior is self-reinforcing. Much in the same direction and even more
applied, Griskevicius et al. investigated the purchasing behavior of consumers deciding
for “green” products (Griskevicius, Tybur, & van den Bergh, 2010). Going beyond the
previous contribution, the authors illustrated how activating status motives led people
to purchase products that connote responsible behavior.
In a different theoretical approach, Anderson et al. connected status self-assessment with
hubris. The authors investigated competing hypotheses on whether individuals generally
tend to overestimate their own status or assess status appropriately as an overestimation
entails social cost (Anderson, Ames, & Gosling, 2008a). The authors found support for
the second perspective and concluded with highlighting the necessity of actors in groups
to appropriately assess their position for the social system to generate expected ad-
vantages to its members.
Finally and most recently, Cheng et al. elaborated on the duality of approaches to reach-
ing status – by dominance or prestige (Cheng, Tracy, Foulsham, Kingstone, & Henrich,
2013). The authors found equivalent outcomes among both strategies in terms of influ-
ence, but differences in terms of likeability of the actors of high status.
2.1.2.5 Advances in psychology
Status emerges at the intersection of societal structure and individual’s cognitive and
behavioral response. Thus, it may seem somewhat narrow-minded to differentiate con-
tributions which emerged in the discipline of psychology from that of the more special-
ized school of social psychology – at least, this requires a brief precursor: there is a
distinct difference in both, the psychological and the socio-psychological, perspectives.
While the psychological perspective elaborates on the subject from the vantage point of
the individual’s personality that is contextualized by a social surrounding, the socio-
psychological perspective prioritizes the social context and the individual’s immediate
responses to it over the individual’s personality. As the consequence, the depth of argu-
ment and analyses are positioned differently – in the sub-discipline, it resides with be-
havioral response, in the main stream, it resides with the individual’s predispositions.
Also, the contributions are balanced differently, with status finding recognition as part
of the discussion within psychological contributions and assuming the key position in
most socio-psychological contributions. A differentiation of contributions emerging
from psychology and its sub-division of social psychology, thus, appears not only ap-
propriate, but necessary to justly illustrate the advance of the respective disciplines.
31
The earliest recognized contribution in this analysis of references points to a text that
assumes a comparable eminence for status-related research as that of Veblen, Weber, or
Leibenstein and that of Freud and Adler in psychology overall: in the midst of the second
world war, Abraham Maslow developed and published his theory of human motivation.
In this theory, the author posits a pyramid of five basic needs with the order and structure
implying a hierarchy of priorities and necessary fulfillment: physiological needs, safety,
love, esteem, and self-actualization (Maslow, 1943). In order for status to generate its
behavioral potential, the fourth need assumes the key role: the desire for self-esteem.
This desire for self-esteem resides on an internal and an external facet: first, individuals
aim to derive self-esteem from factual productive capacity of their self; second, individ-
uals aim to derive self-esteem from social context in form of prestige. From self-esteem
arises confidence and, in turn, the perception of being a “capable, adequate, useful, and
necessary in the world” (ibid: 382). Individuals who lack this sense of self-confidence,
Maslow concludes, find themselves facing severe traumatic neurosis. Given the contri-
bution’s role as a key advancement to the field of psychology and longevity as a point
of reference to individuals’ motivation, it appears impossible to overestimate the value
of Maslow’s theory. In the context of this review, however, it assumes a particularly
valuable, but rather supportive role of recognizing the desire for self-esteem as a funda-
mental function of psychology and not – as had been the case in point of many ethically
inspired discussions beforehand – as pure vanity or empty grandstanding as has been
illustrated in Berry’s historical review on the evolution of scientific and philosophical
thought on status-driven consumption (Berry, 1994).
Forty years later, Lord et al. added a more applied perspective. In an empirical meta-
analysis, the authors investigated the influence of personality traits upon leadership per-
ceptions (Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986). In their analysis, the authors find that “per-
sonality traits are associated with leadership perceptions to a higher degree and more
consistently” than previously assumed – specifically, intelligence, masculinity, and ad-
justment (ibid. p 407).
Again, after a prolonged hiatus, two psychological contributions were recognized to
having advanced the insight on status as a scientifically palpable phenomenon: first,
Driskell et al. extended their contributions in social psychology by investigating the role
of task-orientation as a more efficient means to accrue status than dominance behavior
in small groups independent from gender (Driskell, Olmstead, & Salas, 1993). Driskell’s
work implied a challenge to the more traditional conceptualization of dominance behav-
ior as a pathway to higher social status. This is as much a testament to the perspective
32
of individual psychology as it is to their study’s context of the modern work environ-
ment. Kyl-Heku and Buss, on the other hand, contributed their investigation on the value
of tactics when complementing the theory connecting personality and hierarchical ma-
neuvering (Kyl-Heku & Buss, 1996). The authors found that among their 26 identified
and investigated tactics, working hard and prioritizing tasks predicted salary, academic
degrees, and promotions. Among Kyl-Heku et al.’s contribution extended the prior re-
search by injecting a more complex construct of behavior into the relationship of status
motives and its attainment: tactical maneuvering for social advancement.
In more recent times, Judge et al. connected to the train of thought advanced by Lord et
al. 16 years earlier by driving the investigation of the link between personality traits and
leadership potential further (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). Both studies, the one
headed by Lord as well as the one headed by Judge, resemble each other methodologi-
cally as both combine literature reviews with quantitative, meta-analytical studies – al-
beit following the different and now more widely accepted model of the big five
personality traits of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscien-
tiousness. Judge and his colleagues find that extraversion is the most consistently corre-
lated personality trait with leadership emergence, followed by conscientiousness and
openness. Furthermore, Hall et al. added a recognized contribution that connects to pre-
vious work of nonverbal interaction with regard to status considerations and social mo-
bility in small groups (Hall, Coats, & LeBeau, 2005). Hall and her colleagues find that
the perception of social differences where more pronounced than actual differences,
however perceptions and actual differences were related. Key of Hall et al.’s findings,
however, centered on the conclusion that the relationship among nonverbal behavior and
verticality appeared too complex and too heterogeneous for immediate and simplistic
predictions: the authors concluded that conceptualizations of verticality are likely more
multifaceted than originally assessed.
Finally, and somewhat different from the previous range of journal publications, Schlen-
ker’s chapter on self-presentation in Leary’s edited handbook on self and identity pro-
vides a widely recognized primer on impression management (Schlenker, 2011). As
such, Schlenker does not advance the field through innovation, but through integration.
Schlenker concludes with the key tenet of impression management that individuals aim
to construct the “right” image of themselves for their social environment. As such, self-
presentation behavior is both antecedent to status-driven behavior as status structure and
dynamics provides an evaluative context for self-presentation to generate benefits to the
individual.
33
2.1.2.6 Advances in ethology and anthropology
M. R. A. Chance provided the chronologically first contribution in the field of ethology
with relevance to status that has been recognized by the assembled sample of reviews.
The author discusses the methodological implications on studying rank-related behavior
and communication among primates (Chance, 1967). Through his elaboration, Chance
provided an early basis for behavioral investigation into status-related interaction among
animals and, by extension, humans. His key contribution, however, remains to provide
the foundation for understanding the role of communication and the prerequisite of at-
tention for any kind of status structure to emerge and to be of value. In that sense, Chance
is among those pioneers that helped establish the concept of signaling as a key facet for
status’ effectivity.
Eight years after Chance, Barkow provided the next crucial advancement to the under-
standing of status from an ethological perspective. Barkow integrates anthropological
and ethological insight to provide a theory of self-esteem, prestige, and prestige-seeking
as an inevitable result from the evolutionary emergence of the self-concept: the self-
concept leads to the ability to self-evaluate; self-evaluation leads to the aim to evaluate
oneself higher than others (Barkow, 1975). Barkow’s elaboration sparked a collection
of supportive and challenging statements from his peers, providing support for his suc-
cess of striking a nerve of his scientific community. In a more applied context, Dentan
reports his ethnographic investigation into the behavior of the Semai, an indigenous
people of the Malay (Dentan, 1979). In his study, Dentan finds status to be a factor that
determines behavior throughout all aspects of social interactions.
In 1985, two contributions of substantial advance to the field of status research appeared,
both distinct from each other in style and focus, but advancing the understanding on how
status emerges: first, Boyd and Richerson contributed their monograph on the evolution
and inheritance of culture as well as its impact on factual behavior (Boyd & Richerson,
1985). In their contribution, prestige assumes the function of communicating a highly
desirable quality through symbolic traits. Much in the same fashion, but more focused
on the core topic of this review, Mazur presents his biosocial model of status in face-to-
face groups (Mazur, 1985). Mazur highlights the role of visual cues in the nonverbal
negotiation of dominance and deference among small groups who are interacting face-
to-face. The author connects the key assumption of his elaboration with the rate of
change in testosterone levels. As a key and fundamental conclusion, Mazur argues that
those who win however short dominance contests are regarded as leaders of the group
and deferred to by others as leaders are more likely to defend the group against external
34
aggressors as they are assumed to be better stress-handlers than other followers within
the group.
In a likewise anthropological but distinctly more extensive study on foraging among
native tribes, Kelly published a thorough report on his multiple investigations of the
behavior in hunter-gatherer societies (Kelly, 1995). Here, status is being discussed in
the context of gender and theorized to emerge from the division of labor.
Most recently, two contributions emerged from ethology and anthropology that, in tan-
dem, provide both an updated theoretical frame and a comparatively recent application
to an immediate case (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001; Rueden, Gruven, & Kaplan, 2008).
Henrich et al. elaborate on the theory for the evolution of status much in the tradition of
Barkow. The authors, however, highlight the role of culture transmission and exchange
among actors within the same group as well as across groups. In their contribution, Hen-
rich et al. establish connections to the fundamental sociological and psychological the-
oretical framework, incorporate expectation states theory, signaling, and information
goods theory. While Henrich et al. contribute to the theoretical discussion on the evolu-
tion of prestige and provide their propositions, von Rueden et al. provide an anthropo-
logical study on status behavior among the Bolivian tribe of the Tsimane. In their
investigation and most notably, the authors find that status hierarchies can be multidi-
mensional, depending on the context and the arena of the status contest. Furthermore,
they find support for the self-reinforcing nature of status as rewards, characteristics, and
abilities are either inherited and, thus, kept with those in high esteem.
2.1.2.7 Advances in economics
Scientific reflections on status are, in observation, a sociological topic, in prediction,
one of psychology, but in operationalization one of economics. Thus, the most eminent
contribution emerged from the sociological observation, psychological interpretation,
but eventually economic operationalization of Thorstein Veblen. In his centennial con-
tribution, he applied his economic perspective to the socio-psychological phenomenon
of consumption for the sake of competitive communication. Consequently, it is some-
what surprising that the sample of gathered reviews only agrees to recognize a handful
of publications after Veblen – however, they may be argued to represent particularly
crucial advances of scientific insight in status.
The first two notable contributions were developed and published by Duesenberry
(Duesenberry, 1949) and Leibenstein (Leibenstein, 1950) in 1949 and 1950, respec-
tively. Both Duesenberry and Leibenstein described theoretical conceptualizations of
35
consumer preferences’ interdependence. Both contributions, thus, added to the growing
acceptance of economics to both relax earlier assumptions and accept more complex
conceptualizations of a social and at times limitedly rational consumer into the extant
body of market formulation. The difference of both contributions resides in both format
and focus: Duesenberry provided a full monograph integrating income, consumption,
and saving into one theoretical and modelling contribution while Leibenstein published
an article specifically on the social context of consumption, integrating consumer be-
havior with style, culture, and likewise social interaction. While Duesenberry provides
the more complete contribution, Leibenstein’s work profits from greater focus and the
functional advantage of coining the three terms of Veblen-, bandwagon- and snob-ef-
fects. In a footnote, Leibenstein acknowledged the close topical proximity of both con-
tributions and gives some insight on the unintended overlap due to his late discovery of
Duesenberry’s contribution.
More than two decades later, Spence provided the abridged version of his dissertation
as a key contribution to the then emergent discussion on signaling in the early phase of
game theory (Spence, 1973). In his text, Spence builds upon the advances in economic
thought in the prior decades by suggesting that not only consumers’ behavior is interre-
lated. Instead, all actors are faced with making decisions in the context of asymmetric
distributions of information and thus build upon signaling and interpreting signals to
make better decisions. As a prototypical market to explain his theory, Spence choses the
job market. In his contribution, he introduces the key elements of signaling theory by
discussing information asymmetry, alterable and unalterable signals as well as involved
cost in either attaining or forging a signal. The broad resonance of Spence contribution
is ubiquitous and appears fueled by a combination of a coherent and parsimonious the-
oretical description that initiated the branch of signaling games in game theory.
Another decade later, Frank provided his seminal perspective and substantial advance
to the field of research on status from an economic vantage point: his monograph on
“Choosing the Right Pond” (Frank, 1985). While the previous contributions (indeed, of
all illustrated disciplines) are scientific publications intended for a scientific audience,
Frank’s book appears directed at the so-inclined general public. Indeed, the conclusion
of Frank’s contribution highlights his aim to provide a substantially developed addition
to the societal and political discourse. While “Choosing the Right Pond” discusses many
crucial – and crucially deprecated – economic theories, it ought not to be seen as a con-
tribution orthodox to the main stream of economics, but benefiting from a positioning
at the fringes of sociology, economics, psychology, and politics.
36
2.1.2.8 Advances in organizational sciences
Status research is not a purely theoretical domain, but instead driven by application and
contextualization. Consequently, previous contributions proved particularly successful
and noteworthy when appropriate, parsimonious theories met with applicable and com-
prehensible fields of application. Thus, it does not come as a surprise that status research
was bound to find its resonance with organizational sciences (OS). While the emergence
of notable contributions on status in OS took until the mid 1990s, it has been foreshad-
owed by most previous eminent contributions such as Spence, Berger, or Blau.
Chronologically, the first contributions noted by the assembled panel of reviews falls to
Podolny both with Phillips (Podolny & Phillips, 1996) and as co-author to Benjamin
(Benjamin & Podolny, 1999). In the former article, the authors provide a fundamental
contribution on the emergence, rise, and decline of status of organizations, thus extend-
ing the status discussion beyond the initial of analysis on the individual person in a
group. The authors find two distinct sources of status for groups such as organizations:
first, past performance and, second, the status of the group’s affiliates. The authors con-
clude by leading into the early stages of a theory on the status-driven foundations of
coalition-building. They point to the necessity of considering coalitions within the
greater context of the market and its status considerations. In the latter article, Benjamin
and Podolny extend their investigation on status in markets to the field of wineries and
find further support on their theory about the role of past performance as well as indica-
tions for the role of the Matthew effect which leads to the aggregation of resources and
reinforcement of advantages through benefiting from status positions. Podolny’s contri-
butions to the advancement of status research in organizational sciences ought to be seen
in context of his other contributions in sociological publication venues.
Picking up where Podolny et al. left off in their conclusions, Magee and Galinsky pro-
vide the most broadly noted contribution on the multidisciplinary field of status research
by highlighting “the self-reinforcing nature of status” (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). In
what may be considered the most complete and sizeable aggregation on the theory and
the implications of status in the organization, the authors integrate the central strands of
thought of relevance to the field of application. While the authors attempted a cross-
disciplinary integration of findings on status in the organization, they also provide a
novel and broader interpretation on what Merton described in the micro context: the
stability and increasing prevalence of status structures caused by resulting benefits of
arranging collaboration in groups, increased efficiency in negotiations, solutions to in-
formation asymmetry, and social mobility. Furthermore, the authors provide suggestions
for forces detracting from the reinforcement effect.
37
As if the scientific discussion on status in the organizational context had become to uni-
formly positive by the end of the 2000s, Bothner et al. and Bendersky and Hays provided
two contributions that added a more critical appraisal of status (Bendersky & Hays,
2012; Bothner et al., 2012). In their article, Bothner et al. highlight the duality of status
both as an asset to performance and as a liability. In their investigation, they analyze
objective data on professional sports and find that the relationship of status and perfor-
mance is curvilinear with extreme levels of status providing the grounds for eroding
performance. Bendersky and Hays, on the other hand, take on the perspective of the
small-groups literature and investigate status conflicts and their impact upon group per-
formance. The authors conclude that status conflicts have the potential to account for
greater detriments to the performance of a group than other type of conflicts like task-,
relationship-, or process conflicts.
2.1.2.9 Advances in management research
This review distinguishes two groups of literature from each other that might otherwise
be readily integrated: psychology and its sub-discipline social psychology as well as
organizational science and its somewhat more applied sister discipline management re-
search. While I discussed the necessity to discern publications in psychology from those
of social psychology, this section shall be introduced with a comparable prologue.
While contributions on status in organizational sciences – and often organizational so-
ciology – deal with the more fundamental term of status, contributions in management
sciences focus on its conceptual sibling reputation. While reputation literature com-
monly references status literature, the reverse direction is much less common. There are
three reasons for this orientation: reputation, as it has been introduced into the discussion
by Fombrun (Fombrun, 1990) and his colleagues (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990) is a more
complex, not to say “fuzzy” concept, meaning not only vertical position on one distinct
scale of appreciation, but the complete set of impressions and perceptions relating to
any actor. Thus, reputation provides more complexity as a concept and thus appears to
be of higher fidelity to the complex realism of position, perception, and evaluation as it
is experienced by managers in the field. However, to the more fundamental research,
reputation as a concept appears muddled with too many concepts that more orthodox
science would recommend to discuss separately from one another. Consequently, join-
ing both organizational sociologists and managers of reputation is appropriate with re-
gard to providing an integrative literature review, discerning one from the other appears
sensible with regard to arriving at more precise definitions.
38
Perhaps as an eminent precursor, the first publication noted by the panel of reviews
points to the pre-war monograph by Barnard. In his complex and integrative treatise
named “The Functions of the Executive”, Barnard goes far beyond what may be ex-
pected from the title to include a complete discussion on the nature and determinants of
cooperation in organizations (Barnard, 1938). In Barnard’s monograph, prestige is a re-
curring theme and is discussed throughout the text as a means to motivate cooperative
behavior.
The next two notable contributions were published five decades later by Fombrun, one
in form of his book introducing reputation as an approach to realize value from the image
of the company (Fombrun, 1990) and, in the same year, his collaboration with Shanley
where the authors integrated the reputation concept with strategic management to model
reputation as a strategic resource (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). Much like Frank’s par-
ticularly successful contribution in 1985, Fombrun provided a publication aimed at the
general public and not at a strictly scientific audience. His monograph, consequentially,
may have found its resonance due to its accessibility and more substantial reach than
other contributions. In Fombrun and Shanley’s journal publication, on the other hand,
the authors provide a versatile empirical study integrating reputational strategies within
the social and competitive context around the organizational actors. The particular value
of this contribution, however, lies to a great degree in the operationalization of the varied
range of reputation measurements.
Four years after Fombrun’s establishment of reputation as a status-oriented strategic re-
source, Rao contributes her perspective and empirical evaluation on the role of external
certification and, in turn, legitimation of high standing (Rao, 1994). From their study
built upon objective data from turn-of-the-century car manufacturers, Rao concludes
further support for a certification-induced Matthew effect and proposes the advancement
of this specific strand of research toward a theory of competencies. Much in the same
tradition of Merton, Stuart et al. investigated the advantage of network-induced status
for start-ups endorsed by powerful external and established players (Stuart, Hoang, &
Hybels, 1999). The authors find support for their hypotheses on start-ups advancing
through the phases of financing quicker if they find support by organizations of high
status.
Most recently, four contributions advanced the research field on reputation even further:
First, Deephouse extended on the proposal that reputation is a resource with potential to
create competitive advantage (Deephouse, 2000) previously introduced by Fombrun and
other scholars. Keeping with the complex style of theory on firm’s reputation, the author
proposes a reframing to integrate mass communication theory. The author test the newly
39
coined “media reputation” concept empirically in a sample of interactions among 121
independent banks and find that “media reputation” provides some positive impact upon
competitiveness measurements like return on average assets. Deephouse concludes that
managers ought to cultivate positive evaluations of the organization through media. Sec-
ond, Washington and Zajac provide a more holistic discussion on the determinants of
organizational status (Washington & Zajac, 2005). After their initial introduction into
the semantics of organizational status, Washington and Zajac continue with their con-
ceptual treatment on status’ determinants and conclude their treatise with an empirical
assessement of benefits generated from status differences among groups in objective
data gathered from sports tournaments. The authors’ most striking finding is that, while
status was previously closely related to prior performance, they found support for per-
formance-derived, meritocratic status, but also performance-independent, aristocratic
status. This differentiation among both types of sources for status point to the variety of
strategies available when attempting to manage a status portfolio. Third, Basdeo et al.
engage the subject from a more interactionist perspective in their investigation on how
firm reputation emerges (Basdeo, Smith, Grimm, Rindova, & Derfus, 2006). The au-
thors hypothesize that a firm’s reputation is as much the result of its own actions as it is
a result of its market context’s reactions. The argument supporting this hypothesis rests
on signaling theory which suggest that information asymmetry – and, consequently, the
potential benefit of signaling – depends on the context of the communication. This con-
tribution, thus, shifts the focus of analysis from the actor not only to the actor’s context,
but also the characteristics of this context like, e.g., industrial concentration and com-
plexity. The authors find support for their hypotheses and conclude that, very much in
unison with Deephouse, Washington, and Zajac, managing corporate reputation benefits
from considering the contextual setting of the efforts undertaken in order to select the
appropriate measures.
Finally, while the previous contributions focused on the organization within its context
of stakeholders to identify managers’ opportunities to steer organizational reputation,
Carter provides an investigation focusing on the management’s behavior with regard to
reputation (Carter, 2006). Carter argues that employees of firms who enjoy greater vis-
ibility also put greater emphasis on generating a better reputation while the phase of
heightened visibility lasts. The author’s findings indicate support for her hypothesis in-
sofar that managers know to use the increased attention for communicational benefit of
the firm, allocating greater resources to harnessing the favorable position.
40
2.1.2.10 Conclusion on key contributions
The previous pages illustrate a systematically derived selection of scientific advances
from a range of disciplines. Due to the size of extant literature, this integration only
covers those contributions of highest consentaneous recognition. However, this integra-
tion has reached several of its goals if it provides the basis for further exploration and a
discussion on which theoretical elements deserve to be added to this illustration.
Based on the presented illustration, I conclude by introducing additional structure to the
field beyond the previously available structures given represented by the borders of sci-
entific disciplines, my earlier elaborations on what may be apt descriptions of chrono-
logical phases. This additional structure emerges from the focus of research and general
direction of advancement throughout the field’s evolution. As the field presents itself, I
propose five distinct segments on the basis of its contribution’s angle of advancement:
a) observation and emergence of theory; b) theoretical foundation; c) theoretical differ-
entiation; d) application for theoretical advancement; and e) application for practicable
insight. For an overview, please refer to Figure 2.
In the segment of observation and emergence of theory, ranging from the middle of the
19th century to the late 1960s, we find those fundamental contributions by early sociol-
ogists and economist of the scientific prologue to the field. While many contributions
remain of crucial importance to this day, the seminal contribution may be ascribed to
Veblen in 1899 (Veblen, 1915). Contributions by both sociologists (Davis & Moore,
1944; Emerson, 1962; Goldhammer & Shils, 1939) and economists (Duesenberry, 1949;
Leibenstein, 1950) helped integrate the observations of earlier scholars into the canon
of extant theory in their respective fields.
In the segment of theoretical foundation, ranging from the 1940s to 2000, we find key
theories emerging from sociological scholars like, e.g. status crystallization processes
(Berger et al., 1980), status characteristics theory and expectation states theory by Ber-
ger et al. (Berger et al., 1972) and Ridgeway’s earlier investigation into the emergence
of status structures (Berger, Ridgeway, Fisek, & Norman, 1998; Ridgeway, 1987). Fur-
thermore, next to a strong sociological stream of advances, a seminal economic contri-
bution emerges in this field: Spence’s elaboration on signaling in the job market by
which he introduces the concept of signaling to the economic research on game theory
(Spence, 1973).
41
Figure 2 – Own illustration of the segments of scientific advance on status
42
In the segment of theoretical differentiation, ranging from the 1970s to today, we find
the somewhat belated but nonetheless crucial contribution of biosociological theory to
explain the origin and ubiquity of status-driven behavior. This emerged from ethology
and anthropology (Barkow, 1975; Zahavi, 1975) and found its resonance in psychology
(Judge et al., 2002; Lord et al., 1986) and social psychology (Anderson et al., 2001;
Flynn et al., 2006). This segment provided and still develops theory on the antecedents
of status and thus keeps reviewing and innovating the foundations on which to build
new approaches to understand the implications of status.
From my vantage point, there are two distinct fields of application, separated by their
teleology. In the segment of application for theoretical advancement, ranging from the
1990s to today, we find those contributions that apply extant and in several cases rather
abstract theoretical notions to different frames of application and reference. Here, Ridge-
way provided insights that further advance the understanding of the emergence of status
systems (Ridgeway & Erickson, 2000) that stand next to Podolny’s integration of status
research in a market context (Podolny, 1993) and Willer’s work on social reward for
individual sacrifice (Willer, 2009). This segment is advanced by those fundamental dis-
ciplines of sociology, social psychology, and economy alike.
In the segment of application for practicable insight, ranging from Frank’s contribution
of 1985 to today, we find those contributions who operationalize previous theoretical
advances for practical application. I consider Frank’s work on the societal implications
of status the first of these contributions as it appears not so much as an academic mon-
ograph but rather an academic’s recommendation on status’ implications upon society
– a text that aims to help provide solutions to societal challenges (Frank, 1985). Fombrun
et al.’s contribution on organizational reputation helped further operationalize status re-
search in a more palatable framework for practitioners in their monograph (Fombrun,
1990) and for the scientific community in their article (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990) alike.
Following the sentiment of this segment, contributions then disperse to focus on indi-
vidual challenges related to attaining status (Bothner et al., 2011; Deephouse, 2000;
Washington & Zajac, 2005) and, more recently, the challenges of the status performance
relationship (Bendersky & Hays, 2012; Bothner et al., 2012).
Extant research on status is as extensive as it is enlightening to a considerable range of
phenomena in social exchange processes among individuals. This segmentation, the pro-
posal of distinct phases of the field’s advancement, and a decidedly integrative approach
might help putting the extant insight to more efficient use for those advancing the field
from their disciplinary positions.
43
2.1.3 Definitions
Until now, I simplified the discussion on the subject by adopting its broadest conception:
status. With the literature review completed, however, both the theoretical foundation
and the project’s advancement call for a more precise discussion of terminology.
Terminology evolves through decades of scientific advancement, with terms deprecat-
ing, mutating, and adding in their semantic meaning. Thus, in order to avoid muddying
the terms’ definition, this approach to define the key terminology of this dissertation is
founded on key literature of the above illustrated sample that has been published since
2000. 22 articles from all investigated disciplines have been reviewed for their termino-
logical discussions. Only in the case of deference, this set of documents had to be ex-
tended to include earlier material for explicit definitions.
Nine terms appear of particular noteworthiness in the discussed stream. These nine terms
can be grouped in structural (social hierarchy) and objective precursors (legitimization
and reputation) for status, pathways toward status (prestige and power), and outcomes
of the pathways to status (deference and dominance), and lastly status itself.
The following miniatures which incorporate both prevalent definitions and an integra-
tion within the same context provide the terminological context of this dissertation.
While this approach results in some simplification, it appears as a pragmatically bal-
anced reflection and integration on the core terms to be encountered.
2.1.3.1 Social hierarchy
Social hierarchy is the fundamental structural prerequisite for the emergence of status
and related benefits, detriments, and dynamics. Social hierarchy is “an implicit or ex-
plicit rank order of individuals or groups with respect to a valued social dimension”;
social hierarchy “can be delineated by rules and consensually agreed upon”; social hi-
erarchy “can be subjectively understood and taken for granted” (Magee & Galinsky,
2008). “People’s desire for hierarchy could be an unconsciously held goal rather than
an explicitly stated goal.” (Tiedens et al., 2007).
The elements of social hierarchy are the social group, at least one commensurable di-
mension that is socially valued, and the social group’s inclination to strive for differen-
tiation. In his seminal theory on a biosociological evaluation on the emergence of social
hierarchy, Barkow argues that with humans’ evolutionary emergence of the self-concept
came the need for differentiation and evaluation of the self. In turn, with the differenti-
ation and evaluation of the self, the need for a positive self-evaluation and, consequently,
44
a striving for higher evaluations emerged – with it, the concept of social hierarchies that
operationalized the benefits of such a higher evaluation (Barkow, 1975).
2.1.3.2 Legitimacy
Legitimacy is an objective prerequisite for the status of an actor. Legitimacy is “the level
of social acceptability bestowed upon a set of activities or actors” (Washington & Zajac,
2005); legitimacy is “best viewed as a constraint on or target of social status rather than
as a form of status itself” (Rueden et al., 2008).
The elements of legitimacy are the social group, the shared beliefs and concepts on ap-
propriate and inappropriate ascription of claims to power, resources, and the ability to
influence these beliefs and concepts through creating and changing social rules, and the
social group’s inclination to recognize this status quo as well as the rules supporting it.
Due to its normative character, legitimation assumes a key position in supporting social
status structures that rely on the distribution of resources, access, power, and dominance
(in contrast to those social status structures that emerge from capabilities, honor, pres-
tige, and deference).
2.1.3.3 Reputation
Reputation is another objective prerequisite for the status of an actor. Reputation is “a
set of attributes ascribed to [an actor] , inferred from the [actor’s] past actions” (Basdeo
et al., 2006); reputation is “defined as the evaluation of an [actor] by its stakeholders in
terms of their affect, esteem, and knowledge“(Deephouse, 2000); reputation “consists
of a set of key characteristics […] including […] quality of management, quality of
products or services, community and environmental responsibility, innovativeness, and
financial soundness” (Carter, 2006); legitimacy is “best viewed as a constraint on or
target of social status rather than as a form of status itself” (Rueden et al., 2008).
The elements of reputation are the perceived past performance of an actor and the con-
strued evaluation from this perception. Due to its evaluative character, reputation as-
sumes a key position in emerging social status structures that emerge from capabilities,
honor, prestige, and deference (in contrast to those social status structures that rely on
the distribution of resources, access, power, and dominance).
45
2.1.3.4 Prestige
Prestige is one pathway to social status of an actor. Prestige “refers to social rank that is
granted to individuals who are recognized and respected for their skills, success, or
knowledge”; prestige “is granted to individuals who are considered worthy of emulation,
usually for their skills or knowledge”; prestige “is likely unique to humans, because it
is thought to have emerged from selection pressures to preferentially attend to and ac-
quire cultural knowledge from highly skilled or successful others”; prestige “is concep-
tualized as conferred respect, honor, esteem, and social regard” (Cheng et al., 2013).
Prestige is “noncoerced, interindividual, within-group, human status asymmetries”;
prestige refers to “standing or estimation in the eyes of people; weight or credit in gen-
eral opinion”; prestige “rests on merit in the eyes of others (rather than force deployed
against them), and promotes the admiration of inferiors (not their fear), a desire for prox-
imity (not distance), and periods of sustained observation (not furtive glances)” (Henrich
& Gil-White, 2001).
The elements of prestige are honored – socially valued and pro-socially connoted – ca-
pabilities and behavior in an actor as well as the corresponding resonance in form of
deference, a voluntary, positive, and active behavioral response. Due to its focus on
socially honored capabilities or prior behavior, prestige assumes one pathway toward
social status that emerges from reputation in a meritocratic sense (in contrast to social
status that emerges from legitimation which is, in turn, founded in an aristocratic rea-
soning).
2.1.3.5 Deference
Deference is an outcome to the pathway of prestige to social status of an actor. Defer-
ence is “that component of activity which functions as a symbolic means by which ap-
preciation is regularly conveyed to a recipient of this recipient, or of something of which
this recipient is taken as a symbol, extension, or agent”; deference “is seen most clearly
in the little salutations, compliments, and apologies which punctuate social intercourse,
and may be referred to as ‘status rituals’ or ‘interpersonal rituals’ ”; deference “implies
that the actor possesses a sentiment of regard for the recipient, often involving a general
evaluation of the recipient“ (Goffman, 1956). Speaking of a person deferring to another
“is acknowledging that person's worth or dignity”; the granting of deference “entails an
attribution of superiority […] but it is not the same as an attribution of goodness”; def-
erence “is a way of expressing an assessment of the self and of others with respect to
‘macro-social’ properties” (Shils, 1968).
46
The elements of deference are at least two actors in a social context and at least one
instance of freely conferred expressed appreciation of the other. Deference is generating
its effectiveness from the on actors repeated, free choice to expressly appreciate the
other. Discussing deference’s functional role in context of status commonly implies def-
erence from the status subordinate to the status superior. However, deference can be
paid by those actors that generally assume a higher status position to those subordinate
when appreciating a local performance, contribution, or different status context.
2.1.3.6 Power
Prestige is another pathway to social status of an actor. Power is “defined as the capacity
or structurally sanctioned right to control others or their resources”; power “does not
necessarily imply prestige or respect” (Hall et al., 2005). Power is “asymmetric control
over valued resources, consistent with an emphasis on externally endowed positions that
allow one to determine rewards and punishment for others” (Cheng et al., 2013). Power
“is a social force that can bring about acts of influence and corresponding resistance”;
power “is based in resources, which belong to an actor”; the concept of power “is em-
bedded within individuals’ minds” (Magee & Galinsky, 2008).
The elements of power are capabilities to dominate, enforce, and punish in an actor as
well as the corresponding resonance in form of obedience, a coerced and fearful, passive
behavioral response. Due to its focus on capabilities to coerce, power assumes one path-
way toward social status that emerges from resources or other legitimation as in an aris-
tocratic sense (in contrast to social status that emerges from socially honored capabilities
or prior behavior, in turn, founded in a meritocratic reasoning).
2.1.3.7 Dominance
Dominance is an outcome to the pathway of power to social status of an actor. Domi-
nance “refers to the induction of fear, through intimidation and coercion, to attain social
rank, a process similar to that described by the conflict based account”; dominance “is
exemplified by relationships based on coercion, such as that between a boss and em-
ployee, or bully and victim” is “(Cheng et al., 2013).
The elements of dominance are one or more dominant actors, one or more subordinate
actors and an active relationship imposed by the dominant over the subordinate. Domi-
nance is generating its effectiveness from the subordinate’s abiding to the rules of those
dominant in fear of retributions in case of deviation from these rules.
47
2.1.3.8 Status
Status is an umbrella term that either provides the foundation or the application for the
terms discussed above. As the term has been used in a multitude of contexts, there are
different lenses through with status provides different explanatory approaches and in-
sights.
2.1.3.8.1 Social constructionist perspective
Status can be seen as “a socially constructed, intersubjectively agreed-upon and ac-
cepted ordering or ranking of individuals, groups, organizations, or activities in a social
system” (Washington & Zajac, 2005). Status hierarchies “are primarily subjective; how-
ever, there tends to be a high degree of consensus about individuals’ and groups’ posi-
tions in status hierarchies” (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Status hierarchies “are typically
conceptualized as relative and zero-sum” (Willer, 2009).
Fundamentally, status is a construct of those individuals who subscribe to the same value
or set of values (when status is established via prestige and deference) or who subscribe
to the same set of rules and laws (when status is established via power and dominance).
While this constructionist perspective might suggest a free choice to self-categorize in
status structures, this construct might be more fundamentally ingrained in human nature
than immediately becomes apparent: sociobiological theories suggest an immediate con-
nection between the emergence of the self-concept, self-evaluation, self-other compari-
sons and, consequently, the emergence of status. (Barkow, 1975)
2.1.3.8.2 Evaluative perspective
Status can be understood as “the extent to which an individual or group is respected or
admired by others” (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Status marks “an individual’s relative
standing in a group based on prestige, honor, and deference” (Willer, 2009). Status in-
dicates “the amount of honor or esteem accorded to a person or social designation”
(Phillips & Zuckerman, 2001). Status “can appear in many different forms, including
economic, political, informational, and social”; status refers to “a position of elevated
social standing and interpersonal influence” (Flynn et al., 2006).
At the heart of the social construct that is status is the central measure of appreciation.
While this central measure is interchangeable – be it economic, political, informational,
social, or any other measure – status depends on a metric that is comprehensible by the
48
actors and, to a degree, operationalizable in terms of information asymmetries and sig-
naling. Here, it becomes apparent that groups may have multiple status contexts at the
same time with one status ranking appreciating actors in terms of their economic per-
formance, the next in terms of their knowledge, and so on. Particularly in modern groups
and societies, the combination of a multitude of status evaluations is the norm and often
the source of status conflict.
2.1.3.8.3 Functional perspective
Status can be seen as “an effective claim to social esteem in terms of positive or negative
privileges”; status is “a claim to social esteem that is necessarily connected to privilege
(its primary consequence) […] the benefits of organizational status are essentially un-
earned from an economic or otherwise meritocratic perspective” (Washington & Zajac,
2005). Status “can be defined as relative access to resources within a social group”;
status hierarchies “represent agreements, maintained by deference signals, to facilitate
exchange or to avoid costs of repeated contest competition, as modeled by the war of
attrition” (Rueden et al., 2008). Status has been identified to provide benefits “including
greater influence, credit for work, access to information and resources that contribute to
individuals’ performance, and more positive evaluations than of those with low status
in groups” (Bendersky & Hays, 2012). However, status, “involving an ascribed or
achieved quality implying respect and privilege, does not necessarily include the ability
to control others or their resources” (Hall et al., 2005) Status hierarchies “provide many
benefits for face-to-face groups, including coordinating group action and limiting con-
flicts over dominance and decision making” (Anderson et al., 2008a).
Status derives its momentum from the implied advantages. Either attained through ca-
pabilities and meritocratic actions, consequentially established through deference in
form of prestige or attained through resources and/or legitimacy, consequentially estab-
lished through power in form of dominance, status provides privileges. Here, however,
both paths to status differ from each other: while power as a pathway provides resources
or legitimation as an antecedent to status and a consequence is rather the securing of
status (and thus privileges) through dominance, prestige as a pathway conversely puts
merit as an antecedent to prestige which, then, provides deferred access to resources.
While power may provide dominance as the means to try and secure status and related
privileges, prestige acts as a strategy to build status as an accumulation of deferred priv-
ilege with its securing hinging on continued accumulation of merits.
49
2.1.3.8.4 Motivational perspective
Status can be seen as both an antecedent and a consequence to behavior as “individuals
would compete for status and try to manipulate the social construction of status rela-
tions” (Bendersky & Hays, 2012). “High status in a group is valuable to individuals”
(Willer, 2009). Status “necessarily implies a hierarchy of rewards, whereby higher status
individuals have greater access to desirable things” (Griskevicius et al., 2010). Status is
“ubiquitous in social life and an organizing force in personality”; striving for status “has
been proposed as a primary and universal human motive”; the attainment of status “leads
to a host of vital consequences for the individual [, it] influences personal well-being,
social cognition, and emotional experience” (Anderson et al., 2001).
As a consequence of the functional perspective of status, attaining status acts as a moti-
vator. Status inspires performance, pro-social contributions, but also competition among
those aiming to attain status in the zero-sum game of ranking within groups. Conversely,
status has been found to cause different levels of motivation in individuals based on their
personality traits as well as context variables such as the formal characteristics such as
e.g., dimensions, distribution, and competitive pressure of the status hierarchy itself.
2.1.3.8.5 Signaling perspective
Status can be seen “as a network-related signal of market actors’ otherwise indecipher-
able quality.” (Bothner et al., 2012) Status is “conferred to people on the basis of their
apparent possession of attributes (e.g., competence, generosity) held as ideal by other
members of their social group” (Flynn et al., 2006). Status “can be viewed as either a
hierarchy of rewards or as a hierarchy of displays – or both simultaneously” (Henrich
& Gil-White, 2001)
Functional advantages of status spur motivation to attain status which leads to the key
methodology to do so: signaling. The signaling perspective on status provides both an
analytical and a factual methodology to realize status attainment aims. Signaling de-
scribes the behavioral approach to solving the information asymmetry among actors who
attempt to arrive at an appropriate assessment of the status of the individuals in a group.
This introduces the central challenge of authenticating the provided signals and verify-
ing the presented information. Forgery is a common method of inappropriate advance-
ment of individuals in the status positioning. Consequently, those who are most apt in
debunking those signals that do not speak to the true “quality” of individuals benefit
from building a more substantial network of high-status and, indeed, high quality part-
ners amongst themselves. Thus, estimating the cost of signals assumes the key position
50
in verifying the signal and estimating the difference between the signals sent by an actor
and his or her true quality in terms of capabilities, competencies, or access to resources.
2.1.3.8.6 Integrating perspectives on status
The setting of status is the prerequisite social hierarchy. Within this setting, social status
can be observed through constructivist, evaluative, functional, motivational, and signal-
ing perspectives. Status can be achieved through different pathways.
First, status can be achieved through power, made effective through dominance. Power
is enforced through access to resources. Dominant actors coerce subordinates to follow
established rules and subordinates abide to these rules in fear of retributions. Power is
more effective in defending a position of status than in extending it as the dominant
extension of status invites reactance.
Second, status can be achieved through prestige, made effective through deference.
Prestige is accumulated through acts of appreciation, recognizing prior pro-social con-
tributions, exceptional capabilities or performances. Prestige is more effective in accu-
mulating power than in defending it as deference requires continually renewed pro-
social behavior or extension of capabilities.
For this dissertation, I build on the terms of status as a wider concept of social hierarchy
and focus on prestige as the narrower concept of deference-generating status. Prestigious
employer preference, thus, is a consciously named construct that points to the preference
for those employers that would grant access to social status through the deference they
enjoy from their stakeholders for their specific status. Those employers might also hold
substantial amounts of accrued power, but the central mechanic of interest is not primar-
ily a business’ potential to coerce, but to entice behavior.
2.1.4 Integration of findings on status research
Mapping the multi-disciplinary and bi-centennial stream of research on status resembles
the charting of a mountain range where more focused reviews rather resemble a rock
collection. While the task appears both too immense to undertake and too valuable to
abandon, the strategy to both reframe and operationalize the endeavor assumes the key
position. In this review, I build upon the versatile and experienced perspective of ethol-
ogists, psychologists, sociologists, economists, organizational, and management scien-
tists to arrive at what cannot be conclusive, but may help in appraising the breadth of
51
even the most central group of contributions. This review briefly illustrates the key con-
cepts discussed in those 3% of publications that amassed the broadest recognition among
those scholars who provided the review this integration builds upon: it can only illustrate
the most frequently travelled routes across the proverbial mountain range.
And still, this integrative perspective upon the range of literature that has amassed
around the phenomenon of status provides a unique attempt at reducing its complexity
and making the range accessible. The above stated 3% of agreement on relevant reading
serves to illustrate not only the breadth of the field, but also the degree to which it lacks
integration. While disciplines at the heart of the topic – sociology and psychology – can
be found to take decades for more substantial exchange, others find themselves trailing
far behind and benefiting only to a limited degree of advances made elsewhere. This
underscores an important objective of this contribution: advancement of the field
through integration. Given the width of the front at which insight on status is being
advanced, the key objective, today, shifts from advancing into seemingly new venues to
making what has been done available to those who then might have to reconsider what
remains to be explored.
2.2 Status and recruitment
Work and status are connected by a large number of theoretical and practical relation-
ships: work has been argued and empirically shown to provide a particularly salient
source for status (Blau & Duncan, 1964; Marx & Engels, 1969; Reiss, 1961; Veblen,
1915); work provides means to social mobility (Blalock, 1967; Stacey, 1969; Hope,
1972); work implies integrating an individual into a social context which relies on status
structures to be productive (Barkow, 1975; Reiss, 1961); work provides competition
within and beyond the organizational group (Bothner et al., 2007; Radzevick & Moore,
2011); and even anthropological investigations into the behavior of aboriginal tribes
conventionally observe the concept of status when the analysis touches on the topic of
sharing the work load or arriving at decisions (Boyd & Richerson, 1985; Kelly, 1995).
It appears that the list of connections linking employment with status appear as extensive
as status’ ubiquity in the context of work. Consequentially, several key contributions in
status research elaborated their theoretical advances alongside illustrations of employ-
ment or, in case of Veblen, the conspicuous lack thereof (Blau & Duncan, 1964; Frank,
1985; Spence, 1973; Veblen, 1915).
Beyond the close proximity of work and status through the evolution of the field, the
application of status theory to the work environment has spawned a number of notable
52
literature streams – some with grand traditions, others in the midst of their emergence.
These literature streams provide a crucial context to this dissertation and, thus, warrant
introduction and discussion in order to contextualize my research in the sizeable body
of extant research.
2.2.1 Streams
There are at least six streams of notable research that this dissertation borders with, some
of them more fundamental while others are more applied. As a precursor and the most
extensive research on status in employment, research on occupational prestige deserves
an introductory recognition. While sociology provided fundamental insight on the oc-
cupation as a source of status and social mobility, social psychology introduced the fun-
daments of individual’s perception, processing, and reasoning based on social
information. However, these contributions do not form a consistent stream that this dis-
sertation’s positioning can delineate against but rather a set of contextually relevant the-
ories.
Within recruiting, there are several more specific research streams, namely that of rep-
utation in recruiting, employer branding, and functional and symbolic utility in recruit-
ing. More focusing on employment instead of recruiting, the research stream on
perceived external prestige borders this dissertation’s focus. From the illustration of this
theoretical context, I delineate the resulting research gap that the following contributions
aim to aid to fill.
2.2.1.1 Fundamental fields: status in sociology and social psychology
Employment provides a context in which individuals position themselves in a social
setting, generate social identities, and strive for appreciative recognition. Consequently,
the scientific discussion on the application of status theory in the employment setting
emerged from sociology, providing structure, and found its resonance in social psychol-
ogy as a behavioral resonance to the opportunities provided by said structure.
2.2.1.1.1 Occupational prestige
Occupational prestige is the subject of the extensive body of sociological research fo-
cusing on occupations as a source of social status in general and, more specifically, so-
cio-economic status (Treiman, 1977). Beyond this core subject, a substantial segment of
the stream through its evolution in the 20th century increasingly focused on the role of
occupational prestige in social mobility.
53
While the discussion of work’s role in stratification and, more specifically, individual
occupations impact on social status reach back to early sociologists (Counts, 1925; Marx
& Engels, 1969; Veblen, 1915; Weber, 1946b), more detailed and broader elaborations
did not emerge until after the second world war in large-scale studies focused on the
labor markets of the United States and the United Kingdom (Blau & Duncan, 1964;
Hodge, Siegel, & Rossi, 1964; National Opinion Research Center (NORC), 1947; Reiss,
1961). Research on occupational prestige was continuously advanced, even if with de-
creasing intensity. More recent contributions can be distinguished by their focus: first,
those researchers focused on a more structuralist perspective investigate lateral effects
introduced by demographic factors such as religious affiliation (Vecchio, 1980), gender
(Lacy, Bokemeier, & Shepard, 1983; Pfeffer & Ross, 1981; Tracy & Clifton, 2006;
Weaver, 1977), race (Howard et al., 2011; Walker & Tracey, 2012; Weaver, 1978), or
contextual dimensions such as e.g., the presence of unions in a labor market (Pfeffer &
Ross, 1980); second, those researchers focused on a more individualist perspective in-
vestigate the role of psychological factors such as individual ambition (Judge &
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012; Stacey, 1969), aspiration (Lee & Rojewski, 2009; Perry,
Przybysz, & Al-Sheikh, 2009), and self-esteem (Kammeyer-Mueller, Judge, & Piccolo,
2008); a third group of researchers continues to focus on the methodological advance-
ment of evaluation of the core metrics such as socio-economic status (Gottfredson, 1980;
Guppy & Goyder, 1984; Hodge, 1981; Stevens & Featherman, 1981; Treiman, 1977).
Research on occupational prestige provides a detailed and mature account on the role of
categories of occupations in stratifying the society or enabling mobility through those
strata. The discussion has advanced from investigating a structured society through ob-
serving a labor society that became increasingly fluid in its structures to highlighting
those factors that still prohibit freedom in social mobility and providing suggestions for
solving these challenges to social mobility.
Research in occupational prestige does generally not extend beyond the focus on occu-
pations. While it provides crucial context in the role, implications, and impact of char-
acteristics of employment on the social status of an individual, it is not designed to offer
methodology or a substantial theoretical framework to increase the detail of analysis to
the individual in context of a prestigious employer or vice versa.
2.2.1.1.2 Related socio-psychological theories
Several theoretical advances from social psychology contribute to the understanding of
how job-seekers approach, join, and exit from social groups.
54
First, comparison processes are at the heart of what makes prestige salient in the context
of recruitment and employment. The notion that social interaction results in comparison
of the self with the other has been prevalent since classical philosophical thought (Suls
& Wheeler, 2012). Loosely following a systematic review of the field by Buunk & Gib-
bons (2007), social comparison theory was introduced to social sciences by Sherif
(1936) shortly before Hyman (1942) was the first to amend the concept of prestige in a
goal-setting role motivating actions informed by social comparison. Finally, Festinger
(1954) coined the term of social comparison theory and stated that self-knowledge,
driven by a desire for self-evaluation, is obtained by objective information but also by
cognitive evaluation of social interaction. Festinger presented the consequences of so-
cial comparison theory to be that people are likely to seek the company of others who
are like themselves and try to persuade others to join the own in-group. Festinger pro-
posed an inherent upward drive in social comparison, a tendency that could be supported
with evidence by Wheeler (1966) and Suls & Miller (1977). Conversely to the upward
drive, Hakmiller (1966) and Thornton & Arrowood (1966) introduced evidence of the
contrarily directed notion of downward comparison, stating that individuals under threat
tend to compare themselves to others who seem to be worse off. In the 1970s social
comparison has been enriched with theory on cognitive processes and introduced the
notion of social comparison as social cognition (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007), commonly
positing self-evaluation as the dependent variable to other psychological concepts. Fur-
thermore, the orientation toward social comparison was established as a trait-like per-
sonality characteristic (Hemphill & Lehman, 1991) that can be evaluated using
established scales (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999).
Building on the notion of comparison, the most broadly noted and potentially most mul-
tifaceted and useful unique theoretical contribution on psychological processes involved
with group membership has been provided by Tajfel and Turner in their social identity
theory (SIT) in 1974 and 1979, respectively (Tajfel & Turner, 2004). In their theory,
both authors aimed at adding a new perspective to previous discussions on social ex-
change processes as previous approaches were limited to focusing on individual identi-
ties interacting, but not on what may be created in a social setting: a social identity.
Based on their theoretical elaboration and a range of related experiments, they extend
their SIT by deriving theories on social categorization, in-group favoritism and out-
group discrimination. Further, they integrate SIT with comparison processes and, ulti-
mately, with status hierarchies and social mobility processes. Contributions by Ashforth
and Mael helped transform and apply the theoretical construct of SIT to the setting of
the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989, Mael & Ashforth, 1992).
55
Research on SIT provides a broad, well-generalizable, and well-operationalizable
framework to better understand individuals’ behavior in social contexts. Both advances
in social comparison theory and SIT may be considered particularly fitting examples for
the reason to differentiate those contributions of psychologists from those made by so-
cial psychologists: by focusing on the social level of analysis, theoretical patterns
emerge that provide a distinct and distinctively useful dimension of explanatory power.
While SIT focuses on the constructed social context surrounding individuals, neither
does it consider interindividual differences in processing or evaluating the relevance of
the social context or explore to what reasons individuals might assign more or less im-
portance to the social context. While SIT speaks to the influence of the social competi-
tion, it does not deal with individuals.
2.2.1.2 Applied fields: status in recruitment research
Employee recruitment is the subject of extant research dealing with those organizational
activities that aim at attracting and selecting job applications and those processes that
lead an individual to choose an employer or a specific position (Barber, 1998; Barber &
Roehling, 1993). Research on recruitment has a tradition of roughly four decades and
integrates perspectives from organizational psychology to more applied and modern
managerial perspectives. Throughout the evolution of the field, the dominant focus of
research advanced from the behavior of recruiters (Powell, 1991), to recruitment sources
(Vecchio, 1995), advertising (Mason & Belt, 1986), selection procedures, person-organ-
ization fit, diversity, organizational socialization (Wanous, 1992), and vacancy charac-
teristics (Rynes, Reeves, & Darnold, 2014). Within recruitment, the emergence of
marketing methodology introduced the foundation for three distinct streams of research
that aided the understanding of status in recruitment to their individual degree.
2.2.1.2.1 Brand equity approach and employer branding
With its initial focus on the role of advertising in recruitment, soon a focus emerged on
the role of the employer’s image on application perception and advertising effectiveness
(Belt & Paolillo, 1982; Gatewood, Gowan, & Lautenschlager, 1993).
This initial consideration provided the foundations for three substantial advances: first,
the emergence of the brand equity approach and employer branding, second, the emer-
gence of reputation in recruitment illustrated in brief in the next section, third, the emer-
gence of the instrumental and symbolic framework in context of recruitment.
56
The emergence of marketing methodology in recruitment research and practice was ac-
celerated by two key advances: first, the seminal contribution of Ambler and Barrow on
the employer brand (Ambler & Barrow, 1996) and, second, the likewise widely noted
contribution of Chambers et al. on the “war for talent” (Chambers et al., 1998; Fishman,
1998). While both contributions spurred on the practitioners’ debate on creating em-
ployee value propositions and employer branding concepts, academic advancement fol-
lowed suit with approaches in capturing the role of employer brands in attracting and
retaining employees (Collins & Stevens, 2002; King & Grace, 2012, King & Grace,
2010; King, Grace, & Funk, 2011).
The discussion on brand equity in the employment context supported a considerable
proliferation of marketing know-how into the human resources and recruitment context.
This change did neither go unnoticed nor did it go undisputed: notable scholars in or-
ganizational psychology challenged the new focus on reshaping organization’s way of
structuring interaction with their employees to compete for those most talented outside
the organization to replenish demand inside the organization caused by decreasing at-
tention on the development of the talents that reside within the existing employees (Pfef-
fer, 2001). Moreover, introduction of marketing theory and practice into human
resources often appears implemented to a limited and inconclusive degree: the market-
ing to support recruiting inspired by the war for talent often prompts unspecific and
generic messages directed at increasing attractiveness overall, but not focused on a des-
ignated target group.
2.2.1.2.2 Reputation in recruitment
Alongside the emergence of employer branding and the brand equity approach to em-
ployment, reputation entered the discussion on recruitment (Cable & Turban, 2003; Tur-
ban, 1998; Turban & Cable, 2003).
These contributions provided a valuable bridge transferring those insights generated in
organizational sciences to the recruitment context and provided new avenues for con-
sidering the role of the organizational track record in applicants’ decision making pro-
cesses. However, the findings emerging from this specialized field did not provide
substantial advancement beyond what had been discussed in organizational sciences
which could be accumulated to the positive impact of organizational reputation on its
attractiveness to applicants and, in turn, more sizeable and higher quality applicant pool.
This specialized field remained largely without critical reflection as it did not fully ma-
ture to investigate the border conditions of particularly high status.
57
2.2.1.2.3 Symbolic and instrumental framework in recruiting
In parallel to the emergence of reputation in recruitment and the broader establishment
of marketing perspectives in recruitment, the symbolic and instrumental framework of
Bhat and Reddy (Bhat & Reddy, 1998) was reflected in the recruitment context by High-
house et al. (Highhouse, Zickar, Thorsteinson, Stierwalt, & Slaughter, 1999; Lievens,
2007; Lievens & Highhouse, 2003; van Hoye, Bas, Cromheecke, & Lievens, 2013).
The introduction of the symbolic and instrumental framework in the recruitment context
marked one of the first more detailed approaches to integrate marketing insight into
recruitment practice as it provided greater detail in terms of structuring and composing
an employee value proposition by discerning those factors that provide functional ben-
efit from those factors that carry psychological connotations and provide subjectively
perceived impressions of the organization.
The emergence of the symbolic and instrumental framework provided a substantial ad-
vance and an important fundament to the research presented in this dissertation, however
it remains broad in terms of the types of factors that may be considered as symbolic.
Commonly, studies on the symbolic and instrumental framework considered qualitative
characteristics of employers or their perceptions such as the perception of ruggedness in
the context of employment at the military (Lievens, 2007).
2.2.1.3 Perceived external prestige
Perceived external prestige is the subject of the extant body of research on organizational
psychology focusing on the impact of a positive external perception of organizations on
its employees. This stream has been mainly advanced by Abraham Carmeli et al. in his
sequential studies in the early 2000s (Carmeli, 2005, Carmeli, 2004; Carmeli & Freund,
2002; Carmeli, Gilat, & Weisberg, 2006; Herrbach & Mignonac, 2004).
The key discussion and empirical contribution of this stream is its investigation of ex-
ternally perceived prestige in creating the basis for organizational identification (Bartels,
Pruyn, & Jong, 2009; Bhattacharyam, Rao, & Glynn, 1995; Dukerich, Golden, &
Shortell, 2002; Kim, Lee, Lee, & Kim, 2010; Mishra, 2013; Pratt, 1998), decreasing
turnover intentions (Ciftcioglu, 2011; Herrbach, Mignonac, & Gatignon, 2004), and fos-
tering organizational commitment (Guerrero & Herrbach, 2009; Kang, Stewart, & Kim,
2011).
While the research on perceived external prestige adds the most detail to the role of
organizational prestige upon its employees, the rather unison and at times repetitive
58
findings of the field did not advance much beyond the general finding of desirable ef-
fects of what has been identified as a factor providing positive influence many decades
prior. Thus, the particularly interesting and valuable positioning of the field did not yet
lead to a matured discussion investigating the border conditions of particularly high or
low status.
2.2.2 Integration of findings and delineation of research gap
Scientific contributions with theoretical foundation in status research and application in
the recruitment context combine a long tradition in terms of their theoretical context
with a multitude of recently emerging streams that have not yet matured to include a
substantial critical discussion on the field’s findings.
