Weeks 6-10: Post-Midterm Notes –
Preparing for the Final Exam
Week 6 Reading Notes
Reading 1: The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology - Chapter on Status
Dynamics
This chapter explores how status functions as a social signal, covering four main ideas:
1. Status as a Signal of Quality: High-status individuals are perceived to have higher
quality, particularly when direct measures of quality are unclear. For instance, at a formal
event, guests are more likely to value insights from a prominent figure than from a
lesser-known individual. This reliance on status cues helps people navigate uncertain
social situations by assuming high-status equates to quality.
2. Rewards and the Matthew Effect: The "Matthew Effect" explains how initial status
advantages compound over time, giving high-status people or institutions greater rewards
and recognition for similar contributions. For example, in academia, a scientist at a
prestigious university is more likely to receive accolades and resources than a peer with
the same research at a lesser-known institution. This snowball effect reinforces the gap in
status and rewards.
3. Exchange Relations and Status Fluidity: Status changes based on social interactions.
Associations can either elevate or reduce perceived status, depending on the relative
statuses involved. For example, in the story of plantation owner Gaines, his daughter’s
interaction with their servant, Margaret, reduces both of their statuses among the local
elite, showing how association affects standing within social networks.
4. Structural Cues and Value Depreciation: Status-based rankings can lead people to
undervalue lower-status individuals or items, regardless of their actual quality. For
example, investors might prefer a well-known firm over a new startup, even if the
startup’s product is objectively better. Here, structural cues like brand or institutional ties
overshadow quality and lead to biased perceptions.
,The chapter emphasizes that status and quality are intertwined. Those in higher-status positions
often find it easier to display or be perceived as high-quality, creating a cycle where status
continually reinforces itself.
Reading 2: The Stickiness of Category Labels: Audience Perception in Creative
Markets
This study on categorical "stickiness" shows how audiences resist accepting changes in a
creator's category, particularly when they have a strong association with a specific genre or style:
1. Challenges of Repositioning: Creative professionals, like authors, often face challenges
when shifting into new genres, as audiences may doubt their competence in unfamiliar
areas. For instance, an author known for romance novels may struggle to be taken
seriously if they try to write thrillers, as audiences may see this as a departure from their
expertise.
2. Categorical Stickiness and Audience Resistance: Audiences with strong prior
associations are particularly resistant to change, often clinging to established perceptions.
This creates a “label mismatch” where the audience’s expectation does not align with the
creator’s new direction. For example, Stephen King’s attempt to shift from horror to
drama with The Green Mile met with resistance, as many readers expected horror themes.
3. Evidence from Goodreads: Using data from Goodreads, the study finds that long-time
readers of an author resist re-categorizing the author’s new works. For instance, readers
familiar with mystery author James Patterson might tag his venture into romance as
“mystery,” leading to fewer ratings and limited appeal for the new genre.
4. Implications of Categorical Stickiness: This “stickiness” limits a creator’s ability to
diversify. Repositioning can lead to decreased attention and appeal, as audiences may
reject new work that doesn’t fit the creator’s established category. This creates a dilemma
for authors wanting to explore new genres, as it can lead to lower ratings and a smaller
audience base.
This research contributes to understanding how deeply embedded audience perceptions can
shape and often limit creative expression across categories.
Week 6: Status, Networks, and Power in Social
Structures
,Structural Power and Dependence
Key Concepts
● Power and Exploitation:
○ Individuals with structural power tend to exploit others, leading to distrust.
○ Experimental findings:
■ Central players (those in power) earn more but are disliked by both
peripheral players and others.
■ Peripheral players often dislike each other due to competition and
undercutting in negotiations.
● Bonacich (1987) and Network Power:
○ Dependency and Power:
■ Dependence-Based Power: Power arises from relationships where others
lack alternatives.
■ Status-Based Power: Power is granted through connections with
high-status individuals.
○ Bonacich Centrality:
■ Combines eigenvector centrality to measure influence:
■ Positive eigenvector centrality: Reflects status-based power.
