Examining Medical Interview Asymmetry Using the Expectation States Approach

2005 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy J. Gallagher ◽  
Stanford W. Gregory ◽  
Alison J. Bianchi ◽  
Paul J. Hartung ◽  
Sarah Harkness
Keyword(s):  
Behavioral Outcomes ◽  
Standardized Patients ◽  
Medical Interview ◽  
Status Characteristics Theory ◽  
Power Differential ◽  
Clinical Interviews ◽  
Expectation States ◽  
Status Characteristics ◽  
The Status ◽  
Status Difference

In this study we examine medical interview asymmetry using the expectation states approach. Physicians lead clinical interviews because of a feature inherent in those interviews, namely the status difference between doctor and patient. This power differential varies: it is greatest when the biomedical aspects of the interview are emphasized. These observations are consistent with status characteristics theory (SCT), which is based on the expectation states approach to understanding the emergence of power-prestige orders in groups facing shared tasks. From an SCT perspective, when the required scope conditions are met the status characteristics of doctor and patient trigger expectation states that result in inequalities relevant to the biomedical tasks of the interview. We examine interactions between medical students and standardized patients from the perspective of SCT. We observe the emergence of vocal spectrum inequalities when the interview task is biomedical. Other nonverbal behavioral outcomes emerge as well, which are consistent with the asymmetry literature.

scholarly journals Social Structures in Transition: Applications of Two Theories to Chiefdoms

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 237802311877175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela Emanuelson ◽  
David Willer
Keyword(s):  
Elementary Theory ◽  
Social Structures ◽  
High Status ◽  
Structural Form ◽  
Downward Mobility ◽  
Status Characteristics Theory ◽  
The Third ◽  
Status Characteristics ◽  
The Status ◽  
Lineage Structure

Status characteristics theory and elementary theory are applied to explain developments through three structural forms that chiefdoms are known to take. Theoretic models find that downward mobility inherent in the first form, the status-lineage structure, destabilizes its system of privilege. As a consequence, high-status actors are motivated to find mechanisms to preserve and enhance privilege. By engaging in hostile relations with other chiefdoms, high-status actors offer protection to low-status others from real or imagined threats. Through that protection, they gain tribute and support. The result is structural change from influence based on status to power exercised through indirect coercion, the second structural form. In settled societies, accumulation through war and selective redistribution contribute to separation of warrior and commoner rankings. That separation leads to the third structural form, direct coercive chiefdom.

Talking with Me or Talking at Me? The Impact of Status Characteristics on Doctor-Patient Interaction

2011 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 547-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Mitchell Peck ◽  
Sonya Conner
Keyword(s):  
Talcott Parsons ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Status Characteristics Theory ◽  
Race And Gender ◽  
Patient Interaction ◽  
Status Characteristics ◽  
The Status ◽  
And Gender ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Status Differences

Over the last two decades, the way doctors and patients interact has changed. There has been a shift away from what Talcott Parsons described as a paternalistic model of interaction to a more collaborative, participatory, patient-centered model of interaction. Yet not all interactions between doctors and patients are collaborative. Using status characteristics theory, the authors hypothesized that medical encounters are more likely to be physician dominated when the status differences between doctors and patients are higher. They tested hypotheses about race, gender, and socioeconomic status differences between doctors and patients. The authors found support for the hypotheses, especially regarding status differences for race and gender. Doctor-patient interactions were most physician-centered when doctors had higher status than patients on race (white versus non-white) and gender (male versus female)

scholarly journals The Neural Bases of Status-Based Influence

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 237802311770969 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Melamed ◽  
Will Kalkhoff ◽  
Siqi Han ◽  
Xiangrui Li
Keyword(s):  
Social Status ◽  
Neural Activity ◽  
Brain Regions ◽  
Theoretical Explanation ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Status Characteristics Theory ◽  
Expectation States ◽  
Status Characteristics ◽  
Status Differences

Status characteristics theory provides a theoretical explanation for why social status promotes social influence in collectively oriented task groups. It argues that status differences produce differences in expectation states, which are anticipations of task-related contributions. Those with an expectation advantage are more influential, contribute more often to group discussions, and so on. The authors conducted the first experimental test of status characteristics theory while participants were in a magnetic resonance imaging machine. This permitted the measurement of neural activity in brain regions found to be associated with processing social status. The results indicate that neural activity does not explain the effect of status on behavior.

scholarly journals Cracking the Black Box: Capturing the Role of Expectation States in Status Processes

2019 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Will Kalkhoff ◽  
David Melamed ◽  
Josh Pollock ◽  
Brennan Miller ◽  
Jon Overton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Status ◽  
Social Inequalities ◽  
Black Box ◽  
Causal Chain ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Status Characteristics Theory ◽  
Expectation States ◽  
The Status ◽  
And Behavior

A fundamental task for sociology is to uncover the mechanisms that produce and reproduce social inequalities. While status characteristics theory is the favored account of how social status contributes independently to the maintenance of inequality, it hinges on an unobserved construct, expectation states, in the middle of the causal chain between status and behavior. Efforts to test the mediation mechanism have been complicated by the implicit, often unconscious, nature of status expectations. To solve this “black box” problem, we offer a new conceptualization and research approach that capitalizes on the accuracy and precision of neurological measurement to shed new light on the biasing role of expectations in the status–behavior relationship. Results from an experimental study provide a unique illustration of ways in which social status is inscribed in the brain and how, in turn, these inscriptions are related to behavioral inequalities that emerge during interaction.

