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.     

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.     

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.     

Effort in the face of difference: Feeling like a non‐prototypical group member motivates effort

Three studies examined the relationship between individuals' perceived “prototypicality” in a group, their subsequent self‐presentation goals, and individual effort in that group. Consistent with the finding that feelings of marginal ingroup membership status elicit a desire to seek stronger social connections within ingroups, we predicted that non‐prototypical group members will have more salient self‐presentation goals than prototypical members, and as such will exert more individual effort to exhibit the value of their membership to the group. Correlational Study 1 confirmed that non‐prototypical group members may be more likely than prototypical members to volunteer for activities that would benefit their group. Two experimental studies were then conducted to test the causal influence of feelings of prototypicality while also identifying theoretically relevant moderating conditions of perceived task efficacy (Study 2) and public versus private task performance (Study 3). These findings suggest that effortful performance in groups is partly motivated by the desire to foster social ties. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

At the core of cyberaggression: A group-based explanation

In this study, prototypicality of the aggressor was tested as a group-level factor predicting social media users’ active participation in cyberaggression. Participants were exposed to a fictitious conversation, in which either a prototypical versus non-prototypical user posted an aggressive comment as a reply to a provocative comment. In line with self-categorization theory, we hypothesized that bystander participants would post an aggressive comment and rate the aggression as acceptable to a greater extent in the prototypical than in the non-prototypical condition. Furthermore, we predicted that perceived normativity of aggression would mediate the effect of prototypicality. Results supported these predictions and showed that prototypical members affect the extent to which collective aggressive behaviors in online interactions are approved and enacted. These findings highlight the importance of group-level factors in the study of cyberaggression and provide important information for understanding the psychological underpinnings of collective forms of online aggression.     

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.     

System-justifying beliefs and psychological well-being: the roles of group status and identity

This research examined the relationship between endorsing system-justifying beliefs and psychological well-being among individuals from ethnic groups that vary in social status. System-justifying beliefs are beliefs that imply that status in society is fair, deserved, and merited; examples of system-justifying beliefs in the United States include the beliefs that hard work pays off and that anyone can get ahead regardless of their group membership. We found that endorsing system-justifying beliefs was negatively related to psychological well-being among members of low-status groups who were highly identified with their group but positively related to well-being among members of low-status groups who were not highly identified with their ethnic group. In addition, we found that endorsing system-justifying beliefs was positively related to well-being among members of high-status groups, especially among members of high-status groups who were highly identified with the group.     

The allure of status: high-status targets are privileged in face processing and memory

The current research tests the hypothesis that face processing is attuned to high-status faces. Across three experiments, faces of high-status targets were better recognized than faces of low-status targets. In Experiment 2, this memory advantage for high-status targets also extended to an attentional bias toward high-status targets and to stronger sociospatial memory (identity-location link) for high-status targets. Finally, Experiment 3 finds that high-status faces received more expert-style holistic processing than did low-status faces. This suggests that high-status faces also benefit more from the strategic deployment of expert face processing resources than low-status faces. Taken together, these data indicate that perceivers strategically allocate face processing resources to targets perceived to be high in status.     

Prototypical similarity,self-categorization,and depersonalized attraction: A perspective on group cohesiveness

In contrast to traditional approaches that widely equate group cohesiveness with interpersonal attraction, self-categorization theoryargues that self-categorization depersonalizes perception in terms of the group prototype, and transforms the basis of interindividual attitude (liking) from idiosyncracy into prototypicality. An implication is that while attraction in interpersonal relationships relates to overall similarity, attraction among group members is based on prototypical similarity. To test this idea, subjects (N = 219) participated in an experiment in which they reported their attitude towards an individual who would be their partner, or a fellow group member (of either group ‘Visual’ or group ‘Tactile’) for a subsequent task. Subject-target similarity varied on each of two dimensions: dimension ‘A’ was more prototypical of group ‘Visual’, and dimension ‘F’ of group ‘Tactile’. The independent variables of social orientation (interpersonal, group ‘Visual’, group ‘Tactile’), similarity on dimension A (A ±), and dimension F(F±) were manipulated in a 3 × 2 × 2 design. The three hypotheses tested in this experiment were generally supported. Subjects preferred prototypically similar group members to interpersonal partners, and downgraded prototypically dissisimilar group members (HI). Identification was positively related to target evaluation (H2), more strongly for prototypically similar than dissimilar targets (H3), and the identification-attraction relationship was mediated by perceived prototypical similarity. Group-based effects were independent of perceptions of overall similarity.     

