Search results

This chapter focuses on two theories in the landscape of research on social influence – status characteristics theory and social influence network theory – between which heretofore there has been little communication. We advance these two approaches by dovetailing them in a “modular integration” that retains the assumptions of each theory and extends their scope of application. Here, we concentrate on the extension of status characteristics theory to multiactor task-oriented groups and develop new insights on the effects of status characteristics in such groups. We address the implications for opinion changes of status differentiations in which some individuals are deemed more socially worthy and capable than others.

This paper works at the intersections of affect control theory, expectation states theory, and social influence network theory. First, we introduce social influence network theory into affect control theory. We show how an influence network may emerge from the pattern of interpersonal sentiments in a group and how the fundamental sentiments that are at the core of affect control theory (dealing with the evaluation, potency, and activity of self and others) may be modified by interpersonal influences. Second, we bring affect control theory and social influence network theory to bear on expectation states theory. In a task-oriented group, where persons’ performance expectations may be a major basis of their interpersonal influence, we argue that persons’ fundamental sentiments may mediate effects of status characteristics on group members’ performance expectations. Based on the linkage of fundamental sentiments and interpersonal influence, we develop an account of the formation of influence networks in groups that is applicable to both status homogeneous and status heterogeneous groups of any size, whether or not they are completely connected, and that is not restricted in scope to task-oriented groups.

Advances in Group Processes publishes theoretical analyses, reviews, and theory-based empirical chapters on group phenomena. The series adopts a broad conception of “group processes.” This includes work on groups ranging from the very small to the very large and on classic and contemporary topics such as status, power, trust, justice, influence, decision making, intergroup relations, and social networks. Previous contributors have included scholars from diverse fields including sociology, psychology, political science, business, philosophy, computer science, mathematics, and organizational behavior.

This chapter interrogates the idea that Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) is ‘making the world a better place’. It explores the issue of the societal impacts of SRI by addressing five main questions: (1) Is SRI a viable solution to society’s problems? (2) What are the impediments and limits to SRI’s ability to make a difference in society? (3) Where is ‘ethics’ in SRI? (4) How do we measure societal impacts of SRI? and (5) What is the future of SRI?

This chapter is a reflective piece debating the societal impacts of SRI. For the purpose of this chapter, a focus group was organised and interviews were conducted involving both academics and practitioners.

The chapter highlights and discusses several items that can either enhance or on the contrary hinder the societal impacts of SRI. Some of them are related to understanding of SRI, some concern the practice of SRI, while others are more of an epistemological nature. Based on the discussion, we propose three points of leverage that can enhance the capacity and ability of SRI to create change.

The chapter is a call for more research on the societal impacts of SRI. Research in SRI has dominantly focused on the technicalities of the activity and the financial implications, but has hardly touched upon the question of the societal impact.

There are three primary managerial implications highlighted in this chapter: rethink the notion of fiduciary duties, strengthen the interaction between asset owners and asset managers, and encourage changes in public policy.

This chapter examines the influence of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy on some of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the past three decades. Mobilizing the epistemic community framework, it demonstrates how network members, acting as amici curiae, litigators, academics, and judges worked to transmit intellectual capital to Supreme Court decision makers in 12 federalism and separation of powers cases decided between 1983 and 2001. It finds that Federalist Society members were most successful in diffusing ideas into Supreme Court opinions in cases where doctrinal distance was greatest; that is, cases where the Supreme Court moved the farthest from its established constitutional framework.