Peer Perceptions of Media Elites and Hierarchical Differentiation Among Financial Journalists

Abstract

Existing research has demonstrated how media elites influence journalistic practices, but much less has been done to help explain why journalists grant such a high status to select peers in the first place. This study explores rank allocation within a news ecosystem through the theoretical framework of social hierarchy. Survey data from a representative sample of U.S.-based financial journalists indicate that peer perceptions of prestige (i.e., deference earned by expertise, knowledge, or success) significantly and consistently drive group consensus on the most influential members within a news beat. The theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of the study findings are discussed.

Keywords

media elites social hierarchy sociology of news prestige media news ecosystem

The formation of hierarchies is ubiquitous to human groups and many species in the animal kingdom (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Hierarchies are social structures in which higher status individuals receive greater attention and influence than lower status members of the group (Cheng & Tracy, 2014). Sixty years of research into the sociology of news (see Wahl-Jorgensen & Hanitzsch, 2009, for a review) demonstrates that such structures exist within the journalism field. So-called elite news organizations and elite journalists tend to set the dominant rules of journalistic practice (Benson, 2006; Gans, 2004; McCombs, 2014; Shoemaker & Reese, 2014).

Although the presence and influence of media elites are well recognized in mass communication research, little is known about what might drive peer-to-peer consensus on the upper echelons of a media ecosystem. Drawing upon social psychology and evolutionary theory, the dominance–prestige account (Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Cheng, Tracy, Foulsham, Kingstone, & Henrich, 2013; Cheng, Tracy, & Henrich, 2010; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001) provides an explanatory framework for the making of elites among hierarchies. According to this hypothesis, individuals attain high social status through two concurrent pathways: coerced deference, based on forcefulness, power, and control of valued resources (i.e., dominance); and freely conferred deference, based on respect for valued knowledge, expertise, and success (i.e., prestige).

The present study adopts such theorization of social hierarchy to explore the relationship between peer perceptions and ranking of media elites. Instead of focusing on the microprocesses or strategies that lead individuals to status attainment (Cheng et al., 2013), this study examines peer perceptions as predictors of rank allocation from a macro, system-level view. The current undertaking goes beyond small-group settings (see Cheng & Tracy, 2014, for a review) to study hierarchical differentiation in larger groups, whose members congregate in an abstract manner, such as sharing professional ties, as opposed to direct interactions within an actual space. Although the dominance–prestige account may resonate more with face-to-face situations, it is applicable to higher order social networks. The social world is defined by fields of power with individuals competing for different forms of capital (Bourdieu, 2005) to enhance their value in the eyes of others. Social hierarchies, regardless of group dynamics, involve a rank ordering of individuals according to the total amount of hard and soft power they possess.

Through a survey of journalists covering the same news beat (financial news), we examine how members of such social groups select the most influential peers in conjunction with perceived traits of dominance and prestige. In addition, we probe the relative contribution of these two drivers and their interplay in status conferral, accounting for third variables such as work and demographic characteristics of the respondents. The U.S. financial journalism field is chosen as the context because it is one niche group with close connections and an identifiable hierarchy (Ragas & Tran, 2015; Roush, 2009; Starkman, 2009), enabling appropriate adoption of the dominance–prestige account to more complex social structures and realistic settings.

Literature Review

Media Elites Within News Ecosystems

Decades of research into the sociology of news and news production has demonstrated that journalists have their own social norms, traditions, work routines, and values (Becker & Vlad, 2009; Berkowitz, 1997; Breed, 1955; Gans, 2003; Tuchman, 1978; Weaver & Willnat, 2012). Just like any other social group, the journalism field is marked by a mix of leaders, followers, and those who fall somewhere in between. To minimize conflict and enhance the overall performance and functioning of a social group, humans often form hierarchies (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a, 2009b). As such, there is a generally agreed upon social rank to journalists, whether that is within a newsroom, across a news beat, jurisdiction, or geography.

The concept of media elites—those high-status news organizations and journalists that influence the news gathering and reporting practices of their peers—has long been established in journalism studies (Reese, 1991; Reese & Ballinger, 2001; Rosten, 1937; Shoemaker & Reese, 2014). Seminal research by Breed (1955, 1958) found that news people often follow the work of higher status media for help in guiding story selections and validating their sense of the news. Drawing upon the analogy of a tree trunk with its many arterial limbs, Breed described the role that media elites play as a dendritic influence. Specifically, “the influence goes ‘down,’ from larger papers to smaller ones, as if the editor of the smaller paper is employing, in absentia, the editors of the larger paper to ‘make up’ his page for him” (Breed, 1955, p. 278).

Prominent theoretical perspectives, including field theory (Bourdieu, 2005), news production (Becker & Vlad, 2009; Gans, 2004), sociology of news (Boczkowski, 2010; Reese & Ballinger, 2001; Schudson, 2011), agenda setting (McCombs, 2014), and gatekeeping (Shoemaker, Vos, & Reese, 2009), all recognize the influential role of elites within media ecosystems, particularly in creating uniformity across news content. Bourdieu (2005), for example, has conceptualized journalism as part of the field of power structured around the opposition between economic and cultural capital. The economic weight encompasses indicators such as audience reach, financial resources, and visibility. The cultural weight is made up of symbolic elements, such as journalistic excellence, educational or academic credentials. Those agents who accumulate high volumes of both forms of capital are able to wield a “symbolic power over the entire field” (Benson, 2006, p. 190).

Elite journalists have been found to influence the work of their colleagues across a news beat. In his classic book, The Boys on the Bus, Crouse (2003) documented compelling evidence of “pack journalism” among political reporters covering the 1972 U.S. presidential campaign. These reporters turned to R. W. “Johnny” Apple Jr. of the New York Times for guidance in interpreting the campaign news of the day. In financial journalism, there exists a group consensus on the most influential players, with Andrew Ross Sorkin and Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times being elevated to the top of the hierarchy (Ragas & Tran, 2015).