As a theoretical context for research, there is a strong tradition of applying sociological,
economical, and psychological theory to the recruitment context to investigate status-
related phenomena. Within sociological research tradition, the most distinctive is the
extensive field of occupational prestige with its centennial of research tradition. How-
ever, it does also include substantial amounts of research that deal with micro-politics
of small groups and the overarching literature of stratification research. Within the psy-
chological research tradition and chronologically positioned in response to sociological
advancements, three distinct fields of literature provide a theoretical context to elabora-
tions on prestige in the employment setting: social comparison theory, SIT, and early
considerations of prestige-oriented behavior like contributions by, e.g., Hyman and
Maslow (Hyman, 1942; Maslow, 1954, Maslow, 1943, Maslow, 1937).
Finally, interest in investigating prestige in the recruitment process has sparked a num-
ber of smaller, emergent streams which approach the application of status theory from
different angles. These streams shall serve as theoretical focus to help delineating the
research gap. They are advances in research on recruitment (specifically the influence
of reputation on recruitment and the employer brand equity approach) and advances in
organizational psychology (specifically the influence of the symbolic / instrumental
framework and research on perceived external prestige). These streams provide a highly
fertile ground for further investigation on those topics that will be at the heart of future
organizational challenges as discussed in the introduction. However, the streams also
currently remain of limited versatility and limited critical appreciation of the border con-
ditions of particularly high or low prestige.
59
Figure 3 – Own illustration on theoretical positiong and delineation of research gap
Specifically, insight from the theoretical foundation, theoretical context, and the theo-
retical focus do not provide sufficiently differentiated answers to the following three
sets of key questions on prestigious employer preference (PEP):
1) Why do individuals prefer prestigious employers?
a. What are the factors that drive preference for prestigious employers?
b. How can those factors most appropriately be described and structured?
c. How can individual differences in prestige preference be measured?
Fundamental research on the evolutionary antecedents of status orientation generally
suggests the ubiquitous role of status (Barkow, 1975; Zahavi, 1975). Status matters to
people. Both anecdotal evidence and more recent investigation, however, found evi-
dence that priorities for status vary among people (Clark, Zboja, & Goldsmith, 2007;
60
Lawler, 2005; Roccas, 2003). Thus – what determines status? Previous research spoke
to the impact of personality traits on status-attainment (Anderson & Cowan, 2014; An-
derson et al., 2001; Cheng & Furnham, 2012; Hogan & Hogan, 1991). Given the stabil-
ity of personality traits, this research investigated the assumption of psychologically-
derived basis for social structure – social structure as an inevitable result of differences
among personalities. However, signaling theory suggest a much more situational and
strategic value to striving for status (Spence, 1973). Most recent investigations from the
field of theoretical focus have provided first attempts at investigating the origins for job-
seekers striving for status but have not yet provided conclusive answers (Alba et al.,
2014; Highhouse et al., 2007).
In the domain of marketing, however, we find a more advanced set of explanations why
consumers are attracted to high-status offers in the luxury market. One of the most
widely recognized contributions of the field of research on consumer behavior in the
luxury market provides crucial insight: in their contribution of 1999, Vigneron and John-
son introduce their “Framework for Prestige-Seeking Consumer Behavior” (FPSCB)
which points to five distinct but structurally connected factors driving prestige-oriented
behavior (Vigneron & Johnson, 1999). In section 2.2.2, I provide a thorough analysis of
whether their contribution might serve as a foundation for further elaboration on an an-
swer to the question stated above.
2) What does PEP entail with regard to individuals’ values and orientation?
What is the nomological network of those factors driving prestigious employer
preference in terms of …
a. …basic and work-oriented values?
b. …orientation with regard to position and goals?
Previous contributions on the role of status in behavior argued that status provides the
grounds for increased self-esteem (Ashforth & Mael, 1989, Mael & Ashforth, 1992).
Status means external appreciation; combined with any degree of self-appreciation, sta-
tus increases the degree to which a person feels appreciated by both herself and others.
As such, the appreciation-incentive of status has been argued by anthropologists to be a
consequence of the evolution of human concept and perception of the self, resulting
differentiation from the other, comparison, and desire for a valuable outcome of this
comparison (Barkow, 1975).
This finding may have appeared as transparent to a degree that further elaboration on
the question did not appear necessary. However, while the question may be rightfully
61
declared as answered in fundamental disciplines, it reopens in application: there has not
been substantial investigation on whether or how prestige preferences imprint, e.g., on
individuals’ basic or work-oriented values and on individuals’ orientation with regard
to position and goals. In section 3.1.3, I first investigate the proposed structure of pres-
tigious employer preference with regard to these two sets of concepts and in section
3.2.7, I then evaluate the proposed relationships by empirical analysis of the respectively
designed study.
3) What does PEP entail with regard to individuals’ attitudes and behavior?
a. How does prestige imprint on the perception of employers?
b. How does the satisfaction of prestige preference compare to the satisfaction of
person-organization fit?
c. How may prestige preference impact the performance of individuals in the or-
ganization?
Status has traditionally been discussed as a source of benefit. Consequentially, findings
have illustrated rather gleeful impressions of those who “bask in the glory of high es-
teem” (Cialdini & Borden, 1976; Podolny, 2005) and somewhat pitiful accounts of those
of low status (Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Mason, 1965). Given the long tradition of re-
search in status, it is surprising that it took until the recent years for more critical inves-
tigations to appear.
Charness et al. presented their findings on the potential for both beneficial but also det-
rimental impact of status (Charness et al., 2014), a growing range of contributions dis-
cussed the phenomenon of leadership hubris (Haynes et al., 2015; Hiller & Hambrick,
2005; Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009; Resick et al., 2009), downfall of leaders in
groups (Bendersky & Shah, 2013), and the detrimental impact of organizational status
on performance (Bothner et al., 2007; Bothner et al., 2012; Bothner et al., 2011). Recent
contributions show a significant maturing of the stream as insight on status is currently
being complemented with a much-needed critical perspective of this powerful motiva-
tor.
In this vein, I investigate further how prestige imprints on job-seekers perceptions of
employers (section 4). More applied, I investigate how the satisfaction PEP compares
to that of PO fit (likewise, section 4). Finally, I explore how the network of related psy-
chological dispositions impact on individuals’ performance in the exemplary setting of
decision making (section 5).
62
3 Measurement
Some people don’t want a home, they want a fashionable address.
(Packard, 1960, p. 95)
A prestigious image is valuable to organizations in a variety of settings from supplier
negotiations to consumer relationships, from acquiring financial means to brokering
cooperation (D'Aveni, 1996; Podolny, 1993; Thye, 2000). Among the many settings
where organizational prestige presents its benefits, recruitment appears among the most
prominent: organizations with high prestige attract more talent (Turban & Cable, 2003),
may afford to pay lower compensation (Bidwell et al., 2014), provide more challenging
work environments while benefiting from employees’ greater identification and
commitment (Carmeli, 2005, Carmeli, 2004; Carmeli & Freund, 2002). Consequently,
we find both the key advancement in signaling theory (Spence, 1973) as well as the
seminal contributions on two-sided matching markets (Roth, 1985) to be first applied to
the job market.
However, while advantages of a prestigious image have been illustrated by prior
research in detail, the motives driving job-seekers to high-status organizations have been
understudied. Pointing to the application of SIT to the organizational domain, Mael and
Ashforth highlight the individual’s aim to boost self-esteem as the key motivation
(1992). Alba et al. and Highhouse et al. both aid the understanding of the phenomenon
to a degree, but suffer from either limited conceptual depth in light of its specific
application (Alba et al., 2014) or lack theoretical footing (Highhouse et al., 2007).
Moreover, while the nature of status-driven career decisions remain understudied, recent
evidence emerged that status motives can fuel detrimental behavior within the
organization such as sabotaging others’ work or bolstering own performance reports
(Charness et al., 2014), decreasing decision making capabilities (Anderson, Brion,
Moore, & Kennedy, 2012b), increasing propensity for organizational hubris (Hoorens
et al., 2012), and organizational narcissism (Hamedoglu & Potas, 2012). Both the broad
prior evidence on the specific benefits to be gained from organizational status (e.g.,
Chen et al., 2012; Pearce, 2011; Piazza & Castellucci, 2014; Sauder et al., 2012) and the
recently emerging amount of evidence on its risks underscores the necessity to better
understand the factors of status-driven behavior.
Consequently, the mission of this construct development is to advance the understanding
of individual differences in terms of prestige-driven behavior in the field of
organizational recruitment. In order to accomplish this mission, I follow the general
propositions on the broad compatibility of consumer and job-seeker behavior implied in
63
the employer branding literature (Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004)
in order to introduce the established framework for prestige-seeking consumer behavior
(FPSCB, Vigneron & Johnson, 1999) to the recruitment context. Based on the FPSCB,
I develop and evaluate a corresponding, five-factor, 20-item measurement construct on
individuals’ prestigious employer preference (PEP). Furthermore, I investigate the
nomological network of the newly introduced construct on its aggregate levels in terms
of regulatory focus (RF), social comparison orientation (SCO), and work values,
specifically self-enhancement values.
This study ties into the complete research project on conspicuous employment by
supporting the central aim to better understand employees' status-driven considerations
as presented in more detail in section 2. This chapter builds upon the former chapter on
theory in the field and draws from the presented review on status-driven consumer
behavior literature for conceptual foundation as well as from the presented review on
status-driven behavior of employees for validation. Later chapters build upon this
chapter's contribution by employing the developed scale to further investigate correlates
and impacts of job-oriented prestige-seeking.
The remainder of this chapter consists of four segments: in the next segment, I introduce
and review the theoretical model that the psychometric scale builds upon. Next, I report
the methodological process of the scale development. Following, I present the findings
of the scale’s evaluation studies. Finally, the evaluations' findings are discussed in this
chapters’ conclusion.
3.1 Theory
Research on the structure of motives and individual differences in job-seekers’
propensity to prefer high-prestige employers is scant. A thorough review of the extant
body of research points to a range of established research fields in the topical vicinity4,
but only two contributions positioned to contribute to the better understanding of job-
seekers motives to join particularly prestigious employers:
Highhouse et al. build their investigation on the social-identity functions of attraction to
organizations (Highhouse et al., 2007) upon the framework of instrumental vs. symbolic
corporate attributes by Lievens and Highhouse (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003). The
authors identify concern for social adjustment as well as concern for value expression
4 See section 2.2 for a review of literature dealing with the implications of prestige in recruitment.
64
as the two dimensions of identity-related organizational attraction and evaluated their
scale in a multi-study setup with student samples (n=106; 261; 25). The authors provide
a two-factorial item battery with 10 items. The contribution is path-breaking in terms of
exploring the structure of attraction toward high-status organization. However, it is
limited to the self-representational aspects of PEP. It does not cover the more
fundamental, individual motives propelling the pursuit of status: the signal of a working
environment that provides a high quality (Gambetta, 2009) in terms of hedonic and
eudaimonic elements of professional well-being (Warr, 1999) as has been discussed as
a central implication of prestige-orientation in the research on consumer behavior
(Vigneron & Johnson, 1999). While the authors’ contribution appears as an important
first step into a valuable research venue, it can only lay claim to investigating part of the
motives driving job-seekers to a high-status employer.
Alba et al. investigated the overall status-consciousness of individuals (Alba et al.,
2014). The contribution is valuable to further illuminate the phenomenon of individuals’
preference for status independent of the specific field of application. The authors provide
an eight-factor model with rejection of status, high perceived status, respect for
hierarchy, low perceived status, status display, egalitarianism, belief in hierarchy,
enjoyment of status as the eight factors and evaluated their “status conscious scale” in a
two-step process of item generation and scale evaluation with online samples. The
authors provide an eight-factorial item battery with 40 items. The author’s contribution
provides a wealth of information in terms of covariates of status-consciousness.
However, the contribution does not build the construct’s architecture on the wealth of
available prior findings and thus appears somewhat ambiguous. Furthermore, the initial
items evolve from an empirical pre-study but are rather a product of the authors.
The limited amount of research in comparison to the potential of the phenomenon
warrants further exploration beyond the immediate organizational or psychology
literature. Here, the emergence of the employer branding paradigm in recruiting
provides a bridge to introduce insight from consumer behavior and marketing research
(Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Given the more advanced state of
research in consumer behavior (e.g., Bryson, Atwal, & Hultén, 2013; Johansson-
Stenman & Martinsson, 2006; Clark, Zboja, & Goldsmith, 2007; Chaudhuri, Mazumdar,
& Ghoshal, 2011; Deeter-Schmelz, Moore, & Goebel, 2000; Eastman, Goldsmith, &
Reinecke Flynn, 1999; Tsai, 2005) investigating motives driving consumption of luxury
goods, this approach appears as both feasible and valuable.
Among the broad range of contributions in the consumer behavior domain, the work of
Vigneron and Johnson stands out as the broadly accepted FPSCB (Vigneron & Johnson,
65
2004, Vigneron & Johnson, 1999). Both author’s contribution originated as a pragmatic,
theoretical review of fundamental research on the elementary social and individual
insights that find their application in the consumption of luxury goods: conspicuousness
(Veblen, 1915), uniqueness (Leibenstein, 1950; Snyder & Fromkin, 1977), association
(Bearden & Etzel, 1982; Leibenstein, 1950), hedonism (Hirschmann & Holbrook,
1982), and perfectionism (Burns, 1980). A broad review of references of current
literature on luxury consumption has found Vigneron’s and Johnson’s work to be the
most parsimonious construct to illustrate prestige-driven consumer behavior and finds
application as the foundation of the majority of scientific elaborations on the
phenomenon of status-oriented consumption (Berghaus, Müller-Stewens, & Reinecke,
2014).
Overview of theoretical development on measurement
Review of factors, pp. 65
Individual factors, pp. 66 Social factors, pp. 72
Perfectionism:
achieving the
ideal-functioning
self, pp. 67
Hedonism:
aspiring to a
positive emotional
experience,
pp. 69
Association:
attaining a valuable
social identity, pp.
72
Uniqueness:
construing a
differentiated
identity, pp. 75
Conspicuousness:
collecting symbols,
pp. 77
Prestigious employer preference (PEP) construct, pp. 79
Nomological network, pp. 80
Individual factors and regulatory
focus, pp. 81
Social factors and social
comparison, pp. 83
Prestigious employer preference
and values, pp. 84
Table 2 – Overview of theoretical development on prestigious employer preference
3.1.1 Review of factors
Following the opportunities presented by using employer branding as a bridge to
introduce insights generated on consumers to build upon them in the employment
setting, I use the structure of the FPSCB as a blueprint for the construction of a scale
measuring the individual job-seekers’ propensity toward high-status employers, the PEP
scale. In order to avoid introducing inappropriate elements into the newly developed
construct, I first review the individual factors of the FPSCB in light of prior findings in
the fundamental (sociological, psychological) and applied (marketing, organization,
66
human resources) literature and then consider the factor in light of employer, employee,
and job-seeker perspectives before I conclude with an evaluation and proposition.
Conversely to the order of factors presented by Vigneron and Johnson moving from
social (conspicuousness, uniqueness, and association) to individual motives (hedonism
and perfectionism), I evaluate the construct in reverse order to facilitate a more coherent
and consequential elaboration by moving from the more fundamental to the more
complex theoretical elements.
3.1.1.1 Individual factors
The FPSCB identifies two factors that generate consumer motivation immediately in
terms of suggested positive individual benefits: perfectionism and hedonism. Both
perfectionism – in terms of unconditional eudaimonia – and hedonism constitute the two
central elements of well-being or positive affect (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Thus, Vigneron
and Johnson implicitly relate to status consumption’s fundamental signaling function:
to provide information on the offer’s (and in turn, the employer’s) remarkable quality in
terms of functional performance and emotional experience (Gambetta, 2009).
Both hedonia and its eudaimonia originally emerged from ethical philosophy in terms
of their prescriptive nature in terms of what constitutes a good life, either the striving
for pleasure and aversion of pain – hedonia – or the striving for a purpose- and
meaningful life and aversion of functional indifference – eudaimonia (Huta, 2015).
Well-being, the provision for functional performance and a positive emotional
experience, is as relevant to individuals’ general psychological constitution (Taylor &
Brown, 1988) as it is in the consumption domain (Alba & Williams, 2013; Hirschmann
& Holbrook, 1982) and at the workplace (Warr, 1999). Furthermore, for job-seekers that
pursue a prestigious place of employment, it appears consequential to not only being
guided by signals of status (Alós-Ferrer & Prat, 2012), but to also expect from those
signals to engage a place of employment that both provides them with the opportunity
to develop their full professional potential (Hewitt & Genest, 1990) and to engage in a
stimulating and fun workplace (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; Lamm & Meeks,
2009). Thus, a more detailed review of the individual factors involved in the construct
provides more context on their applicability to the employment setting.
Proposition 1: Prestigious employer preference in job-seekers is, in part, motivated by
the individual’s goal to achieve well-being at the future workplace.
67
3.1.1.1.1 Perfectionism: achieving the ideal-functioning self
Perfectionism is defined with broad agreement as striving for flawlessness and the desire
to experience and reach perfection in all aspects of life (e.g., Flett & Hewitt, 2002, p. 5).
Vigneron and Johnson discuss perfectionism as part of the framework in terms of the
expectations on the functional quality and performance as well as the mastery involved
in creating an offer that aims to be appealing to a prestige-seeking consumer (Vigneron
& Johnson, 1999, pp. 8). In consumption, perfectionism has been found to increase
product expectations (Kopalle & Lehman, 2001). Perfectionism may lead to inferior
decision making in complex consumer choices as dichotomous thinking leads
perfectionists to abandon choices as an ideal choice appears unachievable (He, 2016).
In a broader sense of consumption, perfectionism has been related to eating disorders
(Sherry & Hall, 2009), highlighting the consequences of maladaptive perfectionism in
consumption and ultimately health.
More fundamentally, research on perfectionism emerged from psychopathology (Burns,
1980; Pacht, 1984) and only recently found resonance in work and management research
in both academic (Philp, Egan, & Kane, 2012; Shoss, Callison, & Witt, 2015; Stoeber,
Davis, & Townley, 2013) and popular science (Ross, 2012) community. Perfectionism
is a psychological disposition that has been conceptualized in multiple ways with the
contributions of Hewitt et al. and Frost et al. having found the broadest application.
Hewitt et al. differentiate self-oriented perfectionism, other-oriented perfectionism, and
socially prescribed perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1991) while Frost et al. identified
concern over mistakes, personal standards, parental expectations, parental criticism,
doubts about actions, and self-organization skills as the main factors to identify
perfectionism (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990), highlighting the role of
processes of adolescence.
Stemming from the origin of its investigation, perfectionism has been traditionally
considered a phenomenon of psychological pathology. Only more recently, researcher’s
interest shifted to investigate positive implications of perfectionism (Ozbilir, Day, &
Catano, 2015; Stoeber & Otto, 2006). Today, the impact of perfectionism is generally
accepted to result in adaptive and maladaptive behavioral responses with adaptive
responses conventionally emerging from self-oriented perfectionism and leading to the
setting of ambitious goals and personal standards (Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, &
Ashby, 2001), realizing performance (Chang, Watkins, & Banks, 2004; Grzegorek,
Slaney, Franze, & Rice, 2004), and increasing self-esteem (Rice, Ashby, & Slaney,
1998) while maladaptive responses conventionally emerging from self-criticism and
leading to inhibited goal progress (Powers, Koestner, & Topciu, 2005; Powers,
68
Koestner, Zuroff, Milyavskaya, & Gorin, 2011), psychological distress (Dunkley,
Zuroff, & Blankstein, 2003; Flaxman, Ménard, Bond, & Kinman, 2012; Flett, Hewitt,
Blankstein, & Gray, 1998), work-family conflict (Shoss et al., 2015), burnout (Ozbilir
et al., 2015), and suicide (Blatt, 1995).
Given perfectionism’s substantial impact of eradicating productivity in case of
maladaption and supercharging productivity in case of adaption, it comes as no surprise
that perfectionism plays a crucial role at the workplace. Employers of high
organizational status have a vested interest in maximizing their employees’ performance
in order to safeguard both organizational performance and their valuable reputation. As
examples, consider leading investment banks putting forth guidelines on working hours
for interns that exempt Saturdays and work days of more than 17 hours after an intern
died from what had been deemed unsuccessful coping with stress symptoms (Neate,
2015); at leading technology firms, “Sunday evening is a work night for everybody” and
“employees need to be available 24/7” (Cook, 2014). Copious examples that connect
high-status organizations with excessive expectations on the performance of their
employees which constitutes a form of socially prescribed perfectionism.
However, striving for perfect functional performance is not only prescribed by the social
environment of a high-status organization, but also a goal pursued by its employees:
research on perceived external prestige has found evidence that the externally perceived
status of employers fosters not only identification (Carmeli et al., 2006), but also
affective commitment (Carmeli, 2005), and, in turn, work engagement (Choi, Tran, &
Park, 2015; Scrima, Lorito, Parry, & Falgares, 2014). With high-status organizations,
this chain of causality is likely to fuel great work engagement and may, in combination
with high socially prescribed perfectionism, support an environment favoring
workaholism, a tendency to work excessively hard and obsessing with its outcomes.
(Stoeber et al., 2013)
From the perspective of the status-oriented the job-seeker, the link between aspiring to
become part of a high-status organization and own perfectionism, appears plausible.
Fundamentally, applicants understand that applying to organizations with highest
esteem means facing a greater competition than with less esteemed employers. This
increases the requirements on own prior performance in order to maintain or increase
the odds of acceptance. Thus, people who effectively pursue high status employment
have to demonstrate their cognitive, problem-solving, leadership, and creative qualities
to a degree that shows promise to match or exceed the high-status employer’s flawless
productivity – in essence matching the suggested perfectionism of the organization.
69
This, in turn suggest that only those people can effectively pursue a prestigious employer
preference who have demonstrated a compatible degree of perfectionism in the past.
Having investigated the individual perspectives of the organization, the employee, and
the job-seeker as well as the different facets of self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially
prescribed perfectionism, prior findings suggests that perfectionism appears as an
applicable factor in a motivational construct aiming to represent prestige preference in
job-seeking.
Proposition 1a: Prestigious employer preference in job-seekers is, in part,
motivated by the individual’s goal of reaching ideal functional performance, the
eudaimonic dimension of well-being. This is represented through workplace-
oriented perfectionism.
3.1.1.1.2 Hedonism: aspiring to a positive emotional experience
Hedonism describes striving for the desire for happiness, enjoying pleasure, comfort,
and the aversion toward painful experiences (Kahneman, Diener, & Schwarz, 1999).
Hedonism is the emotional and experience-oriented component of people’s broader
striving for subjective well-being or optimal psychological experience and functioning
(Deci & Ryan, 2008; Huta & Waterman, 2014; Ryan & Deci, 2001). Thus, hedonism is
one behavior that aims at realizing positive affect, i.e., a positive emotional state.
Consequently, hedonism has been described as one of the cornerstones of positive
psychology (Peterson & Park, 2003; Seligman, 1999). The FPSCB recognizes the
motive of pursuing a positive emotional experience by pointing to the broad research
stream that illustrates the role of consumer benefits beyond the immediate, rational
functionality of an offer. (Vigneron & Johnson, 1999, pp. 8) In consumption, hedonism
relates to the multisensory, fantasy, and emotive aspects of consumers’ experiences with
offers (Hirschmann & Holbrook, 1982). Research on hedonic consumption emerged
from a traditional discussion of utilitarian consumer motives (Batra & Ahtola, 1990).
Recent research has found that hedonic and utilitarian characteristics provide benefits to
different goal-attainment strategies in so far as utilitarian benefits fulfil prevention goals
and hedonic benefits fulfil promotion goals in terms of consumers’ RF (Chitturi,
Raghunathan, & Mahajan, 2008). In their review, Alba and Williams identified the
product or service itself as well as the interaction with it as the dominant sources of
pleasurable experiences and highlight the role of the progression of time as well as
evaluation of consequences in consumer decision making when faced with functional or
hedonic choices (Alba & Williams, 2013). Thus, research on hedonic consumption has
70
advanced with increasing emphasis on creating hedonic experiences (e.g., Babin,
Darden, & Griffin, 1994) and designing product characteristics (e.g., Lageat, Czellar, &
Laurent, 1997).
More fundamentally, hedonism has been shown to relate to psychological traits such as
emotional stability, positive affectivity, and tension (DeNeve, 1999). Research
connecting hedonism with personality have identified extraversion and agreeableness as
consistently positively related (Diener & Lucas, 1999; Ryan & Deci, 2001). Beyond
individual personality, a number of individual characteristics have been found to impact
on subjective well-being such as age, education, social class, income, marriage,
employment and others (for a full review, see Argyle, 1999). A central tenet to
psychological research on hedonism is the hedonic treadmill, the temporary impact of
pleasurable or painful events on positive affect and the following regression of this effect
over time (Brickman & Campbell, 1971), as well as escaping the hedonic treadmill for
a prolonged state of happiness (Coulombe & La Sablonnière, 2015; Diener, Lucas, &
Scollon, 2006; Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2012). A popular area of research on hedonism
is its link to pro-social behavior, i.e., altruism’s positive impact on mood and,
respectively, altruism as a suitable behavior to reach hedonic goals (Cialdini & Kenrick,
1976; Kenrick, Baumann, & Cialdini, 1979).
In the workplace setting, hedonism has been investigated in terms of its role as affective
well-being (Daniels, 2000; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Having some work-
related autonomy, the opportunity of using personal skills, variety of work-related
stimuli, environmental clarity, financial reimbursement and security, supportive
supervision, social contact and a valued social position have been identified as sources
for well-being at work (Warr, 1999, p. 396). Positive emotions as pursued through
hedonism and provided by respective job characteristics do not only provide pleasure,
but broaden an individual’s thought-action repertoire, sparking interest, engagement,
urge to explore, etc. (Fredrickson, 2004) and thus are important for individual efficacy.
Thus, positive affect has been shown to provide the foundation for pro-active behavior
(Bindl, Parker, Totterdell, & Hagger-Johnson, 2012; Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010).
However, while hedonism may provide energy, it is somewhat incompatible with high
expectations as valuing happiness may lead people to be less happy just when happiness
is within reach (Mauss, Tamir, Anderson, & Savino, 2011). Furthermore, excessive
positive affect has been shown to cease aiding proactive behavior and rather instill
contentment and complacency (Lam, Spreitzer, & Fritz, 2014).
Organizations try to reap the benefits of positive affect at work. This trend is the subject
of the emergent literature stream on workplace fun. Employees who experience fun at
71
their place of employment experience greater satisfaction with their job and job
outcomes (Karl & Peluchette, 2006), trust in supervisors and co-workers (Karl,
Peluchette, Hall, & Harland, 2005), and ultimately task performance (Lamm & Meeks,
2009). Given high-status organizations’ previously discussed aim for optimal
performance, benefiting from hedonic elements in creating an attractive workplace
appears not only plausible, but is also visible in the field in terms of creating the most
creative and entertaining environments at leading technology firms (Stewart, 2013).
This provides the basis for enhancing the emotional perception of employment in self-
presentations at an institutional investor firm to be perceived as stimulating (Goldman
Sachs Self-presentation, 2016) or suggesting emotionally engaging work environments
by use of adventurous recruiting events (PWC Career Advertising, 2016).
From the perspective of a prestige-oriented job-seeker, pursuing hedonic motives
appears reasonable due to three different processes: first, status signals quality
(Gambetta, 2009) and an individual’s well-being at work constitutes an important part
of this quality (Warr, 1999). Second, more intricately, research on organizational status
has found an overwhelming amount of evidence showing status as a facilitator which
makes achieving tasks and goals easier (Piazza & Castellucci, 2014; Podolny, 1993).
The facilitation of tasks has been shown to increase flow and, in turn, a more positive
affective response (Schmierbach, Chung, Wu, & Kim, 2014). In the same vein of
argument, tasks of high status organizations may seem more stimulating and less
mundane (Brannan et al., 2014), leading to the expectations of a more involving,
meaningful and admirable (Sweetman, Spears, Livingstone, & Manstead, 2013) work
environment (Agrawal & Swaroop, 2009). Finally, and most fundamentally, achieving
a high-status position increases self-esteem (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) and, in
consequence, decreases anxiety (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt, & Schimel,
2004), health risks (Taylor & Brown, 1988), and increases happiness.
Having investigated the individual perspectives of the organization, the employee, and
the job-seeker as well as the different theoretical elements of hedonism as part of the
subjective well-being construct, prior findings suggests that work-related hedonism
appears as an applicable factor in a motivational construct aiming to represent prestige
preference in job-seeking.
Proposition 1b: Prestigious employer preference in job-seekers is, in part,
motivated by the individual’s goal of reaching a pleasurable work experience, the
hedonic dimension of well-being. This is represented through workplace-oriented
hedonism.
72
3.1.1.2 Social factors
Beyond the individual factors, the FPSCB identifies three factors that generate consumer
motivation in part immediately and in part vicariously through suggested positive social
benefits: association (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leibenstein, 1950), uniqueness (Lynn
& Snyder, 2002; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980), and conspicuousness (Spence, 1973;
Veblen, 1915). Consumers who pursue prestigious offers seek association with
respected and admired customer groups (Amaldoss & Jain, 2015; Leibenstein, 1950),
they aim to develop a socially valuable and unique identity by seeking non-conforming
consumer choices (Lynn, 1989; Midgley, 1983), and they actively engage in signaling
their individual quality (financial, cultural, social, etc.) to others through conspicuous
consumption of symbolic goods and services (Gambetta, 2009; Zahavi, 1975).
Benefits from valuable social interaction – providing the basis for association with
valuable groups, the generation of an attractive and unique identity, and the development
of symbolic capital in form of prior employment signals – is as relevant to the
consumption domain (Mason, 1998) as it is to the workplace (Chen et al., 2012; Pearce,
2011; Piazza & Castellucci, 2014; Sauder et al., 2012). Associations with a group of
high social esteem grant both access to social, financial, and political resources (Lin,
1999b) as well as a valuable social identity (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Building on the
benefits of high-status group membership, the valuable social identity provided by a
prestigious place of employment aids the individual to stand out in social interactions
with others outside the organization (Lin, 1999b) and build a valuable track record
consisting of symbols signifying past and suggesting future performance (Tsai, Chi,
Huang, & Hsu, 2011), leading to greater chances of acquiring more beneficial positions
(Lin, 1999b). Finally, the symbolic capital acquired through employment with high
status employers are highly visible, recognizable, and efficient means of communication
(Bangerter, Roulin, & König, 2012). Thus, a more detailed review of the social factors
involved in the construct provides more context on their applicability to the employment
setting.
Proposition 2: Prestigious employer preference in job-seekers is, in part,
motivated by the individual’s goal to achieve symbolic capital through association
with a uniquely positive and recognizable future employer.
3.1.1.2.1 Association: attaining a valuable social identity
Association describes the state of an individual belonging to a group. Vigneron and
Johnson illustrate the Bandwagon Effect – the motive to associate with a group in high
73
social regard through consumption – by pointing to the associative connotations of
prestige goods and services in their function as symbols and consumers’ aim to extend
their self through imitation of affluent lifestyles. (Vigneron & Johnson, 1999, pp. 6) In
consumption, associative motives of consumers are the foundation of bandwagon
behavior (Bearden & Etzel, 1982; Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012; Leibenstein, 1950)
which emerged from initial proposals to consider the interdependence of consumption
behavior by, e.g., (Rae, 1834) and (Cunynghame, 1892). Consumer-oriented research
on the influence of reference group associations on consumer behavior has mainly
focused on the interaction between leaders and followers (Amaldoss & Jain, 2008), the
implications of social dynamics on optimal branding strategy (Amaldoss & Jain, 2015;
Han, Nunes, & Drèze, 2010) as well as the creation and design of membership offers
and clubs (Briley & Wyer, 2002; Liebermann, 1999; Marinova & Singh, 2014).
More fundamentally, people have a drive to “form and maintain lasting, positive, and
significant interpersonal relationships” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 497) motivated
by essential needs for security, access to resources, and potential of collaboration
(Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981). The positive impact of a sense of belonging and the
detrimental effect of loneliness has been documented in multiple faculties such as
decreasing cognitive capabilities (Baumeister, Twenge, & Nuss, 2002) and overall
impact on health (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2009). Consequentially, even the slightest cues
of social association have an impact on the individual and its behavior (Walton, Cohen,
Cwir, & Spencer, 2012). However, the need to belong differs among people (Leary,
Kelly, Cottrell, & Schreindorfer, 2013).
However, association with a highly prestigious group provides more than satisfying
mere belonging: beyond the fundamental psychological benefits of social integration,
association with groups provides a social identity on the basis for categorization of
individuals, distinctiveness, and prestige of the group (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Cialdini
& Richardson, 1980; Tajfel, 1978). Consequently, group identification requires group
distinctiveness, prestige, and intragroup competition (Mael & Ashforth, 1992),
requirements met by particularly prestigious employers. Association with a prestigious
employer provides a valuable sense of group membership among colleagues in the
organization (Brewer, 1991). Identification with groups can go as far as fusing the
individual identity with the group’s identity (Swann, Jetten, Gómez, Whitehouse, &
Bastian, 2012).
To employers, the positive consequences of a psychologically salient organizational
association are of key importance to facilitating numerous organizational processes as
they are “infused with motivation and feeling” (Albert et al., 2000, p. 14): contributions
74
in a broad stream on the topic of organizational identification have illustrated the
benefits of organizational identification in terms of cooperative behavior (Kramer,
2006), job satisfaction as well as motivation and performance (van Knippenberg & van
Schie, 2000), information sharing and collaboration (Grice, Gallois, Jones, Paulsen, &
Callan, 2006) as well as a self-enforcing effect of individuals’ aim to remain associated
and aversion torward exiting the organization (Ashforth et al., 2008; Edwards, 2005).
Thus, fostering a strong sense of association provides numerous and substantial benefits
to employers. Organizational status has been shown to boost organizational
identification and, in turn, support the benefits to be generated (Carmeli, 2005, Carmeli,
2004; Carmeli & Freund, 2002; Carmeli et al., 2006).
Employees’ association with a prestigious organization, however, goes beyond
providing psychological benefits to include economic advantages in terms of social
resources (Buchanan, 1965; Granovetter, 1973; Granovetter, 1974; McGuire, 1972).
The theory of social capital stipulates that individuals who position themselves to
optimize access to networks of resources gain advantage over those who do not (Lin,
1999a, Lin, 1999b). The underlying reasons for this advantage are, specifically in career-
building, access to information, access to resources, and career sponsorship (Seibert,
Kraimer, & Liden, 2001).
Job-seekers per definition are also seekers of association. Thus, seeking satisfaction in
the sense of professional belonging is a rather generic requirement to be fulfilled for
most job-seekers. Thus, association also plays an important role for those job-seekers
who prefer prestigious professional affiliation. However, the aim to associate with a
particularly high status employer is further encouraged by the added values of
constructing a particularly valuable social identity and accessing networks of power,
influence and resources.
Having investigated the individual perspectives of the organization, the employee, and
the job-seeker as well as the different theoretical elements of group membership as part
of both SIT and status networks theory, prior findings suggests that the attainment of a
valuable group membership appears as an applicable factor in a motivational construct
aiming to represent prestige preference in job-seeking.
Proposition 2a: Prestigious employer preference in job-seekers is, in part,
motivated by the individual’s goal of generating a positive social identity and
accessing valuable resources through embedding themselves in resourceful
professional networks. This is represented through their motive to achieve
association with professional groups of high-status.
75
3.1.1.2.2 Uniqueness: construing a differentiated identity
Uniqueness relates to the perceived degree of dissimilarity of an individual among a
group of others, supporting the individual’s notion of its self (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980).
The FPSCB illustrates the snob effect – the motive to achieve a unique consumer
identity – by pointing to the behavior of early adopters of innovations as well as the
preference for rare items and the countering behavior of avoiding products that are
readily available to the general public. (Vigneron & Johnson, 1999, pp. 5) In
consumption, the construal of a unique identity has led to the notion of possessions as
extensions of the self (Belk, 1988), research on the semiotics of consumption (Mick,
1986) as well as the role of communication in consumption (Midgley, 1983). The need
for uniqueness steers individuals’ purchase decisions toward scarce, innovative,
customized, and / or difficult to attain products (Lynn, 1989; Lynn & Harris, 1997;
Snyder, 1992; Tian, Bearden, & Hunter, 2001).
More fundamentally, research on individuals’ pursuit of uniqueness emerged from the
roots of research on conformity and non-conformity as a resulting behavior of social
influence (Nail, 1986). The prevalent concept of need for uniqueness emerged from
investigating the positively reframed understanding of abnormal psychology – the
benefits of striving toward differentiation from other people (Snyder & Fromkin, 1977).
Uniqueness seeking theory stipulates that individuals generally seek a moderate degree
of uniqueness (Maslach, 1974; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980) in order to balance their
opposing needs for self-identification and social assimilation (Lynn & Snyder, 2002).
Consequently, greater equality among actors can induce uniqueness-oriented behavior
(Ordabayeva & Chandon, 2011). Individuals differ in their need for uniqueness (Snyder
& Fromkin, 1977; Tian et al., 2001). Individuals’ high need for uniqueness lead
individuals’ greater identification with small and exclusive groups which, in turn, gives
rise to uniqueness-seekers’ consumption of scarce, innovative, and customized products
(Lynn & Harris, 1997; Snyder, 1992). This, in turn, lead to the conceptualization of
marketing strategies building on the resulting value-creation of products that are
perceived to be exclusive (Groth, 1994; Phau & Prendergast, 2000; van de Ven,
Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2011; Wu, Lu, Wu, & Fu, 2012).
However, uniqueness as a factor in both the FPSCB and PEP goes beyond merely
construing an identity for the sake of psychological well-being and includes the
generation of a valuably differentiated identity in order to support competitiveness.
Individuals’ need for uniqueness steers behavior in a way that they communicate their
desired identity, e.g., through consumption of symbolic offers (Berger & Heath, 2007)
76
that are desirable and illustrate the consumer’s unique and distinct taste (Irmak, Vallen,
& Sen, 2010)
To organizations, uniqueness has become an important basis to develop competitive
advantages through differentiation. Differentiation of offer is a key tenet of marketing
theory (Stahl, Heitmann, Lehman, & Neslin, 2012) as well as practice (Keller, Sternthal,
& Tybout, 2002). With increasing competitive pressure (Chambers et al., 1998) and the
consequential advent of marketing methodology in organizations’ engaging of the
employment market (Ambler & Barrow, 1996), differentiation has been introduced to
recruiting, e.g. in form of a unique employer value proposition (Michaels et al., 2001)
or a well-differentiated employer brand (Elving, Westhoff, Meeusen, & Schoonderbeek,
2012). A rapidly growing field of employer branding practitioners serves as the key
indicator for the increasing importance of being perceived as being able to provide a
unique employer value proposition. However, generating a unique brand experience in
human resources does not only focus on recruitment in the form of employer branding,
but also on already engaged employees in the form of internal branding (King & Grace,
2010). Highlighting the valuable differences, if not uniqueness of a place of work,
however, has been shown to be a challenging task as organizations have been shown to
share more communalities than they would like to admit (Martin, Feldmann, Hatch, &
Sitkin, 1983).
To employees, an employer’s well-maintained and differentiating brand presents
psychological advantages that support organizational commitment, citizenship, and
engagement (Carmeli, 2005) as it does not only provide a positive social identity, but
also a discernable boundary delineating in- and out-group (Mael & Ashforth, 1992).
To job-seekers in an ever more competitive job market, construing their professional
track record as a unique employment proposition is akin to behavior of actors in any
other market (Roulin, Bangerter, & Yerly, 2011; Turban & Cable, 2003) and, indeed,
resembles the behavior of the organizations they apply to (Donovan et al., 2014). With
the inflation of established symbols of performance such as certificates of education
(Brown, Hesketh, & Williams, 2004), job-seekers are increasingly advised to construct
differentiating self-images for recruiting (Akpan & Notar, 2012) and engage in self-
marketing illustrating their unique value propositions to future employers (Manai &
Holmlund, 2014).
Having investigated the individual perspectives of the organization, the employee, and
the job-seeker as well as the different theoretical elements of group membership as part
of both SIT and status networks theory, prior findings suggests that the attainment of a
77
valuable group membership appears as an applicable factor in a motivational construct
aiming to represent prestige preference in job-seeking.
Proposition 2b: Prestigious employer preference in job-seekers is, in part,
motivated by the individual’s goal of generating a uniquely differentiated track
record of professional experiences as a basis for social admiration, approval, and
future employability.
3.1.1.2.3 Conspicuousness: collecting symbols
Conspicuousness means visibility or potential to generate attention (c.f. Merriam
Webster Dictionary, 2015). In their FPSCB, Vigneron and Johnson identified
conspicuousness as the single overarching factor recognized by each one of their
reviewed sources. Based on the findings of Veblen, the authors largely focus on the
ostentatious function of high prices in conspicuous consumption. (Vigneron & Johnson,
1999, pp. 3-5) In consumption, conspicuity relates to the degree of reference-group
effects implied and incurred (Bagwell & Bernheim, 1996; Bearden & Etzel, 1982; Braun
& Wicklund, 1989; Mason, 1998). While Veblen coined the term conspicuous
consumption (Veblen, 1915), research on ostentatious consumer behavior dates back to
John Rae (Alcott, 2004; Rae, 1905) and has sparked a broad research field on reference-
group effects on consumer behavior in the market of luxury goods and services (Han et
al., 2010; Levy, 1959; Mortelmans, 2005; Solomon, 1983), for an overview see
(Berghaus et al., 2014, pp. 36). The degree of conspicuous behavior is subject to
individual and situational differences: while some people strive for symbols, other avoid
them or are altogether indifferent (Jolson, Anderson, & Leber, 1981).
More fundamentally, observations on conspicuous consumption constitute the roots of
research in signaling behavior in consumption (Gambetta, 2009) that were later most
prominently reflected by Spence’s interpretation of signaling in the job market (Spence,
1973) and Zahavi’s illustration of the evolutionary origins of signaling among animals
as mating behavior (Zahavi, 1975). Conspicuous consumption appears likewise deeply
rooted in humans as the consumption of luxury goods has been shown to trigger changes
in testosterone levels in men (Saad & Vongas, 2009) and has been investigated as part
of human mating rituals (Griskevicius et al., 2007; Wang & Griskevicius, 2014). The
degree to which signals can be manipulated by the sender is crucial to the optimal
response of the receiver: while signaling among animals, e.g., through colorful plumage,
is genetically programmed and not manipulable by the sender, human signaling can be
interpreted as a strategy to psychologically compensate for a weakness (Braun
78
& Wicklund, 1989; Gollwitzer, Wicklund, & Hilton, 1982; Wicklund & Gollwitzer,
1981). Furthermore, manipulable signals gives rise to counterfeiting (Perez, Castaño, &
Quintanilla, 2010) and faking (Donovan et al., 2014) with the aim of impression
management, leading to the devaluation of signals (Basu, 1989; Ferraro, Kirimani, &
Matherly, 2013). Signaling theory, thus, deals with a core challenge of information
asymmetries among actors and focuses on the challenge of verifying communication of
one party’s quality or performance to another (Gambetta, 2009) and the specific role of
signal cost incurred by the sender (Connelly et al., 2011).
Employers benefit greatly from greater recognition – be it in form of reduced transaction
cost to acquire new personnel (Podolny, 1993, p. 837) or in terms of attracting
employees at (at least initially) lower compensation (Bidwell et al., 2014; Sauder et al.,
2012, p. 270). Thus, employers, just like educational institutions, do not only invest in
self-presentation in terms of branding, they also seek external validation by use of
rankings and certifications (Espeland & Sauder, 2007; Rao, 1994; Sauder & Espeland,
2006). Employees of prestigious organization enjoy the spill-over effects of their
employer’s recognition (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996), such as being consulted by media as
experts (Podolny, 1993, p. 851) or by being cited (Powell, 1985).
Recruiting is a prime example for signaling and related challenges. Job-seekers engage
in communicating signals on performance in order to elude a positive evaluation from
the recruiter while recruiters face the challenge of resolving the information asymmetry
on the applicant’s performance. Here, the role of costly signals as a proxy for future
performance – investments in education, challenging prior professional engagements,
etc. – becomes apparent (Spence, 1973). Given the explanatory potential of signaling
theory and game theory for the recruitment process, topical research emerged as a sub-
field in its own right (Alós-Ferrer & Prat, 2012; Bangerter et al., 2012). Indeed, the
application of signaling theory to recruiting has proven its explanatory potential far
beyond the business setting (Hegghammer, 2013).
It appears reasonable that job-seekers who are preferring prestigious employers are
doing so, in part, because of prestigious employers’ recognition in terms of content and
social esteem and related advantages. While (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) highlighted the
boosting of self-esteem as the key driver for attaining a prestigious association, this
perspective leaves out the functional and strategic value of recognition: beyond the
immediate benefit of an increased self-esteem and social admiration, job-seekers aim
for creating a resource of performance signals by associating them with prestigious
places of education and employment resembling the notion of symbolic capital
(Bourdieu, 2011).
79
Proposition 2c: Prestigious employer preference in job-seekers is, in part,
motivated by the individual’s goal of accumulating recognizable symbols of
performance as a basis for signaling performance and quality to future employers.
3.1.2 Prestigious employer preference (PEP) construct
The PEP construct follows the FPSCB (Vigneron & Johnson, 1999). Consequently, it
consists of five factors: conspicuousness, uniqueness, association, hedonism, and
perfectionism. All factors have been deemed relevant to job-seekers aiming for a
position with a prestigious employer based on the review and anchoring in the extant
literature.
Figure 4 – Own illustration: conceptual draft of prestigious employer preference construct
Both the framework used as foundation and the literature review suggest that the factors
of PEP can be structured in two groups: Vigneron and Johnson’s original structure of
factors groups the five motives in three socially-oriented motives (conspicuousness,
uniqueness, and association) and two individually-oriented motives (hedonism and
perfectionism) (Vigneron & Johnson, 1999). This structure coincides with the duality of
signal and quality as discussed in signal theory (Gambetta, 2009) with the first group of
factors contributing the motives directed at communicating social mobility and the
second group of factors contributing the motives directed at experiencing both emotional
80
and functional excellence – hedonic and eudaimonic elements of well-being (Deci
& Ryan, 2008) – with regard to the work place.
3.1.3 Nomological network
Following the recommendations of Cronbach and Meehl, the PEP scale in development
is subject to integration in a nomological network in order to increase its construct
validity (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955).
At the outset of the exploration of the nomological network of PEP and its factors, we
find that job-seekers who prioritize the prestige of their future place of employment face
multiple trade-offs that accompany their career strategy: first, applications at high-status
employers encounter greater scrutiny as a greater quantity and more capable people
apply (Turban & Cable, 2003). This increases competitive pressure among applicants
and decreases the chance of acceptance. Second, high status organizations face specific
challenges in terms of an emotionally charged environment (Steckler & Tracy, 2010),
potential for detriments in organizational learning (Bunderson & Reagans, 2015),
greater challenges to growth (Jensen, 2008), productivity (Bacharach, Bamberger, &
Mundell, 1993; Bendersky & Hays, 2012; Bothner et al., 2007; Bothner et al., 2012),
and even quality (Espeland & Stevens, 1998). Finally, high-status employers can afford
to pay less to job-seekers joining the company on both entry and management levels
(Bidwell et al., 2014; Fershtman & Weiss, 1993; Smith, 1776). Still, “research suggests
that job-seekers’ decisions to pursue jobs with organizations are based largely on their
overall perceptions of organizational reputation” (Belt & Paolillo, 1982; Gatewood et
al., 1993; Turban & Cable, 2003, p. 733). The trade-off between the benefits and
detriments of pursuing a high-status employment apparently results in an attractive offer
for those who prefer prestigious employers. Consequently, the exploration of the
nomological network provides links to established theoretical constructs, but also likely
point to those theories that provide particularly potent motivational basis.
In order to profit from insight on the composites provided by the scale, investigations of
the nomological relations are theorized and evaluated beyond the fundamental factors
of the proposed scale. When reviewing the PEP construct and looking beyond the first
level of factors already semantically and contextually connected to theory, we find three
further anchor points for connecting the nomological network: the group of individual
motives (hedonism and perfectionism), the group of social motives (conspicuousness,
uniqueness, and association), and the overall factor of PEP. Consequently, the related
constructs aim at connecting to the higher-order factors of individual motives (see
81
section 3.1.3.1) and social motives (see section 3.1.3.2) as well as the overarching factor
of PEP altogether (see section 3.1.3.3).
3.1.3.1 Individual factors and regulatory focus
Two fundamental needs steer human behavior: the need for security and the appetite for
nurturance5. RF theory builds on this duality by abstracting these needs into goal pursuit
strategies: prevention focus, directed at avoiding harm based on the need for security,
and promotion focus, directed at attaining reward based on the need for nurturance.
(Higgins, 2012) Both foci actualize themselves by regulating goal-achieving behavior,
e.g., either investing significant amounts of effort into a project in order to be rewarded
with success following the strategy of promotion focus or eliminating detrimental
effects in order to avoid failure following the strategy of prevention focus. In both foci,
the goal remains the same – achieve pleasure and success and avoid pain or failure –
but, based on the RF, the paths to achieving the goal are different. Putting regulatory
foci in the perspective of the self, promotion focus is related to an individual’s
perception of the “ideal” self, eliciting hedonic motives of self-advancement and
prevention focus is related to the individual’s perception of the “ought” self, pointing
toward duties, responsibilities and obligations (Higgins, 1987).
RF theory has received substantial attention by behavioral sciences. It has been
researched as dependent and independent variable. Investigating the antecedents and
properties of RF, (Zhu & Meyers-Levy, 2007) found evidence that promotion-focus
individuals engage in relational elaboration of tasks while prevention-focus individuals
shift their cognition toward item-specific properties. RF has been shown to exist in
chronic and temporary dimensions pointing to underlying RF predispositions and
possibilities to influence RF by priming or framing (Avnet & Higgins, 2006).
Investigating the diverse effects of RF on behavior has received substantial attention,
particularly with regard to consumer behavior. Research of direct or moderating effects
of RF on information processing (Kirmani & Zhu, 2007; Schwarz, 2006; Yoon, Sarial-
Abi, & Gürhan-Canli, 2012), time perception with regard to consumption processes
(Chen, Ng, & Rao, 2005; Förster, Higgins, & Bianco, 2003; Kees, Burton, & Tangari,
2010), message framing in advertising (Chatterjee, Malshe, & Heath, 2010; Poels &
Dewitte, 2008; Zhao & Pechmann, 2007), desire and emotions (Dholakia, Gopinath,
5 This introductory paragraph on RF finds a second application in this dissertation in section 5.1.1 . The overlap
has been kept as brief as possible.
82
Bagozzi, & Nataraajan, 2006; Pham & Avnet, 2009), perception of brands (Chang &
Lin, 2010; Chatterjee, Roy, & Malshe, 2011; Yeo & Park, 2006) and the perception of
ethics in behavior (Bock & van Kenhove 2010; Brebels, Cremer, van Dijke, & van Hiel,
2011; Cropanzano, Paddock, Rupp, Bagger, & Baldwin, 2008) indicate not only the
interest with the scientific community but also the versatility and potency of RF theory.
As signaling theory stipulates, status acts as a signal for quality (Gambetta, 2009;
Podolny, 1993; Spence, 1973). Thus, it seems apt to propose that job-seekers infer from
a position with a high-status organization also a high-quality working environment. PEP
takes this into account through its factors of individual motivation that cover both
hedonic (relating to the factor of hedonism in PEP) and eudaimonic (perfectionism)
motives, broadly recognized as the two fundamental elements of work-related well-
being (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Consequently, job-seekers who pursue high-status
employment invest their considerable resources in the domain of career building in the
competition for those positions that signal the opportunity for them to realize their full
experiential and functional potential. As opposed to a satisficing behavior of merely,
dutifully securing employment and rather avoiding rejection, those who prefer
prestigious employers, consequently engage in a type of maximizing behavior of
reaching for the best and brightest organizations in order to attempt reaching their ideal
self. As career-building is the fundamental activity to create a professional identity and
as such a psychologically fundamental behavior, it seems prudent to consider RF theory
as the psychological theory on goal-setting and –attainment that takes into account
reaching for ideal self. RF theory discusses specifically this type of goal-attainment
strategy in its promotion focus variant.
Figure 5 – Own illustration on theorized relation of PEP's individual motives and RF
Proposition 3: Prestigious employer preference’s factors relating to the job-
seeker’s aim to achieve well-being in terms of functioning and emotional
experiences is related to the job-seeker’s RF, specifically her promotion focus.
83
3.1.3.2 Social factors and social comparison orientation
Conversely to the link between the individual motives and RF as proposed above, the
social motives of PEP go beyond the suggested content of the signal and the expected
quality of the workplace and focus on job-seekers’ opportunity to benefit from social
standing and signaling themselves.
The notion of social interaction resulting in comparison of the self with the other has
been prevalent since classical philosophical thought (Suls & Wheeler, 2013). Loosely
following a systematic review of the field by (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007), social
comparison theory was introduced to social sciences by (Sherif, 1936) shortly before
(Hyman, 1942) was the first to amend the concept of prestige in a goal-setting role
motivating actions informed by social comparison. Finally, (Festinger, 1954) coined the
term of social comparison theory and stated that self-knowledge, driven by a desire for
self-evaluation, is obtained by objective information but also by cognitive evaluation of
social interaction. Festinger presented the consequences of social comparison theory to
be that people are likely to seek the company of others who are like themselves and try
to persuade others to join the own in-group. Festinger proposed an inherent upward drive
in social comparison, a tendency that could be supported in succeeding studies (Suls
& Miller, 1977; Wheeler, 1966). Conversely to the upward drive, (Thornton
& Arrowood, 1966), (Hakmiller, 1966) introduced evidence of the notion of downward
comparison, stating that individuals under threat tend to compare themselves to others
who seem to be worse off. In the 1970s, social comparison has been enriched with theory
on cognitive processes and introduced the notion of social comparison as social
cognition (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007), commonly positing self-evaluation as the
dependent variable to other psychological concepts. Furthermore, the orientation toward
social comparison was established as a trait-like personality characteristic (Hemphill
& Lehman, 1991) that can be evaluated using established scales (Gibbons & Buunk,
1999).
All three factors, conspicuousness, uniqueness, and association, are means to the
generation of a valuable social identity of the job-seeker (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner,
2004). Social identity, in turn, hinges on social comparison processes as social
identification relies “on self-definition as a group member within an intergroup social
comparative context” (Hogg, 2013). Consequently, pursuing the means to generate a
valuable social identity through the strategy of employment with a prestigious employer
suggests an elevated interest in social comparison.
84
Figure 6 – Own illustration on theorized relation of PEP's social motives and SCO
Proposition 4: Prestigious employer preference’s factors relating to the job-
seeker’s aim to achieve a valuable social identity, differentiation, and recognizable
symbols is related to the job-seeker’s SCO.
3.1.3.3 Prestigious employer preference and values
As illustrated above, PEP suggest a characteristic profile in terms of priorities, goals,
and approach behavior in the domain of career-building. Thus, consider the overarching
construct of PEP in terms of individuals’ overarching attitudes and greater goals. In
order to better understand the constructs’ potential correlates in a broader context,
consider PEP in terms of basic and work-related values. Identifying the nature and
structure of human values has been at the heart of scientific interest across a variety of
disciplines in the social sciences for as long as to warrant analyses of the field’s
historical development (Clawson & Vinson, 1978). The inherently latent nature of basic
values has led to diverse definitions of what values are and what they may be likened to
(Dose, 1997, p. 220).
In order to account for a contemporary and comprehensive understanding of values, I
follow Schwartz’ and Bilsky’s integrative definition which states that values are
concepts or beliefs pertaining to desirable end states or behaviors, transcend specific
situations, guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events, and are ordered by
relative importance (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, p. 551). Values differ from attitudes in
their generality and in their hierarchical ordering by importance (Schwartz, 1992, p. 4).
Elaborating on their functional nature, human values can be understood as cognitive
representations of three universal human requirements: biological needs of the
organism, social interaction requirements for interpersonal coordination, and social
institutional demands for group welfare and survival (Schwartz 1987 #559: 551). As
85
such, values can be understood as the expression of goals in terms of either end states
or modes of behavior (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990, p. 878).
In their consecutive studies, Schwartz and his colleagues went beyond providing an
integration of previous perspectives on human values. Instead, they developed, tested,
and provided a system of basic human values. They proposed as a circular motivational
continuum of, in its fundamental model, ten basic values grouped in four higher-order
values (see Figure 7 and Table 3).
Schwartz’ conceptualization of elemental values provides a systematic, comprehensive,
pragmatic, and well-established framework in order to explore the nomological network
of PEP overall. However, extant literature on prestige-seeking and values provides
substantial footing on which to build the argumentation for a proposition on the
relationship between PEP and self-enhancement values.
Seeking employment with particularly prestigious employers suggests a self-assessed
performance-based competitiveness or advantage among peers who apply to the same
organization (in terms of generally expected applicant quality) and, more specifically,
to the same position (in terms of immediate competition) as well as a self-assessed fit
with organizations of high reputation (in terms of expected ability to fill the position).
While there is no immediate way to assess whether this positive self-assessment is
warranted by factual highly competitive past and expected performance, the
characteristic behavior of positive self-assessment is a common psychological pattern
recognizable in Schwartz’ framework of values: self-enhancement.
Self-enhancement is the overly positive assessment of one’s own performance or
capabilities with the aim to maintain or enhance self-esteem (Kwan, John, Kenny, Bond,
& Robins, 2004; Lindeman, 1997; Pfeffer & Fong, 2005). Thus, self-enhancement can
be characterized as a form of self-deception (Lönnqvist, Leikas, Verkasalo, & Paunonen,
2008). Self-enhancement has been deemed both a common and healthy psychological
mechanism (Taylor & Brown, 1988) (e.g., by handling negative feedback effectively
Guenther & Alicke, 2008) and a cognitive bias in form of an illusionary positive self-
perception (Kwan, John, Robins, & Kuang, 2008). Self-enhancement resembles in-
group favoritism in the setting of the individual (Lindeman, 1997) and has been shown
to provide basis for unrealistic optimism (Regan, Snyder, & Kassin, 1995). While Taylor
and Brown highlighted the benefits of self-enhancement on mental health in light of
avoiding depression, Colvin et al. added that excessive self-enhancement enables
antisocial and narcissistic behavior (Colvin, Block, & Funder, 1995) which lead
86
Asendorpf and Ostendorf to conclude that self-enhancement is beneficial in moderation
(Asendorpf & Ostendorf, 1998).