■ Negative eigenvector centrality: Reflects dependence-based power.
Brokerage and Its Forms
Introduction to Brokerage
● Definition:
○ Brokers connect two parties who otherwise cannot or do not connect themselves.
● Broker Power:
○ Brokers hold power by influencing transactions and relationships as
intermediaries.
Forms of Brokerage (Stovel and Shaw, 2012)
● Liaison Brokerage:
○ Temporary and transaction-specific connections, such as hiring a contractor.
, ● Itinerant Brokerage:
○ Establishes lasting relationships, such as a matchmaking service.
● Coordinator Brokerage:
○ Manages ongoing interactions to save time and resources for both parties.
Examples and Implications
● Gatekeeper Roles:
○ Control access to opportunities or resources (e.g., administrative assistants).
● Representative Roles:
○ Act on behalf of individuals to create opportunities or manage transactions (e.g.,
agents or lawyers).
Case Studies of Brokerage in History
Betweenness Centrality in Political and Economic Contexts
● Medici Family in Florence:
○ Positioned between rival factions, the Medicis used brokerage to gain political
influence.
● First Century BCE Rome:
○ Brokers like Caesar and Pompey connected political factions, solidifying their
power.
● Measurement: Betweenness Centrality:
○ Reflects a node's importance in connecting different parts of a network.
○ Removing these nodes creates structural gaps.
Application of Betweenness Centrality
● Historical and Modern Networks:
○ Highlights critical brokers' roles in facilitating or obstructing communication.
Challenges and Distrust in Brokerage
Economic and Political Distrust
● Skepticism Toward Middlemen:
, ○ Brokers in economics are often resented for charging fees without perceived
added value (e.g., real estate agents).
○ Brokers facilitate transactions in rare markets but face distrust for “taking a cut.”
● Political Distrust:
○ Political brokers (e.g., party leaders) face backlash for compromises or alliances.
○ Example: Republican Party history shows skepticism toward leaders negotiating
with opposition.
Summary Comparison: Dependence vs. Brokerage Power
● Dependence Power:
○ Arises from controlling alternatives; peripheral players may dislike each other
more than the central figure.
● Brokerage Power:
○ Involves connecting two parties; brokers may be resented for fees or perceived
lack of direct involvement.
Networked Information and Status
Key Concepts
● Networks as Indicators of Status:
○ Social networks reveal status through associations.
○ Example: Affiliation with high-status individuals enhances perceived prestige.
● Status Through Association:
○ Affiliation with high-status figures (e.g., advisors, academics) boosts one’s own
status.
Deference and Dominance Across Species
Observing Status Hierarchies
● Animal Behavior:
○ Deferential actions (e.g., grooming, mounting) signal status hierarchies.
● Human Behavior:
○ Cultural rituals such as bowing or kneeling symbolize submission to higher-status
individuals.
, ● Dyadic Interactions:
○ Local hierarchies are revealed through patterns of deference.
Degrees of Status and Centrality Measures
● Pecking Orders:
○ Degree centrality reflects the number of deferential connections but doesn’t fully
capture status.
● High-Rank Connections:
○ Deference from higher-status individuals indicates higher perceived importance.
Hierarchy and Status in Social Contexts
Patronage and Multi-Level Dominance
● High-Level Patronage:
○ Dominance often extends beyond direct influence, with subordinates dominating
others on their behalf.
○ Examples: Mafia ("boss of bosses") or royalty ("king of kings").
● Status Premium:
○ High status provides tangible benefits, such as the ability to charge more for
services.
Status in Popular Media
● Visual Media and Credits:
○ Contract negotiations determine the order of actors’ names, reflecting status.
○ Example: Higher billing for George Clooney over John Turturro highlights greater
star power.
● Alpha Centrality:
○ Measures status in networks based on connectedness and influence, similar to
PageRank.
Reciprocity and Status Differentials
Gould’s Model of Partial Reciprocity