Although the extant literature recognizes the central role and influence of elites in the news industry, little attention has been paid to why journalists grant such a high status to select peers. In other words, what are the drivers of rank allocation in the context of journalism? Documenting the presence and effects of media elites is important, but we need a more complete picture of how they emerge in the first place. Prominent scholars have speculated that certain actors within the journalism field might gain elite status due to their being seen as more powerful and having greater resources and/or for possessing superior expertise, knowledge, or success (Bourdieu, 2005; McCombs, Holbert, Kiousis, & Wanta, 2011; Shoemaker & Reese, 2014). However, such interpretations have lacked a unifying theoretical framework for empirically assessing the specific determinants of group agreement on the most influential peers.

Media Elites and Social Hierarchies

Looking beyond existing mass communication theories, the literature pertaining to group-based hierarchies provides important insights into the factors that drive status allocation. Social hierarchy is conceptualized as a rank order of individuals based on a consensus, either formal or informal, among group members (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). According to social competition theorists, hierarchical structures reflect the need to put the most qualified members in charge to achieve collective goals (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a, 2009b). Within-group hierarchical differentiation tends to give greater influence to those who possess traits of prominence and superiority (Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001; Cheng et al., 2010).

Although some confusion still exists in the different ways research defines social rank and social status (see Cheng, Tracy, & Anderson, 2014, for a review), the focal construct underlying these terms is highly relevant to the study of media elites and how journalists—as a social group—come to confer rank upon individuals perceived as influencers. Conceptually, hierarchy formation is characterized by the degree of influence one possesses over others (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009b; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). At the operational level, social rank or status can be gauged through the acquisition of perceived influence, behavioral influence, and social attention (Cheng et al., 2013). In the context of this research, group perceptions of influential journalists are broadly construed as an instance of consensually accepted rank/status allocation within social hierarchies.

Scholars have a keen interest in explaining the processes that allow individuals to gain social influence. Research has examined effective behaviors and strategies to ascend a social hierarchy. The bases of hierarchical differentiation are diverse, and there are different conceptual models theorizing about the antecedents of social status and rank.

Merit-based perspective

Many accounts of social hierarchies take a functionalist approach, which suggests that rank differentiation is largely contingent upon task abilities and leadership skills (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a). According to this view, high-ranking individuals are perceived to possess superior expertise and competence. A key principle of the merit-based theoretical model is that groups prevent individuals from taking charge simply through coercive means. Magee and Galinsky (2008) made a distinction between social status and social power with the former being the amount of respect accorded by others, whereas the latter being the amount of control one has over valued resources. Because influence cannot be simply acquired through forceful behaviors, individuals with dominant personalities tend to display competence-related cues to successfully compete for social status (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009b).

Competition-based perspective

Evolutionary selection dictates that social species face intense competition for resources to stand the best chance of survival. Social hierarchy formation, in this view, is a consequence of agonistic encounters, which allow few high-ranking individuals a greater share of resources. Dominance hierarchies are believed to function in both humans and nonhumans. The competition-based account of hierarchical arrangements argues that dominance and coercion are the primary determinants of human social rank dynamics (Buss & Duntley, 2006; Griskevicius et al., 2009). Trait dominance tends to give rise to influence over subordinates in social settings (Fiske, 2010). Dominant individuals have been found to hold disproportionate sway over group discussions, processes, and decisions, thereby ascending a social hierarchy, regardless of group perceptions of their competence or intelligence (Cheng et al., 2013).

Dominance–prestige account

In an effort to unify disparate perspectives on the bases of social hierarchy, a new model draws upon evolutionary logic to theorize about two viable pathways to social rank and influence in human societies (Cheng & Tracy, 2013; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). According to this account, hierarchies are multidimensional, resulting from two systems of status attainment: dominance and prestige (Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Cheng et al., 2010). Dominance can be broadly defined as a propensity toward assertiveness, forcefulness, and aggressiveness in attaining a social status out of coerced deference. In other words, dominance begets social influence in the form of forced compliance induced by means of intimidation and coercion (physical and nonphysical). Prestige, in contrast, pertains to earned respect based on superior expertise, knowledge, or success. Prestige translates into social influence on the basis of freely conferred deference and genuine persuasion (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). There are two important propositions underlying the dominance–prestige account. First, dominance and prestige exist as concurrent avenues to influence and status in human societies and they are not mutually exclusive within the same individual. Both result in patterns of behavior leading to improved social status and both can be effective within the same group (Cheng & Tracy, 2013). Second, dominance and prestige are distinct systems of rank allocation. The two pathways contribute, independently, to status differences (Cheng et al., 2013; Cheng et al., 2010).

Recent empirical studies have provided initial support for the aforementioned premises (see Cheng & Tracy, 2014). Nevertheless, research of social hierarchies has been limited to face-to-face, small groups (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009b). It remains unknown whether the dominance–prestige account is applicable in more complex social structures. According to Bourdieu, all social fields are set up as arenas of struggle with individuals, consciously and subconsciously, engaging in the valorization of both hard and soft forms of power (Benson, 2006). Therein lies an alignment between the dominance–prestige account and hierarchical differentiation in larger groups, as well as higher order social interactions (such as individuals sharing professional ties). The current study, therefore, extends this theoretical model to the context of journalists covering the same news beat (i.e., financial journalism). Instead of focusing on the actual making of media elites, we seek to understand how journalists, as a social group, confer rank upon the most influential members based on peer perceptions of dominance and prestige traits.

Thus, the following hypotheses are advanced:

H1: Perceived dominance influences the ranking of influential journalists.

H2: Perceived prestige influences the ranking of influential journalists.

