We explore the phenomenon of status disagreement in groups, which occurs when two group members both believe they have higher status than each other. Across two studies, we investigate the consequences of status disagreements for group performance and group member behavior. In Study 1, we incite status disagreement in groups working together in the laboratory, and analyze members’ behavior using detailed observation from videotape. In Study 2, we observe naturally occurring status disagreements in group of students working on a longer-term class project, and employ Hierarchical Linear Modeling and the Social Relations Model (Kenny & LaVoie, 1984) for behavioral analyses. In both studies, we find a negative association between status disagreement and group performance. Further, analyses of group member behavior indicate that this relationship is primarily due to reduced contributions by individuals engaged in status disagreement. These findings speak to the importance of status disagreement for group dynamics and suggest that purely cooperative conceptions of status differentiation may be incomplete.

Recent research on status and group productivity has highlighted that status hierarchies encourage contributions to group efforts by rewarding contributors with enhanced status. However, that and other work has typically assumed that status hierarchies are widely agreed-upon among group members. Here we challenge this assumption, proposing that groups vary in their level of hierarchical consensus and that when groups fail to achieve high agreement, the status rewards motivating contributions are attenuated, undermining group performance. Results of two studies of task groups support our claims. We observed that status disagreements were quite common, particularly those in which two group members both viewed themselves as higher in status than the other, and that more dominant individuals were most likely to engage in these types of disagreements. Further, we found that such status disagreements led to diminished group performance and that this effect was driven by reduced contributions from the group members involved. These findings suggest that status consensus can vary substantially across groups, and that groups that are able to successfully coalesce around agreed-upon status hierarchies benefit from increased contributions and performance.

In this dissertation, I explore the psychological phenomenon of rivalry, defined as a competitive relationship that increases the psychological stakes of competition independent of the objective stakes. In particular, I investigate the consequences of rivalry for motivation, performance, and unethical behavior. I examine these questions with a variety of research designs and methodologies, including laboratory experiments, surveys, a field experiment, and an archival data analysis. Overall, this work represents the first systematic exploration of rivalry as a psychological phenomenon, and my findings suggest that it can be a double-edged sword, with both positive and negative consequences. Further, this research suggests a view of competition as relationally-dependent - that is, the behavior of actors within competitive settings depends upon whom they are competing against, and the relationships they have with these competitors. Beyond these two broad contributions, this research speaks to the literatures on motivation and ethical decision-making, and also suggests some important practical implications. In addition, a wide range of important and interesting directions exist for future research on rivalry.