Figure 7 – "Proposed circular motivational continuum of 19 values with sources that underly their
order." (Schwartz et al., 2012, p. 669)
Higher-order value Value Conceptual definition
Openness to change
Self-direction Independent thought and action - choosing, creating,
exploring
Stimulation Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life
Hedonism Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself
Self-enhancement Achievement
Personal success through demonstrating competence
according to social standards
Power Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources
Conservation
Security Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships,
and of self
Conformity
Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to
upset or harm others and violate social expectations or
norms
Tradition Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provides
Self-transcendence
Benevolence Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people
with whom one is in frequent personal contact
Universalism Understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature
Table 3 – "Conceptual Definitions of 10 Basic Values", added higher-order values (Schwartz et al.,
2012)
87
In particular self-enhancement’s link to narcissism has emerged into research stream
investigating the numerous of realizations of narcissism in self-enhanced evaluations of
own attractiveness, intelligence, leadership-skills, and creativity (Grijalva & Zhang,
2015). As a result, individuals who enhance their self-perception suffer from sub-
optimal decision making (Landau & Greenberg, 2006; Larrick, Burson, & Soll, 2007;
Moore, Fox, & Bazerman, 1999), decreased inclination to delegate (Pfeffer, Cialdini,
Hanna, & Knopoff, 1998), and rejection from the social environment (Hoorens et al.,
2012; Paulhus, 1998; Robins & Beer, 2001), as identified in (Heck & Krueger, 2015).
Specifically in the job-search context, Garcia et al. have found support for their
hypothesis that self-enhancement drives job-seekers’ perception of job alternatives as
well as job search preparations (Garcia, del Carmen Triana, Peters, & Sanchez, 2009).
More fundamentally, the authors argue that self-enhancement “should be helpful during
a job search because looking for a job presents a situation that can be stressful due to
uncertainty and potential rejection involved”, based on the findings of (Barber, Daly,
Giannantonio, & Philipps, 1994; Brasher & Chen, 1999; Winefield, Tiggemann,
Winefield, & Goldney, 1991). Even more fundamentally, Stevens and Kristof showed
that job-seekers generally engage in self-promotion during selection processes (Stevens
& Kristof, 1995) and arguably in self-enhancing their qualities (Lönnqvist, Paunonen,
Nissinen, Ortju, & Verkasalo, 2011).
There is a fundamental link between self-enhancement and PEP insofar as SIT predicts
the attractiveness of group association due to the increase of self-esteem (Ashforth
& Mael, 1989): self-enhancers aim to maintain or increase their self-esteem and the
pursuit of employment with a prestigious employer is one way of achieving this (Roccas,
2003). Moreover, there is a unique theoretical compatibility of self-enhancement with
PEP. It resides in the duality in structure of both concepts: both concepts combine
elements of the individual’s self-evaluation on performance and well-being, the
imaginative realization of the ideal self, with an implied strategy of favorable social
comparison and its beneficial implications.
88
Figure 8 – Own illustration on theorized relation among PEP and work-related values
Finally, the characterization of self-enhancement within the framework of values
underscores the motivational and goal-oriented nature (vs. the rather static and
situational perspective commonly employed) of self-enhancement.
Proposition 5: Prestigious employer preference overall is related to the job-
seeker’s work value profile, specifically her evaluation of self-enhancement
values.
3.2 Studies
Operationalization of the previously developed theoretical construct toward a
psychometric measurement instrument follows the guidance as described in
recommendations such as (Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003) and (DeVellis, 2012).
Creating a measurement encompasses three phases: theorizing, operationalization, and
evaluation. After having elaborated on the theoretical foundation of the construct in the
89
preceeding section, this section describes the methodology employed in
operationalization and evaluation.
In order to increase the new scale’s internal and external validity beyond theoretically
reviewing the construct’s factors and structure in light of its new setting, the
operationalization extends to add both qualitative development methodology in the form
of pre-studies as well as quantitative evaluation and scale revision.
Overview of empirical development of measurement
1st Study – Exploratory interviews with
job-seekers, pp. 90
2nd Study – Integration of PEP scale
with other scales, pp. 94
Construct architecture and evaluation procedure, pp. 100
3rd Study – Pre-test of
the PEP scale’s draft
version, pp. 102
4th Study – Evaluation
of the PEP scale’s pilot
version, pp. 106
5th Study – Evaluation of
the PEP scale’s revised
version, pp. 112
6th Study – Evaluation of the PEP scale’s nomological network, pp. 116
Table 4 – Overview of studies in scale development, evaluation, and revision
First, a qualitative pre-study with in-depth interviews on career choices with job-seekers
was carried out. From this, items were generated and reviewed by a panel of experts.
Furthermore, the generated long-list of items was compared and reviewed with related
scales to develop the draft version of a psychometric scale aiming at both efficiency and
measurement validity. Concluding this initial development, the structure of the construct
is defined, the evaluation process and statistical approaches are projected for the
following studies. Then, empirical evaluation of PEP scale was conducted in a series of
three groups of studies and revisions. Evaluation studies were integrated into the SSVS6.
Finally, the nomological network of the scale was explored in terms of RF, SCO, basic,
and work-related values. Refer to Table 4 for an overview of the complete process.
6 The Swiss Student Value Survey is a project that served not only the purpose of generating data for evaluation,
but also providing career-oriented and value-based counseling for students close to completing their programs.
See section 7.2 of the appendix for a description of the Swiss Student Value Survey.
90
3.2.1 1st Study – Exploratory interviews with job-seekers
The purpose of this first study is to qualitatively explore the construct of PEP as it may
or may not find expression in interviews with job-seekers. This first study is the first of
two qualitative preparatory studies that aid the operationlization of the PEP construct.
3.2.1.1 Methodology
Two researchers independently conducted four interviews each with an overall sample
of five master students and three doctoral candidates with less than 12 months to
complete their programs and in either passive or active job-seeking. Specifically, this
study aimed at solving the question on whether the proposed construct structure and
content can be discovered through unguided elicitation of reasoning driving the
supposed choice of a high-prestige employer. Thus, an initial question on which
qualities and values the participants prefer in their first or next employment position was
followed by the task to point out an example for an employer they perceive to have a
strong signaling function on their resumés. Participants were asked three questions:
1. Why would you like to apply to this organization?
2. Why do you consider this employer as attractive?
3. Which values do you expect to be embodied through the organization?
Individual answers where followed-up by a laddering-approach (Hinkle, 2010). Given
the investigation of means-end-chains and -factors, laddering appeared as the most
appropriate methodological approach (Gutman, 1982; Veludo-de-Oliveira, Ikeda, &
Campomar, 2006). Interviews were, to the dominant part, conducted employing the
laddering approach. Interviews were recorded and took on average 20 minutes to
complete. Recordings of the six interviews were individually analyzed on a conceptual
level by both interviewers, trading the efficiency of omitting a full transcript for
pragmatism for the objectivity of an independent double-juror analysis. The results of
this conceptual analysis were compared to the previous theoretical foundation in section
3.1.
3.2.1.2 Results
The results of the interview series consist of three sets of insight: first, on participants’
motivations to join their preferred employer; second, on participants’ reasoning for the
attractivity of the employer; third, on participants’ expectations of values represented at
the employer organizations.
91
Participants identified corporations of the FMCG market (Unilever, Mars Kraft Foods
[MKF], and Procter & Gamble [P&G]), corporations and business units of the luxury
market (Moët Hennessy - Louis Vuitton [LVMH], Chanel, and Porsche) as well as
consultancies (“either of the two large business strategy consultancies” [BCGMcK])
and NGOs (Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit [GIZ], United Nations
[UN]) as particularly valuable to their resumés.
3.2.1.2.1 Participants’ motivations
With regard to the initial question on why they would like to apply the organization, half
of the interview partners initially identified the breadth of opportunities that the
corporation would have to offer for them: corporations of both FMCG and luxury
markets were associated with absence of boring routine and, instead, opportunities to
work in several different departments and on different jobs. For individual luxury brands
(Chanel and Porsche), reasoning shifted from the individual’s opportunity for
stimulation to the admiration and identification with a leading high-performance product
(Porsche) or highly respected brand in the industry (Chanel): “…if I’d land a position
there, it would be clear that I would have achieved something very special.” For
BCGMcK, the initial reasoning was more functional: “It will open many doors
thereafter.”
Following the initial reasoning, the participant who identified LVMH continued to
elaborate on high quality expectations, likewise a very demanding clientele, and highly
engaging events that she would also like to attend. The participant who named Chanel
followed a similar reasoning adding further elements of identification like the, to her,
particularly pleasingly created design and atmosphere of the brand as well as supposed
great opportunities for advancement to management positions. Broadly compatible to
the above perspectives, the participant who named Porsche added the employer’s
supposed appreciative way of recognizing employees’ efforts as well as being delegated
responsibilities as important factors.
The participant who named MKF continued to elaborate on the theme of stimulation
through internationality and different cultures to conclude in a vision of highly
sympathetic, young, and easy-going co-workers. The participant who named Unilever
largely agrees with this perspective just to add that she expects a greater degree of
responsibility to be delegated to her. Also the participant who named P&G followed the
general concept of the stances presented immediately above. She, however, added that
92
the recognition and awareness enjoyed by the organization would play an important role
to her. She expects a company that is open to the ideas of the employees.
The participant who named BCGMcK highlighted the importance to learn from a variety
of business sectors as well as the greater breadth of opportunities to enter other
organizations at a higher position after having generated a track record with the
consultancy. Furthermore, she highlighted the value of the employer brand for the
employee.
3.2.1.2.2 Participants’ perception of employer attractivity
There is one broad line of argumentation that most participants agreed on: participants
stating luxury, consulting and one FMCG corporation as attractive employers to start
their careers, focused on the uniqueness, association, and conspicuousness of the
employment.
The participant who named LVMH argued that the employer’s attractivity results from
the employees’ opportunity to distance themselves from the masses as not everybody
would be considered for a position with this employer. Furthermore, she added that a
position with LVMH would be a symbol of her professional drive and striving for
perfection. Finally, she illustrates that the prestige would be helpful to connect with
people who work with comparable ambitions and in the same industry. This reasoning
was shared by the participant who identified Chanel as particularly attractive. She
underscored the importance of the awareness of the employer brand as well as its
positioning. Just like the first participant, she illustrated the role of attaining access to a
particularly valuable lifestyle and social circle. She conceded that compensation will
likely be worse than with other employers, however, she would be willing to take this
as a trade-off. The participant who stated that she would like to work for a leading
consulting firm argued in the same vein, pointing to the role of employer brand
recognition and symbolism for performance and prestige. She also highlighted the role
of positions being awarded very exclusively to be very important to her. The participant
who stated Procter & Gamble as her future favorite employer, instead, highlighted that
compensation would be good, but work-life-balance rather bad. However, this trade-off
was perceived as more attractive since the employer was seen to act as a stepping stone
for even more valuable, future engagements. The reasoning was almost identical to the
one presented by the participant who preferred Unilever as a starting position.
93
The participant indicating Mars Kraft Foods as her preferred starting employer rather
repeated the insights generated from question one and the participant stating the GIZ
pointed out that it would be attractive as it was not commercial.
3.2.1.2.3 Participants’ perception of employer values
With regard to employer values, participants associated a rather widely varying number
of values with their stated employers. Most job-seekers first indicated performance-
related values and thereby suggested a connection to self-enhancement (e.g., general
performance, performance orientation, attention to quality, sportiness, and being a
powerful player). The second most prominent group of values highlighted the value of
openness-to-change by citing, e.g., creativity, openness, worldliness, innovation,
international career aspirations, more variance in tasks and continuous stimulation.
Furthermore, participants pointed to values connecting to hedonism, stating they would
be expecting, e.g., a positive work experience, well-being, fun, enjoyable products,
being popular and attractive. Finally, participants pointed to conservation values by
highlighting the history, tradition and the ability to combine the contemporary style with
the organization’s heritage.
3.2.1.3 Conclusion
The purpose of this first study was to qualitatively explore the construct of PEP as it
may or may not find expression in interviews with job-seekers.
The result of this exploratory, qualitative pre-study underscored the previous theoretical
foundation: examples of conspicuousness, association, uniqueness, hedonism, and
perfection were named to be at the heart of PEP. However, the results suggested a
confirmation of a prior theoretical structure, confirmation bias was counteracted by
following two distinct strategies: first, only one of two interview conductors and
adjudicators of the results was familiar with the prior theory; and, second, the strict
adherence to the laddering approach in leading the interview prevented the interviewer
to steer the direction of the elaboration and, instead, left the finding of the participants'
motivation to engage a prestigious employer to themselves.
The result of this first study is a first long-list of items generated for the initial draft of
the PEP scale which built upon the theoretical construction, insight gathered from the
qualitative pre-study as well as expert reviews. The original item collection consisted of
45 items with 5 to 14 items per factor. In the next step of development, the long list of
items was distilled by expert review and further review of related scales to arrive at a
94
more efficient and no less valid draft version of the PEP scale. See section 7.6.1 for the
documentation of this development process.
3.2.2 2nd Study – Integration of PEP scale with other scales
The purpose of this literature-based integration of the PEP scale is to further increase
the insight gathered on the involved factors of PEP by reviewing related scales and –
where applicable – aligning item formulation or selecting most appropriate items from
the long list for the draft version of the scale.
PEP is a novel and unique approach to measure individuals' propensity to be driven by
employers' organizational status. However, there are two groups of scales that the
development of the PEP scale can be informed by: first, published psychometric scales
that aim to measure related phenomena that focus on status in employment, but not on
the motivational structure of job-seekers (e.g., perceived organizational prestige by
Mael & Ashforth, 1992, perceived external prestige scale by Smidts, Pruyn, & van Riel,
2001, status consciousness by Alba et al., 2014, etc.) and second, published
psychometric scales that aim at generically measuring the individual factors represented
in the PEP scale (e.g., scales on need for uniqueness by Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia,
& Neubauer, 1993 and Frost et al., 1990 or need for belonging by Leary et al., 2013,
etc.). The further development of the PEP scale builds upon the previously generated
insight by review, theoretical validation, and refining of the scale items.
3.2.2.1 Methodology
Established scales for both groups – topically related measurements and more generic
measurements focused on the individual factors of the new construct – were identified
in a pragmatic literature review covering the journals in organizational studies (n=15),
psychology (25), and human resources (11) literature which are ranked 3 or 4 in the
integrative EJIS ranking7. The journal basket was searched with a Boolean search string
focusing in article titles, combining any of the terms measurement, scale, construct, or
instrument with any of the terms status or prestige.
7 See section 7.4 in the appendix for the full listing of included journal titles.
95
3.2.2.2 Results
The results of this literature review are split in three individual components: first, the
review of established scales relating to individual factors of the construct; second, the
review of existing scales that are relating to a variant of the complete concept; third and
finally, the review of those articles found by a concluding, broad literature scan.
3.2.2.2.1 Scales related to individual factors
In order to inform the factors on perfectionism, both widely established and recognized
scales of Frost, Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS), and Hewitt &
Flett, Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS), were reviewed for item formulation
(Frost et al., 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991) as well as their more recent revisions and
extensions (Stöber, 1998; Slaney et al., 2001). See Table 5 for research focus, empirical
foundation and contribution to the understanding of the perfectionism construct.
(Frost et al., 1990)
Research focus:
Development of a multi-dimensional
measure, testing of several hypotheses regarding the nature of perfectionism.
Empirical foundation:
Studies for scale development: n=232 and n=178; study for evaluating
external validity: n=84; studies for
evaluating relationships to other
constructs: n=72 and n=106.
Main contribution
Six factor construct: concern over mistakes (major
influence), personal standards, parental expectations,
parental criticism, doubts about action, organization.
“Perfectionism and certain of its subscales were
correlated with a wide variety of psychopathological
symptoms.” (p. 449)
Relationship between perfectionism and procrastination;
personal standards and organization related with positive achievement striving and work habits.
(Hewitt, Flett, & Weber, 1994)
Illustrates the multidimensional nature of perfectionism in terms of personal
and social components and their
contribution to psychopathology.
Four studies were carried out for
development of the scale: n=156 (students); n=1106 (students); n=263
(psychiatric patients), n=93 (students)
Identifies three dimensions of perfectionism: self-
oriented perfectionism, other-oriented perfectionism, and socially prescribed perfectionism.
“Self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed
perfectionism relate differentially to indices of
personality disorders and other psychological maladjustment.” (p. 456)
(Stöber, 1998)
Revision of a statistical instability of
the FMPS, reviewing the amount of appropriately extracted factors –
testing four instead of six factors as
more reliable.
Study for statistical evaluation: n=243.
Parallel analysis retained four components.
Varimax rotation replicated personal standards and
organization as separate factors, whereas combining
concern over mistakes with doubts as well as parental expectations with parental criticism.
“Differential correlations with anxiety, depression,
parental representations and action tendencies
underscore the advantage of this solution.” (p. 481)
(continued on next page)
96
(continued from previous page)
(Slaney et al., 2001)
Development of the Almost Perfect
Scale – Revised (APS-R)
Study for scale development and evaluation: n=809.
Three factor construct: discrepancy, high standards,
order.
APS-R subscales correlated with measures of
achievement, self-esteem, depression, and worry.
Table 5 – Perfectionism in extant literature
In order to inform the factors on hedonism, the PANAS scale was reviewed in order to
revise the proposed items for the PEP scale (Watson et al., 1988). In order to inform the
factors on association, the need for belonging scale was reviewed (Leary et al., 2013)
and interpreted in a way that focuses on the belonging to a respected group. In order to
inform the factors on uniqueness, the need for uniqueness scale was reviewed and used
for inspiration on selecting and wording appropriate items (Snyder & Fromkin, 1977).
In order to inform the factors on conspicuousness, a scale on conspicuous consumption
orientation was reviewed (Chaudhuri et al., 2011).
Established scale relating to hedonism
(Watson et al., 1988)
Research focus:
Development of a reliable and valid Positive Affect and Negative Affect scale, both brief and
easy to administer: Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (PANAS).
Empirical foundation:
Studies for scale development: n=232 and
n=178; study for evaluating external validity:
n=84; studies for evaluating relationships to other constructs: n=72 and n=106.
Main contribution
“High internal consistency, largely
uncorrelated, and stable at appropriate levels over a 2-month time period.” (p. 1063)
Established scale relating to belonging
(Leary et al., 2013)
“this research was undertaken to examine
aspects of the nomological network surrounding
individual differences in the need to belong” (p. 611)
Overall fifteen studies comprised of as many samples ranging from n=82 to n=325.
Need to belong was positively correlated with
extraversion, agreeableness, affiliation
motivation, neuroticism, having an identity
that is defined in terms of social attributes, emotional reactions to rejection, values
involving interpersonal relationships, and
subclinical manifestations of certain personality disorders. (p. 610)
Need to belong was not related to insecure
attachment or unfulfilled needs for acceptance.
(p. 610)
(continued on next page)
97
(continued from previous page)
Established scale relating to uniqueness
(Snyder & Fromkin, 1977)
Need for uniqueness is introduced as a positive striving for abnormality. (p. 518)
Studies for scale development: n=232 and n=178; study for evaluating external validity:
n=84; studies for evaluating relationships to
other constructs: n=72 and n=106, discriminatory validation studies n=40, etc.
Identifies three dimensions of need for
uniqueness: lack of concern regarding other’s reactions to one’s different ideas and actions;
desire to not always follow the rules; person’s
willingness to publicly defend their beliefs.
Established scale relating to conspicuousness
(Chaudhuri et al., 2011)
Examination of individual differences in
conspicuous tendencies
Pilot study: n=106; Main study: n=240; studies
further supporting the validity of the scale and evaluating biases: n=350, n=250, n=250, n=60.
“The 11-item scale is found to be uni-
dimensional, to have a factor structure”
(p. 216)
Table 6 – Hedonism, belonging, uniqueness, and conspicousness in extant literature
3.2.2.2.2 Previously identified related scales
As illustrated in section 3.1, there are two contributions that aim at the general direction
of PEP: the contribution by Highhouse et al. (Highhouse et al., 2007) and the
contribution by Alba et al. (Alba et al., 2014). For the sake of efficiency, the analysis is
not being paraphrased here, but rather directly systemized as above in tabular format,
see Table 7.
(Highhouse et al., 2007)
Research focus:
Investigation of social-identity functions of attraction to
organizations upon the framework of instrumental vs. symbolic corporate attributes by Lievens and Highhouse
(Lievens & Highhouse, 2003).
Empirical foundation:
Studies for scale development, multi-study setup with student samples (n=106; 261; 25).
Main contribution to this research:
The authors provide a two-factor
model with social adjustment and
value expression as factors.
The scale consists of 10 items.
(Alba et al., 2014)
Investigates the overall status-consciousness of
individuals. The contribution is valuable to further
illuminate the phenomenon of individuals’ preference for status independent of the specific field of application.
Studies for scale development: n=232 and n=178; study for evaluating external validity: n=84; studies for
evaluating relationships to other constructs: n=72 and
n=106.
The authors provide an eight-factor
model with factors rejection of status,
high perceived status, respect for
hierarchy, low perceived status, status display, egalitarianism, belief
in hierarchy, and enjoyment of status.
The scale consists of 40 items.
Table 7 – Related, established scales in extant literature
98
These two scales are valuable contributions informing the overall construct of PEP –
either by providing a multifaceted illustration of a more generic approach in case of the
work by Alba et al. or by providing a more focused approach that, however, leaves out
the self-assessment of individual benefits from high-status affiliations.
3.2.2.2.3 Additional search for related scales
The additional search for related scales initially found 13 articles. Out of these 13
articles, only five articles were published in the past 20 years and five were published
before 1960.
Out of the 13 articles, only one contribution discussed the development of a status-
related psychometric scale: Matsumoto presents a status differentiation scale that is
being used to assess “how people differentiate their behaviors or attribute power to
others according to perceived status differences” (Matsumoto, 2007, p. 414). The factors
identified are upward and downward self-regulation as well as upward and downward
assertiveness. The scale was deemed limited in informing the development of the scale
on PEP as it focuses on the impact of status perception in specific interaction behavior
rather than strategic planning processes as is being discussed in the construct of PEP.
Another contribution presents the development of a sociological scale evaluating social
status of adolescents by use of measuring the factors social class, socioeconomic status,
parental income, parental education, and parental occupational prestige (Ekehammar,
Sidanius, & Nilsson, 1987). The presented scale appeared as limited in contribution to
the development of the scale development at hand due to its structuralist focus while
further underscoring the role of occupational prestige in attaining status.
There were three further articles that highlighted structuralist considerations on
occupational prestige measurements (Burchinal, 1959; Cantoni, 1955; Gottfredson,
1980; Holland, 1958), which were reviewed but deemed of little value to this study’s
scale development beyond highlighting the spill-over effects of structuralism into
psychology in the second half of the 20th century.
99
(Matsumoto, 2007, p. 414)
Research focus:
“The concept of status differentiation is
introduced along with a description of the
development and initial validation of an individual-difference measure called the Status
Differentiation Scale (SDS).” (p. 413) SDS is
predominantly discussed in light of intercultural differences.
Empirical foundation:
Studies for scale development: n=354. Cross-
validation studies: n=196 (Americans), 224 (Japanese); 315 (Americans), 156 (South
Koreans).
Main contribution to this research:
The authors provide a multidimensional
construct of status differentiation with five
factors: upward assertiveness, downward
assertiveness, upward self-regulation, downward self-regulation, total
differentiation.
The five factors can be grouped in two
overarching categories of items (31 items in total): those relating to self-regulation (14)
and those relating to assertiveness (17).
(Ekehammar et al., 1987)
Research focus:
“Examines the construct and external validity of
social status based on data covering various
aspects of the construct, and collected from adolescent samples in Sweden, Australia, and the
United States.” (p. 473)
Empirical foundation:
Studies for corraltion analyses based on three
student samples in Sweden (n=626), America
(n=227) and Australia (n=274).
Main contribution to this research:
“The various social status variables were, in
general, only moderately related within the
different countries, the relations among
variables were not congruent between countries, two social status factors were
revealed in all countries, separating
educational-occupational status, from social-economic status only the
educational-occupational factor showed
high congruence between all of the
countries” (p. 473)
Table 8 – Related extant literature found in broad-scope search
3.2.2.3 Conclusion
The purpose of this literature-based integration of the PEP scale study was to further
increase the insight gathered on the involved factors of PEP by reviewing those related
scales and – where applicable – aligning item formulation or selecting most appropriate
items from the long list for the draft version of the scale. The reviewed scales aided the
appropriate framing and wording insofar as previously proposed and already refined
items could be, again, revised for focus and efficiency.
The insight gathered from this step in the scale development process greatly supported
the aim to develop a measurement that is able to efficiently measure a diverse and
complex multi-level construct in a very efficient item battery with a length of only four
times the amount of factors. To integrate and more formally describe the proposed
construct, it is being defined alongside a projection of the evaluation procedure in the
following chapter.
100
3.2.3 Construct architecture and evaluation procedure
Based on the findings of reviewing the related literature, of conducting interviews, and
of reviewing related scales, this chapter illustrates the aggregated insight before
engaging more formal evaluation through data gathering and statistical evaluation. Each
step of statistical evaluation updates this insight and further the understanding of the
originally conceptualized model.
3.2.3.1 Construct definition
The designed scale consists of 20 manifest items. The overall hypothesized construct
architecture is illustrated in Figure 9.
Figure 9 – Own illustration of prestigious employer preference construct
The hypothesized construct consists of three orders:
the initial relationship between the manifest items 1-20 and the five latent factors
of conspicuousness, uniqueness, association, hedonism, and perfectionism is
reflective as measured items are interchangeable, measures are expected to
correlate, and measures are expected to be manifestations of the first-order factor;
the relationship between the five first-order latent factors and the two latent
groups of second-order factors (social and individual) is formative as first-order
101
factors are not interchangeable, not required to correlate, and first order factors
are expected to behave as dimensions of the second-order factors;
the relationship between the two second-order latent factors and the final third-
order factor (PEP) is formative as second-order factors are not interchangeable,
not required to correlate, and second-order factors are expected to behave as
dimensions of the third-order factor.
3.2.3.2 Evaluation procedure
The result of previously illustrated preparatory studies, the item battery that serves as a
first draft of the PEP scale, is implemented in a pre-study. Results are analyzed for
fundamental congruence with the theorized structure on a fundamental level, at first not
taking into account the more complex aspects of construct architecture (see section
3.2.4). Consequently, resulting indications for improvement of fit are being
implemented to advance the scale to the stage of a pilot version of the PEP scale. Results
are analyzed with regard to fundamental and more advanced complexity of fit among
the structure proposed and the fit of the gathered data (see section 3.2.5). Again,
indications for improvement of fit are being implemented to advance the scale to the
stage of a revised version of the PEP scale. This version is, again, subjected to evaluation
in terms of validity and reliability (see section 3.2.6). Finally, the PEP construct is being
investigated with regard to its nomological network, results are reported in section 3.2.7.
3.2.3.3 Statistical approach
With regard to statistical methodology on dimension reduction, the following studies
are analyzed employing both Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and Common
Factor Analysis (CFA) in order to benefit from better fit between theorized relationships
among factors and methodological strengths: for reflective relationships, CFA is
preferred and PCA is additionally considered; for formative relationships, PCA is
preferred and CFA is additionally considered.
Likewise, rotations for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis employ orthogonal
and oblique rotations based on the setting of analysis: for reflective relationships,
oblique rotation, Oblimin, is employed; for formative relationships, orthogonal rotation,
Varimax, is employed.
All statistical analysis is implemented in R (version 3.2.3) employing packages
GPArotation (2014.11-1), lavaan (0.5-20, for CFA), psy (1.1), psyc (1.5.8), sem (3.1-6,
for EFA), semPlot (1.0.1), and semTools (0.4-9).
102
3.2.4 3rd Study – Pre-test of the PEP scale’s draft version
The purpose of this pre-test study is to evaluate the items’ comprehensibility, test two
different approaches to framing the fundamental question, and to possible arrive at a
first evaluation of the scale’s structural validity.
3.2.4.1 Methodology
After the revision and condensation of the long list of items to arrive at the draft scale
of four items per each of the five factors, the draft scale was implemented in a first
testing environment and tested on the basis of voluntary participation by students on
master level enrolled in a management seminar in summer of 2013.
Participants were enrolled at a Swiss diversified university and invited through the
lecturers of their management seminar with no incentive. Roughly 120 students were
invited to participate and more than 80 started filling out the online questionnaire. 57
participants (50% female) completed this pre-test of the reliability of the scale.
The study pre-tested two differently framed questions leading into answering the
identical item battery using a 5-point Likert-type scale. Half of the participants were
asked to answer the question “How important are the following aspects to you in
choosing your future employer?” by completion of the sentence “I would like to work
for a company that ...” through indication of more or less agreement with the 20 items –
four items per factor – of the draft version of the PEP scale listed thereafter. Thus,
participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agree with individually
suggested items that might influence their motivation to join the organization on a 5-
point Likert-type scale from 1 (“not at all important”) to 5 (“especially important”).
The other half of the participants was asked to answer the question “How important are
the following aspects to you in choosing your future employer?” by completion of the
sentence “Even if I would face a disadvantage (e.g., lower pay, more work, etc.), I would
opt for an employer that …” through indication of more or less agreement with the 20
items of PEP scale’s draft version listed thereafter. Consequently, participants were
asked to factor counterbalancing a detrimental aspect of choosing a prestigious
employer. Both options were tested in order to investigate the effect of a suggested
disadvantage connected to a higher-prestige employer on response variance, encourage
higher involvement with the question, and disincentivize maximizing behavior in
answers.
103
3.2.4.2 Results
Statistical analysis produced two sets of results for the pre-study – first, insight
generated on the impact of different framing of the introductory questions leading into
the psychometric scale and, second, first insight generated on the overall validity of the
scale’s draft under investigation.
3.2.4.2.1 Measurement task variants
Introduction of a sacrificial component in the question lead to an increased standard
deviation ranging from 1% to 93%, in case of all items except for PEP_CON4 8, for
which the standard deviation decreased by 3%. Introduction of the sacrificial component
increased the variance in particular for perfectionism (average increase in standard
deviation by 74%) and uniqueness (+54%) factors and only moderately for social
association (average decrease in standard deviation by 14%) and conspicuousness (-
9%) factors.
These results suggest the success of the initial strategy to implement a sacrifice
component into the question in order to increase variance in answers and, in turn,
statistical resolution. However, investigating the difference in absolute values generated
by the baseline condition group – those participants answering the question with no
sacrifice component – there was no maximizing behavior observed to begin with. On
average and across all items, participants indicated their agreement at 64.2% of the
available answering scale, equating to an average absolute response of 3.5684.
Introduction of the sacrifice component decreased this result only by one and a half
percentage points to 62.7% with an average absolute response of 3.5092. Thus, it was
found that participants did not maximize when answering the more fundamental
question of “I would like to work for a company that ...”. Furthermore, changing the
question to a more complex formulation of “Even if I would face a disadvantage (e.g.,
lower pay, more work, etc.), I would opt for an employer that …” did only impact
slightly on the average absolute response.
Evaluations of group differences showed that participants did not answer significantly
(within a 95% confidence interval) different in case of most items with the exception of
PEP_CON4 [F(1, 50)=6.07, p=.017] with the mean answer increasing from 3.167 to
8 Item PEP_CON4 completed the sentence to “I would like to work in a company that is known to be exceptional
beyond the borders of its sector.”
104
3.864 when adding sacrifice of a detrimental aspect and PEP_PER1 9 [F(1, 50)=6.18,
p=.016] with the mean decreasing from 4.167 to 3.500 when adding sacrifice of a
detrimental aspect.
At least in this small sample pre-test, the introduction of a sacrifice lead to greater
importance of one of the items indicating conspicuousness and thus a benefit in terms
of generating a recognizable track record. This result appears reasonable as also one of
the preparatory interviews highlighted the common trade-off of investing greater effort
at the beginning of a career – such as beginning a career in consulting which widely
accepted to come with high work-loads and long hours – for later advantages of
recognition and access.
The second result – sacrifice leading to a lesser importance on quality – is less
immediately plausible, however may be connected to the item suggesting a high socially
imposed perfectionism. A socially imposed perfectionism can be understood as a further
sacrifice imposed upon the employee rather than a motivator. Consequently, socially
imposed perfectionism likely results in a significantly lower score.
Overall, the investigation on the difference between both question variants yielded a
lacking advantage of the sacrifice component variant over the baseline variant as the
statistical benefits were minimal. The concept of sacrifice introduces an additional
theoretical component as well as a further increase of cognitive load on participants.
However, as the impact of the sacrifice component was very small, it was deemed
negligible in terms of further analysis of scale validity and both groups treated as one in
order to facilitate basic statistical analysis.
3.2.4.2.2 Structural validity
Testing for applicability of factor analysis through evaluating the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin-
Criterion yielded a good result of overall KMO of .85.
Investigating the number of factors extractable from the data, two approaches were
investigated: first, the Kaiser-Harris-Criterion suggests to extract eight factors with two
factors approaching eigenvalues of 0; second, the analysis of the scree plot suggests two
distinct “elbows” with one suggesting two factors and one suggesting five factors10. This
9 Item PEP_PER1 completed the sentence to “I would like to work in a company that produces top quality.” 10 See section 7.8.1 of the appendix for illustrations and tables on the statistical evaluation of the draft version of
PEP scale.
105
result provided initial support for the structural concept of the data suggesting two
groups (individual and social) of five factors (perfectionism, hedonism, association,
uniqueness, and conspicuousness).
Calculating exploratory factor analysis solutions with oblique rotation and iterated
principal axis for five and two factors, respectively, yielded an initial result of 64% of
cumulative variance explained by all five factors and 51% explained by only two factors.
This provides support for the value of taking into consideration both levels of factor
aggregation.
Inspection of the factor loadings for the five factor solution illustrated predicted loadings
for perfectionism (.66 - .83 loadings), but limited factor congruence for items describing
conspicuousness and uniqueness (with each only providing three of four theorized items
with loadings greater than .5) and lacking congruence on social association and
hedonism factors (with each only providing two of four theorized items with loadings
greater than .5). However, factor loadings were highest for the predicted relations except
for the case of PEP_HED3 (cross-loading to uniqueness of .38) and PEP_HED4 (cross-
loading to uniqueness, .30, and perfectionism, .30)11.
Inspecting the factor loadings for the two factor solution illustrated congruence of items
describing individual factors hedonism and perfectionism (7 out of 8 items loading onto
the same factor) but lacking and partial cross-loading results among those items
describing the social factors conspicuity, uniqueness, and association.
While the data generated in this study could be used for an initial investigation on scale
properties, the sample size limited the opportunities for further investigation.
Beyond the initial evaluation of scale validity, evaluating the response variance
indicated that there was no significant difference between the two different types of
question tested. Consequently, the basic version was chosen for further development of
the scale in order to arrive at an efficient measurement that does not overly tax
participants in terms of cognitive load.
106
3.2.4.3 Conclusion
The purpose of this pre-test study was to evaluate the comprehensibility, test two
different approaches to framing the fundamental question, and to possible arrive at a
first evaluation of the scale’s structural validity.
The evaluation of the data generated during pre-test suggests, first, that the introduction
of a trade-off in the question leading into the measurement tool does not provide an
advantage in terms of a larger variance in answering. Thus, the simpler formulation has
been selected for implementation in the pilot study to increase comprehensibility.
Second, initial statistical analysis suggests general support for a two and five factor
solution and good to moderate internal consistency. However, the study was limited by
a very small sample for a more extensive evaluation.
The pre-study informs the development process of the scale insofar as it helps determine
the most appropriate introductory question and already shed some light at item batteries
that needed revision in terms of focusing on the common factor in case of social
association and hedonism.
3.2.5 4th Study – Evaluation of the PEP scale’s pilot version
The purpose of the pilot study is to evaluate the PEP scale in a larger sample, investigate
the scale’s structure, and its nomological network with regard to RF, SCO and work-
related values.
3.2.5.1 Methodology
After the pre-test, the draft scale was revised and prior insights on limited internal
semantic consistency used to optimize the scale. Then, the pilot scale was integrated in
the pilot study of the SSVS in fall 2013.
After initial development of the German langauge variant of the PEP scale, items were
professionally translated and re-translated to and from English in order to ensure
semantic proximity. Finally, the evaluation of both variants of the pilot version of the
PEP scale was preceded by a review of six experienced career counselors for face
validity as well as four students (two German native speakers and two English native
speakers) for comprehensibility.
Participants were, at the time of their participation, enrolled at a Swiss business-focused
university and invited through their university’s career services center with the incentive
of participating in a results workshop including a work-value-related training. More than
107
2’600 students were invited to participate and more than 1’100 started filling out the
online questionnaire. As the data collection methodology also included experimental
manipulations, only those participants who were exposed to the control condition were
admitted as subjects for scale evaluation (n=415). Beyond this precaution, 88
participants were screened out for providing incomplete datasets or failing the attention
check included in the PEP scale. This left 327 participants for evaluation of the scale as
well as further opportunity for analysis of both language versions in German (n=293,
13% female) and English (n=34, 41% female).
Participants were asked to answer the question “How important are the following
aspects to you in choosing your future employer?”12 by completion of the sentence “ I
would like to work in a company ...” through indication of more or less agreement with
the 20 items – four items per factor – of the pilot version of the PEP scale listed
thereafter. Thus, participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agree with
individually suggested items that might influence their motivation to join the
organization on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (“not at all important”) to 5
(“especially important”). Among the 20 items, there was an additional item implemented
used as an attention check which instructed participants explicitly not to select any
answer in the item’s line of answer options. This attention check proved valuable as, in
the evaluation of the pilot scale, 22% (German scale variant) and 11% (English scale
variant) of responses had to be removed from analysis due to lacking attention.
The scale was implemented at random both early (before the evaluation of personal and
work-related values) and later (thereafter) in the overall study in order to account for the
impact of participant fatigue. The position of the scale within the overall study showed
no impact on the evaluation.
3.2.5.2 Results
The SSVS did not only consist of the PEP measure, but also novel and established
measurements on value orientation, SCO, RF, and demographics, allowing for
evaluation of the scale’s relations to its nomological network as theorized on in section
3.1.3 .
12 Here, only the English language versions are shown for the sake of brevity and language coherence. See section
7.6.2 in the appendix for full listing of English and German language versions.
108
3.2.5.2.1 Exploratory factor analysis
Testing for applicability of factor analysis through evaluating the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin-
Criterion yielded a good result of overall KMO of .85 and no items with a lower MSA
than .69 (PEP_PER4).
Investigating the number of factors extractable from the data, three approaches were
investigated: first, parallel analysis suggests that the number of factors is 6 and the
number of components is 4; second, the Kaiser-Harris-Criterion suggests to extract five
factors; third, the analysis of the scree plot shows one “elbow” suggesting two factors,
see Figure 20 in section 7.8.2 of the appendix. This initial result provided further support
for the structural concept of the data suggesting two groups of five factors.
Exploratory factor analysis was calculated for 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 factors with results
presented in Table 9. Based on the variances explained, the five-factor-model appears,
as theorized, the most appropriate model to investigate as it provides a greater increase
in variance explained when adding the fifth factor (4 percentage point gain) and adding
a further sixth factor increases the variance explained to a lesser degree (3 percentage
point gain), indicating a decreasing statistical effectiveness to describe the data.
Model reasoning Proportional/cumulative variance explained
1 factor model Theorized .24 (PVA)
2 factor model Theorized .39 (CVA)
4 factor model Parallel analysis .50 (CVA)
5 factor model Theorized .54 (CVA)
6 factor model Parallel analysis .57 (CVA)
Table 9 – Pilot Study: variance explained in factor extractions by model
Inspection of the factor loadings for the five factor solution illustrated predicted
appropriate loadings for hedonism (.66 - .89 loadings) and uniqueness (.62 - .71), but
limited factor congruence for items describing conspicuousness and perfectionism (with
only providing three of four theorized items with loadings greater than .5) and lacking
congruence on social association (with two of four theorized items with loadings greater
than .5). However, factor loadings were highest for the predicted relations except for the
case of PEP_SOC3 (cross-loading of .59 to uniqueness while only loading with .27 on
its predicted factor), see Table 23 in section 7.8.2 of the appendix.
Inspecting the factor loadings for the two factor solution illustrated congruence of items
describing social factors conspicuousness, uniqueness, and association (11 out of 12
items loading onto the same factor with PEP_CON2 being the exception), but lacking
congruence among items describing the individual factors of hedonism and
109
perfectionism, see Table 22 in section 7.8.2 of the appendix. While items reflecting
hedonism show good congruence, those reflecting perfectionism do not load well into
the factor of individual motivators. Here, there is a distinction between PEP_PER1 and
PEP_PER3 (both loading .45) on one side and PEP_PER2 and PEP_PER4 (loading at
.22 and -.01) on the other side.
3.2.5.2.2 Confirmatory factor analysis
In the pilot study, confirmatory factor analysis was carried out for a series of theorized
models ranging from simple to more complex construct architecture (see Table 10). The
number of models under investigation reflects the intent to analyze the interplay between
the individual factors in greater detail by taking into account both more fundamental
first order constructs (models A-C) as well as more complex – but also theoretically
more appropriate – higher order constructs (models D-F). Please note that due to the
specific design set forth by theoretical grounds, initial loadings between the second order
latent variable both needed to be equalized and normalized.
Figure 10 – Evaluated construct model variants
110
Fit statistics for the pilot study improve with adding theorized complexity into the model
when advancing in evaluation from model A through model C and, later, dropping due
to the increasing conceptual requirements by the introduction of additional orders of
factors (see Table 10).
Model χ² df χ²/ df RMSEA CFI NNFI SRMR
A 1691,649 170 9,9509 0,165 0,452 0,388 0,157
B 945,110 169 5,5923 0,119 0,721 0,686 0,121
C 503,663 160 3,1479 0,081 0,876 0,853 0,078
D 589,205 166 3,5494 0,088 0,848 0,826 0,104
E 555,382 165 3,3660 0,085 0,860 0,838 0,099
F 555,382 164 3,3865 0,085 0,859 0,837 0,099
Table 10 – Pilot study: fit statistics (selection) of evaluated models
The best-fitting model – before optimization in terms of investigation of residual error
term covariances – is model C, the first-order construct taking into account the five key
factors. Statistics satisfy general thresholds of goodness of fit in terms of χ²/ df, CFI,
NNFI and are approaching acceptable goodness of fit in terms of RMSEA and SRMR.
For structural schemata with factor loadings, refer to Figure 21 through Figure 26 in
section 7.8.2 of the appendix.
3.2.5.3 Implications for further development of the scale
The findings of the scale evaluation yielded several amendments to the item formulation.
Changes were carried out responding to insight of a combined analysis of statistical
findings and semantic clarification. First, changes to PEP_CON3 and PEP_SOC2 aimed
at framing the related factor more efficiently within the item: in case of PEP_CON3,
this entailed highlighting the role of active recognition beyond mere passive reputation;
in case of PEP_SOC2, this entailed highlighting the social/associative benefits above
the individual/emotional component of the item.
Second, and more substantial, three items relating to perfectionism were rewritten in
order to alleviate the lacking internal consistency among the items relating to this factor.
The initially lacking consistency prompted a review of the literature on perfectionism
and revealed a combination of two items being formulated to describe other-directed
perfectionism (PEP_PER2 and PEP_PER4) and two items being formulated to describe
self-directed perfectionism (PEP_PER1 and PEP_PER3) – two distinct versions of
perfectionism that explained the decreased internal consistency across both groups of
items within the perfectionism factor (Flett & Hewitt, 2002, Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Pacht,
1984). As the PEP scale interprets the factor on perfectionism as a voluntary self-
subjection to a perfectionist environment, I decided to focus all items on a self-directed
111
Pilot version of PEP scale Revised version of PEP scale
How important are the following aspects to you in choosing your future
employer? I would like to work in a company …
How important are the following aspects to you in choosing your future
employer? I would like to work in an organization / in a company ...
Items relating to the factor conspicuousness
PEP_CON1
PEP_CON2
PEP_CON3
PEP_CON4
… that would make an excellent contribution to my CV. … in which I would be sure of recognition.
… that has an outstanding reputation.
… that a future employer would particularly value.
… that would look good on my CV. … that has an outstanding reputation.
… whose reputation would earn me a certain recognition.
… that a future employer would particularly value.
Items relating to the factor uniqueness
PEP_UNI1
PEP_UNI2
PEP_UNI3
PEP_UNI4
… with which I could stand out from my fellow students.
… with which I could be certain not to be part of the mainstream.
… with which it would be clear that I had achieved something special. … with which I would experience admiration within my circle of friends.
… with which I could stand out from my fellow students.
… with which I could be certain not to be part of the mainstream.
… with which it would be clear that I had achieved something special. … with which I would experience admiration within my circle of friends.
Items relating to the factor association
PEP_SOC1
PEP_SOC2
PEP_SOC3
PEP_SOC4
… with which I could work together with the best people in the sector.
… with which I would have the feeling of counting to the professionals in my field. … with which my friends would know that only the best in their discipline work.
… that is known to only attract the best in the sector.
… with which I could work together with the best people in the sector.
… where it is known that only the best in their discipline work there. … with which I would have the feeling of counting among the experts in my field.
… that is known to only attract the best in the sector.
Items relating to the factor hedonism
PEP_HED1
PEP_HED2
PEP_HED3
PEP_HED4
… that fascinates me time and time again. … for which I can be inspired every day.
… for which I can develop enthusiasm.
… that can move me emotionally.
… that fascinates me time and time again. … for which I can be inspired every day.
… for which I can develop enthusiasm.
… in which the work is great fun.
Item for ensuring data quality
ATT … please do not click on any option to the right in this line. … please do not click on any option to the right in this line.
Items relating to the factor perfectionism
PEP_PER1
PEP_PER2
PEP_PER3
PEP_PER4
… in which I can work absolutely professionally. … that functions around me like clockwork.
… in which I can deliver peak performance.
… in which mistakes only ever rarely occur.
… in which I can work absolutely professionally.
… in which I can achieve outstanding work results.
… in which I can deliver peak performance.
… in which I can perfect my skills.
Scaling: All fields mandatory except for the attention check, scaled in five iterations: not at all important (1) – (2) – moderately important (3) – (4) – especially important (5)
Table 11 – Pilot version vs. revision version: comparison of PEP scale item batteries
112
perfectionism as this is the most immediate and most readily evaluable attitude a job-
seeking participant can give a statement on in the questionnaire environment.
As a consequence, the formulation of items changed from the pilot version to the revised
version of the scale in five instances, see Table 11 for an overview.
3.2.5.4 Conclusion
The purpose of the pilot study was to evaluate the PEP scale in a larger sample,
investigate the scale’s structure, and its nomological network with regard to RF, SCO and
work-related values. The study’s findings are threefold: first, statistical evaluation yields
that the internal validity of the construct appears to be of overall good quality while still
showing opportunities for improvement. This finding warrants careful development and
revision and subsequent, further evaluation of the revised scale. Second, statistical
evaluation shows that, while even the most complex third-order construct variant (model
F) shows passable fit statistics, data suggests that the simpler five-factor first-order
construct (model C) achieves the best fit statistics. Third, the study resulted in a strictly
limited amount of significant differences among observable, distinctive groups in the
sample. While this does not confirm universal homogeneity and independence of
demographic categories, it provides a first indication of independence from potentially
related sample-related variables. As a consequence, this study provides the grounds for
revision and for further inquiry in the 5th study on the evaluation of the PEP scale’s
revised version.
3.2.6 5th Study – Evaluation of the PEP scale’s revised version
After the pilot study, the proposed scale was revised and prior insights on limited internal
semantic consistency used to further optimize the scale. Furthermore, the scale was
subjected to a broader sample of participants in order to investigate to which degree the
scale was applicable beyond the initial population, providing further support for its
generalizability.
3.2.6.1 Methodology
After the evaluation of the scale’s pilot version, the pilot version was revised and insight
on the statistical evaluation was used to optimize the scale. The revised scale was, then,
integrated in the three replication studies of the SSVS in fall 2014 and tested in German
and English versions. Participants were enrolled at their respective educational institution
and invited through their university’s career services center with the incentive of
113
participating in a results workshop including a work-value-related training. See Table 12
for participant numbers and location per study after completing screening for control
conditions, attention checks, and missing values.
Study Participants Location Incentive
HSG2de 132 (19% female) University of St. Gallen (HSG), Swiss public business-
focused university
Participation in a results workshop including a work-
value-related training HSG2en 14 (29% female)
WHU2de 52 (17% female) WHU Vallendar, German private business-school
WHU2en 17 (24% female)
UZH2de 55 (24% female) University of Zürich, Swiss
public diversified university
Table 12 – Revision study: study code, sample sizes, locations, and incentive
Due to small sample size, subjects taking part in the German language version of the
questionnaire were grouped and evaluated as the two independent samples of the
replication edition of SSVS. This lead to the creation of a composite sample of SSVS
participants with a total of n=270 (20% female). From this sample, 16 participants were
screened out due to manipulations or failure of the attention check. This left 254
participants for evaluation of the scale as well as further opporunity for analysis of both
language versions in German (n=239, 19% female) and English (n=31, 29% female).
Evaluation of the revised scale generally followed the procedure of the pilot scale
reported in the previously illustrated study, but included replication studies in two
different settings to investigate the generalizability of the measurement. After review of
the German scale, changed items were professionally translated and re-translated to and
from English in order to ensure semantic proximity. Finally, the evaluation of both
variants of the pilot scale was preceded by a review of at least two experienced career
counselors for face validity as well as four students, two German native speakers and two
English native speakers, for comprehensibility at each of the three participating
institutions.
Just like the pilot study, the SSVS did not only consist of the PEP measure, but also
established and novel measurements on value orientation (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990),
SCO (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999), RF (Fellner, Holler, Kirchler, & Schabmann, 2007;
Haws, Dhoakia, & Bearden, 2010), and demographics, allowing for evaluation of the
scale’s relations to its nomological network as theorized on in section 3.1.3 .
114
3.2.6.2 Results
The results of this study build on each other, combining an exploratory factor analysis
with statistical analysis of the goodness of fit for the construct’s model with the data
gathered. Finally, group comparisons are carried out to evaluate the degree to which
known sub-groups can be discerned by the model and data provided.
3.2.6.2.1 Exploratory factor analysis
Testing for applicability of factor analysis through evaluating the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin-
Criterion yielded a good result of overall MSA of .85 and no items with a lower MSA than
.79 (PEP_HED3). This constitutes no substantial change in comparison to the pilot study.
Investigating the number of factors extractable from the data, three approaches were
investigated: first, parallel analysis suggests that the number of factors is 5 and the
number of components is 4; second, the Kaiser-Harris-Criterion suggests to extract five
factors; third, the analysis of the scree plot shows two distinct “elbows” with one
inflection point suggesting two factors and the second suggesting five factors, see Figure
27. This initial result provided further support for the structural concept of the data
suggesting two groups of five factors. This constitutes a better fit between the data and
the theorized model after revising the scale in comparison to the pilot study. Exploratory
factor analysis was calculated for 1, 2, and 5 factors with results presented in Table 13.
Based on the variances explained, the five-factor-model appears, as theorized, the most
appropriate model to investigate as it provides a greater increase in variance explained
when adding the fifth factor (5 percentage point gain) and adding a further sixth factor
increases the variance explained to a lesser degree (2 percentage point gain), indicating a
decreasing statistical effectiveness to describe the data. The increasing cumulative
variance explained suggest a greater fit between the revised scale and the generated data.
Proportional/cumulative variance explained
Model reasoning Revised study Pilot study
1 factor model Theorized .25 (PVA) .24
2 factor model Theorized .45 (CVA) .39
5 factor model Theorized .64 (CVA) .54
Table 13 – Revision study: variance explained in factor extractions by model
Inspection of the factor loadings for the five factor solution illustrated predicted
appropriate loadings for all factors: hedonism (.67 - .99 loadings), social association (.71
- .87) , conspicuousness (.65 - .83), uniqueness (.62 - .71), perfectionism (.64 - .86), and
115
uniqueness (.62 - .77). Factor loadings were highest for the predicted relations in all cases,
see Table 25 in section 7.8.3 of the appendix.
Inspecting the factor loadings for the two factor solution illustrated good congruence of
items describing both social (loadings ranging from .59 - .7) and individual factors (.55 -
.83), see Table 24 in section 7.8.3 of the appendix.
3.2.6.2.2 Confirmatory factor analysis
In the revised study, confirmatory factor analysis was carried out for the same range of
hypothesized models (see Figure 7). Fit statistics for the pilot study improve with adding
theorized complexity into the model when advancing in evaluation from model A through
model C and, later, dropping due to the increasing conceptual requirements by the
introduction of additional orders of factors (see Table 14).
Model χ² df χ²/ df RMSEA CFI NNFI SRMR
A 2213,604 170 13,0212 0,211 0,345 0,268 0,206
B 1269,149 169 7,5098 0,155 0,647 0,603 0,143
C 373,472 160 2,3342 0,070 0,932 0,919 0,063
D 481,794 166 2,9024 0,084 0,899 0,884 0,132
E 422,448 165 2,5603 0,076 0,917 0,905 0,100
F 422,448 164 2,5759 0,076 0,915 0,903 0,099
Table 14 – Revision study: fit statistics (selection) by model
The best-fitting model – before optimization in terms of investigation of residual error
term covariances – is model C, the first-order construct taking into account the five key
factors. Statistics satisfy thresholds of goodness of fit in terms of 2<χ²/ df <3, CFI<0,9,
NNFI<0,9 and are approaching goodness of fit in terms of RMSEA<0,8 and SRMR<0,7.
However, also the higher order constructs generally present a good fit between data
gathered and the measurement construct with comparable goodness-of-fit statistics. For
structural schemata with factor loadings, refer to Figure 21 trough Figure 26 in section
7.8.2 of the appendix.
3.2.6.2.3 Group comparisons
A small range of demographic data on the participants of the study facilitates reviewing
the individual factors of the revised scale for differences in groups. Group tests were
statistically tested employing the Mann-Whitney U test (for two-group comparisons) and
Kruskal-Wallis test (for three-group comparisons) as groups were theorized to be
independent but not all factors showing data following normal distribution (in particular
hedonism). In terms of gender, male participants scored importance of uniqueness
116
significantly higher than females (p <.01) while females scored individual factors higher
than males (for hedonism p=.02 and for perfectionism p=.05) In terms of languages,
subjects who participated using the English questionnaire stated a significantly higher
priority for conspicuousness (p=.04) and lower priority for hedonism (p<.01). In terms of
study locations, participants from the three different locations did not show significant
differences in terms of individual factors, but in terms of social factors. For
conspicuousness, uniqueness, and social association, the Kruskal-Wallis test showed a
significant difference between groups (pcon=.04, puni<.01, psoc<.01). Visual inspection of
the boxplotted data showed comparable results for all three social factors between
participants of both business-oriented schools and a significantly lower priority thereof
for participants of the diversified university.
3.2.6.3 Conclusion
The purpose of the study investigating the revised scale version of PEP was to evaluate
the impact of the advancement of the scale and re-confirm the scale’s structure. The
study’s findings are threefold: first, statistical evaluation yields that the internal validity
of the construct appears to be of improved quality versus the pilot version of the scale.
This finding warrants the broader publication of the scale. Second, in keeping with the
previous findings, statistical evaluation shows that, while even the most complex third-
order construct variant (model F) shows passable fit statistics, data suggests that the
simpler five-factor first-order construct (model C) achieves the best fit statistics. Third,
the study resulted in a strictly limited amount of significant differences among
observable, distinctive groups in the sample. While this does not confirm universal
homogeneity and independence of demographic categories, it provides a first indication
of independence from potentially related sample-related variables. As a consequence, this
study provides the grounds for more in-depth analysis of the nomological network
connecting to the individual factors of PEP.
3.2.7 6th Study – Evaluation of the PEP scale’s nomological network
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the PEP construct’s nomological network in terms
of less applied and more fundamental psychological constructs. For that, I build on the
above evaluated and confirmed factorial structure in order to go beyond the correlates of
the individual factors on the first order (conspicuousness, uniqueness, association,
hedonism, and perfectionism) which were already discussed in section 3.1.1 to also
investigate the correlates among higher-order factors on the second level (individual and
117
social motivators) and the third level (PEP overall). Here, I investigate the previously
theorized relations illustrated in section 3.1.3.
3.2.7.1 Methodology
In order to evaluate the nomological network, I analyze the data generated in both pilot
and revision studies of the SSVS in both fall 2013 and 2014. To achieve a broad and at
the same time cohesive spectrum of dimensions to investigate PEP’s correlations in, I
investigate both social comparison and RF as theoretically proposed in chapters 3.1.3.1
and 3.1.3.2 and extend my investation into two types of values – both basic human values
and work-applied values – as theorized upon in chapter 3.1.3.3.
3.2.7.1.1 Measurements of correlates
RF was measured using two different scales in the individual stages of the SSVS for
reasons of research design: In the pilot study, chronic RF was measured using the RF-
COMP scale (Haws et al., 2010). The authors of RF-COMP built their measurement scale
upon a review and evaluation of five prior scales that were, in part, substantially more
extensive without providing much advantage in terms of measurement validity or
reliability. Evaluative statistics of the RF-COMP scale and have been reported as good
with χ²(34)=124.99, p<.001, RMSEA=.07, NNFI=.92, CFI=.91, Φ-value=.29.
In the revision study, it was attempted to experimentally manipulate both RF and SCO
by way of a brief essay task. In order to measure the dispositional RF, I opted to measure
the dispositional RF with the Regulatory Focus Scale (RFS) (Fellner et al., 2007). The
authors of RFS built and evaluated their measurement scale of dispositional RF alongside
the Regulatory Strength Measure (RSM) and items of various dimensions of the Schwartz
values questionnaire (Schwartz Portrait Questionnaire, SPQ) (Fellner et al., 2007,
p. 109). Evaluative statistics of the RFS measurement and have been reported as good
with χ²(27)=43.2, p<.25, AGFI=.91, RMSEA=.05, CFI=.96.