Social hierarchy research often discounts the dual foundations of hierarchical differentiation, overemphasizing the importance of one pathway while underestimating the role of the other. Anderson and Kilduff (2009b), for example, argued for the merit-based perspective by suggesting that perceived competence mediates the linkage between dominance and rank attainment. Meanwhile, available data in the dominance–prestige account demonstrate that the rank-promoting effects of dominance and prestige are not only coexisting, but also distinct (Cheng et al., 2013; Cheng, Tracy, & Anderson, 2014). The tendency to engage in each pattern of behavior is statistically independent of the other, and each account independently predicts emergent social status, even when controlling for shared variance. These findings speak about the relationship between dominance and prestige in terms of mediation. However, it has not been fully explained how dominance and prestige contribute, in both relative and interactive terms, to status differences. Although these two drivers of hierarchical differentiation are believed to be concurrent and independent, their contributions might vary, depending on interaction modes or social contexts (e.g., face-to-face vs. mediated experience, conflict level, or group norms). In the absence of prior empirical evidence, a research question is proposed:

RQ1: What is the relative contribution of perceived dominance, perceived prestige, and their interplay in the ranking of influential journalists?

Accounting for Respondent Characteristics

Social hierarchy scholars have acknowledged the role of individual differences in the way groups rank order and perceive influential members (Hays, 2013). The inclusion of extra-focal factors has the additional benefit of explaining why certain behaviors, traits, and attributes give rise to status. According to Magee and Galinsky (2008), various characteristics such as race, gender, and class carry value connotations, “which permeate social interactions among group members and emerge as significant dimensions of within-group hierarchical differentiation” (p. 356). Moreover, the specific volume of dominance and prestige may not be expressed entirely through the owner of those traits and may depend on who is doing the judging (Cheng & Tracy, 2013). Research of the dominance–prestige account has not tested the possibility that respondent-related variables might play a part in peer ratings, thereby impacting rank differentiation.

A large body of journalism studies demonstrates that journalists’ perceptions vary as a function of demographics and work-related conditions (Becker & Vlad, 2009; Brownlee & Beam, 2012; Hanusch, 2012; Reich & Hanitzsch, 2013; Stroud & Lee, 2013; Weaver, Beam, Brownlee, Voakes, & Wilhoit, 2007). These variables act to create perceptual differences among journalists as evidenced through their assessments of credibility (Cassidy, 2007; Hanusch, 2012; Stroud & Lee, 2013), professional autonomy (Reich & Hanitzsch, 2013; Weaver et al., 2007), news routines (Becker & Vlad, 2009), and job satisfaction (Brownlee & Beam, 2012). Research by Filak (2004) further shows how journalists choose to join groups and adopt an intergroup bias, by which members of competing groups make judgments in favor of their own group.

An earlier study by Ragas and Tran (2015), using a different data set, found the contribution of some demographic and work-related variables to the likelihood of ranking media entities and individuals as the most influential forces in financial journalism. Although that research provides initial insight into the relationship between status allocation and respondent profile, it has not explored whether respondent characteristics might factor in the two drivers (dominance and prestige) of social hierarchies. The present study seeks to address this issue:

RQ2: Do respondent characteristics affect the ranking of influential journalists apart from significant predictor variables?

Method

Data Collection

Our analyses for this study are based on 192 respondents to an online survey of journalists responsible for reporting and disseminating business news in the United States, the epicenter of world finance. An initial email invitation was delivered to 3,925 individuals in the media database of the Gorkana Group, which provides intelligence about U.S.-based financial journalists. Four waves of reminder emails were sent to nonrespondents while the survey was open between March 4 and March 30, 2015. This process resulted in a sample of 422 journalists responding to some survey questions, but only 192 provided adequate data pertinent to media elites, perceived traits of dominance and prestige, and respondent characteristics. Of the aforementioned 192 respondents, 128 answered all the questions of interest and 64 responded to some of those questions. We employed multiple imputation (MI) procedures to handle 64 cases with missing data. In the end, the response rate was 10.7% for the survey overall and was 4.9% for the subset of individuals who provided data for this study.

Low response rates are somewhat expected of list-based online samples (Keusch, 2012), and financial journalists are typically less responsive. Surveys conducted by the Society of American Business Editors and Writers (SABEW), which boasts membership numbers between 3,400 and 3,700, tend to yield smaller sample sizes (SABEW, 2013, 2015a). Arguably, our survey sample and data available for analyses are as comprehensive as practically possible for this niche group (Garner, 2016; SABEW, 2015b). As shown in Table 1, the effective sample (n = 192) closely matches the overall profile of the complete sample (n = 422) with minor percentage fluctuations.

Table 1.

Respondent Profile.

Variable	Effective sample (n = 192)	Complete sample (n = 422)
Editorial rank	Junior: 46.2% Senior: 53.8%	Junior: 47% Senior: 53%
Work experience	M = 13.2, SD = 9.9	M = 13.2, SD = 10.0
Newsroom size	< 10 journalists: 27.5% 10-20 journalists: 11.5% 21-30 journalists: 8.2% 31-40 journalists: 4.9% 41-50 journalists: 3.8% > 50 journalists: 44%	< 10 journalists: 26.4% 10-20 journalists: 13.4% 21-30 journalists: 8.3% 31-40 journalists: 5.1% 41-50 journalists: 3.5% > 50 journalists: 43.3%
News platform	Online: 56% Traditional: 44%	Online: 54.5% Traditional: 45.5%
Work location	Northeast: 72.5% Others: 27.5%	Northeast: 70.5% Others: 29.5%
Race	Caucasian: 85.6% Non-Caucasian: 14.4%	Caucasian: 84.7% Non-Caucasian: 15.3%
Gender	Male: 67.8% Female: 32.2%	Male: 65.2% Female: 34.8%
Age	M = 43.6, SD = 13.7	M = 43.2, SD = 13.4

Measures and Analysis

To gauge rank allocation, participants were asked to name the most influential financial journalist(s) in the United States. Each respondent was allowed to nominate up to three individuals whom they perceived as leaders in the field. The researchers carefully reviewed the responses from each participant to filter out duplications. From 450 unique nominations, a list of most frequently mentioned names emerged. Six individuals broke away from the rest and, together, received more than 91% of all nominations made by respondents. Thus, the overall ranking and pertinent perceptions of media elites in this sample were largely linked to the top-six group.¹ Consequently, binary coding was employed to construct an aggregate measure of rank allocation with two outcomes: The respondent did nominate (1 = yes) or did not nominate (0 = no) any of the individuals who were collectively granted the status of the top six in this sample.

