Status protection in high status minority groups

The present study investigated the conditions under which group members try to obtain membership in another group, or are motivated to protect their group membership when they risk losing it. One hundred and twenty-nine high school students participated as subjects in a laboratory experiment. Subjects were divided into two groups, allegedly on the basis of their problem solving style. The relative size (minority/majority) and status position (high/low) of the subject's group, as well as the permeability of group boundaries (permeable/impermeable) were manipulated as independent variables in a 2×2×2 factorial design. The main dependent variables were the extent to which individuals valued their group membership, and identified with their group. The main results are that membership in a group with high status is considered more attractive than membership in a low status group, This differential evaluation of high and low status groups is more extreme in minority groups than in groups of majority size. Furthermore, when group boundaries are permeable, members of high status minorities show relatively strong ingroup identification, indicating a strengthening of ties with their own group when an alternative (majority) group affiliation is possible. However, our expectation that permeable group boundaries would result in diminished ingroup identification in low status minorities was not confirmed. Some additional data suggest that unsatisfactory membership in a low status group is resolved in a different way.     

Group size,controllability of group membership,and comparative dimension as determinants of intergroup discrimination

We expected that, when group members cannot control their group membership, majority members show ingroup favouritism on task-relevant dimension, whereas minority members were expected to show ingroup favouritism on task-irrelevant dimension (hypothesis I) In addition, it was expected that intergroup comparisons will change when group membership changes from uncontrollable to controllable. Based on Social Identity Theory, two alternative hypotheses were explored: Compared with uncontrollable settings, ingroup bias will decrease (2a) or increase (2b) in controllable settings. Ninety-two subjects were divided into four groups (minority versus majority, controllable versus uncontrollable group membership), allegedly on the basis of their essay writing style. The results supported the first hypothesis. Hypothesis 2a received support among the majority members and hypothesis 2b among the minority members. The findings are discussed in terms of Social Identity Theory and the effect the perceived control of group membership and the dimension may have on intergroup comparisons.     

Is Minority Stress in the Eye of the Beholder? A Test of Minority Stress Theory with Christians

Studies using minority stress theory have focused on the experiences of numerical and social power minorities, though majority individuals may also perceive themselves to be minorities. We explored minority stress theory among a sample of members of a numerically and socially dominant group: Christians in the USA. Perceiving oneself to be a member of a minority as a Christian was associated with stress indirectly via perceived experiences of faith-based discrimination (i.e., harassment due to being Christian). Being more open about one’s religion moderated the relationship between experiences of faith-based discrimination and stress, such that those who were open about their faith reported a stronger relationship between experiences of faith-based discrimination and stress. These findings indicate that perceptions of minority status are important to understanding stress and have implications for minority/majority dialogues.     

By whose standard? The affective implications of ethnic minorities' comparisons to ethnic minority and majority referents

In a 'diary' study, we examined the frequency and affective implications of 34 ethnic minority students' comparisons to other ethnic minorities or to members of a high-status ethnic majority (i.e., European-Americans). Participants made more frequent comparisons to ethnic majority than ethnic minority referents, although neither type of comparison tended to be perceived in terms of group membership (see also Smith & Leach, 2004). Comparisons to ethnic majority referents did not alter participants' positive affect even where they suggested poor future prospects in status-relevant domains. In contrast, comparisons to fellow ethnic minorities led to increased positive affect when they suggested a future prospect of improvement. We discuss the conceptual and practical implications of social comparison in the context of group status.     

Asymmetrical effects of contact between minority groups: Asian and Black students in a small college

Recent meta-analyses of intergroup contact research revealed that majority members' attitudes toward minorities are improved to a greater degree by contact compared to those of minority members (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005). While previous research focused on contact between majority and minority groups, this study explored effects of intergroup contact between two minority groups that differ in status: Black and Asian college students. Because of different stereotypes and social status, the college experiences of the two groups were expected to differ in the extent to which they felt their group was respected by others (public regard). A survey conducted with 104 Black and Asian American students in a small, Midwestern liberal arts college demonstrated that the two groups differed in public regard, which led to differences in attitudes toward the majority Whites, contact with Whites, experiences of discrimination, and trust in college authorities. Further, while contact with Black students was positively associated with more favorable attitudes toward Blacks for Asians (higher status minority), contact with Asian students was not related to attitudes toward Asians for Blacks (lower status minority). The role of public regard and attitudes toward the majority as potential moderators of the relationship between contact with Asians and Blacks' attitudes toward Asians were explored. Implications for multicultural solidarity between targeted groups were discussed.     

Socially rejected while cognitively successful? The impact of minority dissent on groups' cognitive complexity

The impact of minority dissent on group-level outcomes is explained in the current literature by two opposing mechanisms: first, through cognitive gains due to a profound change induced by minority members in the individual cognitions of the majority members, and second, through socio-affective process losses due to social rejection and relationship conflict. Groups are most effective in information processing if they succeed in solving this opposition and reduce the negative impact of process losses. The present study addresses this opposition using an experimental design in which we crossed minority dissent (presence vs. absence of minority dissent) with change in membership (groups with vs. groups without change in membership) to determine which condition leads to the highest group cognitive complexity. Our results show that groups with a history of dissent and where the deviant left the group have the highest cognitive complexity, followed by groups that experienced dissent and where no change in group membership took place. The groups without a history of dissent have the lowest cognitive complexity.     

