Cognitive Network Activation

Ned SmithUniversity of Michigan Ross School of Business

SRI | June, 2012 | New York, NY

Activation occurs when a concept or bit of information becomes mentally available and subsequently impacts behavior (Gentner et al 2009, Bargh et al 1996)

1 – Introduce a three-part conceptualization of networks and describe how they work together: the Potential, the (cognitively) Activated, and the Mobilized.

2 – Document the situational and psychological factors as well as the cognitive processes that lead people to activate different subsections of their networks. (Note: everything I’ll show you is recall, i.e., interested first in the automatic cognitive biases that can result in structural variations between people, or within people across time.)

3 – Using experimental methods from cognitive and social psychology.

4 – To identify reasons people might fail to realize the value of their existing social networks (exploit the social capital available to them) and design initiatives to keep people from making such mistakes, particularly during periods of crisis and turmoil.

1 – Original motivation for research on CNA, Do people differ in the way that they think about their social networks when they feel that their job is under threat?

2 – Power, identity, and the activation of broad social networks.

3 – New work on identity, judgment and decision making, personality, and CNA.

4 – CNA in organizational settings. Applications in strategy?

Today

1 – Do people differ systematically, by status, in the way that they call to mind, or cognitively activate, their social networks under the condition of job threat. (Smith, Menon, and Thompson, 2012 Organizational Science)

* If Granovetter was right,

* and so what Burt, then

* people may people further disadvantage themselves when facing the threat of job loss by cutting off the very ties that are the most useful in terms of finding subsequent employment.

1 – Do people differ systematically, by status, in the way that they call to mind, or cognitively activate, their social networks under the condition of job threat. (Smith, Menon, and Thompson, 2012 Organizational Science)

Mot

ivat

ion

1

Motivation 2Marvin & Mark

Low Status High StatusLess likely to take social risks (Anderson & Galinsky 2006, Galinsky et al 2003)

May be more subject to threat-rigidity response as a result (Gladstein & Riley 1985, Staw et al 1981)

Internalize new information from the environment and alter existing views of the self (Flynn et al 2006, Lee 1997, Nadler 1987)

More likely to take social risks (Anderson & Galinsky 2006, Galinsky et al 2003).

Confidence and optimism in the face of threat (Steele 1993, Brinol et al 2007, Keltner et al 2003)

Reject new information from the environment in order to validate existing views of the self (Flynn et al 2006, Lee 1997, Nadler 1987)

Less constrained by in-group (Blau 1964).

1 – Do people differ systematically, by status, in the way that they call to mind, or cognitively activate, their social networks under the condition of job threat. (Smith, Menon, and Thompson, 2012 Organizational Science)

“We predict that these tendencies extend to a network pattern whereby high-status people activate larger networks replete with diverse ties. In the process of defending their identities, high-status people become more outwardly focused, activate broader networks, and fulfill the prophecy that they are indeed high status, well-connected, and competent.”

1 – Do people differ systematically, by status, in the way that they call to mind, or cognitively activate, their social networks under the condition of job threat. (Smith, Menon, and Thompson, 2012 Organizational Science)

= status +threat +status x threatSizeDensity

[ ]

1 – Do people differ systematically, by status, in the way that they call to mind, or cognitively activate, their social networks under the condition of job threat. (Smith, Menon, and Thompson, 2012 Organizational Science)

= status +threat +status x threatSizeDensity

[ ]Sample: 806 employed participants with necessary data from the GSS.

Status/Class: “If you were asked to use one of four names for your social class, which would you say you belong in: the lower class (2.3%), the working class, the middle class, or the upper class (3.2%)?”

Threat: “Thinking about the next 12 months, how likely do you think it is that you will lose your job or be laid off?” (2/3 “not at all likely;” 1/3: other answers)

Network: “From time to time, most people discuss important matters with other people. Looking back over the last six months—who are the people with whom you discussed matters important to you?” (Burt, 1984). Dependent variables = network size and network constraint.

Controls: Gender, age, self-employed, income, occ. prestige, education.

Dark bar = No threatLight bar = ThreatX X

1 – Do people differ systematically, by status, in the way that they call to mind, or cognitively activate, their social networks under the condition of job threat. (Smith, Menon, and Thompson, 2012 Organizational Science)

= status +threat +status x threatSizeDensity

[ ]Sample: Lab participants, goal to eliminate reverse causality through experimental design.

Status/Class: “Please take a look at the pyramid, which represents the American social hierarchy. Please draw a horizontal line to indicate your family’s position based on their socioeconomic status (low = base; high = apex). Hypothesis/condition blind coder measured distance between the base and participant’s line (1mm to 42mm)”

Threat: “Imagine that, upon graduation, you receive your perfect job.” vs. “Imagine that, upon graduation, you receive your perfect job. Suppose that one year later, your company informs you that they are downsizing and you will lose your job.”