Fourteen items adapted from the dominance–prestige scale were administered in a randomized order (Cheng, Weidman, & Tracy, 2014). The statements are phrased in both affirmative and negative ways to allow validation across responses. Participants used a 7-point Likert-type scale anchored by not at all (1) and very much (7) to indicate how accurately each of the 14 statements describes the individual(s) they ranked as the most influential financial journalist(s) (see Table 2). These 14 items were split evenly between measures of perceived dominance and prestige.²

Table 2.

Factor Loadings for Two-Factor Solution.

	Factor
Item	1	2
Financial journalists respect and admire the individual(s)	.88
The individual(s)’ unique talents and abilities are recognized by financial journalists	.87
The individual(s) are held in high esteem by financial journalists	.85
The individual(s) are considered experts on some matters by financial journalists	.83
Financial journalists seek the insights of the individual(s) into a variety of matters	.61
Financial journalist do not value the opinion of the individual(s)^a	.50	−.29
Financial journalists always expect the individual(s) to be successful	.48	.33
The individual(s) often try to get their way regardless of what others may want		.75
The individual(s) try to control others rather than permit others to control them		.73
The individual(s) are willing to use aggressive tactics to get their way		.69
The individual(s) enjoy having authority over financial journalists		.65
The individual(s) enjoy having influence over other financial journalists		.64
Financial journalists know it is better to let the individual(s) have their way		.38

Note. Respondents were asked, “Please indicate the extent to which each of the following statements accurately describes the individual(s) you named above as the most influential financial journalist(s).” Respondents used a 7-point Likert-type scale anchored between not at all (1) and very much (7) to answer. Factor loadings were generated from varimax with Kaiser Normalization as rotation method and principal axis factoring as extraction method.

Reverse-coded item was transformed prior to analysis (see Cheng, Tracy, & Henrich, 2010; Cheng, Weidman, & Tracy, 2014, for a detailed discussion of the dominance–prestige scale).

The survey also probed respondents for detailed information about their profile. Demographic characteristics were measured by race, gender, and age (Brownlee & Beam, 2012). Because the sample was dominantly Caucasian (approximately 85%), race was coded as Caucasian and non-Caucasian. Work-related characteristics were measured by editorial rank, professional experience (years of work experience), newsroom size (ordinal scale with 1 = fewer than 10 reporters/editors and 6 = more than 50 reporters/editors), news platform (dominant medium for publication), and work location defined by U.S. regions (Stroud & Lee, 2013). To facilitate data analysis, multicategory items were transformed as binary variables. Editorial rank was recoded as junior (reporter/writer) versus senior (editor/producer/news director/columnist). News platform was categorized as online versus traditional media. Work location was collapsed into Northeast, the geographic hub for financial news, versus others.

Prior to analysis, reverse-coded items were transformed. Data missing at random (MAR) were filled, using the MI method.³ Scale validation was conducted through factor analysis. Determinants of rank allocation were examined by hierarchical multiple regression. To gauge possible variations induced by respondent characteristics apart from the contribution of explanatory drivers, hierarchical logistic regression was employed.

Results

Scale Validation

The dominance–prestige scale was primarily developed in experimental, small-group research (Cheng et al., 2010). Because this scale was adopted, for the first time, in a field survey of a large group (i.e., journalists covering the financial news beat), efforts to explore its validity and applicability were deemed necessary. Prior to exploratory factor analysis (EFA), a principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted to determine whether the data matrix was factorable. With a “meritorious” measure of sampling adequacy (Kaiser–Mayer–Olkin [KMO] = .85); a significant Barlett’s test of sphericity, χ²(78) = 7,274.14, p < .001; and three eigenvalues greater than 1, the analysis indicates that three components contributed about 66.5% of the explained variance in the data. The results of the Horn’s test comparing eigenvalues from random data with those of the current data show that three factors or fewer would be extracted.

Subsequently, a systematic analysis of three-factor and two-factor solutions with oblique and orthogonal rotations was conducted, using principal axis factoring technique. In this EFA procedure, one reverse-coded item from the prestige–dominance scale (“The individual(s) do not have a forceful or dominant personality”) stood out and did not load on either factor. With the nonloading item being dropped from analysis, a two-factor orthogonal solution with 13 items proved to be the most easily interpretable. As shown in Table 2, factor loadings identified two distinct dimensions: (a) the first factor consists of seven items dealing with perceived prestige and (b) the second factor comprises six items concerning perceived dominance. Both sets of items collapsed well, indicating good internal consistency within each dimension of the dominance–prestige scale (prestige: α = .88; dominance: α = .80). The extracted factor scores were retained and used for subsequent analysis.

