The DOI matches its Crossref record; 224 of the 224 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
8 Social Hierarchy: The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status
Abstract
Hierarchy is such a defining and pervasive feature of organizations that its forms and basic functions are often taken for granted in organizational research. In this review, we revisit some basic psychological and sociological elements of hierarchy and argue that status and power are two important yet distinct bases of hierarchical differentiation. We first define power and status and distinguish our definitions from previous conceptualizations. We then integrate a number of different literatures to explain why status and power hierarchies tend to be self‐reinforcing. Power, related to one’s control over valued resources, transforms individual psychology such that the powerful think and act in ways that lead to the retention and acquisition of power. Status, related to the respect one has in the eyes of others, generates expectations for behavior and opportunities for advancement that favor those with a prior status advantage. We also explore the role that hierarchy‐enhancing belief systems play in stabilizing hierarchy, both from the bottom up and from the top down. Finally, we address a number of factors that we think are instrumental in explaining the conditions under which hierarchies change. Our framework suggests a number of avenues for future research on the bases, causes, and consequences of hierarchy in groups and organizations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“formal power most often accrues to those who hold positions in the organization that reflect higher rank or position in the organization (Magee & Galinsky, 2008;Mechanic, 1962)”
From Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity (2010) · cites this paper as Magee & Galinsky, 2008
In the citing paper
“Lowstatus members are also less likely to deviate from expected behaviour or challenge high-rank users, since '[t]he consequences for violating expectancies are more severe for low-status than high-status individuals, especially when low-status individuals act above their rank' [13, 375].”
From Exploring incel group dynamics: a computational study of hierarchy and group-boundary policing (2025) · cites this paper as [13]
In the citing paper
“We posit that new users are more hesitant to call out individuals because, as discussed in the introduction, '[t]he consequences for violating expectancies are more severe for low-status than high-status individuals, especially when low-status individuals act above their rank'[13, 375].”
From Exploring incel group dynamics: a computational study of hierarchy and group-boundary policing (2025) · cites this paper as [13]
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
(1994) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/0002-8223(94)92216-0 · Cited by 46,726
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2095101 · Cited by 38,435
Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/226550 · Cited by 28,308
Advances In Experimental Social Psychology
(2022) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(22)x0002-6 · Cited by 22,559
Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Rotter, J. B. (1966) · Psychological Monographs: General and Applied · doi:10.1037/h0092976 · Cited by 21,937
A theory of social comparison processes
Festinger, L. (1954) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872675400700202 · Cited by 20,926
Exchange and Power in Social Life.
Bierstedt, R., & Blau, P. M. (1965) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091154 · Cited by 13,625
The psychology of interpersonal relations.
Heider, F. (1958) · doi:10.1037/10628-000 · Cited by 13,457
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Bargh J.A., 1995, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 768, 10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.768 · DOI
- Brauer M., 2005, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology
- Brief A.P., 2001, Groups at work: Theory and research, 471
- Deci E.L., 1987, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024, 10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024 · DOI · Paper page
- DePaulo B.M., 1998, The handbook of social psychology, 2, 3
- French J.R.P., 1959, The bases of social power
- Greer L.L., 2007, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management
- Guinote A., 2007, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 685
- Hollander E.P., 1985, The handbook of social psychology, 2, 485
- Kipnis D., 1976, The powerholders
- Lewin K., 1997, Field theory in social psychology, 337
- Marx K., 1970, The German ideology
- Milliken F.J., 2008, Seeing through the lens of power: Sense‐making and communication in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina
- Morand D.A., 2001, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management
- Overbeck J., 2005, Research on managing groups and teams, 7, 171
- Roese N.J., 2007, Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, 2, 91
- Rudman L.A., Research in organizational behavior
- Sivanathan N.S., 2008, Scurrilous competitors: Risk‐takers, bribers and saboteurs in promotion tournaments
- Weisman S.R., 1981, New York Times, A20
- Winter D.G., 1973, The power motive
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,003 of 1,003
Does Power Reduce Temporal Discounting? Commentary on Joshi and Fast (2013)
Zhang, M., & Smith, P. K. (2018) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797617754219 · Cited by 13
Exploring incel group dynamics: a computational study of hierarchy and group-boundary policing
Solopova, V., Popa-Wyatt, M., & Berškytė, J. (2025) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-024-00357-5 · Cited by 6
Xu, A., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · Asia Pacific Journal of Education · doi:10.1080/02188791.2025.2505665 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Magee, Joe C.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Annals
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2008-01
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 351-398
- ISSN
- 1941-6067 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-6520
- OpenAlex
- W4237123392
- Cited by
- 2,385
- References
- 223
- Citations by year
- 2026: 153 · 2025: 189 · 2024: 193 · 2023: 176 · 2022: 220 · 2021: 170 · 2020: 185 · 2019: 205 · 2018: 144 · 2017: 152 · 2016: 125 · 2015: 104 · 2014: 109 · 2013: 81 · 2012: 63
- FWCI
- 132.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academy of Management Annals (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- social hierarchy, power, status, power hierarchies, organizational hierarchy, belief systems, resource control, status expectations
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review