However, the manipulation did not prove effective for either RF on prevention,
promotion, or social comparison on either the manipulation checks nor the factors of PEP
as dependent variables. Moreover, the RFS measurement did not provide reliable
dimension reduction with αpromotion=.28 and αprevention=.075 reliability scores unaided.
With automatic identification of item keying of the alpha function of psych package, two
items were suggested as reverse coded however the reverse coding was not discussed in
the related publication (Fellner et al., 2007). With reverse coding considered, statistics
improved substantially to αpromotion=.7319 and αprevention=.5761. However, given the
118
lacking fit between published scale performance and experienced performance in the
study, I opted for investigating the correlates between PEP’s factors and RF in the pilot
study where RF-COMP was employed to evaluate RF which performed unaided likewise
unsatisfactorily (αpromotion=.4225 and αprevention=.5238) (Haws et al., 2010). However, RF-
COMP presented the opportunity to employ two rather comprehensively single items
which the authors of RF-COMP integrated from the previously established scale by
Lockwood (Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002). Thus, the measurement of RF was
focused a smaller selection of items that proved to correlate well with the respective more
comprehensive descriptive items asking for the fit between the participant’s personality
and promotion13 or prevention14 foci.
SCO was measured using the INCOM scale (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). The authors of
INCOM built their measurement scale upon a review and evaluation of five prior scales
that were, in part, substantially more extensive without providing much advantage in
terms of measurement validity or reliability. Evaluative statistics of the INCOM
measurement and have been reported as good with GFI and AGFI .95. In SSVS, INCOM
performed with satisfactory internal reliability at α=.7989 and marginal potential
(maximum of α=.81) for improvement by omitting individual items.
Values were measured using two consecutive approaches following the framework of
Schwartz (Schwartz et al., 2012), see also section 3.1.3.3: The first approach to measure
values focused on a more general impression of participants’ basic human values
employing the 10 core values as proposed by Schwartz (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990,
p. 664). Here, each value was represented by a single item. Participants were asked to
answer the question “How important are the following values to you? Please read the
following 10 values and their descriptions carefully. Then, please state how important
those values are to you, personally.”. Participants were invited to indicate more or less
agreement with the 10 items listed thereafter. Thus, participants were asked to rate the
extent to which they prioritize individual values on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1
(“not at all important”) to 5 (“especially important”). As this measurement method
resembles a collection of distinct individual items, no statistical information on the
quality of dimension reduction can be provided.
13 „I see myself as someone who is primarily striving to reach my “ideal self” – to fulfill my hopes, wishes, and
aspirations.“ 14 „I see myself as someone who is primarily striving to become the self I “ought” to be – fulfill my duties, respon-
sibilities and obligations.“
119
The second approach to measure values focused on a more specific impression of
participants’ work-oriented values building upon the ten core values as proposed by
Schwartz (ibid). This scale has been developed by Verena Batt and Benjamin Berghaus
in a separate study with a publication forthcoming in 2017. Here, each work value was
represented by three items. Participants were asked to answer the question “Which
attribute is more important to you at your workplace?”. The list of items thereafter was
designed as a semantic differential in order to avoid maximizing behavior. The semantic
differential consists of one statement representing the value itself (e.g., “pleasure” vs.
“objectivity” for hedonism or “fair behavior of colleagues” vs. “performance-oriented
behavior of colleagues” for universalism) and the other statement representing an equally
valid but opposite option. The development process of the scale followed the same path
as PEP and, likewise, rests on the insight generated by several independent studies
providing qualitative and quantitative insight. Participants were invited to indicate more
or less agreement with the 30 items in the semantic differential listed thereafter. Thus,
participants were asked to rate the extent to which they prioritize individual values with
three items for each value on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (“more important to me”)
through 3 (“equal”) to 5 (“more important to me”). Moreover, to obfuscate the intent or
structure of the scale, semantic differentials were reversed in a static but random pattern.
The work value scale performed reasonably well with and average α=.6291 (best
performing αStimulation=.7763 and worst performing αBenevolence=.4486) across all factors.
While these statistics on internal reliability may appear critical in other research
conditions, a range of influences such as the small number of items, multifaceted nature
of values, and the high degree of involved methodology in order to increase measurement
validity (e.g., thorough theoretical and empirical development, the more complex
measurement design of a semantic differential, reverse coding, etc.) can be identified that
justify an informed acceptance moderate statistics on validity in a trade-off with breadth
of analysis and potential for insight.
3.2.7.1.2 Preparation, participants, and procedure
For preparation, the scales measuring the correlates under investigation were
implemented in both German and English variants of the questionnaires in both the pilot
and the revision study of SSVS. In case of RFS, both language variants were published,
available, and implemented in SSVS (Fellner et al., 2007). In case of RF-COMP and
INCOM, scales were only available in English and translated and reviewed via the same
rigorous process as the rest of the questionnaire (see, e.g., section 3.2.5.2.1). For a
120
description of both groups of participants and the procedure of the studies, please see
sections 3.2.5.1 and 3.2.6.1.
3.2.7.2 Results
The results of this study are two-pronged: first, the evaluation of the relationship between
the factors of PEP, social comparison, and RF are illustrated. Second, the factors of PEP
are being investigated in terms of correlation with basic human values and work-related
values.
3.2.7.2.1 PEP, social comparison orientation, and regulatory focus
The relationship between the elements of PEP, social comparison and RF has been
investigated by analyzing the loadings and fit of a structural equation model taking into
account the manifest item measurements, latent factors, their loadings and regression
estimates, see illustration Figure 11 for a graphical depiction of the statistics of the
resulting model tested. Please note that the model has been refitted by omitting single
items per factor (CON2, UNI3, SOC1, HED4, PER2, and PER4) of PEPs just as multiple
items of the employed scales measuring social comparison (SCO3, SCO4, SCO5) and
RF (RF1, RF4 as well as RF7) that showed poor internal consistency in this sample.
Figure 11 – PEP social/invidual motives, social comparison, and regulatory focus
Among the loadings of social and individual motives in PEP as well as social comparison
and RF on promotion and prevention onto their respective, the data provides regression
121
weights and significances among the latent variables. The data shows that the relationship
between SCO and the social motivators of the PEP scale are positive at .39 , just as the
relationship between SCO and the social motivators of the PEP scale are positive at .63.
3.2.7.2.2 PEP, basic human values, and work-related values
The relationships between the elements of prestigious employer preference and the
factors of basic human values and work values have been investigated by exploring the
correlations among the factors of PEP and individual value self-assessment. The analysis
has been carried out for both pilot and revised versions of the PEP scale and for both
basic human and work-related values.
Overall, correlations among factors of PEP as well as correlations among factors of the
basic human value and work-related value systems supported the previously generated
results on the validity and structural integrity of the measurement models (see Table 26,
Table 27, Table 28, and Table 29 in section 7.8 of the appendix).
Investigating the correlations connecting the factors of PEP with the values measured in
the their respective measurement systems, there are two particularly distinct connections
between both constructs:
First, there is a recurring link between self-enhancement values in both basic human and
work-related value schemes with PEP’s social factors: the correlations between
conspicuousness, uniqueness, and association motives of PEP with power and
achievement values in both the general and the work-related domain are all significant at
p<.05 and in most cases significant at p<.001 with .49>β>.17 and an average β=.35.
This finding is underscored by the significant but negative correlations between the value
of universalism and the social factors of PEP (majority of correlations p<.05 or less, -
.12>β>-.35). For the individual factors of PEP with self-enhancement, this link is not as
apparent. While perfectionism was significantly correlated with self-enhancement values
as it still was fomulated to include all three factors of self-oriented, other-oriented, and
socially prescribed perfectionism (p<.01 and .37>β>.19 for both basic and work-related
values), this correlation subsided when changing the factor measurement to purely reflect
self-oriented prefectionism. Hedonism correlated with self-enhancement values only in
the exception for the draft version of the PEP scale and with regard to basic human values
– but here, correlations alternated in direction of their impact between the two values
construing self-enhancement (hedonismachievement β=.24, p<.01; hedonismpower β=-.18,
p<.01).
122
Second, there is a recurring link between self-transcendence and openness-to-change
value sets and hedonism as a factor in the motivation framework of PEP. Hedonism has
been identified to correlate with benevolence, universalism, self-direction and stimulation
with significance of p<.05 or even p<.01 and .16>β>.54 in all settings but the
combination of the revised scale and work-related values where only two correlations
showed significance (hedonismbenevolence and hedonismstimulation with p<.05 and .21>β>.16,
respectively). Given the otherwise robust correlation between hedonism as a motivating
factor driving the decision to pursue a prestigious employer, these findings are being
considered in later discussions.
While the combination of factors evaluated in this particular sub-project on investigating
the nomological network of Prestigious Employer Perference presents a breadth of 50
individual factor correlations in four settings, I refrain from the analysis of individual
statistical relations and conclude this chapter by reiterating the two key findings: first, a
relation between self-enhancement values and social motives in the PEP construct
became apparent and, second, a more complex role of hedonism as a motive in the PEP
construct has been shown: hedonism is not correlated with self-enhancement, but with
openness-to-change and self-transcendence values.
3.2.7.3 Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the PEP construct’s nomological network in
terms of less applied and more fundamental psychological constructs. This study’s
findings are threefold: First, social factors of PEP correlate with SCO while individual
factors of PEP correlate with RF on promotion. Both findings allow to elevate the use of
PEP beyond the immediate motivational set of preferences and consider the construct in
light of more complex psychological goal-attainment strategies and social psychology
contexts. Second, social factors of PEP correlate with self-enhancement in terms of both
generic basic human values and more applied work-related values of achievement and
power. This implies an immediate relationship between motives driven by social strategy
within PEP with a more fundamental rooting in the ethical beliefs on ego-centric
behavior. Third, individual factors of PEP do not correlate as clearly or reliably with self-
enhancement values as their social counterparts. Instead, hedonism in particular connects
to self-transcendence and openess-to-change values which may be at odds with self-
enhancement values. As a consequence, this study provides a more in-depth analysis of
the nomological network connecting to the factors of PEP and, effectively, allows not
only a better understanding but also provides the foundation to employ PEP in a broader
range of research applications.
123
3.3 Discussion
The development, operationalization, and evaluation of the PEP construct provide ample
opportunity to discuss implications of the illustrated findings through the practitioner’s
as well as through the researcher’s lens. Below, I provide a commentary and interpreta-
tion to the findings presented in this chapter. This commentary is structured by the focus
of the respective piece of insight generated. In the following, I advance from initial over-
arching and rather opinionate reflections onto the learnings associated with this project
to become more and more specific in terms of the individual findings and results.
3.3.1 Prestige preference in employment
Status-driven behavior appears most aptly described when accounting for both individual
and social dimensions. The former relates to theory on status and related symbols help
solve information asymmetries on communicating quality (Barkow, 1975; Zahavi, 1975)
while the latter relates to theory on advantages on specific positions in a social ranking
(Blau & Duncan, 1964) or network (Lin, 1999a).
This research project elaborated on theoretical grounds for this dual nature of status-
driven behavior (sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.2) and found empirical evidence in both qualita-
tive (section 3.2.1) and quantitative studies (sections 3.2.3 through 3.2.6). Statistical eval-
uation of the proposed scale showed distinct support for a second-order of factors
indicating groups of individual and social factors (see, e.g., scree plots in Figure 19, Fi-
gure 20, and Figure 27). Consequently, propositions 1a and b as well as propositions 2 a,
b, and c as presented in sections 3.1.1.1 through 3.1.1.2 have found empirical support.
The combination of considering both individual and social motivators in the preference
of prestigious employers leads to multiple valuable implications for practice: First, the
findings suggest that a preference for prestigious employment ought not to be discarded
as an artefact of personal vanity or a purely emotional desire, but serves functional pur-
poses that job-seekers value and balance with other job offer characteristics such as pay,
perks, and position. Providing employer-based status offers the opportunity to reduce
personnel cost as those employees who are susceptible to build a career on the merits of
high-reputation position favor status over other types of return. This specific segment of
job-seekers, thus, has a specific set of values and strategies which need to be considered
as they may be easier attracted to high-status employers but also harder to retain as their
value appreciates as the reputation of their employer brushes off on their resumé (Bidwell
et al., 2014). For employers, this entails that they ought to reconsider their compensation
schemes not only on a tacit and implicit level, but in a strategic and methodological way
124
of incorporating employee’s reputation into an ongoing value proposition assessment.
Here, also, methodology can be borrowed from the domain of marketing to better retain
and cater to the employee in order to maximize his or her return for the company.
Second, the findings suggest that job-seekers do neither strive for a unidimensional nor
an unreflected need when they consider prestige as a relatively important factor in select-
ing their employer. Instead, job-seekers generate functional use by factoring in employer
status through two venues: resolving information asymmetries on quality and strategiz-
ing, investing, and capitalizing their careers symbolic value and strategic position. For
employers, this entails mixed implications: first, as job-seekers derive information from
status on their well-being at work, they might overestimate that link. Job-seekers who
follow a status-driven employment strategy do not only consider the link between status
and work experience, but also face disillusionment should this expectation not be met.
The challenge of unmanaged attrition after disillusionment is among the costliest fallacies
in the overall balance sheet of organizations and high-status employers are particularly
prone to this. Second, as job-seekers maneuver themselves and their career through the
space measured by social status, they depend on the organization’s status more than they
may feel attached to the organization itself. While there is a sizeable amount of scientific
research that supports the notion of organizational prestige supporting organizational cit-
izenship and retention, this may be true for a moderately positive evaluation of prestige,
but likely is not for extreme prestige. Here, it is not the substance of the organization that
inspires employer loyalty but the commensurate bottom line of an organization’s status
appeal – and should that appeal wear off, there is less to stop turnover. Employers ought
to consider how they can increase the emotional traction and gravity of the organization’s
substance for the employees that appear particularly driven by status considerations in
order to immunize the company from substantial unmanaged attrition as soon as a threat
to status appears.
3.3.2 Five factors: from outperforming everyone to having it known
Going beyond the two hemispheres of individual and social dimensions, PEP follows
Vigneron and Johnson, (Vigneron & Johnson, 1999), in evaluating five distinct factors
as part of the overarching construct: perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1991), hedonism
(Hirschmann & Holbrook, 1982), uniqueness (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980), association
(Walton et al., 2012), and conspicuousness (Bagwell & Bernheim, 1996).
In this research project, I elaborated on theoretical grounds for the potential role of the
five distinct factors of PEP (sections 3.1.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.1.2 as well as 3.1.1.2.1 through
125
3.1.1.2.3) and found empirical evidence in both qualitative (section 3.2.1) and quantita-
tive studies (sections 3.2.3 through 3.2.6). Statistical evaluation of the proposed scale
showed specific support for a first order of factors indicating groups of items relating to
five factors (see, e.g., scree plots in Figure 19, Figure 20, and Figure 27). The increased
analytical detail of considering five distinct factors introduces far greater potential for
applied implications beyond the presented implications. All five factors entail their spe-
cific characteristics, potential for valuable benefits and risk of threat. Without discussing
the merits and detriments of individual factors and reiterating the theoretical landscape
illustrated in section 3.1.1, there appears more value in discussing the overarching gen-
erated insight:
The findings suggest that a preference for prestigious employment ought not to be dis-
carded as an artefact of personal vanity or a purely emotional desire, but may serve mul-
tiple functional purposes. Ostentatious behavior in form of casually dropping employer
names can be considered as much an act of vanity as it can be considered a tactical ma-
neuver to signal for the purpose of competitive advantage in a discussion. Trying to fit in
a desirable group can be considered succumbing to the personal need for belonging as
much as it can be considered a key play on gaining access to networks of resources and
power. The duality of considering the factors of prestigious employer preference merely
as a sign of human effemination or a sign of calculated implementation of career strate-
gizing leads to a challenge of evaluation which of the two drives an applicant’s behavior.
The key consequence of this duality is, however, not to discard the illustrated motives as
purely emotional and non-rational behavior. An underestimation of either the potential
or the strategic complexity of prestige-driven behavior can just be as risky as the sole
focus on prestige.
3.3.3 Nomological network
In this study, I went beyond the fundamental design and evaluation of a psychometric
scale by exploring the construct’s structure and, finally, by extending analysis into the
construct validity by exploring the nomological network of the construct’s factors
(Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). As a result, I provide support for, first, the relationships be-
tween the construct’s second-level group of individual factors and RF on promotion (Hig-
gins, 2012) as well as, second, for the relationship between the construct’s second-level
group of social factors and SCO (Buunk & Gibbons, 2010). Furthermore, I provide the
results of my analysis of the five first-level factors in context of basic human (Schwartz,
1992) and work-related values (Batt & Berghaus, 2017).
126
In this research project, I elaborated on theoretical grounds for the supposed relationships
among the identified factors and constructs with both second level factors and the over-
arching construct of PEP (sections 3.1.3.1 through 3.1.3.3) and found empirical support
in quantitative studies (sections 3.2.7.2.1 and 3.2.7.2.2). Consequently, propositions 3
through 5 as presented in sections 3.1.3.1 through 3.1.3.3 have found empirical support.
The exploration of the nomological network provides ample grounds for future research
by building bridges to more established psychological and ethical-normative domains.
Thus, the development of implications focuses on managerial and theoretical implica-
tions for advances, alike: First, the link between the individual factors of the PEP con-
struct and RF’ promotion focus further strengthens the exploration of the applied
phenomenon of prestige preference among job-seekers and employees to individuals’
fundamental goal-attainment strategies: people driven by attaining a position where they
feel they can realize their ideal functional and experiential performance strive for realiz-
ing their ideal self. Coincidentally, the term of striving is used in organizational research
to illustrate institution’s behavior – universities’ in particular – when they aim to advance
among their competitors, motivated by the framework of scores and rankings that detract
from creating a valuably differentiated offer and foster an arms race akin to “Keeping up
with the Joneses”. The arms-race detriment of commensurate competitive systems is
merely a latent detriment while the absence of competitors’ creativity to differentiate ap-
pears as the key challenge that both individuals and institutions have to address as they
run faster and faster on the same track as every one of their competitors for the sake of
being measurable. Attaining the ideal self in the social context that thrives on comparison
drives competitiveness, but also drives out creativity as it decreases the ease of compari-
son. Here, the second finding of the analysis of the nomological network comes into play:
Second, the link between the social factors of the PEP construct and social comparison
highlights both the socio-structural roots as well as the highly context-sensitive nature of
the phenomenon: without social context and ability to compare by way of commensura-
tion, neither would there be a frame of reference for what it might mean to reach the ideal
nor a reward for standing at the top – or at least at a comparatively valuable position.
Thus, the whole construct hinges on social context and comparability and can be some-
what easily manipulated by steering to which degree a group of people such as an organ-
ization is being perceived as being comparable among competitors and to which degree
individuals in a group are comparable: organizations that succeed in differentiating their
perceived image will have a greater freedom to employ the opportunities of presenting
themselves as a commensurate group that thrives on competitiveness or as a substantially
differentiated group that thrives on creativeness and collaboration.
127
Third, the exploration of PEP through the lenses of both basic human values and work-
related values has further advanced the understanding of how the intrinsic evaluative na-
ture of status-driven behavior translates into which values are being prioritized. Status-
oriented behavior among young people may be driven as much by prosocial behavior –
as most of traditional sociological contributions would argue – as it might be driven by a
striving for innovation, conservation, or self-enhancement. All four groups of values pro-
vided by the widely established systematization by Schwartz are generally compatible
contents for status-striving behavior. While recent research into the cohort of Millennials
may suggest that young people appear much more reflected and conflicted as generations
before them, I found that this does not translate into the value priorities of those people
who strive for prestigious employers: here, it remains true what Ashforth and Mael stip-
ulated – but did not support with data – in their seminal contribution (Ashforth & Mael,
1989): PEP coincides with self-enhancement values in both basic human and work-re-
lated values. Here, interestingly, hedonism as a motive to strive for a positive working
experience does not appear as a factor that reflects in the priority of self-enhancement
values. Participants who strive for prestige do not prioritize hedonism in their lives or at
work more than those who do not prefer prestigious employment.
3.4 Conclusion
The sociological perspective suggests status to be a factual, structural phenomenon of
societies (Blau & Duncan, 1964; Lin, 1999a; Reiss, 1961). The psychologist perspective
considers status to be a construct of individual strategy (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009), but
ultimately one of perception (Alba et al., 2014). And the biologist would argue that status
is the result of information asymmetry and a resulting communication process on indi-
viduals’ performance (Barkow, 1975; Zahavi, 1975) and the economist would be inclined
to agree (Granovetter, 1985; Spence, 1973). While the individual scientific disciplines
found it difficult for a long time to reconcile a multifaceted understanding of a phenom-
enon (Mayhew, 1980), the applied sciences find themselves at the liberty – and in demand
– for providing integration (Piazza & Castellucci, 2014; Sauder et al., 2012).
Vigneron and Johnson provided a foundation that proved to be an indispensable frame-
work when integrating the existing body of literature. However limited their integration
may seem in context of the extant literature, they proved to provide a contribution that
stands the test of time as one of the most frequently cited academic sources in research
on luxury consumption. This contribution served as the outset for the transfer, review,
development, and evaluation of thought in terms of PEP.
128
PEP might be most valuable of a concept if understood as market participant’s
competitive strategy. Where others position themselves to benefit rewards of a higher
salary, a more equally balanced combination of work and life, or a position regarded as
particularly beneficial to society, employees who position themselves to advance in status
through their employment are not only likely driven by the described motives, they also
select to value the related and expected rewards higher than others. This evaluation may
depend on the situation they find themselves in, on their aims, and / or their available
resources with regard to the competitive environment.
3.4.1 Findings
The qualitative result of this part of the research project is a carefully developed,
continuously advanced and evaluated scale to measure the PEP of individuals. Beyond
this result, I provide integration with the construct’s nomological network as well as a
discussion of the found relationships. Thereby, the findings of this chapter provide insight
to answer the research questions that inspired the studies:
1) Why do individuals prefer prestigious employers?
a. What are the factors that drive preference for prestigious employers?
The findings of an extensive theoretical review, a qualitative pre-study on inter-
views with job-seekers, scale reviews and three scale evaluation studies suggest
that FPSCB provides a reasonable basis for evaluating prestigious employer pref-
erences. Thus, the factors driving PEP are perfectionism, hedonism, uniqueness,
association, and conspicuousness.
b. How can those factors most appropriately be described and structured?
The factors perfectionism and hedonism are both motives that are directed at the
individual. They both constitute parts of well-being – hedonia and Eudaimonia.
Uniqueness, association, and conspicuousness, on the other hand, are motives
that are directed at the social environment. They speak to the needs for differen-
tiation, belonging, and the necessity to signal status in order to generate benefits.
c. How can individual differences in prestige preference be measured?
PEP can be measured appropriately by the developed 20-item psychometric scale
as listed in section 7.6.3 of the appendix.
129
2) What does PEP entail with regard to individuals’ values and orientation?
What is the nomological network of those factors driving prestigious employer pref-
erence in terms of …
a. …basic and work-oriented values?
The analysis of the nomological network shows that prestige-orientation in job-
seekers predicts self-enhancement values. More specifically, it is particularly
consistently the social factors of PEP that predict achievement and power values.
Hedonism, on the other hand, predicts self-direction and stimulation values.
Overall, there is no substantial difference of predictions between basic and work-
related values.
b. …orientation with regard to position and goals?
The analysis of the nomological network provides first evidence that prestige-
orientation in job-seekers predicts distinct comparison behavior and regulatory
focus: social factors of PEP predict social comparison orientation and individual
factors of PEP predict regulatory focus on promotion, however not prevention.
3.4.2 Limitations
This research project faces limitations that emerge from the nature of scale development
and evaluation in a complex topic: the generalizability of the findings, the test-retest
reliability as well as the challenge of social desirability: While studies for evaluation have
been conducted in three distinctive settings and were replicated in one setting for
evaluation of robustness of findings, there was a limit to the amount of studies that
appeared pragmatic and efficient to futher cement the breadth and limits of applicability.
For test-retest reliability, the setting of being integrated in a confidential study sent out
by the universities’ career services center was prohibitive. The participation rates hinged
on the concession not to store and connect the data gathered to other sources of data such
as a follow-up study. Finally, status-orientation as well as its correlates are topics that
appear of limited social acceptability. Thus, the questionnaires, questions and items were
formulated in ways to minimize the effect of social desirability and obfuscate the
analytical intent of questions where social desirability or maximization tendencies may
have been a problem.
130
3.4.3 Practical implications
The pratical implications of PEP revolve around the insight on the nature, structure, and
potential for steering and benefiting from individuals’ status-driven employer pursuit
behavior. This insight is of relevance to both job-seekers and employers and it is not
intended to be provided to only one of both categories to actors: the practical implications
of their more or less pronounced striving for employer-based status has been illustrated
to participants of the illustrated studies as it has been made available to a growing number
of managers who inquire about this specific project or who attended results workshops.
Revert to the discussion of the findings in section 3.3 for a more detailed and nuanced
elaboration of the implications and to section 6.3 for an overall integration of the
implications of PEP in the context of the overarching dissertation.
3.4.4 Theoretical implications and outlook
The theoretical contributions of this part of the research project are threefold. First, this
part of the project helps to further expand the insight into a segment of research in status
previously understudied, but of critical importance: the motivational structure behind
individuals’ propensity toward prestige. Second, this study introduces a novel
psychometric scale that benefits from integrating insight from the consumer behavior
discipline and validating with prior research in status. Here, research yielded that
individuals’ priority for a prestigious employer can be represented in a construct of
motives akin to that of consumers of prestigious offers. Third, the study establishes a new
and more comprehensive network of links between prestige preference as measured by
the novel PEP scale and established constructs such as perfectionism, hedonism, the
uniqueness / association dyad as well as conspicuousness.
The introduction of the PEP scale provides new venues for research in at least three fields:
antecedents to PEP, advancement and further testing of the scale itself and impacts of
PEP. As for antecedents, a valuable addition to insight would be the further exploration
of relationships between PEP and other pre-requisites for status-oriented social systems
such as the establishment of more or less strict regulatory systems (Gould, 2002), or
differently structured status systems (Coleman, 1994). As for the scale itself, a pan-
cultural evaluation would greatly help to assess the cultural impact and potential
limitations of a single construct as well as the emergence of the need for different
constructs to measure PEP in different cultural settings. Finally, the novel scale invites to
evaluate the impact of PEP in a multitude of settings such as managerial risk-affinity,
applicant faking behavior, and attractivity of specific employer brand concepts based on
the applicants’ PEP.
131
4 Prestige preference and person-organization fit
“Oops, we did it again! | Third time in a row, PwC has been named the most
attractive employer. | Start your career with no. 1 in the sector. | Apply now.”
Online job advertising, Summer 2016
Today’s economies are characterized by either established or emerging dominant shares
of tertiary industries. Consequentially, businesses have shifted their concepts of funda-
mental strategic resources to include not only access to materials or means of manufac-
turing but also, as a key determinant to competitive advantage, to the people they employ
(Drucker, 1995; Lado & Wilson, 1994; Pfeffer, 1994).
However, with this increasing focus of entire economies on personnel as a key competi-
tive resource, first precursors of the demographic change, growing economies, and de-
creasing stability of employees’ professional biographies, attracting, retaining,
developing, and managing personnel has become increasingly difficult as an increasing
frequency in personnel turnover has become the norm (Chambers et al., 1998; Fishman,
1998; Michaels et al., 2001). Consequentially, businesses have continuously profession-
alized their efforts in managing human resources (Breaugh, 2000; Yu & Cable, 2014).
Within the past two decades, this particularly entailed an increase in adoption of market-
ing concepts in recruitment, in particular that of the construction of an employee value
proposition (Chambers et al., 1998), the construal of employer brands (Ambler & Bar-
row, 1996; Collins & Kanar, 2014; King & Grace, 2010), particularly with regard to em-
ployer image (Agrawal & Swaroop, 2009; Belt & Paolillo, 1982; Gatewood et al., 1993;
Highhouse et al., 1999), and more specifically organizational reputation in the recruit-
ment context (Cable & Turban, 2003; Jones & Willness, 2014).
Reputation assumed a particularly prominent role in the positioning of employer brands.
This promotion of reputation as a factor in the recruitment domain has been advanced by
several conceptual and contextual circumstances: first, reputation has long been unani-
mously discussed to be beneficial in increasing efficiency in attracting (Cable & Turban,
2003) and retaining personnel (Carmeli et al., 2006), effectively decreasing the cost in-
vested in human capital (Podolny, 1993). Second, beyond the realm of recruitment, some
accounts extended the established relationships to stretch from organizational reputation
to employee performance by way of increasing the quality of entrants of higher-status
organizations’ applicant pool (Turban & Cable, 2003) or via increased employee com-
mitment (Carmeli, 2004). Third, less driven by scholary advancement and rather instilled
by rising competitive pressure and the general trend toward measurement and compari-
son, actors on the job market have increasingly grown to turn to external certification,
132
ranking, scores, and other external commensuration and simplification of offers that com-
monly entails comparison and the emergence of status structures with the respective con-
text of value. The information where an employer stands with regard to his competitors
becomes, in several cases, more important than what they stand for, e.g. “the big five”
(movie studios), “the big four” (accounting firms), “the big three” (management consult-
ing firms).
Only as of late, reputation has received more diverse appreciation with regard to its im-
plications for organizational behavior: Bidwell et al. found that while organizational pres-
tige indeed helps employers decrease their initial cost of employment, employees tend to
become more difficult and expensive to retain as they accrue symbolic capital in terms
of a valuable track record (Bidwell et al., 2014). More challenging, several sources have
shed first light upon the extension on the link connecting status-striving and self-enhance-
ment toward risk affinity and confidence (Anderson et al., 2012b; Kennedy, Anderson,
& Moore, 2013), and decreasing performance (Bothner et al., 2012). This more complex
discussion is extended in this dissertation’s chapter 2.1. More fundamentally, however,
organizational status may introduce a more essential challenge to the recruitment setting
in one potential key incompatibility: status is a social process of simplified communica-
tion, specifically commensuration, of actors’ quality (Espeland & Stevens, 1998; Magee
& Galinsky, 2008) while recruitment is a process of attracting and selecting well-fitting
individuals to be integrated into an organizational context with regard to the alignment
of values, goals, and resulting culture to avoid extensive attrition (Cable & Judge, 1996;
Edwards, 1991; Judge & Cable, 1997; Kristof, 1996; Schneider, 1987). In conjunction
with the findings of the previous chapter on the intersubjective difference on preference
for prestigious employers, a central challenge arises from this incompatibility: employers
who accentuate their organization’s prestige in expectation of the illustrated benefits
likely find their application pool skewed in terms of individual preference for prestige
instead of fit. Similarly, to the process of crowding out intrinsic motivation through ex-
trinsic motivation, a more commensurate preference on status is likely to crowd out a
more ambiguous, costly, and uncertain process of attempting to engage a good employee-
employer fit.
Every step of argument in the previous paragraph, then, entails critical consequences:
first, the skewing of the applicant pool’s preferences toward prestige will have an impact
on the basis for loyalty toward the organization once employed. If prestige is the key
component of the binding forces between the employee and the organization, the rela-
tionship itself becomes commensurate and easier to exchange with another organization
that provides more prestige. This introduces a mechanic that might be described as that
133
of mercenaries of prestige (Bidwell et al., 2014). While this may be advantageous for
those businesses that thrive on the generation of valuable networks, it introduces substan-
tial cost of turnover to those who build their organization’s performance on productivity
rather than connectedness.
Second, the skewing of the applicant pool’s preferences toward prestige will not be lim-
ited to the applied preference of a prestigious employer, but also extend to the more fun-
damental beliefs and attitudes of SCO, RF, and self-enhancement values.
Consequentially, status-driven recruitment campaigns attract status-driven entrants
which help establish and foster a status-driven company culture. This chain of implica-
tions appreciates in incendiary potential when exchanging “status” with “self-enhance-
ment” see (Roccas, 2003), extending toward the foreshadowed bias of overconfidence,
the narcissistic organization (Blair et al., 2008), and a range of reports on organizational
failures and substantial setbacks (Kausel, Culbertson, Leiva, Slaughter, & Jackson, 2015;
Stein, 2003).
Third, combining both previously illustrated proposals with the extant work on the link
among risk-taking and status-achievement yields more foundation for detrimental effects
(Anderson et al., 2012b; Kennedy et al., 2013; Simon & Houghton, 2003). We may hy-
pothesize that groups that increasingly establish a culture of self-enhancement may find
themselves reaching a critical level of competitive status-striving of the individual and a
limited loyalty to the group that, through acts of risk-taking individuals bet the organiza-
tion’s resources in order to advance themselves in terms of status with very little regard
to which portfolio of risk might be suitable for the group overall.
All three implications are critical, but they hinge on the initial antecedent of prestige as a
powerful attractor in general and to those with a high preference for prestigious employ-
ers in particular. Having illustrated these projections of theory, we return to the outset of
this chapter to highlight the pivotal question to the antecedent and link to one of the key
questions of this dissertation and its two specializations:
3) What does PEP entail with regard to individuals’ attitudes (toward employers)?
a. How does prestige imprint on the perception of employers?
b. How does the satisfaction of prestige preference compare to the satisfaction of
person-organization fit?
To operationalize this question, this study builds upon the data generated from the previ-
ously introduced SSVS (see also section 7.2 of the appendix) to investigate this question
134
by building upon both a self-developed measurement on work-related values and the pre-
viously introduced measurement on PEP.
4.1 Theory
This study builds upon theoretical foundations of both fit theories and prestige preference
in job-seekers. In order to be able to develop hypotheses in section 4.1.3, I first reiterate
the theoretical foundations on fit theories in terms of both origins and more recent devel-
opments. Thereafter, I refer to the previously presented illustration of the theoretical
frame on prestige in employment.
4.1.1 Person-organization fit
Person-organization fit is one variant of a group of theories and concepts that evaluate
the match between a central individual and a surrounding group or environment. The field
of research on fit theories in the organizational setting has both spawned a considerable
stream of literature and originated from sources that are clearly identifiable seminal con-
tributions. Consequently, this theoretical elaboration on person-organization fit covers
both the roots of the field and the more recent contributions. Retrieving the most recent
literature on articles dealing with PO fit in the established journal basket for this disser-
tation and with a scope of the past ten years initially revealed 32 publications that matched
the search query. Out of these 32 publications, only 23 showed sufficient topical focus
on evaluating individuals with their surroundings. From these 23 documents, I derive the
following brief literature review as well as I illustrate the theoretical roots of the field in
section 4.1.1.2. Based on this set of 23 articles, I review the literature references both
quantitatively and qualitatively in order to illustrate a foundation of the emergence of the
field and highlight key scholars, documents, and concepts in section 4.1.1.1.
4.1.1.1 Origins of the field
Modern literature on PO fit – or broader person-environment fit (PE fit) – in the dominant
part build their elaborations on a group of key scholars in organizational psychology and
management disciplines that contributed to the field from the late 1980s to the more re-
cent late 2000s.
Organizational fit theories emerged from a combination of psychological and managerial
disciplines. The most important foundation to fit theories in the organizational domain is
the applied field of recruitment as it has been repeatedly documented by Rynes (Rynes
& Bretz, JR., 1991; Rynes & Cable, 2003; Rynes et al., 2014) in its development over
135
four decades from a rather mundane application of research on advertising to a thoroughly
diversified endeavor. Most current organizational fit literature references to Rynes’ re-
views as their theoretical foundation.
Fundamental to the understanding of organization-oriented fit theories is Schneider’s
seminal framework proposing organizations to be “functions of the kinds of people they
contain” (Schneider, 1987, p. 437) and the interaction between people and organizations
to be aptly structured by a cycle of attraction, selection, and attrition (Schneider, 1987,
p. 441). This contribution’s findings have far-reaching implications in terms of organiza-
tional survival and change (e.g., new-hires assume the key role for potential in change of
the organization) and the role of recruiting in steering the organization’s competitiveness
(e.g., “faith in the selection process, either self-selection or organizational selection, can-
not be expected to yield the non-right types required for long-term viability”) (Schneider,
1987, pp. 444ff).
Shortly after Schneider, Chatman added two key contributions, one conceptual (Chat-
man, 1989) and one empirical (Chatman, 1991). Chatman’s framework and development
advanced the understanding of interaction models in organizational research by develop-
ing proposals, e.g., on the change in values of new-hires or the role of extra-role behavior
for person-organization fit. While Chatman advanced the field through this contribution,
she also provided propositions that appear more complex than necessary or even war-
ranted by their founding (e.g. her elaborations on variety of socialization processes). In
her empirical contribution, she found support for the relationship between value fit and
new-hire adjustment to the firm, for the critical role of socialization processes in fit ad-
justment, and finally recruits’ satisfaction and actual tenure with the firm.
Around the same time of Chatman’s contributions, Edwards introduced his conceptual
integration, literature review, and methodological critique on person-job fit (Edwards,
1991). However, it was not until 15 years of implication-focused research later that Ed-
wards returned to the discipline’s more fundamental discussion on fit with an extensive
survey study that investigates three different approaches to evaluating conceptualizations
of PE fit: atomistic (separation of persons’ perceptions and environment), molecular (in-
tegration of perceived discrepancy between person and environment), and molar (per-
ceived fit of person in environment) (Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp,
2006). Key insights included, e.g., that perceptions of the environment were commonly
emphasized in evaluations when comparing atomistic and molecular approaches. Fur-
thermore, the authors found that molar fit could even be increased when molecular fit
136
decreased – namely in conditions, where factors were generally judged desirable. In Ed-
ward et al.’s second contribution of the 2000s, they reviewed, extended, and refocused
the previously established conceptualization (Edwards & Shipp, New York, NY).
After the conceptual contributions by Schneider and Chatman, Barrick contributed the
first meta-analytical investigation of the relationship between personality traits and per-
formance criteria such as proficiency and personnel track record (Barrick & Mount,
1991). Barrick’s findings suggest that individual personality traits strongly related to per-
formance outcomes so that, e.g., people with a “strong sense of purpose, obligation, and
persistence generally perform better than those who do not”. (Barrick & Mount, 1991,
p. 18) While Barrick’s initial findings suggest broad and generalizing findings, he adds
more specific fit evaluations among personality traits and specific positions, e.g., high-
lighting extraversion as a key capability of managers and sales personnel.
Broadening the range of contexts in which fit can be investigated, Judge directed two
publications combining fit evaluation with work values and company cultures. Judge et
al. found that job choice was predicted by value fit (Judge & Bretz, 1992) and subjective
or objective fit in cultural preferences (Judge & Cable, 1997).
In more recent times, Kristof’s contribution recurs as the seminal and most frequently
cited contribution. Kristof integrated prior findings on the subject in a comprehensive
definition and conceptual model of person organization fit (Kristof, 1996, p. 1). By doing
so, she set a stream of research on the positive impact of multiple difficult-to-reconcile
conceptualizations on equal footing and prepared the grounds for a renewed and extended
interest in the topic as illustrated in the subsequent section.
By Kristof’s definition, PO fit ought to be considered specifically in light of supplemen-
tary or complementary fit (Kristof, 1996, p. 31) as well as in terms of the differences in
measurement: either as direct measurement of perceived fit (impacting rather on attitudes
and emotional responses) or indirect estimation of actual fit (impacting rather on perfor-
mance and process outcomes) (Kristof, 1996, p. 33). Kristof concludes that recruitment
strategies that focus on attracting fitting candidates increases the importance of fit with
job-seekers while conscientious and self-aware job-seekers weighs the component of fit
more heavily (Kristof, 1996, pp. 35).
While Kristof authored the seminal contribution in the field within the past 20 years,
Cable is the most prolific scholar in this field of research as he contributed to a quarter of
publications that constitute the scientific roots of this field. Cable started contributing to
the field in collaboration with Judge as an outcome of his dissertation on the role of per-
son-organization fit in the organizational entry process. In his initial work, he investigated
137
96 active job-seekers with regard to “their initial job search activity to their intended
turnover from the jobs they accepted” (Cable & Judge, 1996, p. 294). Cable found that
the congruence between the job-seeker’s values and the organization’s characteristics
predict job choice and work attitudes. In his contribution with Edwards in 2004, both
scholars empirically investigated the different perspectives of complementary and sup-
plementary fit in light of a range of work values from altruism to autonomy. Among other
findings, they concluded that while job-seekers and employees seek fit, there are several
factors that employees do not mind receiving more of than what would meet their needs
(Cable & Edwards, 2004, p. 830).
Podsakoff joins Cable in terms of leading research productivity, particularly in collabo-
ration with MacKenzie. Just like Cable, Podsakoff co-authored between 1993 and 2003
about a quarter of those contributions that make the foundation of the field today. How-
ever, while the above illustrated contributions focused on fit as their primary phenome-
non of interest, Podsakoff and his colleage instrumentalized fit in a row of contributions
ranging from leadership performance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Ahearne, & Bommer,
1995), organizational citizenship behavior (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000), and in terms of methodological advancement
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
To conclude this brief integration of the theoretical underpinnings that allowed the field
of organization-oriented fit theories to establish itself, three key insights emerge: first,
the core contribution to the development of the field can be attributed to roughly a dozen
of organizational scientists. Second, the main advancement of the field in terms of con-
ceptualization were introduced before 2000 while empirical contributions started to ap-
pear in the late 1990s and became the norm thereafter. Third, the field may be considered
to have matured due to the emergence of not only conceptual, but also an extensive range
of empirical studies supporting the development of both the conceptual architecture and
the implementation of content for fit-evaluations such as values or personality traits as
well as methodological self-criticism. Finally, the range of recent contributions illustrates
the vibrancy and continued interest among scholars in the field.
4.1.1.2 Recent contributions
The majority of recent articles in the domain of organization-oriented fit have been pub-
lished in Journal of Applied Psychology (43%) or Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes (17%). While the foundations of the field illustrated above elaborated
on the nature and structure of the phenomenon itself, more recent literature graduated
138
from this fundamental perspective. The more recently published articles can most appro-
priately be split into two groups: those who focus on antecedents of fit and those who
focus on its consequences.
With regard to articles focusing on antecedents, there are four distinct topics elaborated
upon: cultural heterogeneity (Chuang, Shuwei Hsu, Wang, & Judge, 2015; Gelfand,
Erez, & Aycan, 2007; Horverak, Bye, Sandal, & Pallesen, 2013), gender stereotypes
(Hoobler, Wayner, & Lemmon, 2009), storytelling (Shipp & Jansen, 2011), and sociali-
zation (Sluss & Thompson, 2012). The first two topics deal with factors externally im-
posed upon the employee-employer fit and the latter two topics deal with factors that can
be manipulated by appropriate management.
On cultural heterogeneity, Gelfand et al. integrated PE fit in their overarching conceptual
integration on cross-cultural organizational behavior (Gelfand et al., 2007). Together
with Gelfand, Ramesh investigated the causes of personnel turnover and found both fit
theories and the cultural background to play a crucial role. They found that, depending
on the cultural setting, the impact of fit on turnover intentions depends on the focus of
the fit evaluation: while the relationship between greater fit and decreasing turnover in-
tention depended on the fit between individuals and their jobs for study participants in
the United States, the relevant focus of the fit assessment shifted to the organization for
study participants in India (Ramesh & Gelfand, 2010). Adding a contribution that high-
lights the work-ethical implications in selection processes to the discussion, Horverak et
al. investigated the impact of immigrant job applicants’ acculturation on manager’s eval-
uations of PO fit (Horverak et al., 2013). The authors found that managers prioritized PO
fit over work competencies when applicants were illustrated to privately prefer separated
acculturation. This prioritization highlights one form of culture-based bias in application
processes. Finally, in a bid to extend the conceptualization of fit beyond the Western
world, Chuang et al. investigated the conceptualization of PE fit – which traditionally
focuses on Western perceptions of complimenting or supplementing – in a Chinese set-
ting. In their study with 30 Chinese working adults, they found five dominant PE fit
themes: competence at work, harmonious connections at work, balance among life do-
mains, cultivation, and realization (Chuang et al., 2015, p. 480).
On gender stereotypes, Hoobler et al. investigated a specific form of the glass ceiling
effect that women may face in work environments. The effect investigated emerged when
superiors expect family-work conflicts if their female employees were advancing through
the ranks of the business. The authors found that the perception of family-work conflicts
mediated the effect of gender on PO fit, person-job fit (PJ fit), and performance with both
types of fit relating to promotability (Hoobler et al., 2009).
139
On storytelling, Shipp and Jansen shift the focus from fit as a consequence of more or
less matching identities to the opportunity (and commonplace practice) to adapt and re-
interpret identities through storytelling. In their conceptual elaboration, they highlight the
opportunities that individuals and groups have when constructing identities through
adapting storylines in order to actively manage fit perceptions (Shipp & Jansen, 2011).
On organizational socialization, Sluss and Thompson highlight the mediating role of
leader-membership exchange during socialization processes upon factors such as occu-
pational identification and perceived organizational fit. In their study, the authors find
that the management and design of the leader-membership exchange, specifically with
the immediate supervisor, is a key factor to increase the effectiveness of onboarding ex-
periences for new-hires.
While the above review illustrated the recent contributions investigating the antecedents
of fit perceptions and evaluations, the following literature overview provides an overview
of those contributions that provide insight on the consequences of fit assessments. Here,
there are two distinct fields that generally follow the process of the employee through the
engagement with an employer: articles that focus on job-choice and selection (Dineen,
Ling, Ash, & DelVecchio, 2007; Dineen & Noe, 2009; Edwards & Cable, 2009; Kausel
& Slaughter, 2011; Resick, Baltes, & Shantz, 2007; Sekiguchi & Huber, 2011; Swider,
Zimmerman, & Barrick, 2015; Yu, 2014, Yu, 2009), and performance (Anderson,
Spataro, & Flynn, 2008b; Arthur, Bell, Villado, & Doverspike, 2006; Gonzalez-Mulé,
DeGeest, McCormick, Seong, & Brown, 2014; Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009; Menguc,
Auh, Katsikeas, & Yeon Sung Jung, 2016; Tilcsik, 2014). The split of articles across the
different phases of the employer-employee relationship highlights the particular priority
of fit for recruiting and selection processes.
On job-choice and selection, Dineen et al. focused on the implications of both the design
and perception of information on digitally available information to job-seekers. In their
two contributions, the authors present studies whose findings include insights on the im-
pact of customized information on the attractiveness toward lesser-fitting applicants
(Dineen et al., 2007) and, more specifically, that applicant pool PO and demand-abilities
fit both were greater when fit information customization was provided (Dineen & Noe,
2009). Resick et al., instead, focused on the impact of the different strategies implicit in
complementary fit strategies – either filling gaps with the company or satisfying needs of
the individual. The authors found that the consequence of PO fit changed depending on
either demands-abilities (D-A) or need-supplies (N-S) fit: for low N-S fit, PO fit was
more strongly related to job satisfaction while for low D-A fit, PO fit was more strongly
140
related to job choice intentions (Resick et al., 2007). Yu contributed two key contribu-
tions in the past decade. In his first contribution, the author presents an extension to the
prior established PE fit model which takes into account several shortcomings of the orig-
inal approach by, e.g., integrating the possibility of reversed causality among fit and af-
fect, a more detailed focus on the antecedents of PE fit, and a more complete integration
of subjective and objective fit assessments (Yu, 2009). Later, Yu tested his expectations-
based theory on the mechanics driving the benefits of value congruence in recruiting. In
his longitudinal study, the author found support for his theory that job-seekers’ expected
opportunities of value expression and need fulfillment present the most complete descrip-
tion of the relation between fit and attraction (Yu, 2014). Like Yu, Kausel and Slaughter
investigate the underlying mechanics of organizational attraction. However, they contrast
the complementary/supplementary differentiation in fit theories with the instrumental-
symbolic framework that emerged in the organizational psychology discipline. The au-
thors find that complementary recruiting strategies provide substantial advantages over
the traditional supplementary strategies (Kausel & Slaughter, 2011). Sekiguchi and Hu-
ber presented an experimental study on the weighting of different fits – in this case, PO
fit and PJ fit – in selection processes. They found that the participating executives pre-
ferred moderately fitting candidates with regard to both the organization and the job over
those who fit very well in one category and lacked fit in the other. Overall, they found
PO fit to be prioritized over PJ fit (Sekiguchi & Huber, 2011). Swider et al. complete the
group of recent publications on the relationship between fit and with a longitudinal per-
spective on how fit perceptions developed and changed throughout the recruitment pro-
cess which, in turn, showed significant impact on future job choice (Swider et al., 2015).
On job performance, Arthur et al. found in their meta-analysis that PO fit may not be as
good a predictor for job performance (here, work attitudes proved to find stronger empir-
ical support) as it can be for turnover intentions (Arthur et al., 2006). In a more applied
sense of performance, Anderson et al. investigated the antecedents of influences in the
organization and found PO fit to be an important source of influence – depending on the
characteristics of the work environment, e.g., either team-oriented work or technically
focused tasks (Anderson et al., 2008b). Only two of those scholars who helped establish
the field and who were identified above as such remained active until the past decade: in
their latest contribution, Edwards and Cable investigate the often-purported relationship
between fit and positive outcomes at the workplace. They introduce communication, pre-
dictability, interpersonal attraction, and trust as key explanations for value-congruence
effects (Edwards & Cable, 2009). Greguras and Diefendorff investigated the relationship
between different interpretations of work-oriented fit and a range of performance factors
141
through the lense of self-determination theory and put an emphasis on satisfying the needs
for autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009). The authors
found that differently focused fit concepts have different consequences in terms of out-
come variables (e.g., PO fit influencing performance through satisfaction of domain-spe-
cific needs; person-group fit [PG fit] influencing performance in specifically defined
contexts; DA fit predicting organizational commitment, etc.) , but that, overall, satisfac-
tion of psychological needs predicted commitment and performance. Gonzalez-Mulé et
al. contributed their study on the effect of fit on prosocial behavior. They found that sup-
plementary and complementary fit both promote the enactment of helping behaviors
(Gonzalez-Mulé et al., 2014). In his longitudinal study, Tilcsik combined the impressions
from the organization entering experience, the organization’s initial imprint upon the
new-hire, with the perception of PE fit and found that the imprint-environment fit pre-
dicted performance in later stages (Tilcsik, 2014). The author found an inverted-u-shaped
relationship between employer generosity and later performance. In the latest contribu-
tion to the field of research on the relationship among fit and performance, Menguc et al.
investigate the foundation of PG fit to permeate customer oriented frontline employee
behavior (Menguc et al., 2016). The authors find that group size is key for the role of fit
in permeating customer oriented behavior through the frontline team with larger teams
seeing diminished effects.
4.1.2 Prestigious employer preference
Prestige has been in the focus of an extensive research tradition (see section 2.1). Within
this broad, multi-discipline stream of research, recruiting assumes the position of a fre-
quently employed context for application of theory on prestige (see section 2.2). In order
not to replicate or inflate this passage, please confer to the stated passages for more con-
text.
4.1.3 Hypotheses
Based on the introductory elaborations on the competing roles of fit and prestige and the
prior findings on PO fit illustrated and reviewed above, I arrive at a set of four hypotheses
that this study aims to test.
First, I hypothesize on the impact of organizational prestige upon the estimation of or-
ganizational values in order to evaluate my theory on the results of unpacking unidimen-
sional prestige to arrive at multidimensional perceptions of potential employers’
characteristics. Investigations into the nomological network of PEP have shown that,
142
prestige-orientation of individuals generally coincides with self-enhancement values (see
section 3.3.3 for an account of the results). This finding is compatible with prior estab-
lished research that connects prestige-driven behavior with the motive to increase self-
esteem (Mael & Ashforth, 1992), or with related personality traits (Anderson & Cowan,
2014; Anderson et al., 2001).
Fundamentally, status is a construct of those individuals who subscribe to the same value
or set of values or who subscribe to the same set of rules and laws (see definitions in
section 2.1.3.8). Thus, if status is, in the context of the presented study, conceptually
linked with self-enhancement values like achievement and power of the participants in
terms of their self-assessment, I expect this insight to be relevant to their semantic per-
ception of employer prestige. A difference of qualitative dimensions among internal and
external evaluation would, otherwise, lead to an ineffective status hierarchy.
Hypothesis 1: Individuals instructed to estimate the work-oriented values of leading
organizations will evaluate the organizations’ self-enhancement significantly
stronger than those individuals instructed to estimate the work-oriented values of
mid-range organizations.
Second, in order to test the functionality of the generated fit measurement as a differential
between self-assessed work-related values and estimates of work values prevalent in or-
ganizations, I hypothesize on the predictive quality of value-based fit and attractiveness.
The positive impact of PO fit on a host of positive implications – including organizational
attractiveness to employees and applicants – has found ample empirical support (Kristof,
1996; Kristof-Brown, 2000; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Thus, the hypothesis does not
focus centrally on the conceptual link connecting fit with attractiveness, but rather on the
methodological approach to measuring PO fit by way of the aggregated difference of
value-assessments.
Hypothesis 2a: PO fit evaluated through a differential of value-estimates for the self
and the employer predicts attractiveness of the employer.
Furthermore, I hypothesize the impact of prestige upon attractiveness as another founding
evaluation. Prestige has previously been considered a key factor of the social-identity
driven returns of work engagements and consequentially, found to provide a basis for
organizational identification (Albert et al., 2000; Ashforth et al., 2008; Mael & Ashforth,
1992). Thus, the hypothesis does not focus centrally on the conceptual link connecting
prestige with attractiveness, but rather on the methodological approach to the sufficiency
143
of manipulating study participants by way of pointing to a group of employers that rep-
resent either the leadership of the sector or the mid-range – an informational cue of lim-
ited intensity. However, due to the broad theoretical support of prestige in employer
attractiveness, I argue that the effectiveness of even this slight cue becomes effective.
Hypothesis 2b: Prestige cues predict attractiveness of the employer.
Third, I hypothesize on the comparative strengths of both factors – value-based fit and
prestige preference satisfaction – upon employer attractiveness. As a consequential pre-
diction, both the perception of fit and the satisfaction of prestige preference will predict
employer attractiveness.
Hypothesis 3a: Both perceptions of PO fit and prestige-preference satisfaction pre-
dict attractiveness of the employer.
However, when comparing both predictors of attractiveness, I argue that the satisfaction
of prestige preferences will be easier to assess due to its greater efficiency in both com-
munication, consideration, and self-evaluation. This is due to the commensurate nature
of status as a positional factor along a single dimension per evaluation. In comparison,
evaluating a more holistic PO fit such as a value-based fit as it is implemented in this
study, the evaluation of a complex PO fit will be less influential on the attractiveness of
an employer than the satisfaction of the single-factor preference for prestige.
Hypothesis 3b: Prestige-preference satisfaction has a greater influence in predict-
ing attractiveness.
4.2 Methodology
This study was integrated into the second version of the SSVS. For details on the SSVS,
please see section 7.1 of the appendix.
4.2.1 Measurement
This study touches on a range of key variables which merit more detailed introduction:
first, the evaluation of fit based on basic and work-oriented values; second, PEP; third,
the manipulation of employer prestige; fourth, the key dependent variables in terms of
self-assessed fit, attractiveness and intent to apply.
144
4.2.1.1 Person-organization fit
In this study, fit is conceptualized through assessment of aggregated absolute differences
between work-related values of the study participant and his or her estimations of values
with employers of a manipulated level of prestige (leading companies vs. mid-range com-
panies in a sector).
The employed measure for values follows the conceptualization and broadly accepted
and implemented concept by Schwartz (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990; Schwartz et al., 2012),
see also section 3.1.3.3. For the specific implementation of the measurement of values,
the study employed two related approaches. These two approaches were combined to
accommodate the specific research focus of the individual studies by generating a com-
posite speaking to the fit of values among those self-assessed and those estimated about
employers.
First, to measure work-related values, participants were asked to answer the question
“Which attribute is more important to you at the workplace?” through completing a
semantic differential of 30 dyads – three items per value – created to operationalize
Schwartz’ value descriptions in the work setting. This semantic differential offers
statements that describe work environments (e.g., “Challenging activities” vs. “Routine
daily business” for stimulation or “Key personnel have a special status” vs. “Same rights
and duties for all” for universalism) 15. Participants were asked on a 5-point Likert-type
scale with extremes labeled “is more important to me” and the middle scale point labled
“same”. Internal consistency, evaluated as Cronbach’s α among items of the same factor
ranges from α=.58 to α=.89 . Statistical standards for consistency were relaxed for this
specific measurement due to the high standards involved in terms of obscuring the
measurements architecture, the substantially latent nature of values, and the multifacetted
formulation of items that were conceptualized to rather include a broad concept of each
value than to focus on only one facet of a value.
Second, to gather the estimation of work-related values of employers, participants were
asked to answer the question “From your perspective, which properties apply to
employers in the elite of the <sector previously indicated to be interesting to the
participant>?” through completing a semantic differential of 10 dyads – one item per
value – created based on the scale described in the pervious paragraph. This semantic
differential aggregated all fitting statements of each value in one item and opposed them
15 The development of this scale was connected to, but not part of this dissertation. For an overview of the full scale, see section 7.7 of the appendix. For details on the scale, please refer to the forthcoming Batt & Berghaus, 2017.
145
with the equivalent opposites of the scale (e.g, “Independent working, free work
planning, codetermination of working content” and “Supervised working, dependence on
others, strong content-based leadership” for the self-direction value) Participants were
asked on a 5-point Likert-type scale with extremes labeled “is more important to me” and
the middle scale point labeled “same”. Same as the first scale illustrated two paragraphs
prior, the scale is conceptualized as a collection of ten single items for ten independent
factors, it does not focus on complexity reduction. Consequently, evaluation of statistical
fidelity was limited to analysis of skewedness and kurtosis which were not found to exist
to a substantial degree (absolutes for all factors and both skewedness and kurtosis below
.05).
Building upon the two sets of data – participants’ self-assessment on work-values and
participants’ estimations of prevalent values in distinct groups of businesses with regard
to different prestige – composites were created in order to evaluate person-organization
fit on the basis of work values: first, absolute values of differences were calculated among
each of the ten value dimensions, second, those absolute value differences were summed
to a total and, third, the total of value differences was inverted and mean-centered to
arrive at a positive-scaled composite indicating PO fit (ValueFit) and to facilitate a com-
bined analysis with the composite indicating the satisfaction of prestige preference (Pres-
tigeSatisfaction).