Explanatory Drivers of Rank Allocation

H1 and H2 predicted main effects of perceived dominance and perceived prestige on the ranking of influential financial journalists. RQ1 asked about the relative contribution of the two drivers as well as their interplay in contributing to rank allocation. A hierarchical regression model was built for explaining rank allocation from prestige, dominance, and their interaction term.⁴ Essentially, the outcome variable was the likelihood in which each respondent’s choice agreed (1) or disagreed (0) with the aggregate ranking of the top six in financial journalism. Two predictor variables (i.e., dominance and prestige) were entered in the first block and their interaction term (dominance × prestige) in the second block. With 192 cases and the ratio of cases to variables of 48:1, the regression procedure was appropriate. Means, standard deviations, minimum and maximum values are within range for variables. After being screened for normality, linearity, and multicollinearity, the data showed none of such concerns. Thus, the assumptions underlying robust regression analysis were met (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012).

Because MI for missing data was employed, findings from regression analysis were reported through pooled estimates of imputed data sets (m = 5) in comparison with results run on the original data set. According to Table 3, prestige made a statistically significant contribution to rank allocation. Greater perceived prestige increased the likelihood of group consensus on the elite members. However, dominance and the prestige–dominance interaction term appeared to be incapable of predicting the outcome. Across data sets, the F test for change in R² was consistently significant in the first block (Model 1) and insignificant in the second (Model 2). In the full model, a linear combination of the three independent variables explained between 6% (pooled data) and 10% (original data) of the variance in the dependent variable.

Table 3.

Regression of Rank Allocation on Prestige, Dominance, and Interaction Term (n = 192).

	Original data			Pooled data
Variable	b	β	t	b	β	t
Model 1
Constant	.66		18.19***	.64		18.74***
Prestige	.14	.29	3.72***	.12	.24	3.26***
Dominance	.07	.14	1.80	.03	.05	0.73
Model 2
Constant	.66		18.12***	.64		18.73***
Prestige	.13	.27	3.44***	.11	.22	3.00***
Dominance	.07	.13	1.70	.03	.05	0.68
Prestige × Dominance	−.02	−.04	−0.52	−.02	−.06	−0.73
Incremental/total R²
Model 1		.10***			.06***
Model 2		.00			.00
Total		.10***			.06***

Note. b = regression coefficient; β = standardized beta coefficient; t = t value.

***

p < .005.

Overall, this analysis did not find support for the main effect of dominance on rank allocation as predicted (H1). Meanwhile, the hypothesized pathway from prestige to the outcome variable (H2) received full support. The results, as combined, suggest that perceived prestige was the more significant driver of rank allocation and that its predictive power was independent from perceived dominance (RQ1).

Perceived Prestige and Respondent Characteristics

Past research has indicated that respondent characteristics might affect the ranking of influential financial journalists (Ragas & Tran, 2015). Therefore, RQ2 sought to examine whether variables pertaining to the surveyed participants themselves might add to the robustness of explanatory drivers of rank allocation. Because the assumed role of dominance and its interaction with prestige had been ruled out, this analysis focused on perceived prestige as the key determinant of how financial journalists granted elite status to select peers.

A logistic regression (Agresti, 2013) was performed to evaluate the relationship between the likelihood to rank any of the individuals making the top-six list (dependent variable), perceived prestige (predictor variable), and eight additional variables indexing respondents’ demographics (race, gender, age) and their work-related characteristics (editorial rank, professional experience, newsroom size, news platform, work location). After the data had been checked against the assumptions of logistic regression (linearity, multicollinearity, independence of errors, incomplete information, complete separation, overdispersion), a hierarchical model was built with variables being entered in blocks. Rank allocation was treated as the outcome. Prestige was entered in the first block and eight respondent profile variables in the second block.

Because MI was used, analyses run on imputed data sets (m = 5) were pooled and presented alongside the results from the original data set. Overall, chi-square tests were consistently significant in the first block (Model 1) and insignificant in the second block (Model 2). Looking at Nagelkerke R² in Table 4, the full model explained between 10% (pooled data) and 15% (original data) of the variance in the outcome variable. Model 1, with prestige as the single predictor, contributed between 6% (pooled data) and 10% (original data) to the variance in rank allocation. Overall, prediction success ranged from 70% (pooled data) to 73.3% (original data), indicating that almost three fourths of cases were correctly classified. A closer analysis of the odds ratio and confidence interval (CI) suggests that prestige was the best predictor in each model. A higher level of prestige was associated with a higher likelihood of being ranked. As perceived prestige increased by one unit, respondents were between 1.5 (pooled data) and 1.8 (original data) times more likely to nominate individuals in the top-six group. The CI for this ratio was consistently above 1.00, which is satisfactory. None of the respondent profile variables emerged as significant contributors to rank allocation (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Regression of Rank Allocation on Prestige and Respondent Characteristics (n = 192).

	Original data			Pooled data
Variable	B	SE	OR	B	SE	OR
Model 1
Prestige	.59***	.20	1.80	.44*	.18	1.55
Model 2
Prestige	.59***	.20	1.80	.43*	.18	1.53
Work experience	.03	.03	1.03	.02	.02	1.02
Age	−.03	.02	0.97	−.02	.02	0.99
Newsroom size	.01	.10	1.01	−.02	.09	0.98
Editorial rank	−.13	.41	0.88	.10	.36	1.11
News platform	−.40	.43	0.67	−.24	.37	0.78
Gender	.59	.45	1.80	.56	.40	1.75
Race	.07	.61	1.08	.30	.50	1.35
Work location	.48	.47	1.61	.63	.41	1.88
Nagelkerke R²
Model 1		.10***			.06**
Model 2		.05			.04
Total		.15			.10

Note. B = beta; SE = standard error; OR = odds ratio.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .005.

According to the findings, respondent characteristics did not affect the ranking of financial journalists and the significant contribution of prestige to hierarchical differentiation was unique. Furthermore, adding respondent profile variables did not increase the explanatory power of the model. In other words, perceived prestige was the main factor influencing how financial journalists, as a social group, formed consensus on the elites within their field.

