Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-w7rtg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-29T17:26:17.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Not Just Intergroup: The Role of Status Within Groups in the Sandusky Scandal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Sarah F. Bailey  and
Amanda J. Ferguson
Sarah F. Bailey*
Affiliation:
Northern Illinois University
Amanda J. Ferguson
Affiliation:
Northern Illinois University
*
E-mail: sbailey@niu.edu, Address: Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, 1425 W. Lincoln Hwy, DeKalb, IL 60115
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The series of events in the 2011 Penn State sexual abuse scandal were tumultuous and complex. Alderfer's (2013) focal article on the group-level phenomena surrounding the scandal provides a unique lens to view these events. However, questions remain about how relationships both within and between the groups involved in the scandal resulted in these outcomes. In particular, why did members of groups within Penn State fail to act, whereas people who belonged to other social groups took action? In short, we agree that group and intergroup boundaries were important in this situation, but would like to further elaborate on the underlying mechanisms behind their significance. Beyond the fact that individuals belonged to different groups, what aspects of group dynamics explain the differences in their perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors in this scandal?

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 149 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alderfer, C. P. (2013). Not just football: An intergroup perspective on the Sandusky scandal at Penn State Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6, 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. Jr. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37, 241–255.Google Scholar
Bowles, H. R., & Gelfand, M. (2010). Status and the evaluation of workplace deviance. Psychological Science, 21, 49–54.Google Scholar
Driskell, J. E., & Mullen, B. (1990). Status, expectations, and behavior: A meta-analytic review and test of the theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 541–553.Google Scholar
Estrada, M., Brown, J., & Lee, F. (1995). Who gets the credit?: Perceptions of idiosyncrasy credit in work groups. Small Group Research, 26, 56–76.Google Scholar
Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological review, 65, 117–127.Google Scholar
Hollander, E. P. (1961). Some effects of perceived status on responses to innovative behavior. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 247–250.Google Scholar
Jetten, J., Hornsey, M. J., & Adarves-Yorno, I. (2006). When group members admit to being conformist: The role of relative intragroup status in conformity self-reports. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 162–173.Google Scholar
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351–398.Google Scholar
Shapiro, D. L., Boss, A. D., Salas, S., Tangirala, S., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2011). When are transgressing leaders punitively judged? An empirical test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 412–422.Google Scholar
Tarrant, J., & Campbell, E. (2007). Responses to within-group criticism: Does past adherence to group norms matter? European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1187–1202.Google Scholar