Dual identity,in‐group projection,and out‐group feelings among ethnic minority groups

This study extends research on dual identity and in‐group projection by considering category prototypicality and indispensability, and by focusing on ethnic minority members and their attitudes towards the native majority and minority out‐groups. Among a sample of 491 participants of the three largest immigrant‐origin groups in the Netherlands, it was found that the minority in‐group was seen as relatively more prototypical and relatively more indispensable for the national category in comparison with minority out‐groups, but not in comparison with the native majority. In support of the in‐group projection model, stronger dual identity was associated with higher relative in‐group prototypicality and relative in‐group indispensability in comparison with the majority and, via both these relative perceptions, to a less positive attitude towards the native Dutch. In addition and in support of the common in‐group identity model, dual identity was associated with more positive minority out‐group feelings via higher minority out‐group prototypicality and indispensability. It is concluded that dual identity can have both positive and negative consequences for intergroup relations depending on perceived (relative) prototypicality and indispensability, and depending on whether the out‐group is the majority or other minorities.     

Social Dominance and Social Identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup Favoritism or Outgroup Derogation?

American and Israeli university students completed questionnaires in their native languages assessing ingroup identification, social dominance orientation (SDO), and ingroup and outgroup affect. The interrelationships among the variables were examined for high- and low-status groups in three intergroup contexts: whites and Latinos in the United States, Ashkenazim and Mizrachim in Israel, and Jews and Arabs in Israel. Theoretical predictions of social identity theory and social dominance theory were tested. Results indicated that for all high- and low-status groups, stronger ingroup identification was associated with more positive ingroup affect, and for nearly all groups, higher SDO was associated with more negative affect toward the low-status group. In addition, SDO was positively associated with ingroup identification for all high-status groups, and negatively associated with ingroup identification for almost all low-status groups. Explanations for cross-cultural differences in the factors driving group affect are suggested, and theoretical refinements are proposed that accommodate them.     

Threatened selves and differential prejudice expression by White and Black perceivers

Previous theorizing suggests that often-stigmatized individuals may be just as likely, if not more likely, than infrequently stigmatized individuals to protect self-regard by derogating members of low-status groups after receiving negative feedback from high-status others. Often-stigmatized individuals, however, can discount criticism from these high-status others as reflecting prejudice, thereby making outgroup derogation unnecessary as an esteem-protective strategy. Replicating past research, White participants in Experiment 1 expressed prejudices after receiving negative feedback from a White evaluator; as predicted, however, Black participants did not. In Experiment 2, participants instead received negative feedback from Black evaluators (evaluators more likely to threaten Black participants’ self-regard). Here, contrary to previous theorizing, Black participants expressed prejudices, not toward another low-status group, but toward high-status Whites. In all, findings reveal flaws in previous assumptions that frequently stigmatized individuals may be especially prone to devalue lower-status others after rejection or negative feedback from members of higher-status groups.     

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.     

System-justifying ideologies moderate status = competence stereotypes: roles for belief in a just world and social dominance orientation

High-status outgroups tend to be stereotyped as competent, while low-status groups tend to be stereotyped as incompetent. These stereotypes provide legitimacy to hierarchical social systems. However, research to date has tended to focus on the socio-structural correlates and cross-cultural stability of these stereotypes, emphasising universality over malleability. The current research demonstrates that, although strong, the association between status and competence, but not status and warmth, is moderated by ideological beliefs and attitudes towards inequality. In two studies, participants high in belief in a just world (BJW) or social dominance orientation (SDO) were more likely than those low in BJW or SDO to view a high-status target as more competent than a low-status target. Findings support the view that status stereotypes justify social inequalities, and demonstrate that they are sensitive to ideological orientations. Implications for theory and research on status and power stereotypes are discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Are Women Perceived as Engaging in More Maladaptive Worry Than Men? A Status Interpretation

Studies 1 and 2 addressed people's perceptions of women's and men's overall maladaptive worry. In Study 1, participants rated how they perceive women's and men's worry in general. In Study 2, participants rated the worry of either a woman or a man whom they know well. As expected in both studies, participants perceived women as experiencing more maladaptive worry than men. A second objective was to compare people's perceptions of women's and men's worry to their perceptions of low- and high-status individuals' worry to determine if a status model can account for the perception that women worry more than men. In Study 3, participants were presented a minimal instantiation of status (Conway, Pizzamiglio, & Mount, 1996). As expected, participants perceived low-status individuals as experiencing more maladaptive worry than high-status individuals. Findings are discussed in terms of gender stereotypes and theoretical models of gender.     

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。