Discussion

The concept of media elites—and the influence of these elites on news production and journalism practices—has been established in mass communication research for many decades (Breed, 1955, 1958; Crouse, 2003; Gans, 2004; Rosten, 1937; Shoemaker & Reese, 2014). Although the effects of media elites are well documented, far less scholarly attention has been given to why news professionals grant such elite status to select peers. Perhaps, this lack of research into the latter is not all that surprising; a general criticism of mass media theory building is that researchers spend too much time demonstrating effects and not enough time mapping out the mechanisms underlying these effects (Lang, 2013; Nabi & Oliver, 2010). The findings of the current research help fill this gap within the study of media elites and media ecosystems, while more broadly contributing to social hierarchy research across the social sciences.

Theoretical Contributions

Breaking new ground, this study tests the applicability of the dominance–prestige account at a macro-level in a complex social structure defined by nuanced connections such as professional ties rather than prior research that has been limited to face-to-face, small groups. Instead of taking the effect-based perspective by focusing on actual hierarchy formation, we examine the system of rank allocation according to peer perceptions of influential members (i.e., media elites). Based on our data analysis, a two-dimension solution comprising dominance and prestige did emerge as predicted. However, only perceived prestige was found to be a significant driver of social status perceptions among financial journalists. This finding has intriguing implications for scholars studying media elites and social hierarchies.

The terms “elite” and “prestige” (e.g., Noelle-Neumann & Mathes, 1987) have long been used almost interchangeably in journalism studies to refer to influential journalists and news organizations. In Bourdieu’s field theory, accumulated prestige is understood as cultural capital, which helps those at the top of the social space find their legitimate power (Benson, 2006). The results of the current study, which consistently found perceived prestige a key determinant of rank allocation among financial journalists, lend empirical support behind this long-held assumption embedded in the literature.

Meanwhile, perceived dominance was not found to be a predictor of how financial journalists grant elite status on select peers, as had been hypothesized. One explanation is that the current study assessed hierarchical differentiation at a systemic level in a mediated setting (an online self-administered survey) rather than the face-to-face, small-group settings of prior work in this area. Dominance traits, such as assertiveness, forcefulness, aggressiveness, and control of valued resources, are more visible and may factor more heavily into the assessments and actions among the actors in the latter setting rather than the former. Financial journalists typically have only limited direct interactions with colleagues outside of their local market, such as through attending conferences and informal gatherings. But they are often exposed to the quality of the work output (news stories, columns, books) and successes (scoops, awards, recognition) of their peers, which serve as visible markers of the skills, knowledge, and expertise these individuals possess. As such, when respondents assessed social hierarchy at a national level and in a confidential fashion (i.e., removing conflict or threat), they might rely upon prestige-related cues to guide their selections of the most influential members of the large group.

This finding, however, does not provide conclusive evidence that dominance is broadly ineffective in contributing to the ranking of influential journalists. The results might have been different if this survey were administered to smaller groups of journalists working within the same newsroom and/or interacting face-to-face with each other on a regular basis, thereby creating greater possibilities for immediate conflict and direct peer competition. In such settings, coerced deference or dominance traits might emerge as significant contributors to rank allocation.

Apparently, dominating behaviors are less likely to be observed without direct interactions. But, oftentimes, the way media elites wield power over the field, regardless of mode of contact, reflects those traits both subtly and consistently. It is plausible that group members might shy away from statements that sound critical to maintain unity and order, which is important in niche group dynamics. In short, the null findings reported here suggest that theorization about dominance and prestige should look into the contexts and conditions under which each account might (or might not) translate into rank differentiation.

Methodological Implications

The present study adopts and adapts the methodology of social hierarchy research to examine a media phenomenon. In testing the dominance–prestige scale in realistic settings, our national field survey validates its efficacy and ecological validity beyond experimental and small-group situations, thereby demonstrating a broader application of this quantitative instrument. Another contribution pertains to the analysis of differential and combined impact of two drivers of rank allocation, which has not been previously explored. In addition, the current undertaking takes into account third variables, such as individual and within-group differences, which have been largely overlooked in the extant literature. Overall, this study represents a novel, interdisciplinary approach, which helps push the methodological boundaries of social sciences.

Practical Implications

The study findings also have direct practical implications for news professionals. An active area of social hierarchy research focuses on social rank attainment strategies through signaling (Cheng et al., 2014). Given that prestige was found to be a significant driver of perceived influence among group members, journalists should consider ways to signal their expertise, skills, and success (i.e., prestige) among their peers. Such signals could include producing forward-looking stories or expert insights that help generate scoops, exclusives, or follow-ups, resulting in the journalists’ work being credited and cited by other journalists. Third-party validation in the form of journalism awards, such as the Gerald Loeb Awards for business journalists, also serves as visible signals of success to peers. There may also be a “prestige halo effect” that comes simply from a journalist being affiliated with an elite media organization with a history of journalistic excellence. As suggested in our survey data, the six individuals perceived by their peers as being most influential represent generally highly regarded news outlets such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Vanity Fair, and CNBC.

The journalism field is structured around the opposition between cultural capital and economic capital, or hard power, with the latter generally retaining the upper hand (Bourdieu, 2005). As business news becomes a reporting area in high demand, there is a concern that the rise of commercialism might undermine traditional journalistic values and traditions (Roush, 2009; Starkman, 2009). The findings of this research may be perceived as normatively positive for the field and society in that financial journalists looked up to colleagues who generally seem to exhibit excellence in their craft. Media elites often shape the dominant rules of journalistic practice (Benson, 2006), so evidence of high standards among these leaders is encouraging.