Can You Really Study an Army on the Internet? Comparing How Status Tasks Perform in the Laboratory and Online Settings

2021 ◽  
pp. 008117502110142
Author(s):  
Bianca Manago ◽  
Trenton D. Mize ◽  
Long Doan
Keyword(s):  
Laboratory Experiments ◽  
Social Psychological ◽  
Behavioral Experiments ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Expectation States ◽  
Status Characteristics ◽  
The Status ◽  
Expectation States Theory ◽  
Online Setting ◽  
Status Differences

Laboratory experiments have a long history within sociology, with their ability to test causality and their utility for directly observing behavior providing key advantages. One influential social psychological field, status characteristics and expectation states theory, has almost exclusively used laboratory experiments to test the theory. Unfortunately, laboratory experiments are resource intensive, requiring a research pool, laboratory space, and considerable amounts of time. For these and other reasons, social scientists are increasingly exploring the possibility of moving experiments from the lab to an online platform. Despite the advantages of the online setting, the transition from the lab is challenging, especially when studying behavior. In this project, we develop methods to translate the traditional status characteristics experimental setting from the laboratory to online. We conducted parallel laboratory and online behavioral experiments using three tasks from the status literature, comparing each task’s ability to differentiate on the basis of status distinctions. The tasks produce equivalent results in the online and laboratory environment; however, not all tasks are equally sensitive to status differences. Finally, we provide more general guidance on how to move vital aspects of laboratory studies, such as debriefing, suspicion checks, and scope condition checks, to the online setting.

A Critique of Expectation States Theory

1988 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 420-445 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. David Knottnerus
Keyword(s):  
Attribution Theory ◽  
Theory Development ◽  
Status Characteristics Theory ◽  
Expectation States ◽  
Status Characteristics ◽  
Theoretical Assumptions ◽  
Expectation States Theory ◽  
Functionalist Theory ◽  
Information Processing Perspective ◽  
Active Research

Expectation states theory and one of its major branches, status characteristics theory, have been some of the most active research programs within sociological social psychology in recent years. Unfortunately, little attention has been given to the theoretical assumptions underlying these programs and the way social cognition and status generalization are depicted. It is argued that structural functionalist theory and the information processing perspective, especially attribution theory, have exerted major influences on expectation states/status characteristics theory. This has resulted in unique conceptualizations of cognition, generalization, and status stereotypes colored by mechanistic and, in certain cases, rationalistic assumptions concerning the ways actors process information. Consideration of alternative ways of conceptualizing these issues reveals certain limitations in the theory's formulations. The need for further research and theory development is discussed.

scholarly journals Lay and Professional Judges in Europe’s Labour Courts: Does the Professional Judge Dominate?

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-257
Author(s):  
Susan Corby ◽  
Pete Burgess ◽  
Armin Höland ◽  
Hélène Michel ◽  
Laurent Willemez
Keyword(s):  
Great Britain ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Institutional Context ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Status Characteristics Theory ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Status Characteristics ◽  
Institutional Differences

Abstract Several European countries have a first instance ‘mixed’ labour court, that is a judicial panel comprising a professional judge and two or more lay judges, the latter with experience as employees or employers/managers. The lay judges’ main contribution is their workplace knowledge, but they act in a juridical setting where legal norms prevail, so does the professional judge, despite being in a minority, dominate? This article seeks to address this question by focussing on first instance labour courts in Great Britain, Germany and France. Theories of differential power, particularly status characteristics theory, and previous empirical research indicate that professional judges dominate, but our findings are more nuanced. Based on 177 interviews in three countries, we find that professional judge dominance varies according to the country’s institutional context and the salience of lay judges’ workplace knowledge. These institutional differences, however, are mediated by the attitudes of the judicial actors. Many interviewees noted that some lay judges were more prepared to challenge the professional judge than others, whereas others observed that some professional judges were more inclusive than others.

scholarly journals Co-authorships and gender bias in academia

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klarita Gërxhani ◽  
Nevena Kulic ◽  
Fabienne Liechti
Keyword(s):  
Gender Bias ◽  
Collaborative Work ◽  
Academic Disciplines ◽  
Full Time ◽  
University Professors ◽  
Status Characteristics Theory ◽  
Status Characteristics ◽  
Individual Contributions ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
And Gender

This article examines gender bias in the Italian academia, and whether this bias depends on one’s collaborative work and its related conventions across academic disciplines. We carry out the research by relying on status characteristics theory, which is tested via a factorial survey experiment of 2,098 associate and full-time professors employed in Italian public universities in 2019. This is one of the few experiments of the hiring process in academia conducted on a nationally representative population of university professors. Our article focuses specifically on three academic disciplines: humanities, economics, and social sciences. The results indicate that female academics in Italy are penalized for co-authoring. They receive less favorable evaluations of their competence, but only when the evaluator is a male. This gender bias is most pronounced in economics, a discipline where conventions of co-authorship allow for more uncertainty on individual contributions to a joint publication. Overall, the results partially confirm our postulates based on status characteristics theory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document