4.2.1.2 Prestige
In this study, PEP is operationalized through the 20-item scale which builds upon the five
factors of conspicuousness, uniqueness, association, hedonism, and perfectionism. The
PEP scale provides a rigorously developed, both theoretically founded and empirically
evaluated measurement. For a detailed documentation of the development and evaluation
of the scale, please refer to chapter 2.2.2 of this dissertation.
The prestige of the suggested employers was manipulated for distinct groups of partici-
pants. Manipulation occurred as part of the task description when being prompted to eval-
uate a group of employers. Half of the participants where prompted the question “From
your perspective, which properties apply to employers in the elite of the <sector
previously indicated to be interesting to the participant>?” (emphasized with underscore)
and the instruction “Remember: There are no right or wrong answers to this question, it
is your personal opinion.”. The other half of the participants where prompted the question
“From your perspective, which properties apply to employers in the midrange of the
<sector previously indicated to be interesting to the participant>?” and the same
instruction.
146
Building upon the PEP scale and this study’s manipulation of the prestige of businesses
whose prevalent values study participants were instructed to estimate, a composite meas-
ure on the satisfaction of prestige preference (PrestigeSatisfaction) was created: first, the
scores generated by the PEP scale were normalized to range in values between 0 and 1;
second, prestige of employers, which was manipulated to be either not elevated or ele-
vated, was coded as 0 or 1; finally, normalized PEP values was subtracted from the pres-
tige of employers. The resulting degree of prestige satisfaction was mean-centered to
facilitate a combined analysis with the composite indicating the value fit among partici-
pant and employer (ValueFit).
4.2.1.3 Evaluation of employer
Every participant completed a battery of six items on attractiveness, intent to apply, and
intent to recommend with the previously evaluated group of employers stated as part of
the first page of the questionnaire. Internal consistency of this measurements consisting
of established items was found to be satisfactory (α =.92).
4.2.2 Participants
Participants were, at the time of their participation, enrolled at a Swiss business-focused
university and invited through their university’s career services center with the incentive
of participating in a results workshop including a work-value-related training. More than
2’600 students were invited to participate and more than 1’100 started filling out the
online questionnaire. As the data collection methodology also included other
experimental manipulations, only those participants who were exposed to the control
condition of other experimental contexts were admitted as subjects for scale evaluation
(n=355). From these, a range of participants had to be excluded from the analysis due to
incomplete data, reducing the panel to n=279. As per the design of the overarching study,
not every participant who provided value self-evaluation and estimates (n=355) also
provided prestige preference self-evaluations, reducing the sample to n=204 for the
analysis involving prestige. This left 279 participants for evaluation of value-based PO
fit and attractiveness (34% female) and 204 participants for evaluation of hypotheses
including the role of prestige (28% female) for analytical investigation.
4.2.3 Procedure
As part of the SSVS, job-seekers were asked to self-assess with regard to the above var-
iables. Procedurally, participants were first asked to state their basic and work-related
147
values, then split in two groups and subjected to the task of estimating the values that are
prevalent with either the leading companies in the sector of their interest or with those
companies who are in the mid-field in the sector of their interest. This estimation was
concluded by the evaluation of the key dependent variable, the evaluation of the sug-
gested group of companies in terms of attractiveness, intent to apply, and intent to rec-
ommend.
Due to the conceptual set-up of the complete study as well as to accommodate adjacent
sub-studies in the same survey, PEP was self-assessed by half of the participants before
they entered the process described in the previous paragraph and the other half after this
process. Statistical analysis did not provide a significant difference among both groups
with regard to either their value assessment, PEP, or attractiveness.
4.3 Results
In order to assess the first hypothesis, I carry out a series of two sample t-tests. In the
present sample, there were multiple significant effects for prestige in employer charac-
terization, with those employers described as leaders being perceived to value achieve-
ment, power, stimulation, and self-direction, significantly higher than those employers in
the mid-range. Conversely, those employers described as positioned in the mid-range
were estimated to value security and tradition higher than those who were characterized
as the leaders. The prestige of presented employers did not show significant influence on
value estimations on hedonism, conformity, benevolence or universalism.
Analysis of the gathered data suggests that characterizing employers to be leaders shifts
those value components that have been previously shown to provide particular salience
to the concept of prestige: self-enhancement values of achievement and power, moreover
stimulation and, to a lesser degree, self-direction; conversely, the values of security and
tradition are being perceived as decreased when compared to employers from the mid-
range. Consequently, the presented hypothesis H1 can be confirmed. This finding, again,
complies with prior findings and established thought on the role of status in recruitment.
Likewise, it presents the second essential foundation to investigating the competing roles
of both fit and prestige in generating attractiveness. In order to assess the hypothesis 2a,
I investigate the predictive quality of value fit on attractiveness in the present sample.
Value fit significantly predicts attractiveness, β=.0919, t(274)=7.0, p<.001. In this sam-
ple, value fit also explained a significant proportion of variance in attractiveness scores,
R²=.149, F (1, 274)=49, p<.001. Analysis of the gathered data suggests that value fit does
provide a significant prediction for attractiveness. Consequently, the presented second
148
hypothesis can be confirmed. While this initial finding signifies a likely outcome, it as-
sumes a key position in preparing the analyses below that hinge on the influence of value
fit as an established baseline relationship with attractiveness.
Figure 12 – Perceived values of leading (line) and mid-range (dotted) businesses
Value Df t value p-value Mean for group with
mid-range employer
Mean for group with
prestige employer
Difference
in means
HED 250 1.2 .2 2.571 2.408 -4%
ACH 280 -7.1 < .001 3.048 4.088 26%
PWR 280 -7.4 < .001 3.286 4.216 23%
SEC 280 5.2 < .001 2.877 2.128 -19%
TRA 260 4.4 < .001 3.266 2.672 -15%
CON 250 2.5 .01 3.552 3.240 -8%
BEN 270 -1.1 .3 3.318 3.456 3%
UNI 260 1.2 .2 3.078 2.912 -4%
SDR 270 -2.9 .004 2.805 3.184 9%
STI 280 -7.2 < .001 3.084 4.008 23%
Table 15 – T-test statistics: prestige information on value estimates
In order to assess the hypothesis 2b, I investigate the predictive quality of employer pres-
tige information on attractiveness. In the present sample, there was a significant effect
for prestige in employer characterization, t(270)=-8.2 p<.001 with those employers de-
scribed as leaders appearing significantly more attractive than those described to be mid-
range. Means of standardized scores in attractiveness increased by over 38% from .5309
to .7370 when participants were instructed to evaluate attractiveness of leading employers
149
compared to when they were not. Analysis of the gathered data suggests that apparent
prestige impacts the perceptions of employer attractiveness. Consequently, the presented
pair of hypotheses can be confirmed. This finding, again, complies with prior findings
and established thought on the role of status in recruitment. Likewise, it presents the sec-
ond essential foundation to investigating the competing roles of both fit and prestige in
generating attractiveness.
In order to investigate both parts of the third hypothesis, I jointly evaluate the combined
effects of both independent variables and compare the strengths of both the satisfaction
of prestige preference to the value-based PO fit in terms of their impact on employer
attractiveness. In the present sample, both calculated value fit and the satisfaction for
prestige preference significantly predict attractiveness, with βValueFit=.0696, t(182)=5.10,
p<.001 and βPrestigePreferenceSatisfaction=.1008, t(182)=7.12, p<.001. In this sample both varia-
bles also explain a significant proportion of variance in attractiveness scores, R²=.318, F
(2, 182)=43.8, p<.001. The sample decreased in size due to the added requirement of
providing both data on value fit and PEP. Analysis of the gathered data suggests that both
the satisfaction of prestige preferences and value fit have a significant, positive influence
on employer attractiveness. More critically, however, satisfaction of prestige preference
contributes a greater influence on attractiveness than value fit; the difference in regression
coefficients is more than 44%. Consequentially, we find support for hypothesis 3a, that
both prestige preference satisfaction and value fit jointly predict attractiveness, and for
hypothesis 3b, that the satisfaction of prestige preference has a stronger effect on attrac-
tiveness than the perception of value fit.
4.4 Discussion
Today’s economies are characterized by either established or emerging dominant shares
of tertiary industries and a consequentially increased focus upon employees as a strategic
resource for competitive advantage. This, in turn, increases the importance of businesses’
capabilities to successfully engage the labor market as the singular source for said strate-
gic resource: businesses have to attract talent if their aim is to retain potential for innova-
tion, profitability, and productivity altogether. Marketing has proven to be a helpful frame
of reference and provided a useful set of tools to provide businesses with positioning
themselves not only in those markets used for selling produced goods, but also with po-
sitioning in the labor market. The array of marketing tools in recruiting has grown from
the initial focus on advertising to include more complex conceptualizations of branding,
brand equity, positioning, lead generation, touchpoint and channel management, etc. .
150
Labor markets, however, resemble more complex and more competitive markets than
traditional markets of consumption or small-scale investments: they are matching mar-
kets in which not one actor decides to purchase or invest, but both actors must agree on
collaboration based on a common agreement of terms. This characteristic of the labor
market leads to one distinct consequence and a range of implications. First, the key con-
sequence of match making markets is competition on both sides of the market: job-seek-
ers compete for the “best” jobs and employer compete for the “best” employees. Thus,
with an increase of the complexity of task structures at work, companies have advanced
from recruiting employees to attracting and retaining talent. On the side of employees,
people have advanced from working to building a career. Within this more demanding
context of a more competitive and more complex market on both ends, simplification has
become not only a welcome aid to those who try to navigate the market, but also a busi-
ness model for consultants, counsellors, and market researchers. Rankings, awards, and
certifications of employers are a sign of both increased competitive pressure and simpli-
fication as a strategy to outpace competitors.
With simplification comes commensuration and ultimately stratification – which, in turn,
invites an increasing consideration of prestige-motives as the key driver for decisions.
While certainly not all decisions are made on the basis of status, most are assisted by
signaling to mitigate the adversities of information asymmetries with regard to the true
performance of the employee and the true potential of the employer. This signaling is
done most efficiently when simplified to a commensurate, common evaluative basis that
allows easy comparison – or at least easier comparison than the more complex and mul-
tidimensional evaluation of fit among sets of values.
4.4.1 Employer prestige and work value perceptions
Analysis of the gathered data supports the hypothesis that, first, providing status
information about an employer steers estimations of prevalent value patterns with the
employer. Specifically, findings suggest a significant increase in self-enhancement
values such as achievement and power orientation as well as openness-to-change values
such as self-direction and stimulation for those organizations illustrated to be among the
leading of a sector. Contrary, leading employers were perceived to be significantly less
oriented on conservation values such as conformity and tradition.
These findings suggest that, regardless of the content of employer branding
communication, employers generally carry a perceptive connotation that arises from their
prestige: those who lead appear driven by self-enhancement and openness-to- change and
151
somewhat negligent with regard to conservation. From this insight emerges a train of
thought in discussion that reflects upon the finding from different vantage points:
While the general notion of self-enhancing leaders that do not heed to the past, but rather
are open to that change that promises returns appears valid, it may be considered – in
good functional tradition of status – an oversimplification that leads to biased perception.
Most recent research has illustrated that, high status may lead to complacency instead of
a particularly productive context (Bothner et al., 2012; Haynes et al., 2015) or, in fact,
perceptually limit the opportunities of action to a smaller set (Phillips & Zuckerman,
2001): those who have arrived at the top and benefit from the rewards might find it less
necessary to continue striving as those who lead do not benefit from advancing beyond
their leadership position. Here, it becomes apparent that it may not be those who stand at
the top to best resemble the values identified in the study, but rather those who rise the
fastest – the leaders of the change in status. Those who challenge their still-superior
competitors most effectively best resemble that concept illustrated by enhancement,
openneness-to-change, and lacking regard for conserving the status quo. In consequence,
job-seekers expect to find a set of values with those who lead today, but might find a
closer match with those who will lead tomorrow.
4.4.2 Value fit, prestige preference satisfaction, and attractiveness
This study finds that both value-based fit with and providing status information on an
employer both positively influence attractiveness, as expected. However, while both fit
and status provide significant influences upon attractivness, meeting status preferences
of job-seekers has a substantially greater influence (44% increase in effect coefficients)
upon attractiveness than fit.
Throughout the presented study, prestige appeared to be a more salient motivator than
value-based fit. Among other differentiations, prestige has been primarily identified to
attract individuals to a group while fit has been identified to retain individuals with a
group. An individual who is driven by prestige will likely advance to the next, more
valuable social context as soon as the opportunity opens up (Bidwell et al., 2014). An
individual who is driven by fit, however, might chose more carefully to find a context
from which to advance may be more difficult. This difficulty arises from information
asymmetry: a change out of the current context also means a deficit of information on the
new context. This deficit is difficult to overcome and, thus, a more favorable evaluation
of fit with the next environment is difficult to generate. This challenge is even more
pronounced as evaluating fit – particularly on the basis of a construct as complex as work-
152
oriented values – is a complex cognitive task while comparing the status of two
employers is much more efficient.
4.5 Conclusion
PO fit and prestige preference are both substantial influences upon perceived attractive-
ness of employers. Prestige, however, generates a greater influence than PO fit. While
the difference may be explained through the advantages of prestige in terms of commu-
nicative efficiency over the more complex value-based fit, the difference in effects ap-
pears substantial.
4.5.1 Findings
Our findings evaluate both value based PO fit and prestige orientation as well as the
derivative satisfaction thereof in light of their influence on employer attractiveness. I find
that providing status information about an employer steers estimations of prevalent value
patterns with the employer. Specifically, findings suggest a significant increase in self-
enhancement values such as achievement and power orientation and openness-to-change
values such as self-direction and stimulation for those organizations illustrated to be
among the leading of a sector. Contrary, leading employers were perceived to be
significantly less oriented on conservation values such as conformity and tradition.
Furthermore, this study finds that both value-based fit with and providing status
information on an employer both positively influence attractiveness, as expected.
However, while both fit and status provide significant influences upon attractivness,
meeting status preferences of job-seekers has a substantially greater influence (44%
increase in effect coefficients) upon attractiveness than fit.
Thereby, the findings of this chapter provide insight to answer the research questions that
inspired the study:
3) What does PEP entail with regard to individuals’ attitudes and behavior?
a. How does prestige imprint on the perception of employers?
The findings of this study presented that even minute information on the social
positioning of employers shifts the estimated value profile toward both self-en-
hancement values as well as stimulation and, to a lesser degree, self-direction.
Beyond this qualitative impact of prestige in terms of the perceived value profile,
prestige also promotes greater attractiveness overall.
153
b. How does the satisfaction of prestige preference compare to the satisfaction of
person-organization fit?
This study finds that both the satisfaction of prestige preferences and value-based
PO fit significantly predict attractiveness. In comparison, however, the satisfac-
tion of prestige preferences has a substantially stronger influence on perceived
attractiveness when compared to the influence of value-based fit.
4.5.2 Limitations
While the presented study yielded valuable insights on the impact of both value-based
PO fit and prestige preference on attractiveness, it is not free from limitations. First, the
investigation of the findings is limited to the available data. The project that facilitated
the gathering of the data was also carried out at other settings with the aim to arrive at an
evaluation of the stability and generalizability of the findings. However, the replication
studies did not yield sample sizes to allow for comparable statistical analysis. The project
will, however, be revived and continued to extend the set of data and provide the related
results workshops to a greater target group so that extending the foundation of data and
the potential of comparatively investigating the effects across samples will become
possible. Second, this study is limited to the assessments of perceptions and does not
cover the observation of actual behavior. While observation of behavior provides a strong
case with regard to immediately derivable implications, this study’s aim is not necessarily
to immediately imply specific steps to be taken, but rather to reconsider the psychological
mechanisms entailed with an ever more competitive market and to, then, plan responses
accordingly. Third, this study was limited by its setting in terms of ethical considerations:
this study has been supported and hosted by the Career Serivces Center of University of
St. Gallen (HSG). Consequently, more elaborate experimental set-ups were considered,
however could not be implemented due to the potential implications of experimental
manipulations on the perception of the survey as a document provided by this institution
of the university.
4.5.3 Practical implications
There are three distinct recommendations that can be given with regard to the interplay
of prestige-induced value-perceptions and the different strenghts of influence of value-
based fit and prestige preference satisfaction.
First, high-status businesses who subscribe to a set of values that is not primarily
characterized by self-enhancement or openness-to-change ought to consider the effect
154
that their mere position will have upon recruitment, job-seeker expectations, and possible
turnover. Effects may be considered positive (job-seekers who are driven by a more
personal value focus may induce more performance-oriented drive into the organization)
or negative (job-seekers might introduce a culture that lacks compatibility with the
established corporate culture). Amending employer branding campaigns to focus rather
on the intended set of values than on the prestige of the employer may alleviate this effect
to a certain degree.
Conversely, businesses lacking distinct status who subscribe to a set of values that are
characterized by self-enhancement and openness-to-change and consider themselves
challengers ought to consider the effect that their mere position will have upon
attractiveness. Effects may be considered positive (job-seekers who are driven by a more
social value focus may induce more social-oriented stability into the organization) or
negative (job-seekers may find it more difficult to subscribe to the notion of a
successfully striving and quickly-ascending challenger to the top). Amending employer
branding campaigns to focus rather on the intended set of values than on the vertical
position of the employer may alleviate this effect to a certain degree.
Finally, meeting prestige preferences appears as a more effective influence on
attractiveness than a perceived fit on values. Depending on the strategic orientation and
competitive direction of the respective employer, any pathway to attractiveness may
prove valuable. However, more specifically, businesses ought to ask to whom and why
they are particularly attractive. Depending on the answer to this question, businesses
ought to consider how they structure and develop their relationships and advancement
opportunities for employees to either generate lasting employer-employee relationships
and minimize turnover costs, or to foster a higher frequency of exchange and benefit from
the resulting greater reach of a network of alumni.
4.5.4 Theoretical implications and outlook
This research integrates theoretical concepts of organizational psychology, research on
status, and applies them to the context of recruitment to investigate the competing roles
of value-based fit and prestige preference. The presented results are being discussed in
light of increasing competitive pressure and consequentially rising demand for efficiency
and for simplification of signaling and evaluative assessments.
There are multiple pathways to extend on this research. First, replication studies would
be valuable in confirming and extending the generalizability of the provided insight. It
would be particularly interesting to see how prestige prompts impact value estimates of
155
participants in a variety of cultural settings: the suggestion of prestige likely has different
meanings in different cultures.
Second, studies might extend on the notion of the precedence of prestige over more com-
plex assessments in increasingly competitive markets due to the rising need for effi-
ciency. Here, both a psychological and economist perspective might prove particularly
valuable to refine the theory on signaling in order to arrive at a better understanding with
regard to the benefits and detriments of the degrees of freedom within signaling.
Third, in a more applied vein, research on countering the general trend toward prestige
and away from more complex but potentially more worthwhile assessment of multidi-
mensional fit would help to transfer the generated insight closer to those managing em-
ployer brands. Outcomes of this research might include recommendations on the
combination of prestige and value in order to achieve both an easily perceptible and val-
uable employer value proposition and a basis for substantial fit in order to avoid unman-
aged attrition.
This list is by no means conclusive and highlights only a small selection of research op-
portunities linked with this particular phenomenon. As the demographic change intensi-
fies in terms of its effect on the labor market in the next decade, the subject of recruitment
and, particularly, the role of simplified signaling in an ever more competitive market, will
likely become more important to most businesses. Consequentially, this avenue of re-
search and its findings will be in high demand.
156
5 Prestige preference and confidence
Businesses depend on sound decision making of their leadership for the development and
implementation of strategies (Cyert & March, 1963; Jensen & Meckling, 1976; March,
Simon, & Guetzkow, 1993; Rumelt, 1997), making or avoiding investments (Drakos &
Konstantinou, 2013; Petkova, Wadhwa, Xin Yao, & Jain, 2014), hiring and firing staff
(Sekiguchi & Huber, 2011), and any other managerial subject offering multiple
alternative paths of action (Challagalla, Murtha, & Jaworski, 2014; Phillips, Fletcher,
Marks, & Hine, 2016; van Knippenberg, Dahlander, Haas, & George, 2015). To support
these managerial decision making processes, management research has provided a range
of epitomal frameworks (Porter, 2008), recommendations (Tuli, Kohli, & Bharadwaj,
2007), and guides (Drucker, 1995) in order to steer those in charge in the rationally
appropriate, the most likely most profitable direction for action.
However, optimal decision making relies on more than information and frameworks for
planning the optimal course of action. A psychologist’s perspective adds the necessity of
the manager’s psychological capabilities in terms of rational and unbiased decision
making as crucial to arriving at even above-average results (Amir & Ariely, 2007;
Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). As a testament to the role of emotions alone in the decision
making process, we point to the evolution of the term “rational decision making” in the
1940s (Weber, 1946a) to “bounded rationality” in the 1950s and 1960s, indicating the
growing role of emotions in decision making (Simon, 1991), and “bounded emotionality”
of the most recent decades, indicating the marginalization of purely rational thought in
decision making, to the most recent coining of “unbounded irrationality” characterizing
organizational narcissism (Stein, 2003).
Among those influences who have proven most delicate, there is a group of related
behavioral phenomena that stand out as particularly risky to businesses’ survival:
managerial hubris (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005; Kets de Vries, 1990; Tang, Qian, Chen, &
Shen, 2015), overconfidence (Hilton, Régner, Cabantous, Charalambides, & Vautier,
2011; van Zant & Moore, 2013), and organizational narcissism (Blair et al., 2008; Kausel
et al., 2015; Owens, Johnson, & Mitchell, 2013). All three have distinct characteristics,
but they share the same root of individuals extending their ideal and potentially inflated
perception of their own capabilities and expectations on future achievements into
equations estimating the success of their planned actions. The specific definition of
managerial hubris refers to the “exaggerated self-confidence or pride often with the
connotation that retribution will follow” (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005, p. 306). Management
hubris was originally investigated as an explanation to business acquisition activity which
was carried out contrary to the lack of positive expectations (Hayward & Hambrick,
157
1997). As such, it is a term of management research and organizational psychology that
captures a specific application of overconfidence in a managerial context. The specific
definition of overconfidence is threefold, pointing to either overestimation
(systematically overestimating unknown facts), better-than-average effect
(overestimating the own capabilities), and overprecision (overestimating the precision of
estimates) phenomena (Moore & Healy, 2008). The specific definition of organizational
narcissism is the perceived exceptional uniqueness of the organization as it is experienced
by their employees, leading to exaggerated pride and, in turn, to the perception of the
organization being flawless (Stein, 2003, p. 529).
Critically, recent research has provided several key theoretical contributions that allow
further and more complete investigation into the relationship that connect prestige-driven
behavior and the complex of phenomena described by and related to overconfidence:
First, identification with prestigious organizations has long been proposed to be pursued
for the resulting increase in self-esteem (Cameron & Ulrich, 1986; Mael & Ashforth,
1992; March et al., 1993). A desire for increased self-esteem is semantically connected
to overconfidence as an increase in self-esteem means an increase of subjective
evaluation of self-worth. In a context of productive outcome, where own capabilities
determine to a large degree the quality of the result, a desire for increased self-esteem
appears to provide the motivational requirements for overconfident behavior as a well-
calibrated behavior would not provide any satisfaction to the initial desire.
Second, overconfidence has more recently been shown to provide a viable strategy for
increasing status (Anderson et al., 2012b; Kennedy et al., 2013) – thus, illustrating the
phenomenon in the reverse direction. Individuals who act overconfidently in a social
setting appear as more capable as they are expected to back-up their optimistic plans and
are thus frequently accorded higher offices or social ranks.
Finally, my own research links the motives of PEP to RF on promotion and increased
SCO (see the elaboration on the nomological network of the PEP scale in section 3.1.3
for the theoretical development and 3.2.7 for the results of the empirical work). Both
psychological predispositions have been shown to support risk affinity (Avnet & Higgins,
2006; Bryant & Dunford, 2008).
To sum up these more recent findings, arriving at the conclusion that prestige-driven
behavior may be connected to overconfident behavior appears as a hypothesis worthwhile
of investigation. This would, in turn, introduce a novel perspective on the impact of high
prestige of organizations and prestige’s influence upon the psychological inclination of
its applicant pool and workforce.
158
Going beyond this initial train of thought, we return to the notion of psychological
capabilities being critical to the quality of managerial decision making. In order to
alleviate detrimental results in individual decision making, businesses have embraced the
practice of group decision making as a way to ensure decisions taken match the interest
of the company, complement capabilities, coordinate action, and generally help alleviate
the limitations of the individual decision maker (Steckel, Corfman, Curry, Gupta, &
Shanteau, 1991).
However, just as group decision making provides the basis for improved decision
making, it has received continued scientific attention for its potential for biases (Aldag &
Riggs Fuller, 1993; Frisch, 2008; Kahneman, Lovallo, & Sibony, 2011; Moorhead,
Ference, & Neck, 1991). Specifically within the context of prestige-driven behavior, what
is put in place in order to increase the quality of decision making – group decision making
– can be identified as a new and profound source of threat when considering recent
findings:
Group decision settings provide the potential for self-presentation (Leary et al., 2014;
Schlenker, 2011), impression management (Stevens & Kristof, 1995), and self-
enhancement (Kurman & Eshel, 1998; Zuckerman, 2006). This provides the context of
rewards for behavior that illustrates exceptional performance, goals, and overall
capability in relation to organizational aims and advancement, integrating the individual
strategy of self-presentation with the suggestion of pro-social engagement of pushing the
business forward with a more daring decision (Kafashan, Sparks, Griskevicius, &
Barclay, 2014). In this social context, confident behavior has been identified to provide
status within the respective decision group (Anderson et al., 2012b; Kennedy et al., 2013).
Consequently, we theorize on the link of prestige-orientation with confidence. This link
likely becomes more pronounced in the common and particularly noteworthy context of
group decision making. In line with several reports on organizational narcissism (Galvin,
Lange, & Ashforth, 2015; Grijalva & Zhang, 2015; Stein, 2003), we expect that
prestigious employers face a constellation of motives and procedures that, in light of the
only emergent research on the phenomenon, warrants more detailed investigation.
In connection to the research questions first presented in the introduction and supported
in the second chapter of this dissertation, we investigate the follwing question:
What does PEP entail with regard to individuals’ behavior?
c. How may prestige preference impact the performance of individuals in the organi-
zation?
159
To operationalize this question, we build upon our insight generated and reported in the
exploration of the nomological network of PEP and investigate the role of RF in the
generation of (over-)confidence for two specific reasons: first, RF provides an additional
and established way of measurement in preparation of the study itself and, second, RF
provides the opportunity to suggest strategies for alleviating potential effects as RF has
been shown to act as both trait-like and situational and, thus, provides the opportunity for
situational manipulation.
Investigating this complex interrelation of prestige-driven behavior and overconfidence,
we build on RF theory (Higgins, 2012). We examine the role of promotion as opposed to
prevention focus on decision making in both individual and group settings in a market
entry scenario. Results of the quasi-experimental study show strong effects of group
composition with regard to RF on group decision making behavior in dyadic teams: both-
prevention, mixed, and both-promotion-oriented teams were linked by a linear trend
showing underconfident, neutral, and overconfident behavior. Furthermore, we find that
prevention focus in group settings has the power to reverse prior positive evaluations
reached in prior individual decision making. Additionally, my results imply that
individuals seem to develop global decisions reasoned on the basis of local self-reflection
with regard to their own competency and performance evaluations. On the contrary and
more critically, we find evidence that in group situations, the impact of RF pierces
through this self-reflective process by directly and strongly influencing market entry
decision making. These findings enable us to contribute to a better understanding of the
relationship connecting prestige-driven behavior and overconfidence. We point to
potential remedies within the framework of indicated antecedents and generate actionable
insight into improving decision making in a strategic marketing context.
In the remainder of this paper, we present the development of our hypotheses, introduce
the set-up of the study, and subsequently outline the study’s results, its implications as
well as limitations with suggestions for further research.
5.1 Theory
Extensive theory on both RF theory and overconfidence merits a more extensive review
than what may be achieved in the constraints of this brief theoretical introduction. How-
ever, for both theoretical constructs, there are broad and integrative literature reviews and
meta-analyses available on RF (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Gorman et al., 2012; Higgins,
2012) and overconfidence (Moore & Healy, 2008; Plous, 1995; Shipman & Mumford,
160
2011). Pointing to these resources allows me to focus this theoretical foundation on effi-
ciently presenting the essentials for this study.
5.1.1 Regulatory focus
Two fundamental survival-related needs steer basic human behavior, the need for security
and the need for nurturance (Higgins 1997). RF theory builds on this duality of needs by
introducing two independent goal pursuit strategies: (a) promotion focus and (b)
prevention focus. Promotion focus emphasizes individuals’ striving for the achievement
of ideal situations and gains and thus is related to self-fulfillment and growth. Prevention
focus rather comprises behaviors such as meeting one’s obligations and thus entails
aspects such as security and protection (Higgins 1997, 2001). More concretely,
promotion focus, on the one hand, might lead individuals to invest significant amounts
of effort into a project in order to be rewarded with success – relating to an individual’s
perception of the successful “ideal self”. On the other hand, prevention focus might cause
individuals to eliminate effects being detrimental to the project in order to avoid failure
– relating to the individual’s perception of the “ought self” and pointing towards duties,
responsibilities and obligations. (Higgins 1987, 1997)
Even though both foci might be existent in the very same person, RF has been shown to
be at least partially chronic and not changeable as individuals still have a persistent
tendency for one of the two foci as a result of their parents’ education or their social
environment (Avnet and Higgins 2006).
Whereas RF theory has been widely researched in the field of consumer behavior, only
recently, the theory’s underlying assumptions have been adapted in organizational
behavior research and comprise studies investigating direct and moderating influences of
RF on company identification, employee motivation, and commitment (Dewett and
Denisi 2007; Johnson et al. 2010; Markovits et al. 2008; Meyer et al. 2004; van Dijk and
Kluger 2011), or on the quality of the relationship between leaders and subordinates (de
Cremer et al. 2009; Neubert et al. 2008; Stam et al. 2010b; Stam et al. 2010a; Taylor-
Bianco and Schermerhorn 2006).
Potential effects of RF on strategic decision making in an organizational context,
however, have received surprisingly little scientific attention in spite of its high relevance
to management practitioners. Exceptions are Bryant and Dunford (2008) who
theoretically developed propositions interpreting RF as a priming mechanism for risk
affinity or avoidance as well as Spanjol and Tam (2010) who provided experimental
evidence of the impact of RF on a dyadic team’s propensity to enact change in a brand
161
management scenario. Levine et al. (2000), in turn, gave experimental evidence for the
effect of guiding shared reality perception in groups by regulatory-focus priming. Their
experimental studies suggested a higher risk-affinity in groups with promotion focus but
did not integrate their findings towards the overarching concept of overconfidence.
5.1.2 Overconfidence
Overconfidence has been frequently illustrated as a particularly detrimental effect that
results from cognitive bias. To follow a comprehensive literature review, theoretical
modeling and empirical support presented in (Moore & Healy, 2008; Moores & Chang,
2009), overconfidence has been framed in three distinct ways: first, as overestimation of
one’s own actual ability, performance, level of control, or chance of success; second,
overplacement, estimating the own performance to be better than those of others; and
third, overprecision as excessive certainty regarding the accuracy of one’s own belief.
Moore and Healy offer an empirically founded, theoretical approach modeling an
information-based reasoning for overconfidence. They argue that, upon completing a
task, people have imperfect information about their own performance and even less
information about the performance of others. Thus, estimation of own performance is
regressive due to this lack of information but estimation of performance of others is even
more regressive due to even less information. In comparison, own performance-estimates
tend to be higher than performance-estimates of others, thus confidence rises above
calibrated levels since information does not influence performance but just estimation
behavior. (ibid)
Overconfidence has been observed as a cause of behavior, inspiring people to engage
entrepreneurially (Bernardo & Welch, 2001; Koellinger, Minniti, & Schade, 2007), to
trade investments more frequently (Abreu & Mendes, 2012; Berg & Lein, 2005; Deaves,
Lüders, & Schröder, 2010; Ho, 2013; Lambert, Bessière, & N’Goala, 2012; Montgomery
& Bradlow, 1999; Sonsino & Regev, 2013), to insure less (Sandroni & Squintani, 2013),
to introduce more risky products (Simon & Houghton, 2003). More detailed,
overconfidence changes the immediate perception of problems, procedural, and
emotional responses in their solving: overconfidence leads to actors neglecting to use
decision making aids (Sieck & Arkes, 2005) and to experience positive outcomes less
positive (London, McSeveney, & Tropper, 1971; McGraw, Mellers, & Ritov, 2004).
Furthermore, overconfidence has been shown to not only imprint detrimentally, but also
qualitatively on, e.g., leadership styles with low-confidence leaders strengths in planning
and vision formation and high-confidence leaders strengths in making effective vision
statements (Shipman & Mumford, 2011).
162
In research on overconfidence as a dependent variable, several factors have been
investigated as antecedents and potential venues for alleviation: first, antecedental,
overconfidence has been described as a result of wrongfully underweighing the
alternative (McKenzie, 1997) to the preferred, fixed-upon option (Sieck, Merkle, & van
Zandt, 2007). Likewise, but implemented in a more specific social context of a confident
actor and his competitors, overconfidence is the phenomenon of a biased social
comparison process (Larrick et al., 2007; Moore & Cain, 2007). Furthermore, research
has investigated the role of experience in alleviating the detrimental effects of
overconfidence and found the bias to either persist or increase with experience (Chen,
Kim, Nofsinger, & Rui, 2007; McKenzie, Liersch, & Yaniv, 2008; Menkhoff, Schmeling,
& Schmidt, 2013). Also, overconfidence in actors has been found to be subject to changes
based on cultural background of actors (Yates, Lee, & Bush, 1997; Yates, Lee, &
Shinotsuka, 1996).
Research in overconfidence appears as a both highly topically focussed and extensive
field. Furthermore, the field’s maturity is reflected in a sizeable critical discussion on the
topic. This critical discussion is, in part, focusing on the validity of conceptualization
(Ayton & McClelland, 1997; Brenner, Koehler, Liberman, & Tversky, 1996; Dawes &
Mulford, 1996; Hill, Kern, & White, 2014), terminology (Fellner & Krügel, 2012;
Klayman, Soll, Gonzalez-Vallejo, & Barlas, 1999), measurement methodology (Glaser,
Langer, & Weber, 2013; Griffin & Varey, 1996; Grossman & Owens, 2012; Olsson,
2014; Soll, 1996). Several criticisms point to important and critical artefacts in
measurement in early research designs. However, copious amounts of studies provide
support for the concept of individual and situative levels of confidence within people and
the accumulation and predictability of notable behavioral consequences of extreme levels
of confidence.
5.1.3 Hypotheses
Following the trail of evidence pointing to risk affinity in promotion-oriented decision
makers, we investigate along an extension of these prior findings testing hypothesized
links between chronic RF and overconfidence in a strategic decision making context of
market entry. The detrimental effects of overconfidence, the psychological pattern of
overestimating one’s own ability, ability relative to others and / or excessive precision in
one’s beliefs (Moore and Healy 2008), have been assessed to reach dimensions that “no
problem in judgment and decision making is more prevalent and more potentially
catastrophic than overconfidence” (Plous 1993). In the scenario setting of market entry
in our study, we focus on the overconfidence meaning relating to self-efficacy of an
163
individual by itself and in comparison to others, arguing that these interpretations of the
overconfidence concept are more likely of specific relevance to market entry evaluations
than overrating the precision of unknown-fact-estimation. Moreover, we argue that
promotion-focused decision makers will behave even more overconfident in a social
setting. We support our argument by the notion that promotion focus antecedes alignment
of the “actual self” with the “ideal self”, motivated by the need for growth and
development (Brockner and Higgins 2001). Consistent with theories such as social
influence (Kelman 1958) in general and impression management or self-presentation
(Archibald and Cohen 1971) in particular, this alignment behavior is likely to be
reinforced in a social setting where the alignment with an “ideal self” is constructed
jointly.
Since individuals want to be seen as competent by their fellows, we propose that
promotion-focused individuals tend to behave more confident in a group setting in order
to impress others and thus are heavily influenced by them. In this context, a recent study
could show that confident behavior indeed increases perceived competence and, in turn,
even social status (Anderson et al. 2012). Thus, following the trail of evidence provided
by referred research, we argue that strong chronic promotion focus in both members of a
dyadic team of market entry decision makers has a significant impact on the evaluation
of market entry success under conditions of high uncertainty. In turn, we expect that
chronic prevention focus in both members of the team will decrease the chances of
positive evaluation of the same market entry option. Finally, we argue that constructing
a team of mixed RF counterbalances RF effects, thus negating both team member’s trim
towards over- or underconfidence.
Hypothesis 1: Group composition with regard to RF predicts market entry evaluation.
The stronger promotion-oriented the team, the more it behaves overconfident with regard
to market entry evaluation.
As a further consequence of the influence of the group-setting upon group decision
making, we continue to hypothesize that social influence and impression management
effects provide potential for group settings to realign any individual decisions that do not
appear appropriate with regard to the group’s regulatory focus composition. As social
settings have previously been shown to make the own regulatory focus more salient, we
propose that any individually optimistic prevention-focused participant may be “reigned
in” by another prevention-focused participant while any pessimistic promotion-focused
participant may be “cheered up” by another promotion-focused participant. Groups with
mixed regulatory focus participants do not experience this alignment as the members of
these teams are not provided with a like-minded counterpart to convince them of the more
164
appropriately prevention- or promotion-framed behavior. Consequently, we propose that
group compositions based on RF have an impact on changing prior decisions when
comparing prior individual evaluation with later group evaluation of the same market
entry.
Hypothesis 2: Group composition with regard to RF predicts the change of market entry
evaluation from individual to group decision making. Members of teams with strongly
promotion-focused participants experience positive changes in evaluation in higher
frequency than members of dyadic teams with strongly prevention-focused participants.
Dyadic teams of opposing regulatory foci do not show predispositions with regard to
changing prior beliefs of their members and act as a baseline.
Again, building on the notion of social affirmation in decision making, we expect that
regulatory focus becomes more effective in terms of its impact on decision making in a
social setting than in an individual setting. The presented decision task involves a
substantial evaluation procedure to simulate a real-world complexity of arriving at the
appropriate decision. Thus, building not only on own information and estimates, but also
on the perspectives of a team-mate to arrive at the best choice gives further salience to
the path of reasoning of the respective team-mate. Proposing a self-strengthening group
effect of two group members of promotional focus, we argue that the effect of RF onto
market entry decision making increases from individual to group stage.
Hypothesis 3: Social decision making moderates the effect strength of RF on
overconfidence. The effect of RF on overconfidence is higher for decisions made in a
group setting than for decisions made by an individual.
5.2 Methodology
As a minor part of an unrelated survey on distribution strategy six weeks prior to the main
study, participants were asked to complete an eleven-item-battery measuring both their
promotion and prevention foci (Higgins et al. 2001). Confirmatory factor analysis yielded
acceptable psychometric properties for both constructs (promotion scale: M=6.71,
SD=1.06, α=.73 , prevention scale: M=5.95, SD=1.59, α=.80) and also indicated that both
constructs are unidimensional and have discriminant validity. The latter finding
confirming prior research allowed us to establish a composite of both foci (relProm,
abbreviated “relative promotional orientation with regard to RF”) by subtracting
prevention factor scores from the promotion factor score. This was done in order to
identify the individuals’ dominance of one focus over the other.
165
5.2.1 Participants
56 students of business administration in varying stages of advancement participated in
the main multi-stage study (mean age=23 years; 69.6% male). Participants were
incentivized with USD 20 which served as a symbol for effort investment. Participants
were categorized by quartiles of relProm distribution in three groups of weak promotion
focus (bottom quartile), intermediate promotion focus (lower middle quartile or upper
middle quartile) and strong promotion focus (top quartile). Based on categorization, 48
participants could be grouped in 24 groups of two participants in three predefined chronic
RF combinations: first, both strongly prevention oriented (16 groups), second, a
counterbalanced control group of opposing foci with comparable dominance (18 groups)
and, third, both strongly promotion-oriented (14 groups). Eight participants could not be
grouped according to above described structure due to lack of suitable RF partners. They
also took part in the study, but their responses were excluded from the analysis of group
decision making with regard to above-stated compositions.
5.2.2 Procedure
The scenario of this study asked participants to put themselves into the position of a
partner at a college-based business consultancy. Participants were instructed to evaluate
a business opportunity of entering into a new field: the consulting of firms in the
pharmaceutical market. Participants were instructed to prepare individually, to later hold
a meeting with an equally prepared team mate and make a joint decision on investing
effort into the proposed market entry. Outcome of this meeting is the decision on whether
the market entry idea should be pitched to the investors of the consultancy, roughly a
month later. A positive decision reflected confident behavior with regard to being able to
lead the venture to success, justifying investment of effort to pitch the project to investors,
represented by both participants’ combined USD 40. Reward for their investment, USD
120, was paid out to the top third of participants with regard to their estimation
performance. A negative decision reflected non-confident behavior indicating doubt in
own competency and high estimated likeliness to fail, securing each participant only a
small gain of USD 20 by declining to invest for potential profit.
The procedure of the study followed four central phases: First, participants were greeted,
seated, handed out USD 20, and introduced to the individual part of the study. Second,
participants independently read scenario descriptions and completed estimation tasks.
Third, each pair of participants was joined in a meeting room and instructed to discuss
and jointly fill out the same questionnaire as before, arriving at joint estimates for the
questions asked and a joint decision for investing or keeping the money. Finally, if the
166
team agreed to invest the money, the bills were collected. If the team did agree not to
invest, both participants kept their bills.
First, as a key indicator for business performance, participants were asked to estimate the
general market environment. Second, the participant’s knowledge on market-specific
issues was investigated by instructing to estimate a battery of eight binary items on the
development of the market, e. g., “The pharmaceutical market of country X had a volume
of USD 4.88 billion. In 2010, this market volume was [higher / lower].” With regard to
self-assessment, participants had to continually evaluate their performance. Every
individual sub-task included a local self-assessment, e. g., “How likely is it that this
estimate is correct?”. Third, both phases of the study included questions on their
estimated performance and potential: “How likely is it that you will receive recognition
for a good market evaluation?” and “How likely is it that the investors will go ahead with
the market entry?” Fourth, in the individual phase, participants were asked to select one
of two statements which most likely represented their feelings about the project’s
potential, e. g., “I am pretty certain about my estimates. We think that the investors will
put their confidence in us and that we are going to be successful. Let’s bet our success
and take this opportunity!” In the group situation, participants were asked to agree to
either invest or not invest on pitching the market entry idea to the investors, e. g., “We
feel pretty certain about our estimates and chose to invest the effort to take this chance.”
5.3 Results
In order to investigate the first hypothesis, we carried out analysis of variance (ANOVA)
to evaluate distinctiveness of group compositions with regard to decision behavior on
market entry employing a logistic regression model due to the dependent variable’s
binary scale. There was a significant effect of group composition on market entry
decision making (F(1,45)=13.85, p<.001). Since the constructed groups can be
interpreted as interval scaled (groups with participants identified to both be part of the
bottom quartile of relative promotion orientation were codified as 1, those of
counterbalancing participants as 2, and those of the top quartile of relative promotion
orientation as 3), we performed a trend analysis (see Kirk 1995) to further investigate the
pattern of the group composition on decision behavior. Trend analysis revealed a highly
significant linear (F(2,45)=6.78, p=.003) but no quadratic or cubic trends across the
groups, see also Figure 13. Groups of two prevention-oriented participants behaved
underconfident and decided for market entry in only 25% of the cases. Groups with
counterbalancing RF members behaved almost perfectly calibrated and decided
positively in 55.6% of present cases. When two participants of promotion-based
167
orientation jointly evaluated the market entry option, overconfident behavior became
apparent and 85.7% of these groups decided to enter the market. These findings give
support to the first hypothesis stating that the dominant RF has a strong effect on group
decision making.
Figure 13 – Own illustration of linear trend in group composition on entry decision
In order to investigate the second hypothesis, we carried out additional ANOVA to
evaluate distinctiveness of group compositions with regard to the development of the
decision behavior on market entry, comparing individual and group stage of the study.
For this, changes from a positive decision in individual phase to a negative decision in
the group phase were coded as 0, changes of opposite direction as 1. Observations that
did not change were not entered into the sample, resulting in 14 observations (4 instances
in which decisions turned positive in group setting, 10 instances to the contrary).
Employing the same approach to the analysis as above, we found evidence for the
predicted effect of group composition on the development of market entry decisions from
individual to group stage (F(1,12)=5.93, p=.031). Trend analysis was carried out to
determine direction of the effect. Again, the results revealed a linear (F(2,12)=2.049,
p=.049) and no quadratic or cubic trends across the groups. These findings help explain
the impact of dominant RF on group decision making even further: Not only does group
168
composition with regard to RF influence market entry decision making, but it also has
significant impact on changing an individual’s initial decision if it does not match group
RF. Group compositions of two prevention-oriented participants changed prior individual
decision for the market entry from positive to negative in 5 cases (31.3 % of this group
condition’s cases). Participants of groups with counterbalancing RF participants resulted
in 8 cases (44.4%), 3 of which changed their mind to a positive evaluation and 5 chose
opposing the market entry. Groups with promotion focus showed a single case (7.1%) in
which the participant chose positively. It becomes apparent that, particularly in this final
case, the relatively small number of participants weakens this particular evidence that we
can have in the effect of group-constellations of promotion-oriented participants onto
changing decision making behavior from an individual to a group phase. While
acknowledging this, we, however, point to the strong evidence for the effect of
prevention-oriented behavior on a negative development of decisions on the particular
market entry project. Thus, we find first support for the second hypothesis but are not
prepared to announce full evidence of this hypothesis.
To assess the third hypothesis, we shift the focus of our analysis onto the effect of
relProm on confidence measures of self-evaluation as well as the decision whether or not
to enter the market. We found support for influences of the individual participants’ RF
orientation onto both self-evaluation measures: Not only did relProm show a positive
effect (ßstand=.334, p=.012) on estimated probability of having performed among the best
third of all participants (R²=.095, F(1,54)=6.8, p=.012), relProm was also observed to
have a positive effect (ßstand=.273, p=.042) on the estimated likelihood of convincing the
board of investors (R²=.058, F(1,54)=4.36, p=.042). With regard to estimating market
entry, however, analysis of the data did not present the same clarity: Employing a logistic
regression model showed that the direct effect of individual relProm on likeliness of
market entry was only marginally significant (ßstand=1.0989, p=.094).
These initial results inspired further analysis, proposing a model positing relProm
influencing both local confidence measures (best-third-performance and investor-
convincing) which, in turn, influence the global confidence measure of evaluation of
market entry (see Figure 14). To analyze this additional proposition, we estimated these
proposed relationships simultaneously by employing a probit model with a weighted least
squares adjusted for mean and variances estimator using Mplus 6.12. The calculated
model shows, as expected, no significant influence of the individual participant’s RF on
the market entry decision (ßstand=.073, p=.688). However, effects of individual’s RF on
self-evaluative estimates were both significant and positive (with regard to being part of
the top third performing group: ßstand=.323, p=.017; with regard to going to impress the
169
board: ßstand=.292, p=.014). The effect of estimating being a “top third” performer on
market entry was, in turn, significant (ßstand=.432, p=.008) while the effect of estimating
the likelihood of being able to impress the board on market entry was only just marginally
significant (ßstand=.290, p=.056). Due to the low number of observations, this marginal
significance was accepted as initial support for the overall model of RF influencing local
confidence variables like estimating counting to a prestigious top-performer group and
being able to impress with performance. This, in turn, influenced market entry decision
making.
Figure 14 – Own illustration of SEM results for individual-level analysis.
To allow for comparison between individual and group behavior, we investigated the
simultaneous equation model also in the group decision making setting. Indeed, we
discovered the findings of the individual phase to be substantially changed: Here,
groupRelProm had a direct, strong effect on market entry likelihood (ßstand=.416, p=.032).
This was accompanied by a slight strengthening of effects of groupRelProm on local
confidence measures but a decrease of effect from local to global confidence measures
(see Figure 15).
170
Figure 15 – Own illustration of SEM results for group-level analysis
To conclude this part of the data analysis, it can be argued that while single decision
makers reflect on their local estimates of competency and likely reward to make a
judgment on market entry potential, group decision makers experience a direct effect of
group RF on decision making. With regard to the third hypothesis, we found substantial
support for a strongly increased effect of chronic RF predisposition in group decision
making. We found that the impact of RF on decision making changed from a mediated
effect via reflection on personal performance in individual setting to a strong, direct
impact in group decision making.
5.4 Discussion
The investigation of the link connecting RF on promotion and overconfidence provided
a range of five findings worthy of reflection in context of prior research and managerial
opportunities for benefit or alleviating response.
Our data supports the hypotheses that, first, promotion-focused decision makers decide
significantly more confident than prevention focused decision makers in a scenario of
market entry evaluation. More specifically, that when comparing group overconfidence
measures, we find that there was a positive, linear trend between groups of prevention-
focused participants, counterbalanced groups and groups of promotion-focused
participants. This finding fits well with the extant research that, in an attempt to better
illustrate the cognitive processes driving overconfidence, pointed to the individual
weighting of prefered options and underweighted alternatives (McKenzie, 1997; Sieck et
al., 2007). A strong promotion focus leads to the tendency to select and confirm a given
option of action, cementing a preference at the cost of flexibility. A strong prevention
focus leads to the tendency not to select, but more generally protect the desired outcome
171
from the range of possible detrimental effects, remaining flexible at the cost of
decisiveness. This is, again, mirrored in Shipman’s findings in the impact of different
confidence levels in leadership styles (Shipman & Mumford, 2011).
Second, we found that the amount of revised decisions in the direction to finally decide
against the market entry in a social context is significantly higher in groups of prevention
focused participants compared to counterbalanced groups or promotion-focused groups.
We find that group compositions with regard to RF have the power to align group
decisions with the prevalent composition of member characteristics. While the previous
finding acts as further support for the hypothesized relationship among promotion focus,
risk affinity, and confidence (Bryant & Dunford, 2008; Spanjol & Tam, 2010), this
insight extends prior findings by integrating alignment among group members in this
experimental set-up. This alignment process of likewise-focused group members
correcting previously and individually derived decisions that did not fit to the type of
decision fitting to the RF might best be explained through both group members eliciting
the appropriate goal-attainment strategy and resulting path of action in each other. As RF
has both a chronic and a situation component, group members likely act as short-term
manipulations on each other’s situational RF and, consequentially, decision processes.
Third, we discovered a larger mechanism linking RF to global confidence (market entry
decision making) not directly but mediated via confidence on local measures (self-
assessment on performance, estimation of the assessment by a board of investors) that
can be observed investigating both individual and group decision making.This finding
extends both previous findings insofar that it provides an illustration of the alignment and
strengthening process that had been previously theorized. The decision making scenario
put the participants in a context of uncertainty which, however, was connected to their
individual performance. This is illustrated in the significant and strong effect connecting
self-assessment with decision. In the social context, however, RF gains more salience
and, consequently, provides a significant basis for increase self-assessment and, in turn,
confidence.
5.5 Conclusion
Status and confidence appear to be closely linked. While this relationship was deductible
in terms of hypotheses from the extant literature, the substance of the impact, however,
remains surprisingly strong and multifaceted.
172
5.5.1 Findings
Our findings connect RF theory to overconfidence in both an individual and a social
decision making setting. We find that the aforementioned mechanism decreases in group
decision making where RF assumes the central role, strongly impacting on the decision.
Integrating these findings, we can present support for the link between promotion focus
and overconfidence. Moreover, we found evidence that if multiple promotion-focused
people make joint decisions, the decisions generated indicate even greater
overconfidence while dominance of prevention focus has the profound effect of revising
previously made individual overconfident decisions towards joint underconfident
decisions. Concluding, we found support for an effect of RF on the employed global
confidence measure mediated by local confidence measures.
Thereby, the findings of this chapter provide insight to answer the research questions that
inspired the study:
3) What does PEP entail with regard to individuals’ attitudes and behavior?
c. How may prestige preference impact the performance of individuals in the or-
ganization?
The exploration of the nomological network of PEP provided support for the link
between PEP, social comparison orientation, and regulatory focus. Following the
vein of regulatory focus and investigating performance in individual and social
settings
5.5.2 Limitations
While the presented study yielded intriguing results linking promotion focus to
overconfidence and, furthermore, an increased effect in group decision making, it is not
free from limitations. First and most obviously, sample size was at the brink of being too
small for quantitative analysis of many particularly interesting specific effects like
observing the change of decisions from individual to group decision making stage.
Especially the results of simultaneous equation models have to be considered with
caution in the presence of small sample sizes. Sample size, however, was limited due to
the rather complex set-up enabling insight into a complex theory as well as the relatively
high burden on participants to carry out study instructions over roughly 90 minutes for
comparably little financial compensation. Furthermore, manipulation of group
173
compositions which are central to the studies set up required acquisition of RF data of
roughly four times the amount of actual participants. However, having obtained the
significant results with this small sample size indicates a strong potential for the
underlying hypotheses in terms of replicability in larger study set-ups. Summing up, the
particular efforts we made to achieve this particular study set-up enables us to report
insights into a unique dataset on the interesting effects of promotion focus on confidence
in a social decision making setting.
5.5.3 Practical implications
We contributed to shedding light on antecedents to a cognitive bias, overconfidence,
which is known to cause detrimental performance in decision making. When observed in
an organizational scenario of marketing strategy formulation like market entry,
overconfident behavior is likely to increase the risk of failure of the venture, sinking
investments committed to the market entry, affecting general profitability and damaging
brand image (Roll 1986; Camerer and Lovallo 1999; Wu 2006; Koellinger 2007). Beyond
the organizational realm, instances of widespread overconfidence can have even more
disastrous effects: The world-wide financial crisis is just one of several examples (Moore
and Healy 2008; Puetz and Ruenzi 2006; Cheng 2007; Moores and Chang 2009).
While overconfidence in an individual decision making setting is detrimental, we could
still show that the effect of promotion focus on decisions made were not direct but
mediated by means of reflecting personal performance estimates. However, our data
suggest that this self-reflective behavior is being overridden when making decisions in
group settings. Here, RF assumes the central role that directly influences not only
decision making, but also has the potential to reverse previous, individually arrived
decisions.
Although we hypothesized the impact, the effect’s strength was surprisingly high. We
explain the strength of the effect by pointing to the social connotations of decision
making: In a social setting, acting causes signaling individual’s attitude, goal-
approaching behavior and performance orientation. All three observable aspects are
related to socially desirable signals of competence, expertise, prestige and occupational
status. We argue that, even in small dyadic groups, social considerations cause sizable
influences on rational actions such as evaluating and deciding a market entry.
However, these findings are alarming, since group decision making is common in today’s
business world of often rather flat hierarchies and high empowerment of employees
especially in many younger sectors. Unawareness of the implications of particular RF
174
constellations in teams are likely to have persistent effects on project outcomes and,
eventually, business profitability. Thus, the central actionable insight generated is that, in
order to increase group decision making performance, managers should take into
consideration their own chronic RF as well as the focus of the group of people they are
deciding with. Furthermore, we suggest to top-managers to be aware of the ramifications
of RF when composing decision-making-authorized teams in order to profit from
calibrated decisions made by their personnel.
Our findings mainly contribute to understanding one specific cause of overconfidence.
By making this step, however, we also advance into the position to contribute hints about
consequential new opportunities to remedy or, at least, alleviate the detrimental effects
of overconfidence.
Due to the role of promotion focus, we propose to increase efforts to test prevention focus
priming for potentially alleviating the detrimental effects of overconfidence. Priming for
prevention focus results in increasing a decision maker’s focus on the “ought self”,
obligations and duties with regard to the environment. In market entry decision making,
priming for prevention might act as a “behavioral due diligence procedure”. Conversely,
the impact of prevention focus lowering confidence is likely to be moderated by applying
promotion focus priming. A better understanding of the mechanisms behind
overconfidence helped us propose this remedy to the difficult cognitive bias of
overconfidence. Further research will be able to test and evaluate these propositions.
5.5.4 Theoretical implications and outlook
This research integrates theoretical concepts of organizational psychology, research on
status, and applies them to the context of decision making performance to investigate the
link connecting status-seeking and confidence in decision making. The presented results
are being discussed in light of their implications for the management of decision making
groups and potential procedural remedies. There are multiple pathways to extend on this
research. First, research on status and confidence has formed a body of extant insight that
would benefit from integration. Antecedents, characteristics, and implications of the link
between confidence and status-orientation deserve an integrative review both for future
advancement of research on this topic and to further develop the scientific landscape of
more critical and differentiated discussion on status.
Second, studies may find value to focus on the differentiation between those groups in
highest status and those groups attempting to generate the largest vertical mobility – those
“on the rise”. There is most likely a distinct difference in both groups with regard to the
175
instantiation of risk affinity as those who aim to rise might risk more in undertaking po-
tential high-return projects while those who are at the top might risk more in avoiding to
change due to complacency.
Third, the effect of status on decision making behavior would prove particularly valuable
to be discussed not only in terms of avoiding risk, but rather actively managing an organ-
izational risk portfolio. The link connecting status and confidence does not necessarily
introduce a strictly detrimental effect to an otherwise healthy system – it provides an
opportunity to structure and motivate individual groups to act according to their group’s
distinctive competitive context and goals.
This list is by no means conclusive and highlights only a small selection of research op-
portunities linked with this particular phenomenon. As the demographic change intensi-
fies in terms of its effect on the labor market in the next decade, the subject of recruitment
and, particularly, the role of simplified signaling in an ever increasing market, will likely
appreciate in relevance to most businesses. Consequentially, this avenue of research and
its findings will be in high demand.
176
6 Discussion
In times of increasingly satisfied markets, economic headwinds but never-diminishing
performance expectations, businesses find themselves competing not just for customers,
but in a variety of markets for a variety of resources, partners, and people to work with.
Consequently, businesses’ capabilities to create and maintain offers that represent value
to target groups – generally captured by the marketing department – has begun to evolve
from a distinct and separate management discipline to an integrated set of approaches and
tools that is governed and driven by the traditional aim of marketing: creating value. This
more integrated understanding of applying a marketing philosophy to the full breadth of
management disciplines is captured by the concept of market-oriented management,
much in line with the current definition of marketing according to the American Market-
ing Association.