Limitations and Future Research

As with any study, there are limitations that should be taken into account when reviewing the results and the conclusions drawn from them. Given the use of survey methodology, this study relied on peer reports of a rank ordering of influential journalists as well as perceptions of their dominance and prestige traits. Although perceived influence is a dimension of social status, it is not equal to evidence of the influence of media elites on other group members. Future research in a journalism context should also examine social rank based on behavioral influence, social attention, and actual markers of prestige and dominance. Such research could employ qualitative techniques (e.g., direct observation of workplace interactions, in-depth interviews with journalists) and experimental designs where researchers can gauge the formation of group consensus on social hierarchy in the newsroom. Furthermore, there is a challenge in taking the dominance–prestige scale from experiments to field surveys. Some questionnaire items inquiring about dominance traits might be more suitable for interpersonal or laboratory settings, but less so in the context of fellow journalists involved in beat reporting. Greater fine tuning is needed to improve these measures’ external validity, thereby facilitating meaningful responses.

In terms of sampling, we opted for financial journalists—who know each other fairly well through specialized reporting and close network members—to appropriately adopt social hierarchy research outside of small-group settings. Meanwhile, list-based web samples are known to be less responsive (Keusch, 2012), and this is particularly true in surveys of financial journalists (SABEW, 2015b). Inferences drawn from a niche population with response rate challenges should be further verified and replicated for other news beats, such as public affairs, health, science, sports, and the like, to gain a more complete understanding of the generalizability (or lack thereof) of aspects of the current findings across the journalism field as a whole. Moreover, the data reported here were cross-sectional. Ideally, future investigations would collect longitudinal data, which allow for analysis of shifts in perceptions over time.

Beyond dominance and prestige, there might be other drivers of status within social hierarchies. For example, Blader and Chen (2014) have proposed an expanded conceptual model of the dimensions of social hierarchy, which include dominance and prestige, as well as other antecedents, such as status characteristics, socioeconomic status, emotion, and personality. These variables are worth empirical examining in future research. Finally, the current study was set in the United States. A direct extension of this work should assess the role of cultural differences, such as high/low power distance and collectivist/individualist cultures, in hierarchical differentiation among journalists (Weaver & Willnat, 2012). Twin studies conducted in culturally contrasting settings might help bring important insights.

Overall, this research provides initial evidence to explain why journalists, as a social group, grant elite status to influential group members. The findings point to perceptions of prestige as a key and persistent driver of rank allocation. Many additional questions about social hierarchies and professional groups are waiting to be explored with the present study helping set a path for future scholarship. Social rank research is a lively area of inquiry across the social sciences with mass media being a new frontier for further interdisciplinary theory development.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Hai L. Tran studies multimedia effects, journalism theories, online agenda setting, and research methodology. He teaches multimedia reporting, data journalism, and international reporting.

Matthew W. Ragas examines mass media processes and effects in political and corporate settings, including business journalism. He teaches public relations, and courses at the intersection of business and communication.

References

Agresti

(2013). Categorical data analysis (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Anderson

John

O. P.

Keltner

Kring

A. M.

(2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81(1), 116-132. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.116

Anderson

Kilduff

G. J.

(2009a). The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 295-298. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01655.x

Anderson

Kilduff

G. J.

(2009b). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 491-503. doi:10.1037/a0014201

Becker

L. B.

Vlad

(2009). News organizations and routines. In Wahl-Jorgensen

Hanitzsch

(Eds.), The handbook of journalism studies (pp. 59-72). New York, NY: Routledge.

Benson

(2006). News media as a “journalistic field”: What Bourdieu adds to new institutionalism, and vice versa. Political Communication, 23, 67-81. doi:10.1080/10584600600629802

Berkowitz

(Ed.). (1997). Social meaning of news: A text reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Blader

S. L.

Chen

Y.-R.

(2014). What’s in a name? Status, power and other forms of social hierarchy. In Cheng

Anderson

(Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 71-95). New York, NY: Springer.

Boczkowski

P. J.

(2010). News at work: Imitation in an age of information abundance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

10.

Bourdieu

(2005). The political field, the social science field, and the journalistic field. In Benson

Neveau

(Eds.), Bourdieu and the journalistic field (pp. 29-47). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

11.

Breed

(1955). Social control in the newsroom. Social Forces, 33, 326-355. doi:10.2307%2F2573002

12.

Breed

(1958). Mass communication and socio-cultural integration. Social Forces, 37, 109-116. doi:10.2307/2572792

13.

Brownlee

B. J.

Beam

R. A.

(2012). U.S. journalist in the tumultuous early years of the 21st century. In Weaver

D. H.

Willnat

(Eds.), The global journalist in the 21st century (pp. 348-362). New York, NY: Routledge.

14.

Buss

D. M.

Duntley

J. D.

(2006). The evolution of aggression. In Schaller

Simpson

J. A.

Kenrick

D. T.

(Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 263-285). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

15.

Cassidy

W. P.

(2007). Online news credibility: An examination of the perceptions of newspaper journalists. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 478-498. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00334.x

16.

Cheng

J. T.

Tracy

J. L.

(2013). The impact of wealth on prestige and dominance rank relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 24, 102-108. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2013.792576

17.

Cheng

J. T.

Tracy

J. L.

(2014). Toward a unified science of hierarchy: Dominance and prestige are two fundamental pathways to human social rank. In Cheng

Tracy

Anderson

(Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 3-27). New York, NY: Springer.

18.

Cheng

J. T.

Tracy

J. L.

Anderson

(Eds.). (2014). The psychology of social status. New York, NY: Springer.

19.

Cheng

J. T.

Tracy

J. L.

Foulsham

Kingstone

Henrich

(2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 103-125. doi:10.1037/a0030398

20.

Cheng

J. T.

Tracy

J. L.

Henrich

(2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution & Human Behavior, 31, 334-347. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.004

21.

