Ethnic Identity, Legitimizing Ideologies, and Social Status: A Matter of Ideological Asymmetry

This paper examines the ideological asymmetry hypothesis with respect tothe interface between legitimizing ideologies and psychological attachment to one's ethnic group. The ideological asymmetry hypothesis suggests that hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing ideologies should be positively associated with ingroup attachment among high-status groups, but that among low-status groups these associations should be either less positive in magnitude (isotropic asymmetry) relative to high-status groups or negative in direction (anisotropic asymmetry). The opposite pattern should be found with respect to the interface between hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing ideologies and ingroup attachment: Among high-status groups these associations should be negative, but among low-status groups these associations should be either less negative in magnitude (isotropic asymmetry) relative to high-status groups or positive in direction (anisotropic asymmetry). The presence of isotropic versus anisotropic asymmetry is hypothesized to depend on the degree of disparity in status between the groups being compared: Wider status gaps should tend toward anisotropic asymmetries. The relationships between legitimizing ideologies and ingroup attachment were compared for (1) relatively high-status ethnic groups (European and Asian Americans) versus relatively low-status ethnic groups (Latinos and African Americans) in the United States, (2) the higher-status Jewish ethnic group (Ashkenazim) versus the lower-status Jewish ethnic group (Mizrachim) in Israel, and (3) the high-status Israeli Jews versus the low-status Israeli Arabs. The data were largely consistent with the ideological asymmetry hypothesis. The implications of these findings are discussed within the theoretical frameworks of social dominance theory and other approaches to intergroup relations.     

Perceiving personal discrimination: the role of group status and legitimizing ideology

It was hypothesized that relative group status and endorsement of ideologies that legitimize group status differences moderate attributions to discrimination in intergroup encounters. According to the status-legitimacy hypothesis, the more members of low-status groups endorse the ideology of individual mobility, the less likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from higher status group members to discrimination. In contrast, the more members of high-status groups endorse individual mobility, the more likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from lower status group members to discrimination. Results from 3 studies using 2 different methodologies provide support for this hypothesis among members of different high-status (European Americans and men) and low-status (African Americans, Latino Americans, and women) groups.     

Less pain and more to gain: why high-status group members blame their failure on discrimination.

Members of high-status groups are more likely than members of low-status groups to blame their failure on discrimination and are less likely to blame it on themselves. This tendency was demonstrated in 3 experiments comparing men and women, White and Black students, and members of experimentally created high- and low-status groups. Results also showed that when making an attribution to discrimination, high-status group members were less likely to experience a threat to their social state self-esteem, performance perceived control, and social perceived control and were more likely to protect their performance state self-esteem. These findings help to explain why high-status group members are more willing to blame their failure on discrimination by showing that it is less harmful for them than for low-status group members.     

Direct and vicarious conspicuous consumption: Identification with low‐status groups increases the desire for high‐status goods

The current research examines whether direct and vicarious identification with a low-status group affects consumers' desire for objects associated with status. Experiment 1 found that individuals who belonged to and identified with a status social category associated with relatively lower status (Blacks) exhibited an enhanced desire for high-status products compared to Blacks who did not identify with their race or individuals who belonged to a social category associated with higher status (Whites). In Experiments 2 and 3, White participants led to vicariously identify through perspective taking with Blacks (Experiment 2), or a low-status occupational group (Experiment 3) exhibited an increased desire for high-status products. Experiment 4 provided meditational evidence for a status based explanation for the relationship between identification with a low-status group and a desire for high-status products. The present work makes new inroads into understanding one factor that might lead minorities to engage in greater conspicuous consumption and provides evidence that conspicuous consumption can be elicited vicariously.     

Effects of status and outcome on attributions and just-world beliefs: How the social distribution of success and failure may be rationalized

The distribution of success and failure to social groups is supported by lay theories about the characteristics of social groups and the causes of their outcomes, as well as by beliefs about entitlement of groups to succeed or fail. This paper presents a study where a target individual’s socio-economic status (high vs. low) and outcome in a major academic achievement task (success vs. failure) were manipulated in a 2 × 2 experimental design. It was found that high-status success and low-status failure, i.e. the system-consistent outcomes, were attributed relatively more to stable internal causes (ability), whereas high-status failure and low-status success, i.e. the system-inconsistent outcomes, were attributed relatively more to unstable causes (effort). Second, participants’ belief in a just world was higher in high-status success and low-status failure than in high-status failure and low-status success.     

Intergroup helping as status relations: Effects of status stability, identification, and type of help on receptivity to high-status group's help

Integrating research on social identity processes and helping relations, the authors proposed that low-status group members who are high identifiers will be unwilling to receive help from the high-status group when status relations are perceived as unstable and help is dependency-oriented. The first experiment, a minimal group experiment, found negative reactions to help from a high-status outgroup when status relations were unstable. The 2nd and 3rd experiments, which used real groups of Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews, replicated this finding and showed that high identifiers were less receptive to help from the high-status outgroup than low identifiers. The 4th experiment, a help-seeking experiment with real groups of competing high schools, found that the least amount of help was sought from a high-status group by high identifiers when status relations were perceived as unstable and help was dependency-oriented. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.     