Against the backdrop of a matured understanding and a broadened range of responsibili-
ties of marketing within the firm, this dissertation aims to support the proliferation of
marketing insight and methodology in a key organizational bridgehead with the ever
more competitive job market: recruiting. However, it does not follow the approach from
a great number of previous contributions that consider market-orientation for the job mar-
ket to be purely a question of capturing more attention. Instead, this dissertation aims at
transferring insight from marketing and consumer behavior research in order to generate
value and impact by extending previous insight in the recruiting domain. In doing so, I
strive to reach two goals: first, to leverage the potential of previous insight in a carefully
selected and evaluated context and second, to support the notion of market-oriented man-
agement as a key and fundamental capability for all management departments of a com-
petitive business.
6.1 Findings
In order to carefully delineate the research gap, this dissertation initially illustrates the
body of extant literature. This is done in two steps: first, in order to map the broad range
of literature on status on somewhat limited resolution, I present a quantitative analysis of
the body of research as it is being recognized by two dozen recent literature reviews from
seven disciplines. Second, in order to generate a more detailed understanding of the focus
of application and in order to delineate the research gap, I present a qualitative analysis
of the body of research as it presents itself in the vicinity of the suggested research gap.
Here, this dissertation contributes two distinct findings:
177
First, research on status appears extensive, lacking integration, and impeded by com-
monly ambiguous definitions. The integrated approach to reiterating and connecting ex-
tant findings attempts a systematic reduction of complexity that provides an integrative
overview, points to a selection of key scholars for contextualization, and derives a system
of definitions of key terms.
Second, research on status in recruitment, appears as emergent and still lacking maturity
in terms of a more critical appreciation of prestige as a factor of organizational attractive-
ness. The provided review points to the identified research gap, reiterates, and extends
the initially stated (section 1.3) research questions’ theoretical foundation (section 2.2.2).
Based on the revised research questions, I develop the individual studies and provide
insight based on their findings:
The first set of research questions that introduces this dissertation focuses on the motiva-
tional structure giving rise to individuals’ preference for prestigious employers: what are
the factors that drive preference for prestigious employers?; how can those factors most
appropriately be described and structured?; how can individual differences in prestige
preference be measured?
Based on a thorough and integrative literature review on status (section 2.1) and status in
recruitment (section 2.2), I elaborate on the transfer of the established FPSCB first on
theoretical grounds (section 3.1) and finally in an extensive development of a measure-
ment tool on PEP (section 3.2). As the empirical investigation provides good fit statistics,
I am providing the five-factor, 3rd-order construct as the most comprehensively developed
and evaluated instrument for investigating job-seekers’ propensity toward status (sections
3.2.1 through 3.2.6).
Findings suggest that prestige-driven behavior in job-seekers can be described in greater
detail by a construct of individual and social motives. Individual motives include the two
basal elements of well-being, i.e., hedonia (represented in the factor hedonism) and eu-
daimonia (perfectionism). Social motives include the two basal elements of social refer-
ence, i.e., individual identity (uniqueness) and group membership (association);
furthermore, a third social motive points to the strength and quality of the signal endowed
in a professional affiliation (conspicuousness). The findings provide a range of implica-
tions as the construct of factors underpinning PEP have versatile effects on individual,
social, and organizational psychology. E.g., we find perfectionism among the core factors
of the construct which emerged in clinical psychological research in terms of its patho-
logical nature, links to depression and workaholism. For an extensive discussion of the
individual factors, please refer to both the theoretical elaboration and the implications of
the measurement chapter.
178
The second set of research questions focuses on the implications of job-seekers’ prestige-
orientation with regard to related values, comparison, and goal orientation: what is the
nomological network of those factors driving PEP in terms of basic and work-oriented
values?; …in terms of orientation with regard to position and goals?
To contribute to answering this question, I provide the theoretical foundation (section
3.1.3) and findings of the empirical exploration of PEP’s nomological network (section
3.2.7). Furthermore, I build upon these findings to elaborate on the impact of prestige on
job-seekers’ perceptions in chapter 4 and to elaborate on the impact of prestige-orienta-
tion’s correlates on decision making behavior in chapter 5.
Findings suggest that prestige-driven behavior in job-seekers ought to be reflected in
context of its network of correlates, such as SCO (social motives) and RF on promotion
(individual motives) and self-enhancement values (overall). The findings empirically
confirm, extend, and contextualize prior elaborations on the link connecting both pres-
tige-orientation and self-enhancement values and the social and individual motives of
prestige-orientation with SCO and RF, respectively.
Finally, the third set of research questions advances to a more applied field and shifts the
research project’s focus to prestige-driven individuals’ resulting attitudes and behavior:
how does prestige imprint on the perception of employers? ; how does the satisfaction of
prestige preference compare to the satisfaction of person-organization fit? ; how may
prestige preference impact the performance of individuals in the organization?
To contribute to answering this question, I build upon the insights generated with regard
to the previous research questions and continue my elaboration along two veins indicated
by the investigation into the nomological network: first, work-related values (chapter 4)
and second, RF orientation (chapter 5).
With regard to the first study, findings suggest that prestige information on an employer
imprint on the expected set of work-values prevalent in the organization. Furthermore,
both prestige and value-based fit predict employer attractiveness. However, in immediate
comparison, the satisfaction of prestige preferences is accorded greater importance than
more complex to evaluate PO fit. With regard to the second study, findings suggest that
RF on promotion predicts a greater propensity to act overly confident, specifically in
teams of members with matching RF while teams with members of opposing RF appear
well balanced in their decisions.
As a consequence, this dissertation builds upon and extends existing fields of theory by
systematic theoretical elaboration, operationalization, and empirical application of new
structures to samples of participants in their respective setting, see Figure 16.
179
Figure 16 – Own illustration of theoretical positioning, research gap, and contribution
180
6.2 Limitations
This dissertation is not without limitations in terms of both methodological and scope
considerations. First, while the scale development included a substantial amount of eval-
uation with regard to factor analysis and nomological network, it did neither cover com-
plete cross-evaluation with established scales for each factor nor an investigation into the
temporal stability of PEP in participants. These limitations were, in part, caused by the
nature of the sample and collaborations undertaken to gather in-field data as, e.g., storing
and personalizing data on the prestige-orientation would have had a substantial impact
on the studies’ chances to attract participants. This limitation was met with an attempt to
counterbalance with particularly careful and close exchange and review in development
of the scale with three independent teams of career services centers at three universities.
Second, this dissertation benefited greatly from the collaboration with several experi-
enced career counseling institutions and experts in terms of enabling the gathering of data
and expert insight on the subject matter of recruiting and prestige-orientation in job-seek-
ers. However, the setting imposed some limitations upon the design of effective manip-
ulations with regard to ethical standards of a study supported by an official university
institution. Thus, studies were carefully designed to balance maintaining the chance of
generating experimental-based insight but also providing viable alternative opportunities
for analysis in case manipulations did not become effective through extension of control
groups in which no manipulation was applied. In most cases, the alternative analytical
approaches were implemented and provided, in conjunction with theoretical foundations,
reliable insight.
Third, research in status is fraught with the challenge of social desirability bias. Even
though European countries can be considered performance-oriented industrialized econ-
omies, several cultural mechanics (e.g. a balance between social and individual emphasis,
egalitarian social microstructures, the social conscious) imply a social deterrent to openly
appear striving for status as it, in turn, leads to leaving others to stand lower. Consequen-
tially, the studies of this dissertation were carefully designed not to trigger responses that
either inspire reactance or make participants shy away from stating their open assessment.
This was, moreover, pronounced by the role of the career services centers that invited to
participate in the studies as particularly careful participants might have wrongfully ex-
pected data to be forwarded to employers.
Fourth, this dissertation, by design, can only provide a foundation to the phenomenon it
aims to investigate. Conspicuous employment captures a range of effects and interactions
among factors that connect organizational behavior with that of market actors in the job
181
market. Among those, marketing can provide a substantial contribution when considered
in its more versatile and matured connotation of market-oriented management.
6.3 Practical implications
Status can be scientifically considered through a range of lenses (see section 2.1.3.8).
Two particularly valuable lenses for appreciating status’ implications are the functional
perspective illustrating the mechanisms that provide advantages and the motivational per-
spective illustrating the behavioral responses to attain status for the sake of these ad-
vantages. These two extant perspectives on the benefits and process of status attainment
has recently been joined by an emergent third, more critical perspective that adds an il-
lustration of the detrimental effects of excessive status. This third perspective highlights
the detrimental effects, e.g., of competition for status in organizations (Charness et al.,
2014), of organizational status for performance (Bothner et al., 2012), and of status-en-
hancement on overconfidence (Anderson, Brion, Moore, & Kennedy, 2012a). This dis-
sertation adds to applicable insight, first, in the field of status research itself and status in
application to recruitment; second, by introducing a framework on consumer behavior to
recruitment setting, thereupon developing and evaluating a measurement and nomologi-
cal network; third, by investigating consequences in terms of job-seeker perceptions and
decision making behavior on the basis of the introduced nomological network. In these
three sets of studies, my research provides insight for both organizations and individuals.
6.3.1 Employer perspective
For employers, prestige has found to mean an increased attractiveness for job-seekers,
decreased cost for advertising positions (Podolny, 1993), a competitive advantage in the
war for talent (Chambers et al., 1998), and, consequentially, an increased effort to evalu-
ate and select appropriate people to fill open positions (Herrbach et al., 2004).
However, building an employer brand upon the benefits of prestige is likely to show an
impact on the applicant pool that goes beyond the previously provided support for higher
quality (Turban & Cable, 2003): providing an employee value proposition that hinges on
prestige attracts those job-seekers who generate the greatest benefit from it by satisfying
their preference for this prestige. Consequentially, job-seekers’ motivations will likely be
a combination of increased perfectionism, hedonism, uniqueness, association, and con-
spicuousness.
182
This results in the following recommendations framed to speak to employers providing
prestige as the dominant value of the employee value proposition and following the pro-
cess of job-seekers approaching the organization:
1. Consider how prestige shifts the value perception of your business
Even superficial information on the status positioning of an employer shifts the
value profile as it is perceived by job-seekers towards self-enhancement values.
Consider whether your company is, as a consequence, positioned according to
your competitive strategy in the job market and according to your desired organi-
zational culture. Steer this positioning accordingly through focusing more or less
on the prestige component of your employer value proposition and more or less on
a more complex image, e.g., coded in a value profile. In doing so, consider the po-
tential benefits and detriments in shifting from prestige to value-fit based job mar-
ket positioning as the former is more efficiently comprehended than the latter but
the latter provides a more substantial basis for fit than the former.
2. Consider the shift of the applicant pool
Consider not only the beneficial, but also the more complex qualitative imprint that
prestige will have on their application pool. Attractiveness of the organization with
a status-derived positioning in the job market will emerge from the satisfaction of
social and individual preferences. Individual preferences point to an increased focus
on hedonic and perfectionistic motives, social preferences point to an increased fo-
cus on uniqueness, associative, and conspicuousness motives. All of these factors
entail specific implications for individual and group performance, well-being, po-
tential for loyalty and turnover. Consider how your selection process ought to add
systematic measurement and screening for factors of PEP for you to steer the effect
these factors has on your organizational culture and with regard to the specific en-
vironment of the position that needs filling.
3. Consider the consequences for your organizational culture
Extending from the previously stated imprint on the applicant pool, consider how a
job-market positioning on prestige may imprint on your organizational culture in
both benefit and detriment. Here, review the five individual factors of PEP and con-
sider how these factors fit to your organizational culture and how prepared your
company is to alleviated detrimental effects from those factors that have been iden-
tified as a source of decreasing organizational performance (e.g., perfectionism).
Furthermore, consider the two higher-order groups of motives and use the potential
183
for individual strengths in one, the other, or both group of motives in terms of struc-
turing individual goal, incentive, and advancement systems for particularly critical
positions.
4. Consider the impact on performance, specifically decision making
PEP has been found to go hand-in-hand with increased focus on SCO and a RF on
promotion. This combination provides a problematic foundation for decision mak-
ing, particularly in groups. Consider your organization’s key decision making teams
with regard to their members’ disposition to attain successes (promotion) or avoid
failures (prevention) and their disposition to base decisions on information gener-
ated from comparison with external actors or on information generated on own past
performance and capabilities. Use the provided insight to staff teams according to
their strategic aim and actively manage the risk portfolio according to your organi-
zation’s and the individual team’s objective. Steer the risk affinity by composing
decision making teams on the basis of the provided insight on comparison orienta-
tion and RF on confidence in decision making.
Generally, provided insight ought to be considered as a basis for actively steering the
organization with regard to its positioning in the job market and with regard to the com-
position of teams in order to generate the best possible basis for competitive advantage.
Status can be a powerful tool and ought not to be considered wholly beneficial or wholly
detrimental as its power can work to both organizations’ advantage and disadvantage.
6.3.2 Job-seeker perspective
For job-seekers, employer prestige provides a means to bolstering self-esteem (Ashforth
& Mael, 1989), but also more strategic implications such as providing symbolic capital
to be invested in future job-hunting (Alós-Ferrer & Prat, 2012; Bourdieu, 2012; Spence,
1973; van Hoye et al., 2013) and becoming part of networks that provide specific re-
sources (Lin, 1999b; Smith, Menon, & Thompson, 2012).
However, seeking high-prestige employment also means that competition will be more
fierce for each open position (Turban & Cable, 2003), leading to higher cost and decreas-
ing chances to attain the position. Furthermore, high-prestige employers can afford to
require signals of prior excellent performance (Spence, 1973), further driving cost, e.g.,
of advanced education. Finally, employers may consider their prestige a part of the em-
ployee’s compensation and, in turn, reduce financial or complementary incentives (Bid-
well et al., 2014). Consequentially, career strategies that focus on prestige as a means to
184
advancement may lead to conditions that delay returns (e.g., the chance of a higher com-
pensation in the next instead of the immediate engagement) and expedite cost (e.g., higher
cost of education, higher competitive pressure for high prestige jobs, greater requirements
for joining high prestige employers). However, striving for a prestige-driven career does
not only provide downsides, but also a chance at reaching above and beyond what can
traditionally be reached through a more prestige-relaxed career. Both components can be
differentiated in their probability: as the investment into a prestige-oriented career is ex-
pedited and occurs in advance, it is a certainty of risk. The potential for benefit is, on the
other hand, delayed after the fact of a high-prestige engagement and, thus, only provides
a possibility – but not a certainty – of return. Building careers on prestige, thus, provides
the potential for greatness, but guarantees the risk of greater investment. The decision
between these two options is one possible definition of PEP.
This results in the following recommendations framed to speak to employees preferring
prestige as the dominant value of the employee value proposition and following the pro-
cess of job-seekers approaching the organization:
1. Self-assess with regard to PEP
Consider self-testing the degree to which you build upon prestige to propel your
career. Should you score low, you are likely less susceptible to prestige offerings
and the below recommendations may not immediately apply to you; should you
score high, the below recommendations might be valuable to you:
2. Consider the individual factors of PEP and review potential challenges
PEP consists of five distinct factors: hedonism, perfectionism, association, unique-
ness, and conspicuousness. There are several factors that provide the basis for
complications when engaged in to a more excessive degree, such as, e.g., perfec-
tionism and uniqueness, while others are generally discussed less critically.
3. Consider the nomological network of PEP and review potential challenges
PEP significantly relates to both SCO and RF orientation in terms of promotion
focus. Neither orientations present an immediate problem, but they imprint on
how you derive your own position in a social context, how you inform decisions,
and how you approach goals. Consequently, high PEP likely predicts that also so-
cial comparison and a promotion focus is emphasized. Consider whether you have
found this approach to imprint on your perceptions, responses, decisions, and
185
ways of attaining goals and how calibrating for a combination of external an inter-
nal consideration of information as well as a combination of attaining goals and
preventing failures might help arriving at overall more well-weighted conclusions.
4. Consider, overall, how PEP imprints on the advancement of a career
PEP implies a preference for prestige to meet the end of a successful and acceler-
ated career process. Consider how prestige also functions as a resource that is be-
ing operationalized as a compensation by employers toward yourself. Consider
how this delays other types of compensation and how the received, symbolic com-
pensation might change in appreciation and, consequently in value, over time.
5. In contrast to PEP, consider your work-oriented values and PO fit
The satisfaction of prestige preference entails matching a commensurate dimen-
sion of status preference with the perceived status of an employer. Consider, in-
stead, to evaluate the profile of work values that you would prefer to find at your
future employer. From this profile, try to generate estimations of fit and rank your
employers of choice not by the degree of status preference satisfaction, but instead
by the degree of fit amongst your own value profile and the value profile of your
future employer.
Generally, provided insight ought to be considered as a basis for actively steering the
own career path in order to generate a good basis for competitive advantage in the job
market and balancing the professional with other components in life. Status is a valuable
resource. However, status’ return of value is delayed until after the immediate and to the
next professional engagement. Insofar, it also entails a risk of depreciation in the mean-
time that rests with the employee.
6.4 Theoretical implications and outlook
Conspicuous employment captures job-seekers’ and employees’ prestige-driven behavior
in context of their career-building activities. The term pays homage to Veblen’s concept
of conspicuous consumption, but shifts its focus from consumption to employment. In
doing so, it marks a reversal of orientation: it’s not the leisure class that demonstrates
their wealth through ostentatious consumption, but talents that demonstrate their capabil-
ities and high potential through ostentatious employment with high-prestige employers.
Among other opportunities, there are two distinct strategies to extend this research: first,
further solidifying the insight provided in this dissertation by extending its explanatory
186
scope and generalizability, and second, to discuss prestigious employer preference in
light of changing contexts.
6.4.1 Further investigating prestigious employer preference
PEP merits further investigation with regard to antecedents and consequences. However,
replications in different settings would help its claim to generalizability. Thus, testing the
scale in different settings and considering its contribution to the respective study would
greatly aid the robustness of the provided scale.
Beyond studies to further the claim to generalizability, PEP offers foundations for studies
on, both, consequences and antecedents of prestige-orientation in an organizational con-
text. With regard to antecedents, both cultural and experiential factors appear valuable to
research:
First, PEP will likely change with cultural background as different cultural settings place
different emphasis on individual or social preferences. Especially with the growing role
of sourcing employees across national and cultural borders, this difference of preference
structures will provide varying degrees of potential for using prestige preference produc-
tively in building a career or managing a positioning in the job market. Investigating the
intercultural differences of PEP would provide a basis to solving related questions and
challenges.
Second, PEP may vary with organizational tenure. However, the direction and quality of
change is difficult to predict. Employees who have grown accustomed to an external con-
tribution to self-esteem through a certain degree of organizational prestige will likely fear
losing this resource more than younger employees. On the other hand, more experienced
employees might come to rely more on fundamental confidence in their own performance
and less on external comparison. Both, an appreciation and a depreciation of prestige’s
role appear plausible. Most likely, these and more additional factors will need to be re-
viewed to evaluate the change of prestige preference with tenure.
6.4.2 Investigating the context of prestigious employer preference
Status is a result of societal context. As such, it relies on the framing of the dominant
values sought after in the contextual society. In a society that values power and achieve-
ment, status will be connected to those values. Consequently, my research shows that –
in contrast to many popular contributions on Generation Y and Z – at least the value
profiles of those job-seekers who participated in the presented studies, did not show a
substantial change from the traditional focus on values of self-enhancement. Thus, while
187
the often purported strong social commitment and somewhat lenient performance orien-
tation of today’s members of Generation Y and Z, I could not find confirmation of that
trend with those people who both were career-minded but also reflective enough to par-
take in a study on work-oriented values. However, as status is independent of the values
it uses to structure social space, this provides a valuable and interesting research oppor-
tunity as the question arises on how status-orientation and related behavior will change,
should younger generations decide to refrain from power and achievement in more sub-
stantial fashion. How does the fundamental and ubiquitous competition for status opera-
tionalize for a group that does not want to achieve?
Furthermore, the frequently reported greater attention of younger employees to balance
their professional and private lives presents great opportunities for research of prestigious
employer preference: where traditional perspectives might position high-status jobs close
to long work hours and great responsibilities, more modern perspectives might link high-
status with those positions that allow for combinations of inside and outside of work.
Two specific questions arise that warrant research: first, to which degree might the re-
fraining from high-performance engagements and the attraction of more balanced job
offers be comparable to the refraining from luxury goods to luxury experiences in con-
sumption? Second, what triggers and what subdues the desire to achieve and / or the
desire to balance?
Building upon another trend, research opportunities emerge around the impact of digital-
ization-based automation of processes on the job market: while the demographic change
will, as a certainty, lead to the war for talent being fought more fiercely, digitalization
provides the potential for needing less employees due to automatization of processes that,
previously, required people to complete. Assuming that digitalization helps alleviating
skill shortages, it will provide this alleviation not across the market, but to a greater de-
gree for unskilled or simpler task jobs. Due to the complexities involved, employment in
knowledge industries will be more difficult to replace by the digitalization of processes.
Instead, in a scenario of a successful digitalization process eradicating most simpler jobs,
those jobs left will likely be even more complex, abstract, demanding, and subject to
critical and strategic thinking. Consequently, while digitalization may help alleviate
shortages of skilled workers, it may just as likely fuel the war for talent as those jobs not
automated will require more talent to complete. Here, contextual research venues emerge:
how will prestigious employer preference change with regard to antecedents, character-
istics, and consequences if the job market becomes more demanding?
188
6.5 Conclusion
Prestige is a critical driver to human behavior. In consequence, prestige has sourced a
range of interconnected research streams in a wide variety of disciplines over the past
one and a half centuries. Much more than a stream, scientific thought on prestige resem-
bles a sizeable river delta of many more or less substantial flows of thought – none of
them large enough to cover the complete phenomenon and none of them so small to be
neglected and still being able to understand the phenomenon’s complexity.
Prestige has not only become so well-received due to its explanatory potential, but also
due to how it realizes this potential: prestige, as a theoretical tool, is a product of its time.
Originally, prestige helped explain the structures of rigid societies of the late 19th and turn
of the 20th century– it was used as a tool to evaluate a static system with the occasional
example for mobility of an individual within this system. Throughout the past century,
this perspective was first complemented, and ultimately shifted altogether, to a more dy-
namic and atomistic perspective. Thus, the value of prestige as a phenomenological de-
scriptor shifted from that of providing insight into differences in stasis to providing
insight into dynamic systems, usually accepting the greater mobility of individuals within
their social surrounding and denunciating those instances where social structures still
limit the opportunity of the individual to realize their individual pursuits. Here, it also
becomes apparent that the history of thought on prestige is heavily influenced by western
and individualist cultures, the origin of most of the research on this topic.
Today, the dimensions in which individuals find themselves in their roles as family mem-
bers, consumers, employees, citizens etc. have become substantially more diverse if not
to say completely open. Instead of social mobility across the prestige dimension, modern
societies – with marked exceptions – generally strive toward allowing their members
growing liberties within the confines of what is deemed reasonably safe, appropriate
within the governing ethical standards, and financially viable. Consequently, when con-
structing their identity, individuals face more complex choices than simply looking to
their social standing.
Paradoxically, this means an increase in relevance of prestige: where contexts become
more difficult, choices have to be determined from and ever-growing range of opportu-
nities, and those opportunities becoming more and more difficult to compare and to eval-
uate, simple yardsticks – such as social standing – provide efficient and, thus, comfortable
guides for behavior. Prestige as a phenomenological tool appears to change its colors
once again: what used to be a measure of structure and a concept for dynamism now
189
enters into its third functional epoch, prestige as the provider of more cognitively com-
fortable decisions with regard to the design of one’s own identity.
It is precisely this third functional epoch of prestige where its value shifts from a useful
tool to better understand societies structures and individuals’ behavior to a rather dubious
attempt to oversimplify decision making and relax in the comfort of a singular dimension
when trying to fit the own identity within an open-choice context of consumer, employer
or even national brands. Once again, this turn of prestige’s function is a product of its
times: as competition for attention, personnel, consumers, and valuable identities drives
ever-increasing diversity and loudness in advertising offers, prestige emerges as the well-
known noise-cancelling device that has the potential to drown those facets that, e.g., en-
able a more thorough evaluation of fit – but also make decisions more difficult.
Here, a better understanding of the nature, structure, and implications of prestige-driven
behavior helps both individuals in their roles as consumers and employees and businesses
in their roles as provides of offers and employers in different ways: individuals made
aware of the implications of dominant status-orientation can benefit from reviewing their
decision making with regard to the degree to which prestige entered their evaluations.
Potentially more critical, individuals can revise the reason why prestige became im-
portant. Finally, individuals who, e.g., thoughtfully choose a prestige-oriented career
strategy can benefit from the contextual information on implications for the negotiation
process. Businesses made aware of the implications of dominant status-orientation can
benefit from reviewing the balance of rather interchangeable prestige evaluations and
truly differentiating substance within their offers and brands. Again, more critically, man-
agers who heed the presented insights arrive at a better understanding of the share of
employees’ and consumers’ true loyalty to the business when compared to the share that
rather resemble mercenaries of prestige who may lightly change colors as soon as the
next opportunity arises.
Thus, just as the crucial, original contributions on prestige and social structure celebrate
their second centennial, a better understanding of the implications of prestige-oriented
behavior becomes more critical than ever.
I
7 Appendix
7.1 Acknowledgements
This dissertation has been independently developed, implemented, and documented by
its author. However, select studies benefited from collaboration with other researchers
and/or students. These collaborations as well as their degree of influence upon this dis-
sertation shall be made transparent in these acknowledgements.
I am indebted to multiple people who I was fortunate enough to collaborate with during
my dissertation for their kind, engaged, and thoughtful cooperation. I received support
by both of my supervisors Prof. Dr. Sven Reinecke and Prof. Dr. Günter Müller-Stewens
in form of consultations with regard to the dissertation itself and collaboration in terms
of the Competence Center for Luxury Management.
In the initial phase of my dissertation, I received conceptual support by Prof. Dr. Peter
M. Fischer through discussions of the positioning of the dissertation as well as the col-
laborative operative steering of the master thesis project by Marco Bichsel who carried
out some of the data gathering for the project illustrated in chapter 5. While the study
reported in chapter 5 has been developed and implemented by me and the emerging
collaboration was led by me, acknowledgements to my colleagues appear appropriate
and are also made transparent throughout the chapter by changing from first person sin-
gular to first person plural when describing the actions of the study authors.
In the main phase of my dissertation, I initiated the original idea leading to the SSVS as
a basis to generate the data needed for investigating my hypotheses. However, I was
joined in the development of the project by Dr. Verena Batt of University of Basel in
this initiating stage. With her, I conceptualized the overall study design as well as the
central measurement on work values. The development of this measurement is not por-
trayed in this dissertation as it is not part of this dissertation, but several studies hinge
on its contributions. For SSVS and the value scale, Dr. Batt’s scientific contribution
ought to be considered 50% with the remaining 50% resting with me. For the develop-
ment of the PEP scale, Dr. Batt’s scientific contribution was negligible with the remain-
ing full contribution resting with the author. Later in the process of the SSVS, Verena
Batt and I were joined and consulted by representatives of the Career Services Center
of University of St. Gallen (HSG), specifically its director Markus Kühne. None of the
II
above persons substantially and/or directly contributed to the development, operation-
alization, and evaluation of the scale on PEP nor its related studies presented in this
dissertation with the exception of Dr. Verena Batt co-conducting the interviews carried
out for the study reported in section 3.2.1.
7.2 Swiss Student Value Survey
To facilitate the evaluation of the psychometric scale on PEP developed in this
dissertation and to enable the analysis of antecedents and impact of PEP, I initiated and
co-developed a supporting study: the Swiss Student Value Survey (SSVS). While the
concept of the SSVS arose from this and evolved into a scientific project benefiting from
the review, insight, and collaborative development with Dr. Verena Batt of University
of Basel as an academic peer and with the leadership of University of St. Gallen’s Career
Services Center, Markus Kühne, as an experienced practitioning advisor.
Throughout the study’s lifetime from 2011 to 2014, it has benefited from the
experienced review and commentary by the Career Centers of University of Zurich,
WHU Otto Beisheim School of Management, multiple other career consulting,
assessment, and counselling organizations as well as human resources departments of
leading Swiss organizations. While the SSVS was, over a process of four years,
constantly co-developed, challenged, commented, and advanced with the help of
multiple scientific and practicing professionals in the field of career counselling, these
influences only imprinted onto the segment of the participants’ value-assessment and
not onto the theory development, operationalization, conducting or analysis of the
studies described in this dissertation.
The SSVS was concluded with our final studies in 2014. The initially research-focused
project has, since 2015, evolved into a succeeding project called ”Work Value Insights”
and aims for a more balanced approach toward students, alumni, and corporations.
The SSVS aimed at two goals: first, to generate the empirical basis for research into
PEP, and second, to allow participating students to benefit from the gathered individual
and aggregated data by means of value-based career consulting workshops. Studies were
advertised and carried out in collaboration with the respective universities’ career
centers. Each participant of each of the six studies was invited to participate in a de-
briefing workshop that took place four to six weeks after each survey was closed.
Through this process, SSVS did not only reach roughly 1500 student participants who
involved themselves with value-based career development through at least partial
III
participation in the survey, but also roughly 200 students who participated in the
concluding in-depth workshop.
7.2.1 Research design
SSVS implemented a range of studies that we designed to be analytically exploitable
both individually and in group context to support the advancement of answering the
above questions. Studies were conceptualized to provide both the opportunity for greater
reliability by implementing experimental elements, e.g., in manipulating RF and SCO,
and providing sufficient fall-back solutions (sizeable control groups in manipulations)
for more fundamental statistical analysis of correlates, group comparisons, and
regressions. This combination proved valuable as the study’s context did not allow for
particularly impressive manipulations as the host of the study, the respective career
center, generally opted against manipulations in their names. For a conceptual overview
of the study process, please confer to Figure 17.
Figure 17 – Own illustration of typical SSVS study process
IV
7.3 Listing of definitions
Source Source’s definitions of “status” Source’s respective references IV DV
(Washing-
ton & Zajac,
2005)
“an effective claim to social esteem in terms of positive or negative privileges”
// “a socially constructed, intersubjectively agreed-upon and accepted ordering
or ranking of individuals, groups, organizations, or activities in a social sys-
tem” // “status is a claim to social esteem that is necessarily connected to priv-
ilege (its primary consequence). In our elaboration of this conceptualization of status,
the benefits of organizational status are essentially unearned from an economic
or otherwise meritocratic perspective.”
(Weber, Roth, & Wittich, 2013), self-devel-
oped
Status Invitation to
competitions
(Bothner et
al., 2012)
“many scholars have come to view status as a signal of unobservable quality”
// “status as a network-related signal of market actors’ otherwise indecipherable
quality” // “future models will have to be adjusted to accommodate the possi-
bility that high levels of status, at least in some contexts, portend lower quality
and encourage unproductive behaviors”
(Bothner, Smith, & White, 2010; Podolny,
1993; Spence, 1973)
Status Performance
(Bendersky
& Hays,
2012)
“people’s relative status positions in their group’s social hierarchy” // “benefits
of high status, including greater influence, credit for work, access to infor-
mation and resources that contribute to individuals’ performance, and more
positive evaluations than of those with low status in groups” // “individuals
would compete for status and try to manipulate the social construction of status
relations
(Berger et al., 1980; Foschi, 2000; Friedkin,
1999; Gould, 2002; Ridgeway & Cornell,
2006; Zhou, 2005)
Status conflicts Group perfor-
mance
(Magee & Galinsky,
2008)
“the extent to which an individual or group is respected or admired by others” // “status hierarchies are primarily subjective; however, there tends to be a high
degree of consensus about individuals’ and groups’ positions in status hierar-
chies”
(Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro, & Chatman, 2006; Blau & Duncan, 1964;
Devine, 1989; Foa, 1971; Goldhammer
& Shils, 1939; Hollander, 1958; Podolny,
1993; Ridgeway & Walker, 1995)
Conceptual development
(Willer,
2009)
“an individual’s relative standing in a group based on prestige, honor, and
deference” // “Status hierarchies are typically conceptualized as relative and
zero-sum.” // “high status in a group is valuable to individuals”
(Berger et al., 1972) Status Contribution
to collective
(Phillips
& Zucker-
man, 2001)
“the amount of honor or esteem accorded to a person or social designation” (Weber et al., 2013) Status Innovation
(continued on next page)
V
(continued from previous page)
(Hall et al.,
2005)
“Status, involving an ascribed or achieved quality implying respect and privi-
lege, does not necessarily include the ability to control others or their re-
sources”
Self-developed based on (Berger, 1994; Bur-
goon & Dunbar, 2000; Burgoon, Johnson, &
Koch, 1998; Depret & Fiske, 1993; Ellyson &
Dovido, 1985; Gough, 1975; Hall, Halber-
stadt, & O'Brien, 1997; Kalma, Visser, &
Peeters, 1993; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Ander-
son, 2003; Kemper, 2000; Schutz, 1958)
Dominance / Pres-
tige
Social Rank/
Influence
(Cheng et
al., 2013)
“social status” in social psychology and sociology—defined as “the extent to
which an individual or group is respected or admired by others the term Pres-
tige is better suited for our theoretical framework because status has notably
different definitions in other disciplines (including several that we explicitly
draw on), leading to the potential for considerable confusion
(Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Blau & Duncan,
1964; Fiske, 2010; Goldhammer & Shils,
1939; Magee & Galinsky, 2008, p. 359;
Ridgeway & Walker, 1995; Zelditch, 1968)
Dominance // Pres-
tige
Social rank
(Griskevi-
cius et al., 2010)
„The definition of status necessarily implies a hierarchy of rewards, whereby
higher status individuals have greater access to desirable things.”
Self-developed Status motives Altruistic con-
sumer behav-ior
(Anderson
et al., 2008a)
“Status hierarchies provide many benefits for face-to-face groups, including
coordinating group action and limiting conflicts over dominance and decision
making”
(Bernstein, 1981; Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989;
Waal, 1982)
Self-enhancement Status
(Flynn et al.,
2006)
“status can appear in many different forms, including economic, political, in-
formational, and social” // “a position of elevated social standing and inter-
personal influence“ // “is conferred to people on the basis of their apparent
possession of attributes (e.g., competence, generosity) held as ideal by other
members of their social group”
(Bourdieu, 1984; Sororkin, 1927; Wegener,
1992)
Helping behavior Status
(Anderson
et al., 2001)
“status is is ubiquitous in social life and an organizing force in personality.” //
“Striving for status has been proposed as a primary and universal human mo-
tive” // “Status attainment leads to a host of vital consequences for the indi-
vidual. Research has shown that individuals' status within their group
influences personal well-being, social cognition, and emotional experience”
(Adler, Epel, Castellazzo G., & Ickovics J. R.,
2000; Barkow, 1975; Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989;
Fiske, 1993; Hogan & Hogan, 1991; Keltner,
Young, Heerey, Oemig, & Monarch, 1998)
Personality and
physical attractive-
ness
Status
(Rueden et al., 2008)
“Social status can be defined as relative access to resources within a social group” // “Group members acquiesce to higher status individuals because
they believe they will avoid harm or gain some benefit from their deference.”
// “Status hierarchies, therefore, are not necessarily pure zero-sum arrange-
ments. In part, status hierarchies represent agreements, maintained by defer-
ence signals, to facilitate exchange or to avoid costs of repeated contest
competition, as modeled by the war of attrition
(Henrich & Gil-White, 2001; Smith & Price, 1973)
Antecedents Status
(Henrich
& Gil-
White,
2001)
“status can be viewed as either a hierarchy of rewards or as a hierarchy of dis-
plays – or both simultaneously” // “status rewards imply a hierarchy of privi-
lege” // “high status entails greater access to desirable things”
Self-developed Conceptual development
VI
Source Source’s definitions of “reputation” Source’s respective references IV DV
(Carter,
2006)
“consists of a set of key characteristics attributed to the firm by various stake-
holders, including, but not limited to, such attributes as quality of management,
quality of products or services, community and environmental responsibility,
innovativeness, and financial soundness.”
(Bromley, 1993; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990) Top management,
stakeholder, situa-
tion factors
Reputation ac-
tivities
(Basdeo et
al., 2006)
“a set of attributes ascribed to a firm, inferred from the firm's past actions” (Weigelt & Camerer, 1988, p. 443) Market actions Reputation
(Washing-
ton & Zajac,
2005)
“summary categorization of real or perceived historical differences in product
or service quality among organizations, given imperfect information”
(Fombrun & Shanley, 1990) Status Invitation to
competitions
(Deephouse,
2000)
“defined as the evaluation of a firm by its stakeholders in terms of their affect,
esteem, and knowledge” // “is an intangible asset that belongs to the firm”
The American Heritage College Dictionary,
1993: definition 1; (Dollinger, Golden, & Sax-
ton, 1997)
(Fombrun, 1990, p. 37; Hall, 1992)
Reputation Competitive
advantage
Source Source’s definitions of “social hierarchy” Source’s respective references IV DV
(Magee
& Galinsky,
2008)
“is an implicit or explicit rank order of individuals or groups with respect to a
valued social dimension” // “can be delineated by rules and consensually
agreed upon, or they can be subjectively understood and taken for granted” // “members of social groups must either engage in creating a formal system with
rank-ordered roles or take part in a process of informal interaction where rank
ordering of individuals or groups organically develops on at least one valued
social dimension” // “social hierarchy is prevalent and serves two basic func-
tions. Hierarchy provides a psychologically appealing kind of order that clari-
fies roles and facilitates coordination. The structure of hierarchy also provides
opportunities for individuals to achieve higher rank, which is more rewarding
than lower rank for most people.”
Self-developed from (Laumann, Siegel, &
Hodge, 1970; Tannenbaum, Kavcic, Rosner,
Vianello, & Wieser)
Conceptual development
(Tiedens et
al., 2007)
“People’s desire for hierarchy could thus be an unconsciously held goal rather
than an explicitly stated goal.“
(Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, & Swidler, 1996;
Fiske, 1991)
Desire for positive
task-relationships
Dominance
complimenta-
rity
VII
Source Source’s definitions of “legitimacy” Source’s respective references IV DV
(Washing-
ton & Zajac,
2005)
“the level of social acceptability bestowed upon a set of activities or actors” (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975; Suchman, 1995) Top management,
stakeholder, situa-
tion factors
Reputation ac-
tivities
(Rueden et
al., 2008)
“legitimacy is best viewed as a constraint on or target of social status rather
than as a form of status itself“
(Blau & Duncan, 1964) Conceptual development
Source Source’s definitions of “prestige” Source’s respective references IV DV
(Cheng et
al., 2013)
“refers to social rank that is granted to individuals who are recognized and re-
spected for their skills, success, or knowledge (which can be acquired via cul-
tural learning), a process similar to that described by the competence-based
account” // “is granted to individuals who are considered worthy of emula-
tion, usually for their skills or knowledge” // “Prestige is likely unique to hu-
mans, because it is thought to have emerged from selection pressures to
preferentially attend to and acquire cultural knowledge from highly skilled or
successful others, a capacity considered to be less developed in other ani-
mals” // “Prestige is defined in a highly consistent manner across all these dis-
ciplines; in all cases it is conceptualized as conferred respect, honor, esteem,
and social regard”
(Boyd & Richerson, 1985; Henrich & Gil-
White, 2001; Laland & Galef, 2009)
Dominance // Pres-
tige
Social rank
(Henrich & Gil-
White,
2001)
“prestige processes as an emergent product of psychological adaptations that evolved to improve the quality of information acquired via cultural transmis-
sion” // “noncoerced, interindividual, within-group, human status asymme-
tries” // “standing or estimation in the eyes of people; weight or credit in general
opinion” // “commanding position in people’s minds, cf. influence, cf. hon-
ored” // “Prestige rest on merit in the eyes of others (rather than force deployed
against them), and promotes the admiration of inferiors (not their fear), a desire
for proximity (not distance), and periods of sustained observation (not furtive
glances)”
Self-derived; Meriam Webster’s Collegiate Dicitionary, (Dentan, 1979)
Conceptual development
VIII
Source Source’s definitions of “dominance” Source’s respective references IV DV
(Cheng et
al., 2013)
“refers to the induction of fear, through intimidation and coercion, to attain
social rank, a process similar to that described by the conflict based account”
// “is exemplified by relationships based on coercion, such as that between a
boss and employee, or bully and victim”
(Henrich & Gil-White, 2001) Dominance // Pres-
tige
Social rank
(Hall et al.,
2005)
“power defined as the capacity or structurally sanctioned right to control others
or their resources” // “does not necessarily imply prestige or respect”
Self-developed Nonverbal behavior Vertical di-
mension of in-
terpersonal
relations
(Cheng et
al., 2013)
“asymmetric control over valued resources, consistent with an
emphasis on externally endowed positions that allow one to determine
rewards and punishment for others”
(Magee & Galinsky, 2008) Dominance // Pres-
tige
Social rank
Source Source’s definitions of “power” Source’s respective references IV DV
(Magee
& Galinsky,
2008)
“power is a social force (Lewin, 1951/1997) that can bring about acts of
influence and corresponding resistance” // “power is based in resources, which
belong to an actor” // “asymmetric control over valued resources in social rela-tions” // “The low-power party is dependent upon the high-power party to ob-
tain rewards and avoid punishments. The high-power party, in contrast, is less
dependent on the low-power party.” // “the concept of power is
embedded within individuals’ minds”
(Bargh, Raymond, Pryor, & Strack, 1995; Blau
& Duncan, 1964; Depret & Fiske, 1993; Em-
erson, 1962; Keltner et al., 2003; Pfeffer & Sa-lancik, 1978; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)
(Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001; Galinsky,
Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003)
Conceptual development
IX
7.4 Journal listing
ISSN Publication name
Organizational Studies
00071080 British Journal of Industrial Relations
00198676 Industrial Relations
01677187 International Journal of Industrial Organization
08943796 Journal of Organizational Behavior
10489843 Leadership Quarterly
13505084 Organization
09596801 European Journal of Industrial Relations
10596011 Group and Organization Management
0965075X International Journal of Selection and
Assessment
07495978 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes
10477039 Organization Science
01708406 Organization Studies
01913085 Research in Organizational Behavior
00036870 Applied Ergonomics
00220027 Journal of Conflict Resolution
Psychology
00029556 American Journal of Psychology
0003066X American Psychologist
00070998 British Journal of Educational Psychology
00100285 Cognitive Psychology
00219010 Journal of Applied Psychology
00220221 Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology
00221031 Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
00223514 Journal of Personality & Social Psychology
00224545 Journal of Social Psychology
00273171 Multivariate Behavioral Research
00332909 Psychological Bulletin
0033295X Psychological Review
00333123 Psychometrika
00462772 European Journal of Social Psychology
00664308 Annual Review of Psychology
00961523 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance
00963445 Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
01461672 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
01466216 Applied Psychological Measurement
0269994X Applied Psychology: an International Review
02787393 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning
Memory and Cognition
03400727 Psychological Research
1076898X Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied
1082989X Psychological Methods
15324834 Basic & Applied Social Psychology
Human resources
00187267 Human Relations
00315826 Personnel Psychology
00904848 Human Resource Management
09585192 International Journal of Human Resource
Management
00018791 Journal of Vocational Behavior
09631798 Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology
09500170 Work Employment & Society
00197939 Industrial and Labor Relations Review
0022166X Journal of Human Resources
07308884 Work & Occupations
08959285 Human Performance
X
7.5 Key contributors
While contributions present the distinct advances of the field and help identifying mile-
stones, the motors of research are, instead, the scholars driving this advancement. Con-
sequentially, this illustration of the evolution of scientific thought on status would not
be complete without a brief introduction to those individuals who have advanced it to
the greatest degree. Given the diversity and breadth of the network of streams, this elab-
oration on the interdisciplinary advancement of the field now turns to an overview of
those scholars and schools that were recognized by the reviews that served as the basis
to identify the contributions highlighted above.
Scientific advancement benefits from a productive focus of collaborative groups of re-
searchers who provide individual perspectives onto the same phenomenon. These
schools of research usually emerge around single or small groups of eminent researchers
who provide platforms of prolonged, focused, and in-depth analysis of their field. The
factual impact of those who provide the foundation for substantial advancement, how-
ever, at times remains somewhat hidden as review commonly focus on those authors as
main authors, but not those credited as co-authors.
The references of the 25 review articles that already informed the above illustration of
contributions lists 3170 individual authors and co-authors with about 42% (1012) of
listed articles being single-author articles, 34% (803) two-author articles, and 24% (581)
articles with more than two authors. However, based on both highest statistical aggre-
gates of contributions and the context of the qualitative appreciation of individual ad-
vances provides to focus on a small number of key scholars that, today, find particular
recognition.
The below overview highlights those nine authors that provided particularly notable
contributions. This listing has been informed by a weighted ranking of reference fre-
quencies that accounted for number of recognized publications and position among cred-
ited authors; self-references were excluded from this analysis to counter inflation of
statistics.
7.5.1 The emergence of status structures: Cecilia L. Ridgeway
Cecilia L. Ridgeway is Lucie Stern Professor in the Social Sciences at Stanford Univer-
sity. Ridgeway earned her Ph.D. in 1972 at Cornell University with her work on a range
of sociological and psychological contributions which she published without co-authors.
Today, Ridgeway identifies social psychology, gender stratification, group processes,
XI
status processes, and sociology of culture as her areas of specialization (Ridgeway,
2016).
Cecilia Ridgeway is the most prominently recognized scholar credited with 19 co-au-
thorships in the period from 1982 to 2012, 14 of which identifying her as the first author.
Ridgeway’s six single-authorship contributions focus on status in groups and the social
construction of status. Those eight contributions that credit her as first co-author focus
on social categorization, gender stratification, and the emergence of status structures.
Ridgeway’s particularly notable contribution to the field are her two seminal articles
focusing on the role of the social context in the emerging of status structures, putting an
emphasis on status as a social construct (Ridgeway, 1991; Ridgeway & Diekema, 1989).
Beyond the contributions immediately attributable to her through first authorship, she
invested her capacities to support 14 other authors in completing five publications in
their work on legitimation of status processes, expectation states theory, and status’ in-
fluence in organizing collective actions.
7.5.2 Integration of research in status: Adam D. Galinsky
Adam D. Galinsky is the Vikram S. Pandit Professor of Business and Chair of Manage-
ment Division at Columbia Business School. Galinsky earned his Ph.D. in 1999 at
Princeton University with his work on perspective-taking through debiasing social
thought. Today, Galinsky identifies power and status, negotiation and auction behavior,
managing diversity and multicultural experiences, and creativity and innovation as his
areas of specialization (Galinsky, 2016).
Adam Galinsky is the second most prominently recognized scholar credited with 19
author and co-authorships in the period from 2006 to 2013, three of which identifying
him as the first author. Those contributions that credit him as first co-author focus on
power and its implications for action, creativity, and inaction.
Galinsky’s main contribution to the field of research in status is his co-authorship with
Magee in which both authors provide an extensive account and integration of the evo-
lution of the field of status research. Beyond the contributions immediately attributable
to him through first authorship, he invested his capacities to support 41 other authors in
completing 16 publications in their work on power, hierarchy, rivalry, and social status.
XII
7.5.3 Status characteristics and expectation states: Joseph Berger
Joseph Berger is retired Professor of Sociology at Stanford University. Berger earned
his Ph.D. in 1958 at Harvard University. Today, Berger identifies gender relations in
interpersonal settings, status characteristics theory, and cumulative theory in social sci-
ence as his areas of specialization. (Berger, 2016)
Joseph Berger is the third most prominently recognized scholar credited with 12 co-
authorships in the period from 1977 to 2006, nine of which identifying him as the first
author. Berger’s two single-authorship contributions focus on status characteristics and
social interaction. Those seven contributions that credit him as first co-author focus on
status characteristics and expectation states theory.
Berger’s particularly notable contribution to the field are his two seminal co-authored
articles introducing status characteristics and expectation states theory (Berger et al.,
1972; Berger et al., 1980). Beyond the contributions immediately attributable to him
through first authorship, he invested his capacities to support three other authors in com-
pleting two publications in their work on the role of networks in status attainment as
well as the documentation on the growth of the research stream employing status char-
acteristics theory.
7.5.4 Psychology of status: Cameron Anderson
Cameron Anderson is Lorraine Tyson Mitchell Chair in Leadership & Communication
II at Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley. Anderson earned his
Ph.D. in 2001 at University of California, Berkeley with his work on face saving and
the role of personality traits and physical attractiveness in status attainment which he
published in collaboration with Dacher Keltner. Today, Anderson identifies status hier-
archies, the psychology of power, and self and interpersonal perception as his areas of
specialization (Anderson, 2016).
Cameron Anderson is the fourth most prominently recognized scholar credited with 11
co-authorships in the period from 2002 to 2012, nine of which identifying him as the
first author. These contributions that credit him as first co-author focus on power, self-
enhancement, risk-taking, and self-perception.
Anderson’s particularly notable contribution to the field is the seminal outcome of his
dissertation which illustrated the effects of personality traits and physical attractiveness
in social groups on status attainment (Anderson et al., 2001). Beyond the contributions
immediately attributable to him through first authorship, he invested his capacities to
XIII
support five other authors in completing three publications in their work on gender in
leadership, status conflict, and power.
7.5.5 Status as competitive advantage: Joel M. Podolny
Joel M. Podolny is former dean of the Yale School of Management and currently dean
of “Apple University”, a training center of Apple Inc. Podolny earned his Ph.D. in 1991
at Harvard University with his work on a status-based model of market competition.
Joel M. Podolny is the fifth most prominently recognized scholar credited with 10 co-
authorships in the period from 1993 to 2012, six of which identifying him as the first
author. These contributions that credit him as first co-author focus on status in market
entry and predation, ecologies of technological change, and the relationship between
quality and status.
Podolny’s particularly notable contribution to the field is the seminal outcome of his
dissertation which illustrated the role of status as a useful model to explain market com-
petition and dynamics (Podolny, 1993). Beyond the contributions immediately attribut-
able to him through first authorship, he invested his capacities to support twelve other
authors in completing six publications in their work on the relationship connecting status
and quality, status competitions, and organizational sociology.
7.5.6 The self-reinforcing nature of status: Joe C. Magee
Joe C. Magee is Associate Professor of Management and Organizations at Leonard N.
Stern School of Business at New York University. Magee earned his Ph.D. in 2004 at
Stanford University with his work on the relationship between power and action, pub-
lished with Galinsky and Gruenfeld. Today, Magee identifies psychology of power,
foundations of social hierarchy, and the social role of emotion in groups as his areas of
specialization (Magee, 2016).
Joe C. Magee is the sixth most prominently recognized scholar credited with 9 author
and co-authorships in the period from 2003 to 2009, five of which identifying him as
the first author. Magee’s one single-authorship contribution focuses on the transfor-
mation from power to action. Those four contributions that credit him as first co-author
focus on the self-reinforcing nature of social hierarchy and power.
Magee’s main contribution to the field of research in status is his co-authorship with
Galinsky in which both authors provide an integration of prior status research and a
contribution on the self-reinforcing nature of status (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Beyond
XIV
the contributions immediately attributable to his through first authorship, he invested his
capacities to support eleven other authors in completing four publications in their joint
work on the process of transforming power to action.
7.5.7 Critical appreciation of status: Matthew S. Bothner
Matthew S. Bothner is Professor of Strategy, Deutsche Telekom Chair in Leadership
and HR Developmen at ESMT in Berlin. Bothner earned his Ph.D. in 2000 at Columbia
University with his work on the antecedents of technology diffusion in the global per-
sonal computer industry. Today, Bothner identifies the measurement and consequences
of social status in venture capital, professional sports, and higher education as his areas
of specialization (Bothner, 2016).
Matthew S. Bothner is the seventh most prominently recognized scholar credited with
seven author and co-authorships in the period from 2007 to 2012, all of which identify-
ing him as the first author. These contributions focus on the nature of social status, the
antecedents of Matthew effects, and the link between status and performance. Bothner’s
main contribution to the field of research in status is his critical investigation into the
status-performance relationship, particularly his testing of the border conditions of ex-
tensive status (Bothner et al., 2012).
7.5.8 Status-performance relationships: Damon J. Phillips
Damon J. Phillips is the Lambert Family Professor of Social Enterprise at Columbia
Business School. Phillips earned his Ph.D. in 1998 at Stanford University with his work
on the dynamics of organizational status, published jointly with J. M. Podolny. Today,
Phillips identifies the emergence and evolution of (ambiguous) markets, entrepreneur-
ship, innovation, new jazz studies, organizational strategy, structure and change as his
areas of specialization (Phillips, 2016).
Damon J. Phillips is the eighth most prominently recognized scholar credited with 7
author and co-authorships in the period from 2001 to 2012, six of which identifying him
as the first author. Phillips’ three single-authorship contributions focus on status in
groups and the social construction of status. Those three contributions that credit him as
first co-author focus on indentity preservation, betrayal as a market barrier, and middle-
status conformity.
Phillips main contribution to the field of research in status is his co-authorship with
Podolny in which both authors provide an empirical account for on the inverted-U-
XV
shaped relationship between status and performance. Beyond the contributions immedi-
ately attributable to him through first authorship, he invested his capacities to support
four other authors in completing one publication in their joint work on providing an
introduction to a special issue on status in organizational research.
7.5.9 Ethological signaling: Amotz Zahavi
Amotz Zahavi is the Honorary Director of the Hazeva Field Study Center at Tel Aviv
University. Zahavi earned his Ph.D. in 1970 at Tel Aviv University with his work on the
ethology of birds and their information sharing behavior. Today, Zahavi identifies social
systems, altruism, and the evolution of signals as his areas of specialization (Zahavi,
2016).
Atmoz Zahavi is the ninth most prominently recognized scholar credited with 5 author
and co-authorships in the period from 1975 to 1998, all of which identifying him as the
first author. Phillips’ four single-authorship contributions focus on status in groups and
the social construction of status. Those three contributions that credit him as first co-
author focus on identity preservation, betrayal as a market barrier, and middle-status
conformity.
Phillips main contribution to the field of research in status is his co-authorship with
Podolny in which both authors provide an empirical account for the inverted-U-shaped
relationship between status and performance. Beyond the contributions immediately at-
tributable to him through first authorship, he invested his capacities to support four other
authors in completing one publication in their joint work on providing an introduction
to a special issue on status in organizational research.
XVI
Figure 18 – Own illustration of recognized contributors on status research
XVII
7.5.10 Conclusion on key contributors
Highlighting those scholars who helped the scientific field on status can never produce
a conclusive list. And still, the contributions provided ought to be seen in context of the
times of their appearance, the ongoing discussion, and the teleological context. This
context is best captured by highlighting those who provide key insights and innovations.
This first attempt to point to those who advanced and still advance this field lack men-
tions of sociological eminences like Goffman (Goffman, 1959) and Stinchcombe
(Stinchcombe, 1986), the emergence of network analysis by Coleman (Coleman, 1988),
the author of key socio-psychological theories like Festinger (Festinger, 1954) and
countless more. Instead, this first attempt at generating an overview on a systematic
selection of key contributors has reached its goal if it stimulates the interest for the peo-
ple and circumstances behind the science as well as if it provides the basis for discussion
on who ought to be added.
XVIII
7.6 Item listings
7.6.1 Development influences on draft scale
Original item collection, “long list”, as generated from
“1st Study – Exploratory interviews with job-seekers” (pp. 90)
Source influencing
the design of the
resulting draft
Resulting item collection for the draft version to be
first evaluated first in 3rd Study – Pre-test of the PEP
scale’s draft version (pp. 102) How important are the following aspects to you in choosing
your future employer? I would like to work in a company ...
Conspicuousness
Mir ist es wichtig, dass das Unternehmen, für das ich arbeite, bekannt ist. / Es ist positiv, für ein Unternehmen zu arbeiten, das als eindrucksvoll wahrgenommen wird. / Ich stelle mir angenehm vor, in einem Unternehmen zu arbeiten, dessen Namen in einem Gespräch etwas her macht und
der andere begeistert. / Bei "einem grossen Namen" angestellt zu sein, sendet die richtigen Signale. / Es macht mich ein wenig stolz, für einen herausragenden Arbeitgeber zu arbeiten.
(Chaudhuri et al., 2011),
(Highhouse et al., 2007),
(Alba et al., 2014),
(Matsumoto, 2007, p. 414)
… that would make an excellent contribution to my CV. … in which I would be sure of recognition. … that has an outstanding reputation.
… that a future employer would particularly value.
Uniqueness
Es ist mir wichtig, für ein Unternehmen zu arbeiten, das nicht so ist, wie alle anderen. / Ich möchte für ein Unternehmen arbeiten, dass einen einzigartigen Charakter hat. / Es macht mir Spass, für einen Arbeitgeber zu arbeiten, der sofort als etwas Besonderes erkannt wird. / Fr ein Unternehmen,
das keine klare eigene Identität besitzt, würde ich nicht gerne arbeiten wollen. / Ich denke, dass ein Unternehmen, das wirklich einzigartig ist, besonders spannende Leute anzieht Leute, mit denen ich gerne zusammenarbeiten möchte. / Mir ist Loyalität meinen Kollegen gegenüber wichtig und ich denke, dass die Loyalität meiner Kollegen in einem exklusiven Unternehmen höher ist, als die in mehr oder weniger austauschbaren Unternehmen. / Es ist mir wichtig, dass mein Arbeitgeber eine einzigartige Geschichte vorweisen kann.
(Snyder & Fromkin, 1977),
(Highhouse et al., 2007),
(Alba et al., 2014),
(Matsumoto, 2007, p. 414)
… with which I could stand out from my fellow students. … with which I could be certain not to be part of the mainstream.
… with which it would be clear that I had achieved something special. … with which I would experience admiration within my circle of friends.
