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.     

When failing feels good—Relative prototypicality for a high-status group can counteract ego-threat after individual failure

Two studies demonstrate that members of high-status groups (i.e., men and students of business administration) but not members of low-status groups (i.e., women and education students) react with an increase in state self-esteem after an alleged poor performance on a fictitious intelligence test. This Failure-as-an-Asset (FA) effect is only observed when the high-status ingroup (i.e., men) is outperformed by a low-status outgroup (i.e., women). In this case, a poor performance will lead to a strong identification with the ingroup due to high ingroup prototypicality. As predicted, the effects of experiencing success or failure on self-esteem were mediated by identification with the ingroup.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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。     

Taking the reins: the effects of new leader status and leadership style on team performance

New leaders face a challenging task when they take charge of their teams. They have to determine how best to guide the work process, and they must understand how their behaviors will affect the members of their team. This research examines how a newly assigned team leader's status moderates subordinates' reactions to different leadership styles to affect assessments of the leader's self-confidence and effectiveness, and how this impacts team performance. Across 2 experimental studies, results demonstrate that low-status leaders are rated as more effective when they use a directive style, whereas high-status leaders are viewed as more effective when they use a participative style, and this relationship is mediated by perceptions of self-confidence. In addition, teams whose leaders are viewed more favorably perform better on a complex group task. These findings imply that low-status individuals are able to enhance their level of personal power by drawing on whatever positional power they hold, whereas high-status individuals are better off relying solely on their personal power to influence others. This research also provides a clear demonstration that assessments of new leaders' behaviors are subject to an appraisal that is clouded by observers' status perceptions and attributions.     

Effects of Changing Proportions of the Sexes on Ratings of Occupational Prestige

Touhey (1974) has suggested that an influx of women into high-status, male-dominated professions will result in declining prestige and desirability for those professions. The present study attempts both a replication and an extension to examine results of changing sex ratios in low-status and female-dominated occupations. Replication of the previous finding and its predicted extension to high- status women's jobs occurred only with college sophomores; juniors and seniors generally did not respond to sex composition, although they did rate high-status men's jobs as even more prestigious with a larger proportion of women employed in the job. Results for the low-status jobs were less clear, possibly reflecting the distance of college students from such occupations. Unlike Touhey's, these results are not interpreted as predicting future occupational prestige, but only as reflecting current attitudes about women and men.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Commitment to Justice in Conflict between Unequal Status Persons

Possible determinants of a high-status person's conformity to the norm of justice and the consequences of this conformity on conflict resolution were explored. Ninety-six college students were induced to be high-status bargainers. Subjects believed that their partner was committed either to their group's self-interest or to justice in the conflict. Subjects negotiated with an opposing low-status bargainer who made a self-advancement appeal, an appeal based on an equity concept of justice, or an appeal based on a responsiveness to needs concept of justice. As predicted, subjects who believed that their partner was committed to justice as compared to the group's self-interest agreed more often to the low-status person's request for improved outcomes and indicated that they had a higher level of motivation to be just, more seriously considered the low-status person's position and situation, and were more willing to compromise. Contrary to expectations, subjects who were targets of the justice appeals did not agree significantly more often to the low-status person's request nor did targets of the self-advancement appeal. The data suggest that the norm of justice may elicit conformity when invoked by a group member, though it may induce little conformity when invoked by an opposing bargainer. Results were also interpreted as suggesting that seeking to do justice induces compromises toward the other bargainer's position by reducing egocentric biases.     

Interpersonal sensitivity, status, and stereotype accuracy

A classic question in social and organizational psychology is whether low-status persons are more accurate in the perception of their high-status partners than the latter are in their perception of their subordinates. In a series of studies, Snodgrass (1985, 1992) tested this idea. She found that subordinates were more accurate at judging how their bosses viewed them than bosses were at judging how their subordinates viewed them, but that bosses were more accurate at judging how subordinates viewed themselves than subordinates were at judging how bosses viewed themselves. We believe, however, that these results were obscured by stereotype accuracy. Using previously collected data, we found that stereotype accuracy does lead to the pattern previously observed by Snodgrass. We also discovered that when we controlled for stereotype accuracy, subordinates' perceptions were generally more accurate than those of their bosses, which supports Snodgrass's original hypothesis.     

Personality correlates of occupational status according to Holland types

The present investigation sought to identify personality correlates of occupational status. Because occupational status is a direct function of occupation, the relationship between personality and status was examined both within and across occupational groups using Holland's 1973 typology. Four two-way analyses of covariance of 16PF (Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Form A) second-order personality factors were performed using data from 175 employed adult males. No single personality factor was associated with status across occupational types. Among Social occupations, the low-status group had higher Extraversion and lower Anxiety scores than the high-status group. In general, the relationship between personality factors and occupational types provided additional confirmation of Holland's theory using an employed adult sample.     

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.     

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.