Group status is related to group prototypicality in the absence of social identity concerns

Based on self-categorization theory, group status should be positively related to group prototypicality when the relevant superordinate category is positively valued. In this case, high-status groups should be perceived to be more prototypical than low-status groups even in the absence of concerns about maintaining a positive social identity. To test this hypothesis, a minimal group study was conducted in which participants (N = 139) did not belong to any of the groups involved. Consistent with predictions, participants perceived high-status groups to be significantly more prototypical than low-status groups. Consistent with self-categorization theory's cognitive analysis, these results demonstrate that the relation between group status and group prototypicality is a relatively basic and pervasive effect that does not depend on social identity motives.     

Uncertainty reduction, self-enhancement, and ingroup identification

Two experiments tested the prediction that uncertainty reduction and self-enhancement motivations have an interactive effect on ingroup identification. In Experiment 1 (N = 64), uncertainty and group status were manipulated, and the effect on ingroup identification was measured. As predicted, low-uncertainty participants identified more strongly with a high- than low-status group, whereas high-uncertainty participants showed no preference; and low-status group members identified more strongly under high than low uncertainty, whereas high-status group members showed no preference. Experiment 2 (N = 210) replicated Experiment 1, but with a third independent variable that manipulated how prototypical participants were of their group. As predicted, the effects obtained in Experiment 1 only emerged where participants were highly prototypical. Low prototypicality depressed identification with a low-status group under high uncertainty. The implications of these results for intergroup relations and the role of prototypicality in social identity processes are discussed.     

使用加工分离程序对低地位群体内\外群体偏爱的研究

使用加工分离程序（PDP）,以50名农村籍大学生为被试, 采用2（群体：外群体、内群体）×2（特质词效价：积极、消极）×2（加工：意识加工、无意识加工）混合设计,研究了低地位群体对内群体以及高地位外群体偏爱的内隐特征。在本研究情境中发现：农村大学生在提取城市群体积极特质词比消极特质词时的无意识加工更显著;而提取农村群体的积极和消极特质词时,无意识加工的贡献没有显著差异。说明低地位群体成员对外群体有内隐偏爱,对内群体却不存在内隐偏爱。     

Self-stereotyping: the central role of an ingroup threatening identity

Self-stereotyping is a process by which people belonging to a stigmatized social group tend to describe themselves more with stereotypical traits as compared with traits irrelevant to the ingroup stereotype. The present work analyzes why especially members of low-status groups are more inclined to self-stereotype compared to members of high-status groups. We tested the hypothesis that belonging to a low-, rather than a high-status group, makes low-status members feel more threatened and motivates them to protect their self-perception by increasing their similarity with the ingroup. Specifically, we investigated the effects of an experimental manipulation that was conceived to either threaten or protect the natural group membership of participants from either a low- or a high-status group on the level of self-stereotyping. The findings supported the idea that only low-status group members protected themselves when their group identity was threatened through increased self-stereotyping.     

Status differences and in-group bias: a meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability.

This work examines the moderating effects of status stability, legitimacy, and group permeability on in-group bias among high- and low-status groups. These effects were examined separately for evaluative measures that were relevant as well as irrelevant to the salient status distinctions. The results support social identity theory and show that high-status groups are more biased. The meta-analysis reveals that perceived status stability, legitimacy, and permeability moderate the effects of group status. Also, these variables interacted in their influences on the effect of group status on in-group bias, but this was only true for irrelevant evaluative dimensions. When status was unstable and perceived as illegitimate, low-status groups and high-status groups were equally biased when group boundaries were impermeable, compared with when they were permeable. Implications for social identity theory as well as for intergroup attitudes are discussed.     

Valence matters: Positive meta-stereotypes and interethnic interactions

Two experimental studies were conducted that aimed at testing whether the activation of positive meta-stereotypes among high-status group members involved in conflictual relationships with the low-status group is beneficial for intergroup relations. Results revealed that the activation of positive meta-stereotypes led Italian high-school students (high-status group) to anticipate greater enjoyment of an upcoming interaction with an African immigrant (low-status group) by increasing positive feelings about contact and concerns about being accepted. Initial prejudice emerged as the moderator, with the effects of positive meta-stereotypes present among those with average- to high-levels of prejudice. This study represents the first experimental demonstration that positive meta-stereotypes have beneficial effects for intergroup relations among high-status members. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.     

Group Consensus and Psychological Well-Being: A Large Field Study1

Models of group process propose that stressful social environments develop when there is a lack of consensus among group members about issues of relevance to the group. Based on these models, we expected that levels of consensus would be positively related to the average levels of psychological well-being in naturally occurring work groups. An examination of data from 3,546 respondents within 73 work groups revealed that levels of consensus about leadership and peer relations were positively related to the average psychological well-being of the group members, even after controlling for absolute level effects and covariates. In contrast, levels of consensus were not related to the average psychological well-being of group members when identical analyses were conducted using pseudogroups.     