Association
Ich suche mir die Leute, mit denen ich zusammenarbeite, genau aus. / Mein Ziel ist es, mit den besten Leuten der Branche zusammenzuarbeiten. / Es wäre eine Enttäuschung, einfach mit irgendwem zusammenarbeiten. / Ich verspreche mir persönlich viel davon, mit den richtigen Leuten zusammenzuarbeiten. / Ich denke, dass die Beschäftigung bei einem besonderen Unternehmen auch auf mich abfärben wird und mich zu etwas besonderem macht. / Fr die richtige Firma gearbeitet zu haben, sendet wichtige Signale an meinen nachfolgenden Arbeitgeber. / Der "richtige Arbeitgeber" kann meine nachfolgende Karriere deutlich beschleunigen und vereinfachen das ist mir wichtig. / Der für mich richtige Arbeitgeber muss über eine gewisse Marktmacht verfügen. / Ein Arbeitgeber, der zu den "Movers and Shakers" in seinem Markt gehrt, wäre ideal
für mich. / Bei einem renommierten Unternehmen zu arbeiten gibt mir die Sicherheit, mich nicht falsch entschieden zu haben.
(Leary et al., 2013),
(Highhouse et al., 2007),
(Alba et al., 2014),
(Matsumoto, 2007, p. 414)
… with which I could work together with the best people in the sector. … with which I would have the feeling of counting to the professionals in my field. … with which my friends would know that only the best in their discipline work. … that is known to only attract the best in the sector.
(continued on next page)
XIX
(continued from previous page)
Hedonism
Mir ist wichtig, dass mich mein Arbeitgeber begeistert. / Mit "den richtigen Leuten" an "den richtigen Aufgaben" zu arbeiten, macht mich glücklich und das ist mir wichtig. / Ich suche nach dem Arbeitgeber, bei dem ich eine durch und durch hervorragende Zeit erleben werde, die ich hinterher nicht missen möchte. / Die meiste Zeit im Leben verbringe ich mit Arbeit. Daher ist mir wichtig, dass sich meine Arbeit für mich positiv anfühlt. / Ein ideales Arbeitsumfeld bietet mir viel
Abwechslung und eine grosse Freiheit für meine persönliche und berufliche Entwicklung. / Das Unternehmen, für das ich arbeiten möchte, hat eine reichhaltige, erfolgreiche Geschichte und ist in vielen spannenden Feldern engagiert. / Komplexität und Vielseitigkeit einer Marke ist für mich besonders reizvoll. / Eine Vielzahl unterschiedlichster Kunden macht ein Unternehmen für mich besonders interessant. / Mir ist wichtig, dass ich mich bei meinem Arbeitgeber kontinuierlich weiterentwickeln kann. / Mir ist wichtig, dass ich über meinen Arbeitsplatz auch meinen persönlichen Horizont erweitern kann. / Ich suche nach einem Arbeitgeber, der für Dynamik steht. / Ich möchte einen Arbeitgeber haben, der mir spannende Aufgaben stellen kann. / Mir wäre es wichtig, einen Arbeitgeber zu finden, bei dem ich mich mit kreativen Lösungen engagieren kann. /
Mein Arbeitsplatz muss mich faszinieren können.
(Watson et al., 1988),
(Alba et al., 2014) … that fascinates me time and time again. … for which I can be inspired every day. … for which I can develop enthusiasm. … that can move me emotionally.
Attention check
(no attention check planned, originally) … please do not click on any option to the right in this line.
Perfectionism
Ich möchte für ein Unternehmen arbeiten, dass für Qualität steht. / Es ist mir wichtig, mit Profis
zusammenzuarbeiten. / Perfekte Arbeitsergebnisse sind mir wichtig hierauf achte ich auch bei einem Arbeitgeber. / Ein idealer Arbeitgeber fordert und fördert mich auf dem Weg zum perfekten Arbeitsergebnis. / Mir ist es wichtig, dass mein Arbeitgeber leistungsorientiert ist und von mir die bestmöglichen Arbeitsergebnisse fordert. / Ein Arbeitgeber, der mich nicht fordert, ist nichts für mich. / Selbst wenn es für mich eine Belastung darstellt, geht Perfektion vor. / Ein perfekt abgeschlossenes Projekt macht mich glücklich. / Ein durchschnittliches Ergebnis ärgert mich, wenn ich es hätte besser machen können.
(Frost et al., 1990), (Hewitt
et al., 1994), (Stöber,
1998), (Slaney et al.,
2001), (Alba et al., 2014)
… in which I can work absolutely professionally.
… that functions around me like clockwork. … in which I can deliver peak performance. … in which mistakes only ever rarely occur.
Table 16 – Development from long list to first item battery
XX
7.6.2 Pilot version of prestigious employer preference scale
Prestigious Employer Preference scale, initial version
German variant English variant
Wie wichtig sind Ihnen folgende Aspekte in der Wahl Ihres zukünftigen Arbeitgebers?
Ich möchte in einem Unternehmen arbeiten, ...
How important are the following aspects to you in choosing your future
employer? I would like to work in a company ...
Items relating to the factor conspicuousness
PEP_CON1
PEP_CON2
PEP_CON3
PEP_CON4
… das sich hervorragend in meinem Lebenslauf machen würde.
… in dem mir Anerkennung gewiss wäre.
… das einen hervorragenden Ruf hat.
… das ein zukünftiger Arbeitgeber besonders hoch schätzen würde.
… that would make an excellent contribution to my CV.
… in which I would be sure of recognition.
… that has an outstanding reputation.
… that a future employer would particularly value.
Items relating to the factor uniqueness
PEP_UNI1
PEP_UNI2
PEP_UNI3
PEP_UNI4
… mit dem ich mich von meinen Kommilitonen abheben könnte.
… mit dem ich sicher sein könnte, nicht zur Allgemeinheit zu gehören.
… mit dem eindeutig wäre, dass ich etwas Besonderes geschafft hätte.
… mit dem ich in meinem Freundeskreis Bewunderung erfahren würde.
… with which I could stand out from my fellow students.
… with which I could be certain not to be part of the mainstream.
… with which it would be clear that I had achieved something special.
… with which I would experience admiration within my circle of friends.
Items relating to the factor association
PEP_SOC1
PEP_SOC2
PEP_SOC3
PEP_SOC4
… bei dem ich mit den besten Leuten der Branche zusammenarbeiten könnte.
… bei dem ich das Gefühl hätte, zu den Profis in meinem Bereich zu zählen.
… bei dem meine Freunde wüssten, dass dort nur die Besten ihres Fachs arbeiten.
… das dafür bekannt ist, die Besten der Branche anzuziehen.
… with which I could work together with the best people in the sector.
… with which I would have the feeling of counting to the professionals in my field.
… with which my friends would know that only the best in their discipline work.
… that is known to only attract the best in the sector.
Items relating to the factor hedonism
PEP_HED1
PEP_HED2
PEP_HED3
PEP_HED4
… das mich immer wieder aufs Neue fasziniert.
… für das ich mich täglich begeistern kann.
… für das ich Enthusiasmus entwickeln kann.
… das mich auch emotional bewegen kann.
… that fascinates me time and time again.
… for which I can be inspired every day.
… for which I can develop enthusiasm.
… that can move me emotionally.
Item for ensuring data quality
ATT … bitte klicken Sie in dieser Zeile rechts nichts an. … please do not click on any option to the right in this line.
Items relating to the factor perfectionism
PEP_PER1
PEP_PER2
PEP_PER3
PEP_PER4
… in dem ich absolut professionell arbeiten kann.
… das um mich herum funktioniert wie ein Uhrwerk.
… in dem ich Höchstleistungen erbringen kann.
… in dem nur sehr selten Fehler passieren.
… in which I can work absolutely professionally.
… that functions around me like clockwork.
… in which I can deliver peak performance.
… in which mistakes only ever rarely occur.
Scaling:
All fields mandatory except for the attention check, scaled in five iterations:
gar nicht wichtig (1) – (2) – mässig wichtig (3) – (4) – besonders wichtig (5)
All fields mandatory except for the attention check, scaled in five iterations:
not at all important (1) – (2) – moderately important (3) – (4) – especially important (5)
Table 17 – Pilot version of the prestigious employer preference scale (de/en)
XXI
7.6.3 Revised version of prestigious employer preference scale
Prestigious Employer Preference scale, revised version (revisions marked in bold)
German variant English variant
Wie wichtig sind Ihnen folgende Aspekte in der Wahl Ihres zukünftigen Arbeitgebers?
Ich möchte für eine Organisation / ein Unternehmen arbeiten, ...
How important are the following aspects to you in choosing your future
employer? I would like to work in an organization / in a company ...
Items relating to the factor conspicuousness
PEP_CON1
PEP_CON2
PEP_CON3
PEP_CON4
… das sich hervorragend in meinem Lebenslauf machen würde.
… das einen hervorragenden Ruf hat.
… dessen Ruf mir eine gewisse Anerkennung einbrächte.
… das ein zukünftiger Arbeitgeber besonders hoch schätzen würde.
… that would look good on my CV.
… that has an outstanding reputation.
… whose reputation would earn me a certain recognition.
… that a future employer would particularly value.
Items relating to the factor uniqueness
PEP_UNI1
PEP_UNI2
PEP_UNI3
PEP_UNI4
… mit dem ich mich von meinen Kommilitonen abheben könnte.
… mit dem ich sicher sein könnte, nicht zur Allgemeinheit zu gehören.
… mit dem eindeutig wäre, dass ich etwas Besonderes geschafft hätte.
… mit dem ich in meinem Freundeskreis Bewunderung erfahren würde.
… with which I could stand out from my fellow students.
… with which I could be certain not to be part of the mainstream.
… with which it would be clear that I had achieved something special.
… with which I would experience admiration within my circle of friends.
Items relating to the factor association
PEP_SOC1 PEP_SOC2
PEP_SOC3
PEP_SOC4
… bei dem ich mit den besten Leuten der Branche zusammenarbeiten könnte. … das dafür bekannt ist, dass dort nur die Besten ihres Fachs arbeiten.
… bei dem ich das Gefühl hätte, zu den Profis in meinem Bereich zu zählen.
… das dafür bekannt ist, die Besten der Branche anzuziehen.
… with which I could work together with the best people in the sector. … where it is known that only the best in their discipline work there.
… with which I would have the feeling of counting among the experts in my field.
… that is known to only attract the best in the sector.
Items relating to the factor hedonism
PEP_HED1
PEP_HED2
PEP_HED3
PEP_HED4
… das mich immer wieder aufs Neue fasziniert.
… für das ich mich täglich begeistern kann.
… für das ich Enthusiasmus entwickeln kann.
… bei dem mir die Arbeit grosse Freude macht.
… that fascinates me time and time again.
… for which I can be inspired every day.
… for which I can develop enthusiasm.
… in which the work is great fun.
Item for ensuring data quality ATT … bitte klicken Sie in dieser Zeile rechts nichts an. … please do not click on any option to the right in this line.
Items relating to the factor perfectionism
PEP_PER1
PEP_PER2
PEP_PER3
PEP_PER4
… in dem ich absolut professionell arbeiten kann.
… in dem ich hervorragende Arbeitsergebnisse erzielen kann.
… in dem ich Höchstleistungen erbringen kann.
… in dem ich meine Fähigkeiten perfektionieren kann.
… in which I can work absolutely professionally.
… in which I can achieve outstanding work results.
… in which I can deliver peak performance.
… in which I can perfect my skills.
Scaling: All fields mandatory except for the attention check, scaled in five iterations:
gar nicht wichtig (1) – (2) – mässig wichtig (3) – (4) – besonders wichtig (5)
All fields mandatory except for the attention check, scaled in five iterations:
not at all important (1) – (2) – moderately important (3) – (4) – especially important (5)
Table 18 – Revised version of the prestigious employer preference scale (de/en)
XXII
7.7 Core measurement for work values
Value Left item element Right item element Note Hedonism Fun Seriousness Reverse
coded
Sobriety Joy
Pleasure Objectivity Reverse coded
Self-Direction Independent working Supervised working Reverse coded
Free work planning Dependence on others Reverse coded
Strong content-based leadership Co-determination of working content
Stimulation Varied activities Unchanging activities Reverse coded
Exciting activities Established activities Reverse coded
Challenging activities Routine daily business Reverse coded
Achievement Striving for major successes Realising minor successes Reverse coded
Performance-oriented corporate structure
Staff-oriented corporate structure Reverse coded
Empathetic colleagues Ambitious colleagues
Power Working in a more prestigious position
Working in a more inconspicuous position Reverse coded
Belonging to a team of peers High position in the company hierarchy
Not having to take responsibility Having managerial authority over others
Universalism Fair behavior of colleagues Performance-oriented behavior of colleagues Reverse coded
Purely performance-oriented company
Fair play in the company
Same rights and duties for all Key personnel have a special status Reverse coded
Benevolence Professional distance to colleagues Colleagues as friends
Mistakes can happen Mistakes should be avoided Reverse coded
Performance-orientation of the individual
Helpfulness among colleagues
Security Project-oriented performance requirements
Regulated working hours
Regular job changes Job security
Relatively high basic salary with low variable component
Relatively low basic salary with high variable component
Reverse coded
Conservation Confident interaction with superiors Respectful interaction with superiors
Voicing criticism openly Voicing criticism reservedly
Plain talking Polite conduct towards others
Tradition Maintaining old rituals Freeing oneself from old rituals Reverse coded
Longstanding corporate culture Regularly changing corporate culture Reverse coded
Holding onto fundamental values Regularly revising fundamental values Reverse coded
Table 19 – Core measurement for work values (Batt & Berghaus)
XXIII
7.8 Results of empirical investigation
7.8.1 Empirical analysis on pre-study
7.8.1.1 Exploratory factor analysis on pre-study
Figure 19 – Pre-study: scree plot
XXIV
MR1 MR2
PEP_CON1 .30 .47
PEP_CON2 .22 .55 PEP_CON3 .33 .54
PEP_CON4 .46 .30
PEP_UNI1 .72 .18
PEP_UNI2 .64 .14 PEP_UNI3 .80 -.05
PEP_UNI4 .65 .06
PEP_SOC1 -.05 .94 PEP_SOC2 .15 .59
PEP_SOC3 .42 .05
PEP_SOC4 -.06 .89
PEP_HED1 .58 -.31 PEP_HED2 .48 -.16
PEP_HED3 .64 -.03
PEP_HED4 .52 .19 PEP_PER1 .79 .01
PEP_PER2 .83 .08
PEP_PER3 .83 -.15 PEP_PER4 .88 -.02
Table 20 – Pre-study: obliquely rotated loadings of two-factor-model (B)
MR1 MR4 MR2 MR3 MR5
PEP_CON1 .10 -.08 .00 .86 .03
PEP_CON2 -.07 .09 .11 .75 .00 PEP_CON3 .05 .06 .25 .57 .14
PEP_CON4 .10 .31 .06 .38 -.01
PEP_UNI1 .34 .50 .18 .00 -.02 PEP_UNI2 .10 .67 .08 .05 -.02
PEP_UNI3 .15 .75 .02 -.13 .14
PEP_UNI4 -.03 .71 -.09 .22 .04
PEP_SOC1 -.14 .14 .89 .09 .00 PEP_SOC2 .06 .10 .43 .24 -.04
PEP_SOC3 .14 .15 .19 -.10 .32
PEP_SOC4 .14 -.12 .90 .04 -.07
PEP_HED1 .16 -.01 -.17 .03 .64 PEP_HED2 -.06 .04 -.01 .05 .77
PEP_HED3 .14 .38 -.04 .11 .23
PEP_HED4 .30 .30 .24 -.05 .03
PEP_PER1 .83 -.05 .16 -.07 .16
PEP_PER2 .66 .12 .10 .10 .14
PEP_PER3 .82 .08 -.15 .07 -.05
PEP_PER4 .73 .21 -.06 .14 -.04
Table 21 – Pre-study: obliquely rotated loadings of five-factor-model (C)
XXV
7.8.2 Empirical analysis on revised scale
7.8.2.1 Exploratory factor analysis
Figure 20 – Pilot study: scree plot
XXVI
PA1 PA2
PEP_CON1 .66 -.04
PEP_CON2 .42 .08
PEP_CON3 .59 .07
PEP_CON4 .66 -.04
PEP_UNI1 .66 -.18
PEP_UNI2 .52 -.05
PEP_UNI3 .57 .04
PEP_UNI4 .62 -.15
PEP_SOC1 .54 .33
PEP_SOC2 .58 .22
PEP_SOC3 .72 -.15
PEP_SOC4 .74 .07
PEP_HED1 0 .77
PEP_HED2 -.08 .89
PEP_HED3 -.01 .83
PEP_HED4 -.06 .54
PEP_PER1 .27 .45
PEP_PER2 .2 .22
PEP_PER3 .29 .45
PEP_PER4 .26 -.01
Table 22 – Pilot study: obliquely rotated loadings of two-factor-model (B)
PA2 PA1 PA4 PA5 PA3
PEP_CON1 -.03 .01 .8 .03 -.03
PEP_CON2 .14 .2 .33 -.02 0
PEP_CON3 .04 .03 .61 .04 .1
PEP_CON4 -.03 .04 .76 .02 .01
PEP_UNI1 0 .62 .3 -.08 -.07
PEP_UNI2 .07 .64 .02 -.01 .03
PEP_UNI3 .15 .63 .04 .07 -.01
PEP_UNI4 -.05 .71 0 .08 .02
PEP_SOC1 .06 -.07 .16 .66 .09
PEP_SOC2 .03 .19 -.02 .69 -.02
PEP_SOC3 -.18 .59 .01 .27 .12
PEP_SOC4 -.07 .28 .18 .5 .05
PEP_HED1 .77 -.02 -.03 .15 -.06
PEP_HED2 .88 -.04 -.05 .03 .05
PEP_HED3 .89 0 .08 -.04 0
PEP_HED4 .66 .19 -.1 -.16 .01
PEP_PER1 .21 -.16 .14 .16 .53
PEP_PER2 .01 .03 -.08 .01 .66
PEP_PER3 .2 -.09 .05 .25 .47
PEP_PER4 -.16 .14 .03 -.16 .63
Table 23 – Pilot study: obliquely rotated loadings of five-factor model (C)
XXVII
7.8.2.2 Confirmatory factor analysis
Figure 21 – Pilot study: path diagram and loadings for single factor model (A)
Figure 22 – Pilot study: path diagram and loadings for dual factor model (B)
XXVIII
Figure 23 – Pilot study: path diagram and loadings for five factor model (C)
Figure 24 – Pilot study: path diagram and loadings for simple 2nd order model (D)
XXIX
Figure 25 – Pilot study: path diagram and loadings for complex 2nd order model (E)
Figure 26 – Pilot study: path diagram and loadings for third order model (F)
XXX
7.8.3 Empirical analysis on revised scale
7.8.3.1 Exploratory factor analysis
Figure 27 – Revision study: scree plot
XXXI
PA1 PA2
PEP_CON1 .59 -.06
PEP_CON2 .59 .07
PEP_CON3 .68 -.04
PEP_CON4 .63 .03
PEP_UNI1 .61 -.27
PEP_UNI2 .53 -.19
PEP_UNI3 .6 -.06
PEP_UNI4 .57 -.29
PEP_SOC1 .57 .32
PEP_SOC2 .67 .1
PEP_SOC3 .63 .18
PEP_SOC4 .7 .05
PEP_HED1 -.03 .71
PEP_HED2 -.14 .82
PEP_HED3 -.08 .83
PEP_HED4 -.1 .71
PEP_PER1 .16 .55
PEP_PER2 .24 .61
PEP_PER3 .29 .61
PEP_PER4 .16 .68
Table 24 – Revision study: obliquely rotated loadings of two factor model (B)
PA2 PA1 PA3 PA5 PA4
PEP_CON1 0 -.04 .83 -.04 .03
PEP_CON2 .03 .11 .75 .02 -.08
PEP_CON3 .07 .08 .65 -.06 .19
PEP_CON4 -.04 .02 .77 .11 .01
PEP_UNI1 -.07 -.11 .19 .02 .73
PEP_UNI2 .06 .04 -.06 -.05 .77
PEP_UNI3 .05 .18 -.06 .07 .67
PEP_UNI4 -.13 .04 .07 0 .62
PEP_SOC1 .03 .71 -.01 .2 -.03
PEP_SOC2 -.02 .87 .06 -.07 -.03
PEP_SOC3 .03 .75 -.06 .06 .12
PEP_SOC4 -.05 .74 .12 -.04 .04
PEP_HED1 .67 .14 -.05 .07 -.05
PEP_HED2 .89 -.09 .03 .05 -.02
PEP_HED3 .99 .02 .01 -.05 .02
PEP_HED4 .79 -.03 -.01 .02 .02
PEP_PER1 .02 -.01 .07 .65 -.1
PEP_PER2 0 -.01 .06 .8 -.02
PEP_PER3 -.03 .03 -.05 .86 .09
PEP_PER4 .18 .04 .01 .64 -.05
Table 25 – Revision study: obliquely rotated loadings of five factor model (C)
XXXII
7.8.3.2 Confirmatory factor analysis
Figure 28 – Revision study: path diagram and loadings for single factor model (A)
Figure 29 – Revision study: path diagram and loadings for dual factor model (B)
XXXIII
Figure 30 – Revision study: path diagram and loadings for five factor model (C)
Figure 31 – Revision study: path diagram and loadings for simple 2nd order model (D)
XXXIV
Figure 32 – Revision study: additional investigation into the loadings of social factors
Figure 33 – Revision study: add. investigation into the loadings of individual factors
XXXV
Figure 34 – Revision study: path diagram, loadings for complex 2nd order model (E)
Figure 35 – Revision study: path diagram and loadings for third order model (F)
XXXVI
7.8.4 Empirical analysis of the scale’s nomological network
7.8.4.1 Pilot study: correlation plots of PEP with values
Bsc_HED Bsc_ACH Bsc_PWR Bsc_SEC Bsc_TRA Bsc_CON Bsc_BEN Bsc_UNI Bsc_SDR Bsc_STI PEP_CON PEP_UNI PEP_SOC PEP_HED PEP_PER
Bsc_HED 1
Bsc_ACH .11* 1
Bsc_PWR .17** .24*** 1
Bsc_SEC .16** .05 -.11 1
Bsc_TRA 0 -.04 -.02 .3*** 1
Bsc_CON .01 .07 -.01 .35*** .41*** 1
Bsc_BEN .09 .07 -.21*** .31*** .22*** .08 1
Bsc_UNI .1 .1 -.15** .26*** .17** .09 .52*** 1
Bsc_SDR .19*** .2*** .02 .04 .09 0 .33*** .42*** 1
Bsc_STI .23*** .23*** -.02 -.02 -.03 -.03 .19*** .24*** .47*** 1
PEP_CON .01 .38*** .46*** .03 -.07 -.04 -.09 -.08 .07 .09 1
PEP_UNI .12* .17** .45*** -.02 -.08 -.07 -.13* -.13** .03 .05 .49*** 1
PEP_SOC .03 .29*** .47*** -.06 -.03 -.05 -.07 -.14** .15** .08 .6*** .63*** 1
PEP_HED .14** .24*** -.18*** .23*** .1 .04 .5*** .43*** .54*** .44*** -.02 -.03 .07 1
PEP_PER 0 .37*** .19*** .12* .03 .2*** .08 0 .18** .17** .25*** .15** .37*** .25*** 1
Significance levels: * <.1 ; ** <.05 ; *** <.01
Table 26 – Pilot study: correlations among PEP and basic values (n=241)
XXXVII
Wrk_HED Wrk_ACH Wrk_PWR Wrk_SEC Wrk_TRA Wrk_CON Wrk_BEN Wrk_UNI Wrk_SDR Wrk_STI PEP_CON PEP_UNI PEP_SOC PEP_HED PEP_PER
Wrk_HED 1
Wrk_ACH -.27*** 1
Wrk_PWR -.19*** .42*** 1
Wrk_SEC .14** -.25*** -.17** 1
Wrk_TRA -.17** -.1 -.11 .27*** 1
Wrk_CON -.15** -.15** -.02 .42*** .31*** 1
Wrk_BEN .2*** -.29*** -.13** .14** .24*** .15** 1
Wrk_UNI 0 -.44*** -.3*** .19*** .11 .14** .29*** 1
Wrk_SDR .16** 0 .07 -.24*** -.24*** -.27*** .02 .02 1
Wrk_STI .09 .18*** .03 -.35*** -.32*** -.3*** .15** .08 .34*** 1
PEP_CON -.2*** .33*** .4*** -.2*** .02 0 -.15** -.12* .02 .1 1
PEP_UNI -.06 .27*** .36*** -.16** -.11 -.01 -.11 -.16** .1 .02 .49*** 1
PEP_SOC -.14** .38*** .49*** -.26*** -.04 -.05 -.14** -.23*** .08 .05 .6*** .63*** 1
PEP_HED .12* -.11* -.09 -.08 -.15** -.05 .16** .19*** .24*** .33*** -.02 -.03 .07 1
PEP_PER -.24*** .26*** .28*** -.05 .04 .17** .07 -.06 .06 .13** .25*** .15** .37*** .25*** 1
Significance levels: * <.1 ; ** <.05 ; *** <.01
Table 27 – Pilot study: correlations among PEP and work values (n=241)
XXXVIII
7.8.4.2 Revision study: correlation plots of PEP with values
Bsc_HED Bsc_ACH Bsc_PWR Bsc_SEC Bsc_TRA Bsc_CON Bsc_BEN Bsc_UNI Bsc_SDR Bsc_STI PEP_CON PEP_UNI PEP_SOC PEP_HED PEP_PER
Bsc_HED 1
Bsc_ACH -.02 1
Bsc_PWR .12 .02 1
Bsc_SEC .05 .21** -.22*** 1
Bsc_TRA -.15* .15* -.05 .25*** 1
Bsc_CON -.04 .19** -.21** .47*** .34*** 1
Bsc_BEN -.02 -.05 -.34*** .36*** .17** .25*** 1
Bsc_UNI .1 -.12 -.25*** .2** .06 .12 .52*** 1
Bsc_SDR .07 -.05 -.18** .01 -.09 -.01 .26*** .21** 1
Bsc_STI .21** .03 -.02 -.13* -.13 -.15* .24*** .23*** .41*** 1
PEP_CON .13 .34*** .31*** .06 .02 0 -.13* -.22*** -.07 .02 1
PEP_UNI -.04 .17** .41*** -.14* -.06 -.11 -.2** -.16** -.04 .01 .33*** 1
PEP_SOC -.09 .24*** .25*** -.03 .16** 0 -.02 -.05 .2** .12 .47*** .39*** 1
PEP_HED .13* -.01 -.07 .11 0 .06 .21** .23*** .38*** .23*** .03 -.14* .16** 1
PEP_PER .09 .22*** .01 .13 .18** .19** .16** .18** .21** .1 .19** 0 .42*** .48*** 1
Significance levels: * <.1 ; ** <.05 ; *** <.01
Table 28 – Revision study: correlations among PEP and basic values (n=167)
XXXIX
Bsc_HED Bsc_ACH Bsc_PWR Bsc_SEC Bsc_TRA Bsc_CON Bsc_BEN Bsc_UNI Bsc_SDR Bsc_STI PEP_CON PEP_UNI PEP_SOC PEP_HED PEP_PER
Bsc_HED 1
Bsc_ACH -.1 1
Bsc_PWR .03 .55*** 1
Bsc_SEC .08 .2** .1 1
Bsc_TRA -.08 .06 .02 -.19** 1
Bsc_CON -.04 -.38*** -.15* -.21** .06 1
Bsc_BEN .07 -.3*** -.19** -.03 .08 .12 1
Bsc_UNI .19** -.59*** -.43*** -.22*** .01 .18** .35*** 1
Bsc_SDR .17** .15* .12 -.05 -.02 -.2** -.11 -.02 1
Bsc_STI .26*** .34*** .34*** .08 .05 -.22** -.11 -.16** .41*** 1
PEP_CON -.1 .42*** .34*** .1 .05 .04 -.23*** -.35*** -.05 .13 1
PEP_UNI .04 .43*** .38*** .3*** .01 -.21** -.1 -.24*** .06 .14* .33*** 1
PEP_SOC -.16** .41*** .34*** .11 .12 -.13 -.16** -.28*** .05 .18** .47*** .39*** 1
PEP_HED .05 -.04 .01 -.15* 0 -.06 .21** .12 .1 .16** .03 -.14* .16** 1
PEP_PER -.17** .12 .07 -.08 .19** -.06 -.06 -.07 .11 .11 .19** 0 .42*** .48*** 1
Significance levels: * <.1 ; ** <.05 ; *** <.01
Table 29 – Revision study: correlations among PEP and work values (n=167)
XL
8 Bibliography
Abreu, M., & Mendes, V. (2012). Information, overconfidence and trading: Do the sources of
information matter? Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(4), 868–881.
Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo G., & Ickovics J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and
objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in
healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586–592.
Agrawal, R. K., & Swaroop, P. (2009). Effect of employer brand image on application intentions of b-
school undergraduates. Vision - The Journal of Business Perspective, 13(3), 41–49.
Akpan, J., & Notar, C. E. (2012). How to Write a Professional Knockout Resume to Differentiate
Yourself. College Student Journal, 46(4), 880–891.
Alba, B., McIlwain, D., Wheeler, L., & Jones, M. P. (2014). Status Consciousness: A Preliminary
Construction of a Scale Measuring Individual Differences in Status-Relevant Attitudes, Beliefs, and Desires. Journal of Individual Differences, 35(3), 166–176.
Alba, J. W., & Williams, E. F. (2013). Pleasure principles: A review of research on hedonic consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(1), 2–18.
Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Organizational Identity and Identification: Charting
New Waters and Building New Bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 13–17.
Alcott, B. (2004). John Rae and Thorstein Veblen. Journal of Economic Issues, 38(3), 765–786.
Aldag, R. J., & Riggs Fuller, S. (1993). Beyond Fiasco: A Reappraisal of the Groupthink Phenomenon and a New Model of Group Decision Processes. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 533–552.
Alós-Ferrer, C., & Prat, J. (2012). Job market signaling and employer learning. Journal of Economic
Theory, 147(5), 1787–1817.
Amaldoss, W., & Jain, S. (2008). Research Note —Trading Up: A Strategic Analysis of Reference
Group Effects. Marketing Science, 27(5), 932–942.
Amaldoss, W., & Jain, S. (2015). Branding Conspicuous Goods: An Analysis of the Effects of Social
Influence and Competition. Management Science, 61(9), 2064–2079.
Ambler, T., & Barrow, S. (1996). The employer brand. The Journal of Brand Management, 4(3), 185–
206.
American Marketing Association (2013). Definition of Marketing. Retrieved July 31, 2016:
https://www.ama.org/AboutAMA/Pages/Definition-of-Marketing.aspx.
Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2007). Decisions by Rules: The Case of Unwillingness to Pay for Beneficial
Delays. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 44(1), 142–152, from 10.1509/jmkr.44.1.142.
Anderson, C. (2016). Curriculum Vitae. Retrieved July 31st, 2016, from
http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/groups/online_marketing/facultyCV/anderson_cameron.pdf.
Anderson, C., Ames, D. R., & Gosling, S. D. (2008a). Punishing Hubris: The Perils of Overestimating
One's Status in a Group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(1), 90–101.
Anderson, C., Brion, S., Moore, D. A., & Kennedy, J. A. (2012a). A status-enhancement account of overconfidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 718–735.
Anderson, C., Brion, S., Moore, D. A., & Kennedy, J. A. (2012b). A status-enhancement account of overconfidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 718–735.
Anderson, C., & Cowan, J. (2014). Personality and status attainment: A micropolitics perspective. In J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy, & C. Anderson (Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 99–117). New
York, NY: Springer.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Who attains social status? Effects of
personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81(1), 116–132.
XLI
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). The Pursuit of Status in Social Groups. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 18(5), 295–298.
Anderson, C., Spataro, S. E., & Flynn, F. J. (2008b). Personality and organizational culture as
determinants of influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 702–710.
Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J. S., Spataro, S. E., & Chatman, J. A. (2006). Knowing your place:
Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1094–1110.
App, S., Merk, J., & Büttgen, M. (2012). Employer Branding: Sustainable HRM as a Competitive Advantage in the Market for High-Quality Employees. management revue, 23(3), 262–278.
Argyle, M. (1999). Causes and Correlates of Happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being. The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 353–373). New York, NY: Sage.
Arthur, W., Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., & Doverspike, D. (2006). The Use of Person-Organization Fit in
Employment Decision Making: An Assessment of Its Criterion-Related Validity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91(4), 786–801.
Asendorpf, J. B., & Ostendorf, F. (1998). Is Self-Enhancement Healthy? Conceptual, Psychometric,
and Empirical Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 955–966.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in Organizations: An
Examination of Four Fundamental Questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy of
Management Journal, 14(1), 20–39.
Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). How Regulatory Fit Affects Value in Consumer Choices and Opinions. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 1–10.
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The Evolution of Cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396.
Ayton, P., & McClelland, A. G. R. (1997). How Real is Overconfidence? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10(4), 279–285.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656.
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Mundell, B. (1993). Status inconsistency in organizations: From
social hierarchy to stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(1), 21–36.
Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career
Development International, 9(5), 501–517.
Bagwell, L. S., & Bernheim, B. D. (1996). Veblen Effects in a Theory of Conspicuous Consumption.
The American Economic Review, 86(3), 349–373.
Bangerter, A., Roulin, N., & König, C. J. (2012). Personnel selection as a signaling game. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97(4), 719–738.
Barber, A. E. (1998). Recruiting employees: Individual and organizational perspectives. Foundations
for organizational science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Barber, A. E., Daly, C. L., Giannantonio, C. M., & Philipps, J. M. (1994). Job Search Activities: An
Examination of Changes Over Time. Personnel Psychology, 47(4).
Barber, A. E., & Roehling, M. V. (1993). Job postings and the decision to interview: A verbal protocol
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 845–856.
Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J., & Strack, F. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: an automatic power ->sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5), 768–781.
Barkow, J. H. (1975). Prestige and culture: A biosocial interpretation. Current Anthropology, 16(4),
553–572.
Barkow, J. H. (2014). Prestige and the Ongoing Process of Culture Revision. In J. T. Cheng, J. L.
Tracy, & C. Anderson (Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 29–70). New York, NY:
Springer.
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. London: McGraw-Hill.
XLII
Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive
Advantage? The Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656–665.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a
meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.
Bartels, J., Pruyn, A., & Jong, M. (2009). Employee identification before and after an internal merger:
A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 113–128.
Basdeo, D. K., Smith, K. G., Grimm, C. M., Rindova, V. P., & Derfus, P. J. (2006). The impact of
market actions on firm reputation. Strategic Management Journal, 27(12), 1205–1219.
Basu, K. (1989). A Theory of Association: Social Status, Prices and Markets. Oxford Economic
Papers, 41(4), 653–671.
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1990). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159–170.
Batt, V., & Berghaus, B. (2017). Work-related values: a scale development: Unpublished manuscript.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments
as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83(4), 817–827.
Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase
Decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 183–194.
Becker, J., & Homburg, C. (1999). Market-Oriented Management: A Systems-Based Perspective.
Journal of Market-Focused Management, 4(1), 17–41.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–
168.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., & Swidler, A. &. T. S. M. (1996). Habits of the heart:
Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Belt, J. A., & Paolillo, J. G. (1982). The influence of corporate image and specificity of candidate
qualifications on response to recruitment advertisement. Journal of Management, 8(1), 105–112.
Bendersky, C., & Hays, N. A. (2012). Status Conflict in Groups. Organization Science, 23(2), 323–
340.
Bendersky, C., & Shah, N. P. (2013). The downfall of extraverts and rise of neurotics: The dynamic
process of status allocation in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 387–406.
Benjamin, B. A., & Podolny, J. M. (1999). Status, Quality, and Social Order in the California Wine Industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 563–589.
Berger, C. R. (1994). Power, dominance, and social interaction. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 450–507). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Berger, J. (2016). Biography. Retrieved July 1st, 2016: https://sociology.stanford.edu/people/joseph-berger.
Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. (1972). Status Characteristics and Social Interaction.
American Sociological Review, 37(3), 241–255.
Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where Consumers Diverge from Others: Identity Signaling and
Product Domains. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 121–134.
Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., Fisek, H. M., & Norman, R. Z. (1998). The Legitimation and
Delegitimation of Power and Prestige Orders. American Sociological Review, 63(3), 379–405.
Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. (1980). Status Organizing Processes. Annual Review of
Sociology, 6, 479–508.
Berghaus, B., Müller-Stewens, G., & Reinecke, S. (Eds.) (2014). The management of luxury: A
practitioner's handbook. London: Kogan Page.
Berg, N., & Lein, D. (2005). Does society benefit from investor overconfidence in the ability of
financial market experts? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 58(1), 95–116.
XLIII
Bernardo, A. E., & Welch, I. (2001). On the Evolution of Overconfidence and Entrepreneurs. Journal
of Economics & Management Strategy, 10(3), 301–330.
Bernstein, I. S. (1981). Dominance: The baby and the bathwater. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4(3),
419–457.
Berry, C. J. (1994). The idea of luxury: A conceptual and historical investigation. Ideas in context:
Vol. 30. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bhat, S., & Reddy, S. K. (1998). Symbolic and functional positioning of brands. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 15(1), 32–43.
Bhattacharyam, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the Bond of Identification: An
Investigation of Its Correlates among Art Museum Members. Journal of Marketing Research, 59(4), 46–57.
Bidwell, M., Won, S., Barbulescu, R., & Mollick, E. (2014). I used to work at Goldman Sachs! How
firms benefit from organizational status in the market for human capital. Strategic Management
Journal, 36(8), 1164–1173.
Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., Totterdell, P., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of the self-starter: How
mood relates to proactive goal regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 134–150.
Blair, C. A., Hoffman, B. J., & Helland, K. R. (2008). Narcissism in Organizations: A Multisource
Appraisal Reflects Different Perspectives. Human Performance, 21(3), 254–276.
Blalock, H. M. (1967). Status Inconsistency, Social Mobility, Status Integration and Structural Effects.
American Sociological Review, 32(5), 790–801.
Blatt, S. J. (1995). The Destructiveness of Perfectionism: Implications for the Treatment of Depression. American Psychologist, 50(12), 1003–1020.
Blau, P. M. (2012). Exchange and Power in Social Life (reprint of 1964). In C. J. Calhoun (Ed.), Contemporary sociological theory (3rd ed., pp. 112–123). Chichester, West Sussex, Malden, MA:
John Wiley & Sons.
Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1964). The American Occupational Structure. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Bloom, P. (2016). Work as the contemporary limit of life: Capitalism, the death drive, and the lethal
fantasy of 'work-life balance. Organization, 23(4), 588–606.
Bock, T. de, & van Kenhove, P. (2010). Consumer Ethics: The Role of Self-Regulatory Focus. Journal
of Business Ethics, 97(2), 241–255.
Boliver, V. (2013). How fair is access to more prestigious UK universities? The British Journal of
Sociology, 64(2), 344–364.
Bothner, M. S. (2016). Curriculum vitae. . Retrieved July 31st, 2016, from
https://www.esmt.org/matthew-s-bothner.
Bothner, M. S., Kang, J.-h., & Stuart, T. E. (2007). Competitive Crowding and Risk Taking in a
Tournament: Evidence from NASCAR Racing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(2), 208–247.
Bothner, M. S., Kim, Y.-K., & Smith, E. B. (2012). How Does Status Affect Performance? Status as an Asset vs. Status as a Liability in the PGA and NASCAR. Organization Science, 23(2), 416–433.
Bothner, M. S., Podolny, J. M., & Smith, E. B. (2011). Organizing Contests for Status: The Matthew Effect vs. the Mark Effect. Management Science, 57(3), 439–457.
Bothner, M. S., Smith, E. B., & White, H. C. (2010). A Model of Robust Positions in Social Networks 1. American Journal of Sociology, 116(3), 943–92.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2011). The Forms of Capital (reprint of 1986). In I. Szeman & T. Kaposy (Eds.),
Cultural theory. An anthology (pp. 81–93). Chichester, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bourdieu, P. (2012). Social Space and Symbolic Space (reprint of 1994). In C. J. Calhoun (Ed.),
Contemporary sociological theory (3rd ed., pp. 335–344). Chichester, West Sussex, Malden, MA:
John Wiley & Sons.
XLIV
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Brannan, M. J., Parsons, E., & Priola, V. (2014). Brands at Work: The Search for Meaning in
Mundane Work. Organization Studies, 36(1), 29–53.
Brasher, E. E., & Chen, P. Y. (1999). Evaluation of success criteria in job search: A process
perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(1), 57–70.
Braun, O. L., & Wicklund, R. A. (1989). Psychological antecedents of conspicuous consumption.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(2), 161–187.
Breaugh, J. A. (2000). Research on Employee Recruitment: So Many Studies, So Many Remaining
Questions. Journal of Management, 26(3), 405–434.
Brebels, L., Cremer, D. de, van Dijke, M., & van Hiel, A. (2011). Fairness as Social Responsibility: A Moral Self-regulation Account of Procedural Justice Enactment. British Journal of Management,
22, S47.
Brenner, L. A., Koehler, D. J., Liberman, V., & Tversky, A. (1996). Overconfidence in Probability
and Frequency Judgments: A Critical Examination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 65(3), 212–219.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482.
Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H.
Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory. A Symposium (pp. 287–302). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Briley, D. A., & Wyer, R. S. (2002). The Effect of Group Membership Salience on the Avoidance of
Negative Outcomes: Implications for Social and Consumer Decisions. Journal of Consumer
Research, 29(6), 400–415.
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. (2001). Regulatory Focus Theory: Implications for the Study of Emotions
at Work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 35–66.
Bromley, D. B. (1993). Reputation, Image and Impression Management. Malden, MA: John Wiley.
Brown, P., Hesketh, A., & Williams, S. (2004). The mismanagement of talent: Employability and jobs
in the knowledge economy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bryant, P., & Dunford, R. (2008). The Influence of Regulatory Focus on Risky Decision-Making.
Applied Psychology, 57(2), 335–359.
Bryson, D., Atwal, G., & Hultén, P. (2013). Towards the conceptualisation of the antecedents of
extreme negative affect towards luxury brands. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16(4), 393–405.
Buchanan, J. M. (1965). An Economic Theory of Clubs. Economica, 32(125), 1–14.
Budd, J. W., & Spencer, D. A. (2015). Worker well-being and the importance of work: bridging the
gap. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 21(2), 181–196.
Bunderson, J. S., & Reagans, R. E. (2015). Power, Status, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 22(5), 1182–1194.
Burchinal, L. G. (1959). Agreement of occupational prestige as ranked by two empirical occupational prestige scales. The Journal of Social Psychology, 50(2), 335–340.
Burgoon, J. K., & Dunbar, N. E. (2000). An interactionist perspective on dominance‐submission: Interpersonal dominance as a dynamic, situationally contingent social skill. Communication
Monographs, 67(1), 96–121.
Burgoon, J. K., Johnson, M. L., & Koch, P. T. (1998). The nature and measurement of interpersonal
dominance. Communication Monographs, 65(4), 308–335.
Burns, D. (1980). The perfectionist's script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, 13(11), 34–51.
Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of
a field. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 3–21.
XLV
Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2010). Social comparison orientation: a new perspective on those
who do and those who don't compare with others. In A. Guinote & T. K. Vescio (Eds.), The social
psychology of power (pp. 15–33). New York, NY: Guilford.
Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: a theoretical and
empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 822.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person–Organization Fit, Job Choice Decisions, and Organizational Entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 294–311.
Cable, D. M., & Kay, V. S. (2012). Striving for Self-Verification during Organizational Entry. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 360–380.
Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. B. (2003). The value of organizational reputation in the recruitment context: A brand-equity perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 33(11), 2244–2266.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Patrick, W. (2009). Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social connection.
New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Cameron, K. S., & Ulrich, D. O. (1986). Transformational leadership in colleges and universities. In J.
Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 1–42). New York, NY:
Agathon.
Cantoni, L. J. (1955). High School Tests and Measurements as Predictors of Occupational Status. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 39(4), 253–255.
Carli, L. L., LaFleur, S. J., & Loeber, C. C. (1995). Nonverbal Behavior, Gender, and Influence.
Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes, 68(6), 1030–1041.
Carmeli, A. (2004). The Link Between Organizational Elements, Perceived External Prestige and Performance. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(4), 314–331.
Carmeli, A. (2005). Perceived External Prestige, Affective Commitment, and Citizenship Behaviors. Organization Studies, 26(3), 443–464.
Carmeli, A., & Freund, A. (2002). The Relationship Between Work and Workplace Attitudes and Perceived External Prestige. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(1), 51–68.
Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Perceived External Prestige, Organizational Identification and Affective Commitment: A Stakeholder Approach. Corporate Reputation Review,
9(2), 92–104.
Carter, S. M. (2006). The Interaction of Top Management Group, Stakeholder, and Situational Factors
on Certain Corporate Reputation Management Activities. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5),
1145–1176.
Challagalla, G., Murtha, B. R., & Jaworski, B. (2014). Marketing Doctrine: A Principles-Based Approach to Guiding Marketing Decisions Making in Firms. Journal of Marketing, 78(3), 4–20.
Chambers, E. G., Foulon, M., Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S. M., & Micheals, E. G. (1998). The war for talent. McKinsey Quarterly, 44–57.
Chance, M. R. A. (1967). Attention Structure as the Basis of Primate Rank Orders. Man, New Series, 2(4), 503–518.
Chang, C.-C., & Lin, B.-C. (2010). Moderating Effects of Self-Regulatory Focus on Source–Content
Incongruity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 429–439.
Chang, E. C., Watkins, A., & Banks, K. H. (2004). How Adaptive and Maladaptive Perfectionism
Relate to Positive and Negative Psychological Functioning: Testing a Stress-Mediation Model in
Black and White Female College Students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 93–102.
Charness, G., Masclet, D., & Villeval, M. C. (2014). The Dark Side of Competition for Status.
Management Science, 60(1), 38–55.
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving Interactional Organizational Research: A Model of Person-
Organization Fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333–349.
Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 459–484.
XLVI
Chatterjee, S., Malshe, A. V., & Heath, T. B. (2010). The effect of mixed versus blocked sequencing
of promotion and prevention features on brand evaluation: The moderating role of regulatory focus.
Journal of Business Research, 63(12), 1290–1294.
Chatterjee, S., Roy, R., & Malshe, A. V. (2011). The role of regulatory fit on the attraction effect.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(4), 473–481.
Chaudhuri, H. R., Mazumdar, S., & Ghoshal, A. (2011). Conspicuous consumption orientation: Conceptualisation, scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(4), 216–
224.
Chen, G., Kim, K. A., Nofsinger, J. R., & Rui, O. M. (2007). Trading performance, disposition effect,
overconfidence, representativeness bias, and experience of emerging market investors. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, 20(4), 425–451.
Cheng, H., & Furnham, A. (2012). Childhood cognitive ability, education, and personality traits
predict attainment in adult occupational prestige over 17years. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(2), 218–226.
Cheng, J. T., & Tracy, J. L. (2014). Toward a unified science of hierarchy: Dominance and prestige are two fundamental pathways to human social rank. In J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy, & C. Anderson
(Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 3–28). New York, NY: Springer.
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top:
Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103–125.
Chen, H., Ng, S., & Rao, A. R. (2005). Cultural Differences in Consumer Impatience. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(3), 291–301.
Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship Orientation as a Moderator of the Effects of Social Power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 173–187.
Chen, Y.-R., Peterson, R. S., Phillips, D. J., Podolny, J. M., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2012). Introduction to the Special Issue: Bringing Status to the Table-Attaining, Maintaining, and Experiencing Status in
Organizations and Markets. Organization Science, 23(2), 299–307.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by Design:The Role of edonic Versus
Utilitarian Benefi Delight by Design:The Role of Hedonic Versus Utilitarian Benefits. Journal of
Marketing Research, 72(5), 48–63.
Choi, S. B., Tran, T. B. H., & Park, B. I. (2015). Inclusive Leadership and Work Engagement:
Mediating Roles of Affective Organizational Commitment and Creativity. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 43(6), 931–943.
Chuang, A., Shuwei Hsu, R., Wang, A.-C., & Judge, T. A. (2015). Does west "Fit" with east? In
search of a chinese model of person-environment fit. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2),
480–510.
Cialdini, R. B., & Borden, R. J. (1976). Basking in Reflected Glory: Three (Football) Field Studies.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(3), 366–375.
Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (1976). Altruism as Hedonism: A Social Development Perspective
on the Relationship of Negative Mood State and Helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(5), 907–914.
Cialdini, R. B., & Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two Indirect Tactics of Image Management: Basking and Blasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 406–415.
Ciftcioglu, A. (2011). The Relationship between Perceived External Prestige and Turnover Intention:
An Empirical Investigation. Corporate Reputation Review, 13(4), 248–263.
Clark, R. A., Zboja, J. J., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2007). Status consumption and role-relaxed
consumption: A tale of two retail consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 14(1),
45–59.
Clawson, J. C., & Vinson, D. E. (1978). Human values: a historical and interdisciplinary analysis.
Advances in Consumer Research, 5(1), 396–402.
XLVII
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. The American Journal of
Sociology, 94, 95–120.
Coleman, J. S. (1994). Systems of Social Exchange. In J. S. Coleman (Ed.), Foundations of social
theory (pp. 119–144). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Collins, C. J., & Kanar, A. M. (2014). Employer Brand Equity and Recruitment Research. In K. Y. T.
Yu & D. M. Cable (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of recruitment (pp. 284–297). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Collins, C. J., & Stevens, C. K. (2002). The relationship between early recruitment-related activities and the application decisions of new labor-market entrants: A brand equity approach to
recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1121–1133.
Colvin, C. R., Block, J., & Funder, D. C. (1995). Overly Positive Self-Evaluations and Personality:
Negative Implications for Mental Health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6),
1152–1162.
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling Theory: A Review and
Assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67.
Cook, J. (2014). 'These People Are Nuts': 2 Former Managers Reveal What Working For Apple Is Really Like. Retrieved January 31st, 2016: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-people-are-nuts-
what-working-for-apple-is-really-like-2014-10.
Coulombe, S., & La Sablonnière, R. de (2015). The Role of Identity Integration in Hedonic
Adaptation to a Beneficial Life Change: The Example of “Coming Out” for Lesbians and Gay
Men. The Journal of Social Psychology, 155(4), 294–313.
Counts, G. S. (1925). The Social Status of Occupations: A Problem in Vocational Guidance. The
School Review, 33(1), 16–27.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological
Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.
Cropanzano, R., Paddock, L., Rupp, D. E., Bagger, J., & Baldwin, A. (2008). How regulatory focus
impacts the process-by-outcome interaction for perceived fairness and emotions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 36–51.
Cunynghame, H. (1892). Some Improvements in Simple Geometrical Methods of Treating Exchange
Value, Monopoly, and Rent. Economic Journal, 2(5), 35–52.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Daniels, K. (2000). Measures of five aspects of affective well-being at work. Human Relations, 53(2),
275–294.
D'Aveni, R. A. (1996). A Multiple-constituency, Status-based Approach to Interorganizational
Mobility of Faculty and Input-output Competition among Top Business Schools. Organization
Science, 7(2), 166–189.
Davis, K., & Moore, W. E. (1944). Some Principles of Stratification. American Sociological Review, 10(2), 242–249.
Dawes, R. M., & Mulford, M. (1996). The False Consensus Effect and Overconfidence: Flaws in Judgment or Flaws in How We Study Judgment? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 65(3), 201–211.
Deaves, R., Lüders, E., & Schröder, M. (2010). The dynamics of overconfidence: Evidence from stock
market forecasters. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 75(3), 402–412.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: an introduction. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 9(1), 1–11.
Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: an integration of mass
communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1091–1112.
Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., Moore, J. N., & Goebel, D. J. (2000). Prestige clothing shopping by
consumers: a confirmatory assessment and refinement of the PRECON scale with managerial implications. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 8(4), 43–58.
XLVIII
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practice on
perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949–969.
Delery, J. E., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). The strategic management of people in work
organizations: Review, synthesis, and extension. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 20(1), 165–197.
DeNeve, K. M. (1999). Happy as an Extraverted Clam? The Role of Personality for Subjective Well-Being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 141–144.
Dentan, R. K. (1979). The Semai: A nonviolent people of Malaya. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Depret, E., & Fiske, S. T. (1993). Social cognition and power: some cognitive consequences of social structure as a source of control deprivation. In G. Weary, F. Gleicher, & K. Marsh (Eds.), Control
motivation and social cognition (pp. 176–202). New York, NY: Springer.
DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Applied social research
methods series: Vol. 26. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled Components.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5–18.
Dholakia, U. M., Gopinath, M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Nataraajan, R. (2006). The Role of Regulatory
Focus in the Experience and Self-Control of Desire for Temptations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(2), 163–175.
Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Personality and sub-jective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being. The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 213–229). New
York, NY: Sage.
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the
adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61(4), 305–314.
Dineen, B. R., Ling, J., Ash, S. R., & DelVecchio, D. (2007). Aesthetic properties and message
customization: Navigating the dark side of web recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2),
356–372.
Dineen, B. R., & Noe, R. A. (2009). Effects of customization on application decisions and applicant pool characteristics in a web-based recruitment context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1),
224–234.
Dollinger, M. J., Golden, P. A., & Saxton, T. (1997). The effect of reputation on the decision to joint
venture. Strategic Management Journal, 18(2), 127–140.
Donovan, J. J., Dwight, S. A., & Schneider, D. (2014). The Impact of Applicant Faking on Selection
Measures, Hiring Decisions, and Employee Performance. Journal of Business and Psychology,
29(3), 479–493.
Dose, J. J. (1997). Work values: An integrative framework and illustrative application to
organizational socialization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(3), 219–240.
Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organizational
Behavior. The Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136.
Drakos, K., & Konstantinou, P. T. (2013). Investment decisions in manufacturing: assessing the
effects of real oil prices and their uncertainty. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 28(1), 151–165.
Driskell, J. E., & Mullen, B. (1990). Status, Expectations, and Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review and
Test of Theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(3), 541–553.
Driskell, J. E., Olmstead, M. P., & Salas, E. (1993). Task Cues, Dominance Cues, and Influence in
Task Groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 51–60.
Drucker, P. F. (1995). People and performance: The best of Peter Drucker on management. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Duesenberry, J. S. (1949). Income, saving and the theory of consumer behaviour. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
XLIX
Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: the
impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of
physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3), 507–533.
Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2003). Self-critical perfectionism and daily affect:
Dispositional and situational influences on stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 234–252.
Eastman, J. K., Goldsmith, R. E., & Reinecke Flynn, L. (1999). Status Consumption in Consumer
Behavior: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(3), 41–
52.
Edwards, I. R., & Shipp, A. J. (New York, NY). The Relationship Between Person-Environment fit
and Outcomes: An Integrative. In Ostroff C & Judge T.A. (Eds.), Perspectives on Organizational Fit. (pp. 209–258). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677.
Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. (2006). The
phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-
environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 802–827.
Edwards, M. R. (2005). Organizational identification: A conceptual and operational review.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 207–230.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989). Human ethology. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
Ekehammar, B., Sidanius, J., & Nilsson, I. (1987). Social Status: Construct and External Validity. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 127(5), 473–481.
Ellyson, S. L., & Dovido, J. F. (1985). Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior. In S. L. Ellyson &
J. F. Dovido (Eds.), Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior (pp. 1–27). New York, NY:
Springer.
Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members' Responses to Organizational Identity Threats: Encountering and Countering the Business Week Rankings. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41(3), 442–476.
Elving, W. J. L., Westhoff, J. J. C., Meeusen, K., & Schoonderbeek, J.-W. (2012). The war for talent?
The relevance of employer branding in job advertisements for becoming an employer of choice.
Journal of Brand Management, 20(5), 355–373.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-Dependence Relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41.
Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social
worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40.
Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of
Sociology, 24, 313–343.
Fellner, B., Holler, M., Kirchler, E., & Schabmann, A. (2007). Regulatory Focus Scale (RFS):
Development of a Scale to Record Dispositional Regulatory Focus. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 66(2), 109–116.
Fellner, G., & Krügel, S. (2012). Judgmental overconfidence: Three measures, one bias? Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(1), 142–154.
Ferraro, R., Kirimani, A., & Matherly, T. (2013). Look at Me! Look at Me! Conspicuous Brand
Usage, Self-Brand Connection, and Dilution. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(4), 477–488.
Fershtman, C., Murphy, K. M., & Weiss, Y. (1996). Social status, education, and growth. Journal of
Political Economy, 104(1), 108–132.
Fershtman, C., & Weiss, Y. (1993). Social status, culture and economic performance. The Economic
Journal, 103(July), 946–959.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.
Finn, D. (1961). The price of corporate vanity. Harvard Business Review, 39(4), 135–143.
L
Fishman, C. (1998). The war for talent. Fast Company, August 1998.
Fiske (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: the impact of power on stereotyping. American
Psychologist, 48(6), 621–628.
Fiske, S. T. (2010). Interpersonal Stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In S. T. Fiske, D. T.
Gilbert, G. Lindzey, & A. E. Jongsma (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 941–
983). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., Lindzey, G., & Jongsma, A. E. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook of social
psychology (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Flaxman, P. E., Ménard, J., Bond, F. W., & Kinman, G. (2012). Academics' experiences of a respite from work: Effects of self-critical perfectionism and perseverative cognition on postrespite well-
being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 854–865.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and Maladjustment: An Overview of Theoretical,
Definitional, and Treatment Issues. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: theory,
research, and treatment (pp. 5–31). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Gray, L. (1998). Psychological distress and the
frequency of perfectionistic thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1363–1381.
Flynn, F. J., Reagans, R. E., Amanatullah, E. T., & Ames, D. R. (2006). Helping one's way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1123–1137.
Foa, U. G. (1971). Interpersonal and economic resources. Science, 29(1), 345–351.
Fombrun, C. J. (1990). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy.
The Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258.
Förster, J., Higgins, E., & Bianco, A. T. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-
in trade-off or separate strategic concerns? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 90(1), 148–164.
Foschi, M. (2000). Double Standards for Competence: Theory and Research. Annual Review of
Sociology, (26), 21–42.
Frank, R. H. (1985). Choosing the right pond: Human behavior and the quest for status. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1367–1377.
French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The Bases of Social Power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Friedkin, N. E. (1999). Choice Shift and Group Polarization. American Sociological Review, 64(6),
856–875.
Frisch, B. (2008). When Teams Can’t Decide. Harvard Business Review, 86(11), 121–126.
Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison of two measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14(1), 119–126.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14(5), 449–468.