Cheng

J. T.

Weidman

A. C.

Tracy

J. L.

(2014). The assessment of social status: A review of measures and experimental manipulations. In Cheng

Tracy

Anderson

(Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 347-362). New York, NY: Springer.

22.

Crouse

(2003). The boys on the bus. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

23.

Filak

V. F.

(2004). Cultural convergence: Intergroup bias among journalists and its impact on convergence. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 12, 216-232. doi:10.1207/s15456889ajc1204_3

24.

Fiske

S. T.

(2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In Fiske

S. T.

Lindzey

Gilbert

D. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 941-982). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

25.

Gans

H. J.

(2003). Democracy and the news. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

26.

Gans

H. J.

(2004). Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

27.

Garner

(2016). Majority of biz journalists have received a raise in past year, again. Retrieved from https://sabew.org/2016/03/majority-of-biz-journalists-have-received-a-raise-in-past-year-again/

28.

Griskevicius

Tybur

J. M.

Gangestad

S. W.

Perea

E. F.

Shapiro

J. R.

Kenrick

D. T.

(2009). Aggress to impress: Hostility as an evolved context-dependent strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 980-994. doi:10.1037/a0013907

29.

Hanusch

(2012). Travel journalists’ attitudes toward public relations: Findings from a representative survey. Public Relations Review, 38, 69-75. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.10.001

30.

Hays

N. A.

(2013). Fear and loving in social hierarchy: Sex differences in preferences for power versus status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 1130-1136. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.08.007

31.

Hellevik

(2009). Linear versus logistic regression when the dependent variable is a dichotomy. Quality & Quantity, 43, 59-74. doi:10.1007/s11135-007-9077-3

32.

Henrich

Gil-White

F. J.

(2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution & Human Behavior, 22, 165-196. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4

33.

Keusch

(2012). How to increase response rates in list-based web survey samples. Social Science Computer Review, 30, 380-388. doi:10.1177/0894439311409709

34.

Lang

(2013). Discipline in crisis? The shifting paradigm of mass communication research. Communication Theory, 23, 10-24. doi:10.1111/comt.12000

35.

Magee

J. C.

Galinsky

A. D.

(2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351-398. doi:10.1080/19416520802211628

36.

McCombs

(2014). Setting the agenda: Mass media and public opinion (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

37.

McCombs

Holbert

R. L.

Kiousis

Wanta

(2011). The news and public opinion: Media effects on civic life. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

38.

Nabi

R. L.

Oliver

M. B.

(2010). Mass media effects. In Berger

C. R.

Roloff

M. E.

Roskos-Ewoldsen

D. R.

(Eds.), The handbook of communication science (pp. 255-272). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

39.

Noelle-Neumann

Mathes

(1987). The “event as event” and the “event as news”: The significance of “consonance” for media effects research. European Journal of Communication, 2, 391-414. doi:10.1177/0267323187002004002

40.

Ragas

M. W.

Tran

H. L.

(2015). The financial news ecosystem: Journalists’ perceptions of group hierarchy. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, 16, 711-729. doi:10.1177/1464884914540441

41.

Reese

S. D.

(1991). Setting the media’s agenda: A power balance perspective. In Anderson

(Ed.), Communication yearbook 14 (pp. 309-340). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

42.

Reese

S. D.

Ballinger

(2001). The roots of a sociology of news: Remembering Mr. Gates and social control in the newsroom. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 641-658. doi:10.1177/107769900107800402

43.

Reich

Hanitzsch

(2013). Determinants of journalists’ professional autonomy: Individual and national level factors matter more than organizational ones. Mass Communication & Society, 16(1), 133-156. doi:10.1080/15205436.2012.669002

44.

Rosten

L. C.

(1937). The Washington correspondents. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.

45.

Roush

(2009, December/January). Unheeded warnings. American Journalism Review. Retrieved from http://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=4668

46.

Rubin

D. B.

(1996). Multiple imputation after 18+ years. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 473-489. doi:10.2307/2291635

47.

Schudson

(2011). The sociology of news (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

48.

Shoemaker

P. J.

Reese

S. D.

(2014). Mediating the message in the 21st century: A media sociology perspective (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

49.

Shoemaker

P. J.

Vos

T. P.

Reese

S. D.

(2009). Journalists as gatekeepers. In Wahl-Jorgensen

Hanitzsch

(Eds.), The handbook of journalism studies (pp. 73-87). New York, NY: Routledge.

50.

Society of American Business Editors and Writers. (2013, April). Executive director’s report. Phoenix, AZ: Author. Retrieved from http://sabew.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SABEW-annual-report-2013.pdf

51.

Society of American Business Editors and Writers. (2015a). History and past presidents. Retrieved from http://sabew.org/about/sabews-history/

52.

Society of American Business Editors and Writers. (2015b). SABEW salary surveys (2010-2015). Retrieved from http://sabew.org/?s=salary+survey

53.

Starkman

(2009). Power problem: The business press did everything but take on the institutions that brought down the financial system. Columbia Journalism Review, 48(1), 24-30.

54.

Stroud

N. J.

Lee

J. K.

(2013). Perceptions of cable news credibility. Mass Communication and Society, 16, 67-88. doi:10.1080/15205436.2011.646449

55.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

56.

Tuchman

(1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York, NY: The Free Press.

57.

Wahl-Jorgensen

Hanitzsch

(Eds.). (2009). The handbook of journalism studies. New York, NY: Routledge.

58.

Weaver

D. H.

Beam

R. A.

Brownlee

B. J.

Voakes

P. S.

Wilhoit

G. C.

(2007). The American journalist in the 21st century: U.S news people at the dawn of a new millennium. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

59.

Weaver

D. H.

Willnat

(Eds.). (2012). The global journalist in the 21st century. New York, NY: Routledge.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB