Relative ability, paths of relevance, and influence in task-oriented groups

In task-oriented groups, people accept influence more from others whom they believe, on the basis of diffuse and specific status characteristics as well as prior performances, to have greater ability at the task. Past research has treated difference in ability as a binary variable (better or worse); it is not known whether magnitude of difference in performances translates into relative magnitude of inferred ability, and thence into degrees of differentiation in the status structure of decision-making groups. We conducted an experiment to examine the relative impact of three aspects of task performance on the inference of ability: absolute level of performance, relative performance (better/worse), and the degree of differences in performances by two group members. These variables then were used to predict acceptance of influence in a two-person decision task. Simple binary difference in ability explained 35 per cent of the variance in influence accepted. Degree of difference in ability significantly increased level of prediction particularly for subjects in the lower range of performance scores, thus supporting the claim that relative and absolute levels of performance create additional differences in expectations. Finally, we propose that a concept of ''graded status characteristics'' should be incorporated into status characteristics theory.