Achieving social influence across gender and time: Are dominance and prestige equally viable for men and women?

IF 6.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of personality and social psychology Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1037/pspa0000380
Hemant Kakkar
{"title":"Achieving social influence across gender and time: Are dominance and prestige equally viable for men and women?","authors":"Hemant Kakkar","doi":"10.1037/pspa0000380","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The dual framework of social rank allocation discusses dominance and prestige as two viable routes to status or social influence. In doing so, this literature has largely neglected findings demonstrating backlash against men and women for behaving in gender-incongruent ways. Likewise, it remains unclear if dominance and prestige continue to be effective means to status over time. This study investigates the viability of dominance or prestige in contributing to an individual's social influence, conditional on their gender and across time. Using a stereotype-neutral context of an online social network, I unobtrusively tracked individuals' changes in social influence among their network members on Twitter. By analyzing almost 230,000 tweets, it was found that men's influence increased with greater dominance, whereas women's decreased. At the same time, women's influence increased with greater prestige, whereas men's decreased. Network centrality (in-degree centrality) explained this differential interaction pattern. Additionally, longitudinal analysis provided a more nuanced understanding. Over time, role incongruence effects dampened, dominance became less effective, even for men, and prestige became viable for both men and women. Thus, by jointly considering the role of gender and time, this research offers key theoretical caveats to the dual rank framework. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality and social psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000380","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The dual framework of social rank allocation discusses dominance and prestige as two viable routes to status or social influence. In doing so, this literature has largely neglected findings demonstrating backlash against men and women for behaving in gender-incongruent ways. Likewise, it remains unclear if dominance and prestige continue to be effective means to status over time. This study investigates the viability of dominance or prestige in contributing to an individual's social influence, conditional on their gender and across time. Using a stereotype-neutral context of an online social network, I unobtrusively tracked individuals' changes in social influence among their network members on Twitter. By analyzing almost 230,000 tweets, it was found that men's influence increased with greater dominance, whereas women's decreased. At the same time, women's influence increased with greater prestige, whereas men's decreased. Network centrality (in-degree centrality) explained this differential interaction pattern. Additionally, longitudinal analysis provided a more nuanced understanding. Over time, role incongruence effects dampened, dominance became less effective, even for men, and prestige became viable for both men and women. Thus, by jointly considering the role of gender and time, this research offers key theoretical caveats to the dual rank framework. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
跨越性别和时间实现社会影响力:男性和女性的优势和声望是否同样可行?
社会等级分配的双重框架将支配地位和声望作为获得地位或社会影响力的两种可行途径。在这样做的过程中,这些文献在很大程度上忽略了一些研究结果,这些结果表明,男性和女性的行为方式与性别不一致,会遭到男性和女性的反击。同样,随着时间的推移,支配地位和声望是否仍然是获得地位的有效途径,目前也还不清楚。本研究调查了支配地位或声望在不同性别和不同时期对个人社会影响力的影响。笔者利用在线社交网络这一刻板印象中立的环境,不露痕迹地追踪了个人在推特网络成员中社会影响力的变化。通过分析近 23 万条推文,我们发现男性的影响力随着支配力的增强而增强,而女性的影响力则随着支配力的减弱而减弱。同时,女性的影响力随着声望的提高而提高,而男性的影响力则随着声望的降低而降低。网络中心性(内度中心性)解释了这种不同的互动模式。此外,纵向分析提供了更细致的理解。随着时间的推移,角色不协调的影响逐渐减弱,支配地位的作用越来越小,甚至对男性也是如此,而声望对男性和女性都变得可行。因此,通过联合考虑性别和时间的作用,这项研究为双重等级框架提供了关键的理论警示。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.90%
发文量
250
期刊介绍: Journal of personality and social psychology publishes original papers in all areas of personality and social psychology and emphasizes empirical reports, but may include specialized theoretical, methodological, and review papers.Journal of personality and social psychology is divided into three independently edited sections. Attitudes and Social Cognition addresses all aspects of psychology (e.g., attitudes, cognition, emotion, motivation) that take place in significant micro- and macrolevel social contexts.
期刊最新文献
Differences in natural standing posture are associated with antisocial and manipulative personality traits. The delusion of the disappearing self? Attachment avoidance and the experience of externally invisible self-loss in romantic relationships. Like yourself, and others will follow: The role of target self-esteem in the association between being seen accurately and being liked in platonic and romantic first impressions. Expressing the good in bad times: Examining whether and why positive expressivity in negative contexts affects romantic partners' responsive support provision. Achieving social influence across gender and time: Are dominance and prestige equally viable for men and women?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1