Network: Same as study one, except we allowed people to name up to 10 alters.

Design: 1 (measured status) x 2 (manipulated, randomly assigned threat).

Dark bar = No threatLight bar = ThreatX X

1 – Do people differ systematically, by status, in the way that they call to mind, or cognitively activate, their social networks under the condition of job threat. (Smith, Menon, and Thompson, 2012 Organizational Science)

= status +threat +status x threatSizeDensity

[ ]* Yes.

* Interaction not mediated by differences in the content of ties (support vs. advice, types of people activated) or the level of threat perceived by subjects. Lack of empirical mediation motivates next paper.

* Implications: (1) Networks as cognitive structures (Janicik and Larrick 2005, Krackhardt 1987, Michaelson & Contractor 1992). (2) Methodological “problems” (Bernard & Killworth 1977, Marsden 1990, Wasserman & Faust 1994) may in fact be the result of psychologically coherent patterns of network activation. (3) Caution to survey-based network research. (4) If these biases are accurate, labor market churn may be particularly disastrous for low-status people. In aggregate, inequality may rise following economic downturn, not only as a function of opportunity but also due to behavioral biases in CNA. Biases in CNA may in fact amplify, reinforce, or even produce structural differences in low- and high-status populations following the onset of a common threat. (ABM, Smith and Rand)

2 – What are some prescriptions to the effects found in the first set of studies? Can we find mediation by some sort of emotional response? (Smith and Menon, under review at Social Psychology Quarterly)

What are the psychological antecedents of open, structurally heterogenous networks?

Power IdentityCan empowerment (power primes) help low-status people overcome the narrowing response?

Power shapes network perception (Krackhardt 1987)

Power primes associated with confidence, action orientation, risk vs. avoidance (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & McGee 2003). Extending to a network context, power may allow people to take the social risks associated with brokerage.

Identities and networks are intertwined in complex ways. Power may have detrimental effects on one’s sense of identity.

People feel comfortable and in control when social environment confirms self-identities (Broxton, 1963; Milton & Westphal, 2005; Swann, de la Ronde, & Hixon, 1994; Polzer, Milton, & Swann, 2002)

Disrupted control is anxiety-provoking (Averill 1973, Whitson & Galinksy 2008, Menon et al)

2 – What are some prescriptions to the effects found in the first set of studies? Can we find mediation by some sort of emotional response? (Smith and Menon, under review at Social Psychology Quarterly)

Low power

High power

Low status

Confirmed

Conflicted

High status

Conflicted

Confirmed

H1

H2

Sample: 120 MBAs, goal to adjudicate between empowerment and identity hypotheses, and establish empirical mediation.

Perceived Status: “When you think about your family, what would their percentile rank be in terms of India’s income distribution, 0-100? (0=lowest; 100=highest).”

Power Manipulation: High power, “Please recall a particular incident in which you had power over another individual or individuals. By power, we mean a situation in which you controlled the ability of another person or persons to get something they wanted, or were in a position to evaluate those individuals.” Low power, “Please recall a particular incident in which someone else had power over you. By power, we mean a situation in which someone had control over your ability to get something you wanted, or was in a position to evaluate you.” (Galinsky et. al., 2003)

Social Change: High change vs. Low change. Meant to function as an exogenous “trigger” that both motivates network dynamism and heightens the salience of identity (Erickson 1970).

2 – What are some prescriptions to the effects found in the first set of studies? Can we find mediation by some sort of emotional response? (Smith and Menon, under review at Social Psychology Quarterly)

Mediator: “Please describe your mood at this moment.” We measured several emotions including anger, sadness, etc, but focused on the extent to which the participant felt in control (1) or out of control (7), and comfortable (1) or uncomfortable (7).

Network: Identical to the first study. Recall. Maximum of 10 people. No size effects. Will show results that focus on density, proportion of close ties, and likelihood of naming an “advisor.”

Design: 1 (measured status) x 2 (power) x 2 (change)

2 – What are some prescriptions to the effects found in the first set of studies? Can we find mediation by some sort of emotional response? (Smith and Menon, under review at Social Psychology Quarterly)

= status + power + change +s * p + s * c + p * c +s * p * c+ sum(lack of control and comfort)

SizeDensity

[ ]

Identity-confirmed respondents activate less dense networks. Holds controlling for network size. (1) Remembering alter ties differently? (2) Substituting alters. If (2), who is different?

****X X

X = “Identity Confirmed”

Identity-confirmed respondents activate fewer strong ties (friends and family)

***X X

Identity-confirmed respondents are more likely to activate people they see as “advisors.”