Group-based self-evaluation outside of the laboratory: effects of global versus contextual status

An event-contingent diary methodology was used to study the impact of intergroup and intragroup factors on self-evaluations in naturally occurring groups. Participants reported their contextual group status, group identification, and self-evaluations each time they self-categorized as a group member throughout a 1-week period. Indicators of global group status, interdependence, and permeability of group boundaries also were obtained. Multilevel modeling revealed that contextual status and global status interacted to predict self-evaluations. Contextual status had a stronger relationship with self-evaluations for members of global low-status groups than for members of high-status groups. Analyses of intragroup factors revealed that greater group interdependence but not permeability of group boundaries also was associated with higher self-evaluations. The effects of both contextual status and group interdependence were mediated by group identification.     

Perceived support and upward mobility as determinants of revolutionary coalitional behavior

An experiment using three-person groups tested the hypothesis that the propensity of a low-status member to engage in revolutionary coalitional behavior against a leader depended on two structural properties of the group: the lack of potential upward mobility, and perceived lack of support for the high-status leader by other low-status members. Subjects worked on a collective judgment task in a situation that enabled low-status members to contravene the established status hierarchy and form revolutionary coalitions limiting the prerogatives of the leader. Results show that mobility itself exerted no effect on revolutionary behavior. However, several factors often associated with upward mobility, such as increased commitment to the stratified system and intensified concern with evaluation by high-status members, do relate negatively to coalitional activity. The data also indicate a strong propensity for subjects to engage in coalitional activity when they perceived the leader to lack support. This effect was explained in terms of heightened subjective probability of success for insurrection and increased dissatisfaction over inequitable rewards.     

Protesting to challenge or defend the system? A system justification perspective on collective action

Social identity, shared grievances, and group efficacy beliefs are well-known antecedents to collective action, but existing research overlooks the fact that collective action often involves a confrontation between those who are motivated to defend the status quo and those who seek to challenge it. Using nationally representative data from New Zealand (Study 1; N = 16,147) and a large online sample from the United States (Study 2; N = 1,513), we address this oversight and demonstrate that system justification is negatively associated with system-challenging collective action, but positively associated with system-supporting collective action, for members of both low-status and high-status groups. Group identification, group-based injustice, group-based anger, and system-based dissatisfaction/anger mediated these relationships. These findings constitute the first empirical integration of system justification theory into a model of collective action that explains when people will act collectively to challenge—and, just as importantly, defend—the status quo.     

"United We Stand, Divided We Fall"! The Protective Function of Self-Stereotyping for Stigmatised Members' Psychological Well-Being

Self-stereotyping is a process by which people who belong to a stigmatised social group tend to describe themselves more with both positive and negative stereotypical personality traits compared to traits that are irrelevant to the ingroup stereotype. A study is presented that shows how self-stereotyping serves to maintain psychological well-being among Southern Italian participants who suffer from an historical social stigma. Following the rejection-identification model ( Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999 ), perceptions of prejudice are directly negatively linked with well-being, but are compensated for via increased identification with the minority group that has a positive impact on psychological well-being. In the present study we propose that the compensatory role of ingroup identification on well-being is completely mediated by minority members' tendency to self-stereotype. A structural equation analysis provided support for this hypothesis. The present results highlight the importance of the self-stereotyping process in maintaining psychological well-being for members of low-status groups.     

Gender Hierarchy in the Space: The Role of Gender Status in Shaping the Spatial Agency Bias

According to the Spatial Agency Bias (SAB), more agentic groups (men) are envisioned to the left of less agentic groups (women). This research investigated the role of social status in shaping the spatial representation of gender couples. Participants were presented pairs consisting of one male and one female target who confirmed gender stereotypes. The status of the targets in each pair was systematically varied (high-status vs. low-status job). Participants chose the target order (female/male vs. male/female) they preferred. In line with gender-status expectations (male: high-status, female: low-status), a male in a high-status job led to a spatial arrangement that favored the male/female order, regardless of the status of the female target. The female/male order was favored only when the female had a high-status job and the male a low-status job. No SAB occurred for pairs in which both targets displayed low-status jobs. The implications of status for the SAB are discussed.     

On the Psychological Function of Nationalistic “Whitelash”

A noticeable feature of the political discourse accompanying the rise of nationalism in white‐majority countries is that white people fare worse than other ethnic groups in their societies. However, it is unclear based on the extant literature why group‐based relative deprivation (GRD) would correlate with majority‐group nationalism. Here, we propose that the psychological function of nationalism for majority‐group members lies in its ability to assuage the negative feelings arising from GRD. Accordingly, in a New Zealand national probability sample (N = 15,607), we found that GRD among whites was negatively associated with well‐being. However, we also found an opposing indirect association mediated by nationalism. GRD was associated with higher nationalism, which was in turn associated with higher well‐being. These findings suggest that endorsing beliefs about national superiority is one way a nation’s dominant ethnic group can cope with the negative psychological consequences of perceiving that their group is deprived.