Galinsky, A. (2016). Curriculum Vitae. Retrieved July 31st, 2016, from
http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/cbs-directory/sites/cbs-
directory/files/faculty_cvs/Galinsky%2C%20Adam%20CV%202016.pdf.
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From Power to Action. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453–466.
LI
Galvin, B. M., Lange, D., & Ashforth, B. E. (2015). Narcissistic organizational identification: seeing
oneself as central to the organization's identity. Academy of Management Review, 40(2), 163–181,
from 10.5465/amr.2013.0103.
Gambetta, D. (2009). Signaling. In P. Hedström & P. S. Bearman (Eds.), Oxford handbooks. The
Oxford handbook of analytical sociology (pp. 168–194). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Garcia, M. F., del Carmen Triana, M., Peters, A. N., & Sanchez, M. (2009). Self-Enhancement in a Job Search Context. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(3), 290–299.
Gatewood, R. D., Gowan, M. A., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (1993). Corporate image, recruitment image, and initial job choice decisions. The Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 414–427.
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-Cultural Organizational Behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 479–514.
Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, A. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: The development
of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1),
129–142.
Glaser, M., Langer, T., & Weber, M. (2013). True Overconfidence in Interval Estimates: Evidence
Based on a New Measure of Miscalibration. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(5), 405–417.
Goffman, E. (1956). The nature of deference and demeanor. American Anthropologist, 58(3), 473–502.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goldhammer, H., & Shils, E. A. (1939). Types of Power and Status. American Journal of Sociology, 45(2), 171–182.
Goldman Sachs Self-presentation (2016). Why Goldman Sachs? Retrieved January 31st, 2016: http://www.goldmansachs.com/careers/why-goldman-sachs/.
Gollwitzer, P. M., Wicklund, R. A., & Hilton, J. L. (1982). Admission of Failure and Symbolic Self-Completion: Extending Lewinian Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(2),
358–371.
Gonzalez-Mulé, E., DeGeest, D. S., McCormick, B. W., Seong, J. Y., & Brown, K. G. (2014). Can we
get some cooperation around here? The mediating role of group norms on the relationship between
team personality and individual helping behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 988–999.
Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B. L., Apodaca, S., McIntyre, A. L., Park, P., & Godbey, J.
N. (2012). A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network: Work-related antecedents and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 160–172.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1980). Construct Validity of Holland's Occupational Typology in Terms of
Prestige, Census, Department of Labor, and Other Classification Systems. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 65(6), 697–714.
Gough, H. G. (1975). Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Gould, R. V. (2002). The Origins of Status Hierarchies: A Formal Theory and Empirical Test.
American Journal of Sociology, 107(5), 1143–1178.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strenght of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–
1380.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.
Granovetter, M. S. (1974). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 465–477.
LII
Grice, T. A., Gallois, C., Jones, E., Paulsen, N., & Callan, V. J. (2006). “We Do It, but They Don't”:
Multiple Categorizations and Work Team Communication. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 34(4), 331–348.
Griffin, D. W., & Varey, C. A. (1996). Towards a Consensus on Overconfidence. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 227–231.
Grijalva, E., & Zhang, L. (2015). Narcissism and Self-Insight: A Review and Meta-Analysis of Narcissists Self-Enhancement Tendencies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(1), 3–
24.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007).
Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly
signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 85–102.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation,
and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392–404.
Grossman, Z., & Owens, D. (2012). An unlucky feeling: Overconfidence and noisy feedback. Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization, 84(2), 510–524.
Groth, J. C. (1994). The Exclusive Value Principle – A Concept for Marketing. Product and Brand Management, 3(3), 8–18.
Grzegorek, J. L., Slaney, R. B., Franze, S., & Rice, K. G. (2004). Self-Criticism, Dependency, Self-Esteem, and Grade Point Average Satisfaction Among Clusters of Perfectionists and
Nonperfectionists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(2), 192–200.
Guenther, C. L., & Alicke, M. D. (2008). Self-enhancement and belief perseverance. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 706–712.
Guerrero, S., & Herrbach, O. (2009). Manager organizational commitment: a question of support or
image? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(7), 1536–1553.
Guppy, N., & Goyder, J. C. (1984). Consensus on Occupational Prestige: A Reassessment of the
Evidence. Social Forces, 62(3), 709–725.
Gutman, J. (1982). A Means-End Chain Model Based on Consumer Categorization Processes. Journal
of Marketing Research, 46(2), 60–72.
Hakmiller, K. L. (1966). Threat as a determinant of downward comparison. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 1(1), 32–39.
Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal Behavior and the Vertical Dimension of
Social Relations: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 898–924.
Hall, J. A., Halberstadt, A. G., & O'Brien, C. E. (1997). “Subordination” and Nonverbal Sensitivity: A Study and Synthesis of Findings Based on Trait Measures. Sex Roles, 37(5/6), 295–317.
Hall, R. (1992). The Strategic Analysis of Intangible Resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2), 135–144.
Hamedoglu, M. A., & Potas, N. (2012). Organizational Narcissism Scale (ONS). Engineering Management Research, 1(2).
Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand
Prominence. Journal of Marketing Research, 74(7), 15–30.
Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice Guys Finish First: The Competitive Altruism Hypothesis.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1402–1413.
Hauser, R. M., & Warren, J. R. (1996). Socioeconomic Indexes for Occupations: A Review, Update,
and Critique ( No. 1). Madison, WI: Department of Sociology, Center for Demography and
Ecology, The University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Haws, K. L., Dhoakia, U. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2010). An Assessment of Chronic Regulatory Focus
Measures. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 967–982.
Haynes, K. T., Hitt, M. A., & Campbell, J. T. (2015). The dark side of leadership: Towards a mid‐range theory of hubris and greed in entrepreneurial contexts. Journal of Management Studies, 52(4), 479–505.
LIII
Hayward, M. L. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). Explaining the Premiums Paid for Large Acquisitions:
Evidence of CEO Hubris. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 103–127.
Heck, P. R., & Krueger, J. I. (2015). Self-enhancement diminished. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 144(5), 1003–1020.
Hegghammer, T. (2013). The recruiter's dilemma: Signalling and rebel recruitment tactics. Journal of
Peace Research, 50(1), 3–16.
Hemphill, K. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1991). Social comparisons and their affective consequences: The
importance of comparison dimension and individual difference variables. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10(4), 372–394.
Hendrickson, R. (2008). Keeping up with the Joneses. In R. Hendrickson (Ed.), Facts on File library of language and literature. The Facts on File encyclopedia of word and phrase origins (p. 407).
Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: freely conferred deference as a
mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior,
22(3), 165–196.
Herrbach, O., & Mignonac, K. (2004). How organisational image affects employee attitudes. Human
Resource Management, 14(4), 76–88.
Herrbach, O., Mignonac, K., & Gatignon, A.-L. (2004). Exploring the role of perceived external
prestige in managers' turnover intentions. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(8), 1390–1407.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the Self and Social Contexts Conceptualization, Assessment, and Association With Psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60(3), 456–470.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Weber, C. (1994). Dimensions of perfectionism and suicide ideation.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18(5), 439–460.
Hewitt, P. L., & Genest, M. (1990). The Ideal Self: Schematic Processing of Perfectionistic Content in
Dysphoric University Students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 802–808.
He, X. (2016). When perfectionism leads to imperfect consumer choices: The role of dichotomous
thinking. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(1), 98–104.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect. Psychological Review,
94(3), 319–340.
Higgins, E. T. (1997): Beyond pleasure and pain. In: American Psychologist 52 (12), S. 1280–1300.
Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001).
Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3–23.
Higgins, E. T. (2012). Regulatory Focus Theory. In P. A. M. v. Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 483–504). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Highhouse, S., Thornbury, E. E., & Little, I. S. (2007). Social-identity functions of attraction to organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 134–146.
Highhouse, S., Zickar, M. J., Thorsteinson, T. J., Stierwalt, S. L., & Slaughter, J. E. (1999). Assessing
Company Employment Image: An Example In The Fast Food Industry. Personnel Psychology,
52(1), 151–172.
Hill, A. D., Kern, D. A., & White, M. A. (2014). Are we overconfident in executive overconfidence
research? An examination of the convergent and content validity of extant unobtrusive measures. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1414–1420.
Hiller, N. J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Conceptualizing executive hubris: the role of (hyper-)core self-evaluations in strategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal, 26(4), 297–319.
Hilton, D., Régner, I., Cabantous, L., Charalambides, L., & Vautier, S. (2011). Do positive illusions predict overconfidence in judgment? A test using interval production and probability evaluation
measures of miscalibration. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(2), 117–139.
Hinkle, D. N. (2010). The Change of Personal Constructs from the Viewpoint of a Theory of
Construct Implications (reprint of 1965). Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 7(1), 1–61.
LIV
Hirsch, F. (2014). Social limits to growth. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hirschmann, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods
and Propositions. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 92–101.
Ho, C. M. (2013). Private information, overconfidence and intraday trading behaviour: empirical study
of the Taiwan stock market. Applied Financial Economics, 23(4), 325–345.
Hodge, R. W. (1981). The measurement of occupational status. Social Science Research, 10(4), 396–
415.
Hodge, R. W., Siegel, P. M., & Rossi, P. H. (1964). Occupational Prestige in the United States, 1925-
63. American Journal of Sociology, 70(3), 286–302.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1991). Personality and Status. In D. G. Gilbert & J. J. Connolly (Eds.),
Perspectives on individual differences. Personality, social skills, and psychopathology. An individual differences approach (pp. 137–154). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Hogg, M. (2013). Social Identity and Social Comparison. In J. M. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Plenum series in social/clinical psychology. Handbook of social comparison. Theory and research
(pp. 401–421). New York, NY: Springer.
Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65(2),
117–127.
Holland, J. L. (1958). A Note on the Reliability and Validity of the Minnesota Scale for Paternal
Occupations as an Estimate of Family Economic Status. Journal of Applied Psychology, 42(3),
195–196.
Homans, G. C. (1951). The human group. The international library of sociology. The sociology of behaviour and psychology. London: Routledge.
Hoobler, J. M., Wayner, S. J., & Lemmon, G. (2009). Bosses' perceptions of family-work conflict and women's promotability: glass ceiling effects. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 939–957.
Hoorens, V., Pandelaere, M., Oldersma, F., & Sedikides, C. (2012). The Hubris Hypothesis: You Can Self-Enhance, But You'd Better Not Show It. Journal of Personality, 80(5), 1237–1274.
Hope, K. (Ed.) (1972). The Analysis of Social Mobility: Methods and Approaches. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Horverak, J. G., Bye, H. H., Sandal, G. M., & Pallesen, S. (2013). Managers’ evaluations of immigrant
job applicants: The influence of acculturation strategy on perceived person-organization fit (P-O
fit) and hiring outcome. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(1), 46–60.
Howard, K. A., Carlstrom, A. H., Katz, A. D., Chew, A. Y., Ray, G. C., Laine, L., & Caulum, D.
(2011). Career aspirations of youth: Untangling race/ethnicity, SES, and gender. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 98–109.
Huselid, M. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635–872.
Huta, V. (2015). The Complementary Roles of Eudaimonia and Hedonia and How They Can Be Pursued in Practice. In S. Joseph (Ed.), Positive psychology in practice. Promoting human
flourishing in work, health, education, and everyday life (pp. 159–182). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and Its Distinction from Hedonia: Developing a
Classification and Terminology for Understanding Conceptual and Operational Definitions.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(6), 1425–1456.
Hyman, H. H. (1942). The Psychology of Status. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Irmak, C., Vallen, B., & Sen, S. (2010). You Like What I Like, but I Don’t Like What You Like:
Uniqueness Motivations in Product Preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 443–455.
Jackson, A. (2016). This could be the 'single most important' reason why college tuition is
skyrocketing. Retrieved July 31, 2016: http://www.businessinsider.com/this-could-be-the-single-most-important-reason-why-college-tuition-is-skyrocketing-2015-9.
Jasso, G. (2001). Studying status: An integrated framework. American Sociological Review, 66(1), 96–
124.
LV
Jensen, M. (2008). The Use of Relational Discrimination to Manage Market Entry: When Do Social
Status and Structural Holes Work against You? The Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 723–
743.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and
ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
Johansson-Stenman, O., & Martinsson, P. (2006). Honestly, why are you driving a BMW? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60(2), 129–146.
Jolson, M. A., Anderson, R. E., & Leber, N. J. (1981). Profiles of Signature Goods Consumers and Avoiders. Journal of Retailing, 57(4), 19–38.
Jones, D. A., & Willness, C. R. (2014). Corporate Social Performance, Organizational Reputation, and Recruitment. In K. Y. T. Yu & D. M. Cable (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford
handbook of recruitment (pp. 298–313). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A
qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780.
Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77(3), 261.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization
attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 359–394.
Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). On the value of aiming high: The causes and
consequences of ambition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 758–775.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 855–875.
Kafashan, S., Sparks, A., Griskevicius, V., & Barclay, P. (2014). Prosocial Behavior and Social Status. In J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy, & C. Anderson (Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 139–158).
New York, NY: Springer.
Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.) (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic
psychology. New York, NY: Sage.
Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2011). Before you make that big decision. Harvard
Business Review, 89(6), 50–60.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(2), 263–291.
Kalma, A. P., Visser, L., & Peeters, A. (1993). Sociable and aggressive dominance: personality
differences in leadership style? Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 45–64.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Self-Esteem and Extrinsic Career
Success: Test of a Dynamic Model. Applied Psychology, 57(2), 204–224.
Kang, D.-s., Stewart, J., & Kim, H. (2011). The effects of perceived external prestige, ethical
organizational climate, and leader-member exchange (LMX) quality on employees' commitments and their subsequent attitudes. Personnel Review, 40(6), 761–784.
Karl, K., & Peluchette, J. (2006). How Does Workplace Fun Impact Employee Perceptions of
Customer Service Quality? Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(2), 2–13.
Karl, K., Peluchette, J., Hall, L., & Harland, L. (2005). Attitudes Toward Workplace Fun: A Three
Sector Comparison. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12(2), 1–17.
Kastanakis, M. N., & Balabanis, G. (2012). Between the mass and the class: Antecedents of the
“bandwagon” luxury consumption behavior. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1399–1407.
Kausel, E. E., Culbertson, S. S., Leiva, P. I., Slaughter, J. E., & Jackson, A. T. (2015). Too arrogant
for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 131(C), 33–50.
Kausel, E. E., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Narrow personality traits and organizational attraction: Evidence for the complementary hypothesis. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
Processes, 114(1), 3–14.
LVI
Kees, J., Burton, S., & Tangari, A. H. (2010). The Impact of Regulatory Focus, Temporal Orientation,
and Fit on Consumer Responses to Health-Related Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 19–
34.
Keller, K. L., Sternthal, B., & Tybout, A. (2002). Three questions you need to ask about your brand.
Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 80–86.
Kelly, R. L. (1995). The foraging spectrum: Diversity in hunter-gatherer lifeways. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284.
Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., & Monarch, N. D. (1998). Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1231–
1247.
Kemper, T. D. (2000). Social models in the explanation of emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-
Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 45–58). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kennedy, J. A., Anderson, C., & Moore, D. A. (2013). When overconfidence is revealed to others:
Testing the status-enhancement theory of overconfidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 266–279.
Kenrick, D. T., Baumann, D. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (1979). A Step in the Socialization of Altruism as Hedonism: Effects of Negative Mood on Children's Generosity A Step in the Socialization of
Altruism as Hedonism Effects of Negative Mood on Children's Generosity Under Public and
Private Conditions of Negative Mood on Children's Gen Under Public and Private Conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(5), 747–755.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1990). The Organizational Fool: Balancing a Leader's Hubris. Human Relations, 43(8), 751–770.
Kim, H.-R., Lee, M., Lee, H.-T., & Kim, N.-M. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee–Company Identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 557–569.
King, C., & Grace, D. (2010). Building and measuring employee-based brand equity. European Journal of Marketing, 44(7/8), 938–971.
King, C., & Grace, D. (2012). Examining the antecedents of positive employee brand-related attitudes
and behaviours. European Journal of Marketing, 46(3/4), 469–488.
King, C., Grace, D., & Funk, D. C. (2011). Employee brand equity: Scale development and validation.
Journal of Brand Management, 19(4), 268–288.
Kirmani, A., & Zhu, R. (2007). Vigilant Against Manipulation: The Effect of Regulatory Focus on the
Use of Persuasion Knowledge. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 688–701.
Klayman, J., Soll, J. B., Gonzalez-Vallejo, C., & Barlas, S. (1999). Overconfidence: It Depends on
How, What, and Whom You Ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(3),
216–247.
Koellinger, P., Minniti, M., & Schade, C. (2007). “I think I can, I think I can”: Overconfidence and entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(4), 502–527.
Kopalle, P. K., & Lehman, D. R. (2001). Strategic Management of Expectations: The Role of Disconfirmation Sensitivity and Perfectionism. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 386–394.
Kramer, R. M. (2006). Social capital and cooperative behavior in the workplace: a social identity perspective. In S. Thye & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Advances in group processes. Advances in group
processes (pp. 1–30). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: an integrative reveiw of its conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49.
Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: distinguishing between recruiters' perceptions of
person-job and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 643–671.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequenes of individuals' fit at
work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342, from 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x.
LVII
Kurman, J., & Eshel, Y. (1998). Self-Enhancement, Generality Level of Self-Evaluation, and
Emotional Adjustment. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138(5), 549–563.
Kwan, V. S. Y., John, O. P., Kenny, D. A., Bond, M. H., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Reconceptualizing
Individual Differences in Self-Enhancement Bias: An Interpersonal Approach. Psychological
Review, 111(1), 94–110.
Kwan, V. S. Y., John, O. P., Robins, R. W., & Kuang, L. L. (2008). Conceptualizing and assessing self-enhancement bias: A componential approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
94(6), 1062–1077.
Kyl-Heku, L. M., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Tactics as units of analysis in personality psychology: an
illustration using tactics of hierarchy negotiation. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(4),
497–517.
Lacy, W. B., Bokemeier, J. L., & Shepard, J. M. (1983). Job attributed preferences and work
commitment of men and women in the United States. Personnel Psychology, 36(2), 315–329.
Lado, A. A., & Wilson, M. C. (1994). Human Resource Systems and Sustained Competitive
Advantage: A Competency-Based Perspective. The Academy of Management Journal, 19(4), 699–727.
Lageat, T., Czellar, S., & Laurent, G. (1997). Engineering Hedonic Attributes to Generate Perceptions
of Luxury: Consumer Perception of an Everyday Sound. Marketing Letters, 14(2), 97–109.
Laland, K. N., & Galef, B. G. (2009). The question of animal culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Lambert, J., Bessière, V., & N’Goala, G. (2012). Does expertise influence the impact of
overconfidence on judgment, valuation and investment decision? Journal of Economic Psychology,
33(6), 1115–1128.
Lam, C. F., Spreitzer, G., & Fritz, C. (2014). Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear effect of positive
affect on proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(4), 530–546.
Lamm, E., & Meeks, M. D. (2009). Workplace fun: the moderating effects of generational differences.
Employee Relations, 31(6), 613–631.
Landau, M. J., & Greenberg, J. (2006). Play It Safe or Go for the Gold? A Terror Management Perspective on Self-Enhancement and Self-Protective Motives in Risky Decision Making.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(12), 1633–1645.
Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2010). Organizational Reputation: A Review. Journal of
Management, 37(1), 153–184.
Larrick, R. P., Burson, K. A., & Soll, J. B. (2007). Social comparison and confidence: When thinking
you’re better than average predicts overconfidence (and when it does not). Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 76–94.
Laumann, E., Siegel, P. M., & Hodge, R. W. (1970). The logic of social hierarchies. Chicago, IL:
Markham.
Lawler, E. J. (2005). Role of Status in Group Processes. In M. C. Thomas-Hunt (Ed.), Research on Managing Groups and Teams. Status and Groups (pp. 315–325). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Leary, M. R., Jongman-Sereno, K. P., & Diebels, K. J. (2014). The pursuit of status: A self-presentational perspective on the quest for social value. In J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy, & C. Anderson
(Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 159–178). New York, NY: Springer.
Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2013). Construct Validity of the
Need to Belong Scale: Mapping the Nomological Network. Journal of Personality Assessment,
95(6), 610–624.
Lea, S. E., & Webley, P. (1997). Pride in economic psychology. Journal of Economic Psychology,
18(2-3), 323–340.
Leavitt, H. J. (2003). Why Hierarchies Thrive. Harvard Business Review, 81(3), 96–102.
Lee, I. H., & Rojewski, J. W. (2009). Development of occupational aspiration prestige: A piecewise
latent growth model of selected influences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(1), 82–90.
LVIII
Leibenstein, H. (1950). Bandwagon, Snob, and Veblen Effects in the Theory of Consumers' Demand.
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64(2), 183–207.
Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for Sale. Harvard Business Review, 37(4), 117–124.
Liebermann, Y. (1999). Membership Clubs as a Tool for Enhancing Buyers' Patronage. Journal of
Business Research, 45(3), 291–297.
Lievens, F. (2007). Employer branding in the Belgian Army: The importance of instrumental and
symbolic beliefs for potential applicants, actual applicants, and military employees. Human
Resource Management, 46(1), 51–69.
Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S. (2003). The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a
company's attractiveness as an employer. Personnel Psychology, 56(1), 75–102.
Lindeman, M. (1997). Ingroup bias, self-enhancement and group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(3), 337–355.
Lin, N. (1999a). Building a Network Theory of Social Capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51.
Lin, N. (1999b). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), 467–487.
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models:
Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854–864.
London, H., McSeveney, D., & Tropper, R. (1971). Confidence, Overconfidence and Persuasion. Human Relations, 24(5), 359–369.
Lönnqvist, J.-E., Leikas, S., Verkasalo, M., & Paunonen, S. V. (2008). Does Self-Enhancement Have Implications for Adjustment? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(4), 377–386.
Lönnqvist, J.-E., Paunonen, S., Nissinen, V., Ortju, K., & Verkasalo, M. (2011). Self-Enhancement in
Military Leaders: Its Relevance to Officer Selection and Performance. Applied Psychology, 60(4),
670–695.
Lord, R. G., De Vader, C., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A Meta-Analysis of the Relation Between
Personality Traits and Leadership Perceptions: An Application of Validity Generalization
Procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402–410.
Lynn, M. (1989). Scarcity effects on desirability: mediated by assumed expensiveness? Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(2), 257–274.
Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). Individual Differences in the Pursuit of Self-Uniqueness Through Consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(21), 1861–1883.
Lynn, M., & Snyder, C. R. (2002). Uniqueness Seeking. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 395–410). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated
model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.
Magee, J. (2016). Curriculum Vitae. Retrieved July 31st, 2016, from
http://wagner.nyu.edu/files/faculty/cv/joe-magee-cv_2.pdf.
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social Hierarchy: The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and
Status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351–398.
Manai, A., & Holmlund, M. (2014). Self-marketing brand skills for business students. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 33(5), 749–762.
March, J. G., Simon, H. A., & Guetzkow, H. S. (1993). Organizations (reprint of 1958) (2nd ed.).
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Marinova, D., & Singh, J. (2014). Consumer decision to upgrade or downgrade a service membership.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(6), 596–618.
Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of Economics. London: MacMillan and Co. Limited.
Martin, G., Gollan, P. J., & Grigg, K. (2011). Is there a bigger and better future for employer
branding? Facing up to innovation, corporate reputations and wicked problems in SHRM. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(17), 3618–3637.
LIX
Martin, J., Feldmann, M. S., Hatch, M. J., & Sitkin, S. B. (1983). The Uniqueness Paradox in
Organizational Stories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 438–453.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1969). Manifesto of the Communist Party (reprint of 1848). Moscow:
Progress Publishers.
Maslach, C. (1974). Social and Personal Bases of Individuation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 29(3), 411–425.
Maslow, A. H. (1937). Dominance-feeling, behavior, and status. Psychological Review, 44(5), 404–
429.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–393.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). The Instinctoid Nature of Basic Needs. Journal of Personality, 22(3), 326–347.
Mason, J. L. (1965). The Low Prestige of Personal Selling. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(4), 7–
10.
Mason, N. A., & Belt, J. A. (1986). Effectiveness of specificity in recruitment advertising. Journal of
Management, 12(3), 425–432.
Mason, R. S. (1998). The economics of conspicuous consumption: Theory and thought since 1700.
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Masuch, M. (1985). Vicious Circles in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), 14–33.
Matsumoto, D. (2007). Individual and Cultural Differences On Status Differentiation: The Status
Differentiation Scale. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(4), 413–431.
Matt, S. J. (2003). Keeping up with the Joneses: Envy in American consumer society, 1890-1930.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Mauss, I. B., Tamir, M., Anderson, C. L., & Savino, N. S. (2011). Can seeking happiness make people
unhappy? Paradoxical effects of valuing happiness. Emotion, 11(4), 807–815.
Mayhew, B. H. (1980). Structuralism versus Individualism: Part 1, Shadowboxing in the Dark. Social
Forces, 59(2), 335–375.
Mazur, A. (1985). A Biosocial Model of Status in Face-to-Face Primate Groups. Social Forces, 64(2),
377–402.
McGraw, A. P., Mellers, B. A., & Ritov, I. (2004). The Affective Costs of Overconfidence. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(4), 281–295.
McGuire, M. (1972). Private Good Clubs and Public Good Clubs: Economic Models of Group Formation. The Swedish Journal of Economics, 74(1), 84–99.
McKenzie, C. R. M. (1997). Underweighting Alternatives and Overconfidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(2), 141–160.
McKenzie, C. R., Liersch, M. J., & Yaniv, I. (2008). Overconfidence in interval estimates: What does
expertise buy you? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(2), 179–191.
Menguc, B., Auh, S., Katsikeas, C. S., & Yeon Sung Jung (2016). When Does (Mis)Fit in Customer
Orientation Matter for Frontline Employees' Job Satisfaction and Performance? Journal of
Marketing, 80(1), 65–83.
Menkhoff, L., Schmeling, M., & Schmidt, U. (2013). Overconfidence, experience, and
professionalism: An experimental study. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 86(2), 92–101.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Mick, D. G. (1986). Consumer Research and Semiotics: Exploring the Morphology of Signs, Symbols, and Significance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 196–213.
Midgley, D. F. (1983). Patterns of Interpersonal Information Seeking for the Purchase of a Symbolic Product. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(1), 74–83.
LX
Mignonac, K., Herrbach, O., & Guerrero, S. (2006). The interactive effects of perceived external
prestige and need for organizational identification on turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 69(3), 477–493.
Mishra, S. K. (2013). Perceived External Prestige and Employee Outcomes: Mediation Effect of
Organizational Identification. Corporate Reputation Review, 16(3), 220–233.
Montgomery, A. L., & Bradlow, E. T. (1999). Why analysts overconfidence about the functional form of demand models can lead to overpricing. Marketing Science, 18(4), 569–583.
Moore, D. A., & Cain, D. M. (2007). Overconfidence and underconfidence: When and why people underestimate (and overestimate) the competition. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 103(2), 197–213.
Moore, D. A., Fox, C. R., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Positive Illusions and Forecasting Errors in
Mutual Fund Investment Decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
79(2), 95–114.
Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review, 115(2),
502–517.
Moores, T. T., & Chang, J. C.-J. (2009). Self-efficacy, overconfidence, and the negative effect on subsequent performance: A field study. Information & Management, 46(2), 69–76.
Moorhead, G., Ference, R., & Neck, C. P. (1991). Group Decisions Fiascoes Continue: Space Shuttle Challenger and a Revised Groupthink Framework. Human Relations, 44(6), 539–550.
Mortelmans, D. (2005). Sign values in processes of distinction: The concept of luxury. Semiotica, 157(1), 497–520.
Nail, P. R. (1986). Toward an Integration of Some Models and Theories of Social Response.
Psychological Bulletin, 100(2), 190–206.
National Opinion Research Center (NORC) (1947). Jobs and Occupations: A Popular Evaluation.
Opinion News, (9), 3–13.
Neate, R. (2015). Goldman Sachs restricts intern workday to 17 hours in wake of burnout death.
Retrieved January 31st, 2016: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/17/goldman-sachs-
interns-work-hours.
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. C. (2003). Scaling procedures for self-report
measures in the social sciences: Issues and applications. London, UK: Sage.
OECD (2000). The service economy (Business and industry policy forum series). Paris: Organization
for economic co-operation and development.
Olsson, H. (2014). Measuring overconfidence: Methodological problems and statistical artifacts. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1766–1770.
O'Meara, K., & Bloomgarden, A. (2011). The Pursuit of Prestige: The Experience of Institutional Striving from a Faculty Perspective. The Journal of the Professoriate, 4(1), 39–73.
Ordabayeva, N., & Chandon, P. (2011). Getting Ahead of the Joneses: When Equality Increases Conspicuous Consumption among Bottom-Tier Consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1),
27–41.
Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (2013). Expressed Humility in Organizations:
Implications for Performance, Teams, and Leadership. Organization Science, 24(5), 1517–1538.
Ozbilir, T., Day, A., & Catano, V. M. (2015). Perfectionism at Work: An Investigation of Adaptive
and Maladaptive Perfectionism in the Workplace among Canadian and Turkish Employees. Applied Psychology, 64(1), 252–280.
Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on Perfection. American Psychologist, 39(4), 386–390.
Packard, V. (1960). The Pursuit of Status. In S. J. Shaw & J. W. Thompson (Eds.), Salesmanship.
Modern Viewpoint on Personal Communication (pp. 92–101). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making Things Happen: A Model of Proactive
Motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856.
LXI
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and Intrapsychic Adaptiveness of Trait Self-Enhancement: A
Mixed Blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1197–1208.
Pearce, J. L. (2011). Introduction: The power of status. In J. L. Pearce (Ed.), Cambridge companions
to management. Status in management and organizations (pp. 1–22). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Perez, M. E., Castaño, R., & Quintanilla, C. (2010). Constructing identity through the consumption of counterfeit luxury goods. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 13(3), 219–235.
Perrow, C. (1961). Organizational Prestige: Some Functions and Dysfunctions. American Journal of Sociology, 66(4), 335–341.
Perry, J. C., Przybysz, J., & Al-Sheikh, M. (2009). Reconsidering the “aspiration–expectation gap” and assumed gender differences among urban youth. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 349–
354.
Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2003). Positive Psychology as the Evenhanded Positive Psychologist Views
It. Psychological Inquiry, 14(2), 143–147.
Petkova, A. P., Wadhwa, A. N., Xin Yao, & Jain, S. (2014). Reputation and decision making under
ambiguity: a study of U.S. venture capital firms' investments in the emerging clean energy sector. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 422–448.
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive Advantage Through People. California Management Review, 36(2), 9–28.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). Seven practices of successful organizations. California Management Review, 40(2), 96–124.
Pfeffer, J. (2001). Fighting the War for Talent is Hazardous to Your Organization's Health.
Organizational Dynamics,
Pfeffer, J., Cialdini, R. B., Hanna, B., & Knopoff, K. (1998). Faith in Supervision and the Self-
Enhancement Bias: Two Psychological Reasons Why Managers Don't Empower Workers. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, 20(4), 313–321.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2005). Building Organization Theory from First Principles: The Self-
Enhancement Motive and Understanding Power and Influence. Organization Science, 16(4), 372–388.
Pfeffer, J., & Ross, J. (1980). Union-Nonunion Effects on Wage and Status Attainment. Industrial Relations, 19(2), 140–151.
Pfeffer, J., & Ross, J. (1981). Unionization and Female Wage and Status Attainment. Industrial Relations, 20(2), 179–184.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence
perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2009). Contingent reliance on the affect heuristic as a function of
regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 267–278.
Phau, I., & Prendergast, G. (2000). Consuming luxury brands: The relevance of the ‘Rarity Principle’.
Brand Management, 8(2), 122–138.
Phillips, D. J. (2016). Curriculum Vitae. Retrieved July 31st, 2016, from
http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/cbs-directory/sites/cbs-
directory/files/faculty_cvs/Phillips%2C%20Damon%20-%20%28MGMT%29%20-%20CV%202016.pdf.
Phillips, D. J., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Middle-Status Conformity: Theoretical Restatement and
Empirical Demonstration in Two Markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107(2), 379–429.
Phillips, W. J., Fletcher, J. M., Marks, A. D. G., & Hine, D. W. (2016). Thinking styles and decision
making: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 142(3), 260–290.
Philp, M., Egan, S., & Kane, R. (2012). Perfectionism, over commitment to work, and burnout in
employees seeking workplace counselling. Australian Journal of Psychology, 64(2), 68–74.
Piazza, A., & Castellucci, F. (2014). Status in organization and management theory. Journal of
Management, 40(1), 287–315.
LXII
Plous, S. (1995). A Comparison of Strategies for Reducing Interval Over-confidence in Group
Judgments mparison of Strategies for Reducing In Over-confidence in Group Judgments. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 443–454.
Podolny, J. M. (1993). A Status-Based Model of Market Competition. American Journal of Sociology,
98(4), 829–872.
Podolny, J. M. (2005). Status signals: A sociological study of market competition. Princeton, N.J, Woodstock: Princeton University Press.
Podolny, J. M., & Lynn, F. (2009). Status. In P. Hedström & P. S. Bearman (Eds.), Oxford handbooks. The Oxford handbook of analytical sociology (pp. 544–565). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Podolny, J. M., & Phillips, D. J. (1996). The Dynamics of Organizational Status. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(2), 453–471.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on
Organizational Performance: A Review and Suggestion for Future Research. Human Performance,
10(2), 133–151.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Ahearne, M., & Bommer, W. H. (1995). Searching for a needle in
a haystack: Trying to identify the illusive moderators of leadership behaviors. Journal of Management, 21(3), 422–470.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and
Suggestions for Future Research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.
Poels, K., & Dewitte, S. (2008). Hope and self-regulatory goals applied to an advertising context.
Journal of Business Research, 61(10), 1030–1040.
Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy.
Powell, G. N. (1991). Applicant reactions to the initial employment interview: Exploring theoretical
and methodological issues. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 67–83.
Powell, W. W. (1985). Getting into print: The decision-making process in scholarly publishing.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Powers, T. A., Koestner, R., & Topciu, R. A. (2005). Implementation Intentions, Perfectionism, and
Goal Progress: Perhaps the Road to Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(7), 902–912.
Powers, T. A., Koestner, R., Zuroff, D. C., Milyavskaya, M., & Gorin, A. A. (2011). The Effects of
Self-Criticism and Self-Oriented Perfectionism on Goal Pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 37(7), 964–975.
Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identification. In D. A.
Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Foundations for organizational science. Identity in organizations. Building theory through conversations (pp. 171–207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
PWC Career Advertising (2016). Big Sail Adventures. Retrieved January 18th, 2016: http://big-sail-adventures.pwc-karriere.de/.
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., & Schimel, J. (2004). Why Do People Need Self-Esteem? A Theoretical and Empirical Review. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 435–468.
Radzevick, J. R., & Moore, D. A. (2011). Competing to Be Certain (But Wrong): Market Dynamics
and Excessive Confidence in Judgment. Management Science, 57(1), 93–106, from
10.1287/mnsc.1100.1255.
Rae, J. (1834). Statement of some new principles on the subject of political economy. Boston, MA:
Hilliard, Gray, and Co.
Rae, J. (1905). The Sociological Theory of Capital: Being a Complete Reprint of the New Principles of
Political Economy (reprint of 1834). London, UK: MacMillan.
LXIII
Ramesh, A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). Will They Stay or Will They Go? The Role of Job
Embeddedness in Predicting Turnover in Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95(5), 807–823.
Rao, A. R. (1994). The Social Construction of Reputation: Certification Contests, Legitimation, and
The Survival of Organizations in the American Automobile Industry: 1895-1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15(1), 29–44.
Regan, P. C., Snyder, M., & Kassin, S. M. (1995). Unrealistic Optimism: Self-Enhancement or Person
Positivity? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(10), 1073–1082.
Reiss, A. J. (1961). Occupations and Social Status. New York, NY: Glencoe.
Resick, C. J., Baltes, B. B., & Shantz, C. W. (2007). Person-organization fit and work-related attitudes and decisions: Examining interactive effects with job fit and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(5), 1446–1455.
Resick, C. J., Whitman, D. S., Weingarden, S. M., & Hiller, N. J. (2009). The bright-side and the dark-
side of CEO personality: examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, transformational leadership,
and strategic influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1365–1381.
Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (1998). Self-Esteem as a Mediator Between Perfectionism and Depression: A Structural Equations Analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(3), 304–
314.
Ridgeway, C. (2016). Curriculum Vitae. Retrieved July 31st, 2016, from
https://sociology.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/crcv2014.pdf.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1987). Nonverbal behavior, dominance, and the basis of status in task groups.
American Sociological Review, 52(5), 683–694.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1991). The Social Construction of Status Value: Gender and Other Nominal
Characteristics. Social Forces, 70(2), 367–386.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Balkwell, J. W. (1997). Group Processes and the Diffusion of Status Beliefs.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 60(1), 14–31.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Cornell, S. J. (2006). Consensus and the Creation of Status Beliefs. Social Forces,
85(1), 431–453.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Erickson, K. G. (2000). Creating and Spreading Status Beliefs. American Journal
of Sociology, 106(3), 579–615.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Walker, H. A. (1995). Status structures. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S. House
(Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 281–310). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Ridgeway, C., & Diekema, D. (1989). Dominance and collective hierarchy formation in male and
female task groups. American Sociological Review, 54(1), 79–93.
Riley, J. G. (2001). Silver Signals: Twenty-Five Years of Screening and Signaling. Journal of
Economic Literature, 39(2), 432–478.
Robins, R. W., & Beer, J. S. (2001). Positive Illusions About the Self: Short-Term Benefits and Long-
Term Costs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 340–352.
Roccas, S. (2003). Identification and Status Revisited: The Moderating Role of Self-Enhancement and
Self-Transcendence Values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 726–736.
Ross, R. (2012). Managing perfectionism in the workplace. Employment Relations Today, 39(3), 1–6.
Roth, A. E. (1985). Common and conflicting interests in two-sided matching markets. European
Economic Review, 27(1), 75–96.
Roulin, N., Bangerter, A., & Yerly, E. (2011). The Uniqueness Effect in Selection Interviews. Journal
of Personnel Psychology, 10(1), 43–47.
Rueden, C. von (2014). The Roots and Fruits of Social Status. In J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy, & C.
Anderson (Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 179–200). New York, NY: Springer.
Rueden, C. von, Gruven, M., & Kaplan, H. (2008). The multiple dimensions of male social status in an
Amazonian society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(6), 402–415.
LXIV
Rumelt, R. P. (1997). Towards a strategic theory of the firm. Resources, firms, and strategies: A
reader in the resource-based perspective, 70(2), 131–145.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of Reserach on
Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166.
Rynes, S. L., & Bretz, R. D., JR. (1991). The importance of recruitment in job choice: a different way
of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44(3), 487–521.
Rynes, S. L., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Recruitment research in the twenty‐first century. In I. B. Weiner
(Ed.), Handbook of Psychology (pp. 55–76). New York, NY: Wiley.
Rynes, S. L., Reeves, C. J., & Darnold, T. C. (2014). The History of Recruitment Research. In K. Y.
T. Yu & D. M. Cable (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of recruitment (pp. 335–360). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Saad, G., & Vongas, J. G. (2009). The effect of conspicuous consumption on men’s testosterone
levels. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(2), 80–92.
Sandroni, A., & Squintani, F. (2013). Overconfidence and asymmetric information: The case of
insurance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93(1), 149–165.
Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2006). Strength in Numbers? The Advantages of Multiple Rankings.
Indiana Law Journal, 81(1), 205–227.
Sauder, M., Lynn, F., & Podolny, J. M. (2012). Status: Insights from organizational sociology. Annual
Review of Sociology, 38(1), 267–283.
Schlenker, B. R. (2011). Self-Presentation. In M. R. Leary & Tangney June. (Eds.), Handbook of Self
and Identity. New York, NY: Guilford.
Schmierbach, M., Chung, M.-Y., Wu, M., & Kim, K. (2014). No One Likes to Lose. Journal of Media
Psychology, 26(3), 105–110.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437–453.
Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO-B: A three-dimensional theory on personal behavior. New York: Rinehart
& Winston.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and
Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Volume 25 (pp. 1–65). New York,
NY: Elsevier.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward A Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550–562.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a Theory of the Universal Content and Structure of
Values: Extensions and Cross-Cultural Replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
58(5), 878–891.
Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., et al. (2012).
Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–688.
Schwarz, N. (2006). Feelings, Fit, and Funny Effects: A Situated Cognition Perspective. Journal of
Marketing Research, 43(1), 20–23.
Scrima, F., Lorito, L., Parry, E., & Falgares, G. (2014). The mediating role of work engagement on the
relationship between job involvement and affective commitment. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 25(15), 2159–2173.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A Social Capital Theory of Career Success.
Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219–237.
Sekiguchi, T., & Huber, V. L. (2011). The use of person–organization fit and person–job fit
information in making selection decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 203–216.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1999). Positive Social Science. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1(3), 181–182.
LXV
Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). The Challenge of Staying Happier: Testing the Hedonic
Adaptation Prevention Model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 670–680.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology on social norms. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
Sherry, S. B., & Hall, P. A. (2009). The perfectionism model of binge eating: Tests of an integrative
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 690–709.
Shils, E. (1968). Deference. In J. A. Jackson (Ed.), Sociological studies: Vol. 1. Social stratification
(pp. 104–132). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Shipman, A. S., & Mumford, M. D. (2011). When confidence is detrimental: Influence of
overconfidence on leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 649–665.
Shipp, A. J., & Jansen, K. J. (2011). Reinterpreting time in fit theory: Crafting and recrafting
narratives of fit in medias res. The Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 76–101.
Shoss, M. K., Callison, K., & Witt, L. (2015). The Effects of Other-Oriented Perfectionism and
Conscientiousness on Helping at Work. Applied Psychology, 64(1), 233–251.
Sieck, W. R., & Arkes, H. R. (2005). The Recalcitrance of Overconfidence and its Contribution to
Decision Aid Neglect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(1), 29–53.
Sieck, W. R., Merkle, E. C., & van Zandt, T. (2007). Option fixation: A cognitive contributor to overconfidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 68–83.
Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134.
Simon, M., & Houghton, S. M. (2003). The relationship between overconfidence and the introduction of risky products: Evidence from a field study. The Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 139–
149.
Skvoretz, J., & Fararo, T. J. (1996). Status and Participation in Task Groups: A Dynamic Network
Model. American Journal of Sociology, 101(5), 1366–1414.
Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The Revised Almost Perfect
Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(3), 130–145.
Sluss, D. M., & Thompson, B. S. (2012). Socializing the newcomer: The mediating role of leader–
member exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 114–125.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The Impact Of Employee Communication
And Perceived External Prestige On Organizational Identification. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1051–1062.
Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of the Nations. London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell.
Smith, E. B., Menon, T., & Thompson, L. (2012). Status Differences in the Cognitive Activation of
Social Networks. Organization Science, 23(1), 67–82.
Smith, J. M., & Harper, D. G. C. (1995). Animal Signals: Models and Terminology. Journal of
Theoretical Biology, 177(3), 305–311.
Smith, J. M., & Price, G. R. (1973). The logic of animal conflict. Nature, 246(11), 15–18.
Snyder, C. R. (1992). Product Scarcity by Need for Uniqueness Interaction: A Consumer Catch-22
Carousel? Basic and Appplied Social Psychology, 13(1), 9–24.
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a Positive Characteristic: The Development
and Validation of a Scale Measuring Need for Uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
86(5), 518–527.
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The Human Pursuit of Difference. Perspectives
in Social Psychology, A Series of Texts and Monographs. Boston, MA: Springer.
Soll, J. (1996). Determinants of Overconfidence and Miscalibration: The Roles of Random Error and
Ecological Structure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(2), 117–137.
Solomon, M. R. (1983). The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(6), 319–329.
LXVI
Sonsino, D., & Regev, E. (2013). Informational overconfidence in return prediction – More properties.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 39(12), 72–84.
Sororkin, P. (1927). Social mobility. New York: Harper & Row.
Spanjol, J., & Tam, L. (2010). To Change or Not To Change: How Regulatory Focus Affects Change
in Dyadic Decision-Making. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 346–363.
Spence, M. (1973). Job Market Signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374.
Stacey, B. (1969). Achievement Motivation, Occupational Choice and Inter-Generation Occupational
Mobility. Human Relations, 22(3), 275–281.
Stahl, F., Heitmann, M., Lehman, D. R., & Neslin, S. A. (2012). The Impact of Brand Equity on
Customer Acquisition, Retention, and Profit Margin. Journal of Marketing Research, 76(4), 44–63.
Steckel, J. H., Corfman, K. P., Curry, D. J., Gupta, S., & Shanteau, J. (1991). Prospects and Problems
in Modeling Group Decisions. Marketing Letters, 2(3), 231–240.
Steckler, C. M., & Tracy, J. L. (2010). The Emotional Underpinnings of Social Status. In A. Guinote
& T. K. Vescio (Eds.), The social psychology of power (pp. 201–224). New York, NY: Guilford.
Stein, M. (2003). Unbounded irrationality: Risk and organizational narcissism at Long Term Capital
Management. Human Relations, 56(5), 523–540.
Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L. (1995). Making the Right Impression: A Field Study of Applicant
Impression Management During Job Interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5), 587–606.
Stevens, G., & Featherman, D. L. (1981). A revised socioeconomic index of occupational status.
Social Science Research, 10(4), 364–395.
Stewart, J. B. (2013). Looking for a Lesson in Google’s Perks. Retrieved January 31st, 2016: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/business/at-google-a-place-to-work-and-play.html.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (Ed.) (1986). Stratification and Organization: Selected Papers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stöber, J. (1998). The Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale revisited: More perfect with four (instead of six) dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(4), 481–491.
Stoeber, J., Davis, C. R., & Townley, J. (2013). Perfectionism and workaholism in employees: The role of work motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7), 733–738.
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism: Approaches, Evidence,
Challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(4), 259–319.
Stuart, T. E., Hoang, H., & Hybels, R. C. (1999). Interorganizational Endorsements and the
Performance of Entrepreneurial Ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 315–349.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. The Academy
of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
Suls, J. M., & Miller, R. L. (1977). Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical
perspectives. Washington, NY: Hemisphere.
Suls, J. M., & Wheeler, A. R. (2013). A Selective History of Classic and Neo-Social Comparison
Theory. In J. M. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Plenum series in social/clinical psychology. Handbook of social comparison. Theory and research (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Springer.
Suls, J. M., & Wheeler, L. (2012). Social Comparison Theory. In P. A. M. v. Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 460–482). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Swann, W. B., Jetten, J., Gómez, Á., Whitehouse, H., & Bastian, B. (2012). When group membership
gets personal: A theory of identity fusion. Psychological Review, 119(3), 441–456.
Sweetman, J., Spears, R., Livingstone, A. G., & Manstead, A. S. (2013). Admiration regulates social
hierarchy: Antecedents, dispositions, and effects on intergroup behavior. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 49(3), 534–542.
Swider, B. W., Zimmerman, R. D., & Barrick, M. R. (2015). Searching for the right fit: Development of applicant person-organization fit perceptions during the recruitment process. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100(3), 880–893.
LXVII
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of
intergroup relations: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behaviour. In J. T. Jost &
J. Sidanius (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings. Key readings in social psychology (pp. 276–
293). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Tang, Y., Qian, C., Chen, G., & Shen, R. (2015). How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir)responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9), 1338–1357, from 10.1002/smj.2286.
Tannenbaum, A., Kavcic, B., Rosner, M., Vianello, M., & Wieser, G. Hierarchy in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, M. S., & Collins, C. J. (2000). Organizational Recruitment: Enhancing the Intersection of Research and Practice. Cornell University ILR School. Retrieved July 31st, 2016.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and Well-Being: A Social Psychological Perspective on
Mental Health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193–210.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Oxford, UK: John Wiley.
Thomas, K. W., & Tymon, W. G. (1982). Necessary Properties of Relevant Research: Lessons from Recent Criticisms of the Organizational Sciences. Academy of Management Journal, 7(3), 345–
352.
Thornton, D. A., & Arrowood, A. J. (1966). Self-evaluation, self-enhancement, and the locus of social
comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1(1), 40–48.
Thye, S. R. (2000). A Status Value Theory of Power in Exchange Relations. American Sociological
Review, 65(3), 407–432.
Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers' Need for Uniqueness: Scale
Development and Validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 50–66.
Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive
nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 558–568.
Tiedens, L. Z., Unzueta, M. M., & Young, M. J. (2007). An unconscious desire for hierarchy? The
motivated perception of dominance complementarity in task partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 402–414.
Tilcsik, A. (2014). Imprint–environment Fit and Performance: How Organizational Munificence at the
Time of Hire Affects Subsequent Job Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(4), 639–
668.
Tortoriello, M., Perrone, V., & McEvily, B. (2011). Cooperation among competitors as status-seeking
behavior: Network ties and status differentiation. European Management Journal, 29(5), 335–346.
Tracy, S. J., & Clifton, S. (2006). Sexuality, Masculinity, and Taint Management Among Firefighters
and Correctional Ofticers. Management Communication Quarterly, 20(1), 6–39.
Treiman, D. J. (1977). Occupational prestige in comparative prespective. New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Truyts, T. (2010). Social status in economic theory. Journal of Economic Surveys, 24(1), 137–169.
Tsai, S.-p. (2005). Impact of personal orientation on luxury-brand purchase value. International
Journal of Market Research, 47(4), 429–454.
Tsai, W.-C., Chi, N.-W., Huang, T.-C., & Hsu, A.-J. (2011). The Effects of Applicant Résumé
Contents on Recruiters' Hiring Recommendations: The Mediating Roles of Recruiter Fit Perceptions. Applied Psychology, 60(2), 231–254.
Tuli, K. R., Kohli, A. K., & Bharadwaj, S. G. (2007). Rethinking customer solutions: from product
bundles to relational processes. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 1–17.
Turban, D. B. (1998). Applicant Attraction to Firms: Influences of Organization Reputation, Job and
Organizational Attributes, and Recruiter Behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, (52), 24–44.
Turban, D. B., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Firm reputation and applicant pool characteristics. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24(6), 733–751.
van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2011). The Envy Premium in Product Evaluation.
Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 984–998.
LXVIII
van Hoye, G., Bas, T., Cromheecke, S., & Lievens, F. (2013). The Instrumental and Symbolic
Dimensions of Organisations' Image as an Employer: A Large-Scale Field Study on Employer
Branding in Turkey. Applied Psychology, 62(4), 543–557.
van Knippenberg, D., Dahlander, L., Haas, M. R., & George, G. (2015). Information, Attention, and
Decision Making. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 649–657.
van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(2), 137–147.
van Zant, A. B., & Moore, D. A. (2013). Avoiding the Pitfalls of Overconfidence while Benefiting from the Advantages of Confidence. California Management Review, 55(2), 5–23.
Veblen, T. (1915). The theory of the leisure class (reprint of 1899). Great minds series. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Vecchio, R. P. (1980). A Test of a Moderator of the Job Satisfaction-Job Quality Relationship: The
Case of Religious Affiliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(2), 195–201.
Vecchio, R. P. (1995). The Impact of Referral Sources on Employee Attitudes Evidence from a
National Sample. Journal of Management, 21(5), 953–965.
Veludo-de-Oliveira, T. M., Ikeda, A. A., & Campomar, M. C. (2006). Discussing Laddering
Application by the Means-End Chain Theory. The Qualitative Report, 11(4), 626–642.
Ventura, M. (2016). Which is the Best Employer Review Site? Retrieved July 31st, 2016:
http://theundercoverrecruiter.com/employer-reviews/.
Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). A Review and a Conceptual Framework of Prestige-Seeking
Consumer Behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1(1), 1–17.
Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (2004). Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. Brand Management,
11(6), 484–506.
Waal, F. de (1982). Chimpanzee politics: power and sex among apes. New York: Harper & Row.
Wainer, H. (2005). Shopping for Colleges When What We Know Ain't. Journal of Consumer
Research, 32(2), 337–342.Walker, K. (2010). A Systematic Review of the Corporate Reputation
Literature: Definition, Measurement, and Theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 12(4), 357–387.
Walker, T. L., & Tracey, T. J. (2012). Perceptions of occupational prestige: Differences between African American and White college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 76–81.
Walton, G. M., Cohen, G. L., Cwir, D., & Spencer, S. J. (2012). Mere belonging: The power of social connections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 513–532.
Wang, Y., & Griskevicius, V. (2014). Conspicuous Consumption, Relationships, and Rivals: Women's Luxury Products as Signals to Other Women. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 834–854.
Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, orientation, and socialization of
newcomers (2nd ed.). The Addison-Wesley series on managing human resources. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Warr, P. (1999). Well-Being and the Worklpace. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.),
Well-being. The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 392–412). New York, NY: Sage.
Washington, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2005). Status Evolution and Competition: Theory and Evidence. The
Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 282–296.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and Validation of Brief Measures of
Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.
Weaver, C. N. (1977). Relationships among pay, race, sex, occupational prestige, supervision, work
autonomy, and job satisfaction in a national sample. Personnel Psychology, 30(3), 437–445.
Weaver, C. N. (1978). Black-White Correlates of Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,
63(2), 255–258.
Weber, M. (1946a). Bureaucracy. From Max Weber: essays in sociology, 196–244.
Weber, M. (1946b). Essays in sociology (reprint of 1925). In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds.), From
Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 75–444). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
LXIX
Weber, M., Roth, G., & Wittich, C. (2013). Economy and society. An outline of interpretive sociology
(reprint of 1922) (Vol. 1). Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Wegener, B. (1992). Concepts and Measurement of Prestige. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 253–
280.
Weigelt, K., & Camerer, C. (1988). Reputation And Corporate Strategy: A review of recent theory and
applications. Strategic Management Journal, 9(5), 443–454.
Weiss, Y., & Fershtman, C. (1998). Social status and economic performance. European Economic
Review, 42(3), 801–820.
Wheeler, L. (1966). Motivation as a determininat of upward comparison. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 1(1), 27–31.
Wicklund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1981). Symbolic Self-Completion, Attempted Influence, and Self-Deprecation. Basic and Appplied Social Psychology, 2(2), 89–114.
Wiggins, R. R., & Ruefli, T. W. (2005). Schumpeter's ghost: Is hypercompetition making the best of times shorter? Strategic Management Journal, 26(10), 887–911.
Willer, R. (2009). Groups Reward Individual Sacrifice: The Status Solution to the Collective Action Problem. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 23–43.
Winefield, A. H., Tiggemann, M., Winefield, H. R., & Goldney, R. D. (1991). A Longitudinal Study
of the Psychological Effects of Unemployment and Unsatisfactory Employment on Young Adults.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 424–431.
Wu, W.-Y., Lu, H.-Y., Wu, Y.-Y., & Fu, C.-S. (2012). The effects of product scarcity and consumers'
need for uniqueness on purchase intention. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(3), 263–274.
Yates, F. J., Lee, J.-W., & Bush, J. G. (1997). General Knowledge Overconfidence: Cross-National Variations, Response Style, and “Reality”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 70(2), 87–94.
Yates, J. F., Lee, J.-W., & Shinotsuka, H. (1996). Beliefs about Overconfidence, Including Its Cross-
National Variation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(2), 138–147.
Yeo, J., & Park, J. (2006). Effects of Parent-Extension Similarity and Self Regulatory Focus on
Evaluations of Brand Extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(3), 272–282.
Yoon, Y., Sarial-Abi, G., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2012). Effect of Regulatory Focus on Selective
Information Processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(1), 93–110.
Yu, K. Y. T. (2009). Affective influences in person–environment fit theory: Exploring the role of
affect as both cause and outcome of P-E fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1210–1226.
Yu, K. Y. T. (2014). Person–organization fit effects on organizational attraction: A test of an
expectations-based model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(1), 75–94.
Yu, K. Y. T., & Cable, D. M. (Eds.) (2014). Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of recruitment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Yüksel, H. (2014). The Concept of Workaholism As The Extreme Point in Work Engagement, Its
Individual and Organizational Outcomes. International Journal of Alanya Faculty of Business, 6(2),
119–130.
Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate Selection: A Selection for a Handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53(1),
205–214.
Zahavi, A. (2016). Curriculum Vitae. Retrieved July 31st, 2016, from https://en-
lifesci.tau.ac.il/profile/zahavi#anchor_cv.
Zelditch, M. (1968). Social status. In D. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences
(pp. 250–257). New York: MacMillan.
Zhao, G., & Pechmann, C. (2007). The Impact of Regulatory Focus on Adolescents’ Response to Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(6), 671–687.
Zhou, X. (2005). The Institutional Logic of Occupational Prestige Ranking: Reconceptualization and Reanalyses1. American Journal of Sociology, 111(1), 90–140.
LXX
Zhu, R., & Meyers-Levy, J. (2007). Exploring the Cognitive Mechanism that Underlies Regulatory
Focus Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3), 89–96.
Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The Categorical Imperative: Securities Analysts and the Illegitimacy
Discount. The American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1398–1438.
Zuckerman, M. (2006). Self-Enhancement by Social Comparison: A Prospective Analysis. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(6), 751–760.
LXXI
Author’s curriculum vitae
Benjamin Berghaus
Splügenstrasse 7
CH-9008 St. Gallen
Schweiz
Born April 20th, 1982 in Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Academic education
Aug. 2010 – Feb. 2017 Ph.D. in Management
at University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
Oct. 2002 – Jun. 2007 Magister Artium in International Information Management
at University of Hildesheim, Germany
Professional experience
Since Jan. 2017 Postdoctoral Researcher
at the Institute of Marketing of the University of St. Gallen
Head of the Competence Center for Luxury Management
Jan. 2011 – Dec. 2016 Research Associate and Doctoral Candidate
at the Institute of Marketing of the University of St. Gallen
Co-founder and head of the Competence Center for
Luxury Management (since Apr. 2015)
Co-founder and head of the Research Program for
Luxury Brand Development (since Jan. 2011)
Mar. 2007 – Sep. 2010 Marketing Manager Business Development
at Porsche Lizenz- und Handelsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG
in Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany
![[Book] Coldplay - Parachutes](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/55cf925e550346f57b95ea12/book-coldplay-parachutes.jpg)