**X X

What is the common factor explaining the consistency between the LS/LP and HS/HP (i.e., identity-confirmed) conditions? (mediation)

Mediation by emotional response to identity confirmation. Identity confirmed respondents are more likely to feel “comfortable” and “in control”

* The psychological antecedent of open, heterogeneous networks, according to this study, is a feeling of comfort and control.

* Implications for public policy.

(Smith and Wang)

* Effect in India study was driven by identity-confirmed respondents, not identity conflicted. But it is feasibly to imagine an identity-conflicted person activating a small, dense network in order to “remind” themselves of who they are. Identity concerns are an important predictor of (cognitive) network structure (cf., Piskorski 2012), e.g., …

3 – More on identity and network activation (some new studies)…

Activate social network according to open vs. closed rules

- Less accommodating- Able to tolerate less ambiguity- Less comfortable

- More accommodating- Able to tolerate more ambiguity- More comfortable

(Menon and Smith)

* But this process also seems to work in reverse, e.g.,

ConfirmedIdentity

ComfortControl

ConflictedIdentity

DiscomfortLack of Control

ConfirmedIdentity

ComfortControl

time

3 – More on identity and network activation (some new studies)…

* One route in may be via Gavetti’s (2012) Behavioral Theory of Strategy: “Superior opportunities tend to be cognitively distant, and critical sources of superior performance lie in strategic leaders’ superior ability to overcome the behavioral bounds that make it hard for the average firm to pursue them.”

* Networks are a discrete mechanism by which managers “see” distant opportunities (Watt’s and colleagues games showing the utility of network rewiring to facilitate moving beyond local search, or “peaks” to find global peaks).

* …or create “distant” opportunities via recombination (e.g., Burt 2004). Westphal and colleagues (2003, 2008) offer empirical evidence of structurally open advice-seeking networks as having a positive, direct effect on strategic decision making and firm outcomes, but only firm-level predictors of propensity to network openly (i.e., governance). CNA to fill a hole.

4 – CNA and strategy?

Future: (1) Continue documenting effects and biases in the way people activate their networks – JDM theory paper (Menon and Smith, under review at AJS), Self-fulfilling prophecies in gendered networks (Smith and Menon), Identity threats (Smith and Wang).

(2) Scale up to study aggregation effects on networked communities (ABM, Smith and Rand).

(3) Reciprocal effects. Does priming a person to cognitively activate a certain kind of network structure (e.g., dense vs. sparse) impact their perception of self. Does priming a person to activate non-redundant ties lead them to act more like a high self-monitor? (cf., Kilduff et. al)

(4) CNA in organizational settings? “Behavioral” theory of strategy (Gavetti) + research on CEO advice seeking networks and firm performance (Westphal). Identifying the psychological and situational antecedents to activating broad networks to identify “out of the box” strategic options.

1 – When women feel out of control, they activate smaller networks that are,

2 – composed of more super-ordinates and fewer subordinates.

3 – Interesting side note, when men feel in control or out of control they recall more subordinates and fewer super-ordindates and peers.

4 – Why? What’s the story?

supe

r-ord

inat

es

peer

ssu

bord

inat

e

5 – Men and women differed systematically in the types of situations that came to mind when primed to think about being in control versus out of control. 70% of women recalled a story involving someone else (e1), usually of high-status (e2), when asked to write about a time they were out of control, vs. 40% of men. 35% of women recalled a story involving someone else (e1) when asked to write about a time they were in control, vs. 65% of men.

6 – An interpretation: when women lack control, they imagine their networks as more constraining.

7 – “Externalization” of stereotyping threat (cf. Steele). When women (and minorities – African American and Hispanic) – feel powerless, they mentally simulate an environment where they are in fact lacking in power.

“oth

er” f

ocus

edst

atus

of “

othe

r”

According to the results in study 1, what happens to community structure when job loss is widespread? (1) Low-SES community. (2) High-SES community. (3) Mixed community.

Using ABM, we (Smith and Rand) are exploring the implications of cognitive network activation on a system- or community-level. Do low-SES communities become more silo’d and do returns to brokerage increase, exacerbating income disparities in such communities? Do high-SES communities weather the storm more effectively or “communally”? What about in mixed-income communities?

TASK

SOCIAL

HIGH S.M.

LOW S.M.

HIGH S.M.

LOW S.M.

LOW S.M.

HIGH S.M.Kilduff quote about SM.

TASK

SOCIAL

HIGH S.M.

LOW S.M.

LOW S.M.

HIGH S.M.

(Cognitive) Structure Personality

Priming people to think about their task/advice and social networks in different ways (i.e., as either containing many vs. few structural holes) affects their perception of self, even altering their “stable” personality characteristics.

Can cognitive network primes be used strategically? To put people into a psychological state that is most conducive to the task at hand (e.g., team projects, cross-disciplinary collaboration)?