The context of intergroup belief cross wherein minority members maintain consistency: Belief minority and majority in a categorical in‐group and out‐group1

Abstract: The present study investigated the social conditions required for minority members to preserve their attitudinal and behavioral consistency in an intergroup context. In the experiment, intergroup belief crosses wherein a belief minority (or majority) in a categorical in‐group was reversed as a majority (or minority) in an out‐group were manipulated. It was hypothesized that individuals supported by the majority in the categorical in‐group would preserve their attitudes and behavioral intentions even though they were a minority in the categorical out‐group. The results supported the hypothesis. Specifically, members of a majority in the categorical in‐group had more consistent behavioral intentions and less attitude changes although they were located as a minority in the out‐group. In contrast, members of a minority within the in‐group preserved consistency on the basis of support from the majority in the out‐group. The theoretical implications of these results are discussed with reference to future research.     

The Presence of Self-Stigma,Perceived Stress,and Suicidal Ideation among Selected LGBT Filipinos

Minority group members experience what is known as “minority stress,” by which individuals suffer stress because of their membership in stigmatized social categories. In turn, minority stress may lead to self-stigmatization. This occurs when minority group members experience a sense of shame created by the view of the majority culture and then incorporate the majority opinion into their self-image. Because it is cumulative with the stress an individual is already experiencing, self-stigmatization may become a significant stressor itself, possibly contributing to the development of suicidal ideation. A total of 609 self-identified LGBT individuals were asked to answer a battery of psychological tests to assess the interrelationships between self-stigma, perceived stress, and suicidal ideation. As expected, perceived stress predicted suicidal ideation, whereas self-stigmatization predicted both perceived stress and suicidal ideation. Structural equation modeling confirms the predictive value of self-stigma together with perceived stress in determining the suicidal ideation present among LGBT Filipinos. Self-stigma exerted a direct effect upon suicidal ideation not accounted for by perceived stress.     

Solo status revisited: Examining racial group differences in the self-regulatory consequences of self-presenting as a racial solo

The present study examined the impact of racial group membership on the self-regulatory consequences of self-presenting with racial solo status. Based on the strength model of self-regulation, we proposed that individuals who acquire more practice with solo status by virtue of their racial group membership, may find it less depleting relative to individuals with less practice. To examine this, White and racial minority (Black, Hispanic) students at a predominantly White university were asked to engage in a self-presentation task in which they were assigned either racial solo or nonsolo status. Persistence on a subsequent hidden objects task served as the measure of depletion. Results revealed an interaction between racial group membership and solo status. In particular, consistent with previous research, White participants were more depleted (i.e., persisted less) after self-presenting with solo (vs. nonsolo) status. Racial minority participants, however, were not similarly impaired by solo status. These results suggest that our social group memberships, by virtue of the experiences they typically confer, may play an important role in determining which social demands will be depleting for whom.     

Profiles of stutterers' and nonstutterers' affective, cognitive, and behavioral communication attitudes

The purposes of this investigation were 1) to profile the affective, cognitive, and behavioral attitudinal dimensions of stutterers' and nonstutterers' communication attitudes and 2) to describe membership characteristics of each profile. To this end, 76 stutterers and 81 nonstutterers completed the Inventory of Communication Attitudes. This self-report inventory obtained ratings of different types of speaking situations, using five response scales reflecting behavioral, affective, and cognitive aspects of attitudes. Exploratory cluster analysis identified six attitudinal clusters or profiles. Some profiles were more typical either of stuttering respondents or of nonstuttering respondents, whereas one profile reflected attitudes of proportionately equal numbers of stutterers and nonstutterers. Examination of profile membership characteristics revealed two significant discriminators, classification as a stutterer or nonstutterer and an overall speech rating. Nondiscriminatory characteristics included sex, age, education, therapy experiences, stuttering severity self-rating, onset of stuttering, total therapy time, current therapeutic status, and familial history.     

The relationships between contact,status and prejudice: An integrated threat theory analysis of Hindu–Muslim relations in India

In the context of Hindu–Muslim relations in India, the present study (N = 87) utilized Integrated Threat Theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000 ) to examine the mediating roles of intergroup anxiety, realistic and symbolic threats and the moderating role of group membership (Hindu vs. Muslim) in the relationships between cross‐community contact, relative in‐group status and prejudice. Overall, intergroup anxiety and realistic, but not symbolic, threat emerged as proximal predictors of prejudice and partial mediators between the predictor and criterion variables. But these findings were qualified by majority (Hindu) versus minority (Muslim) group membership. As predicted, while symbolic threat was a predictor of prejudice for Hindus, realistic threat was a paramount predictor for Muslims. In‐group status was as a significant predictor for low‐status minority group only. The results are discussed with reference to their potential implications for future research and interventions aimed at improving intergroup relations. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Group size,group status and trait valence as determinants of intergroup bias: Stereotyping in Finland and Sweden

The effects of group size, group status and trait valence (positive or negative stereotypes of in‐ and outgroup) on intergroup bias was studied in nation‐wide probability samples of majority and minority groups in Finland and Sweden, (N = 2479). Ethnolinguistic vitality was used as a proxy for status. It is argued that the specific history of real‐life intergroup relations has to be duly acknowledged when predicting main and interactive effects on intergroup bias in natural contexts. Supporting the predictions made, numerical group size showed a stable main effect; members of numerical minorities showed more bias than members of numerical majorities, regardless of trait valence. While status had no main effect, there was a significant interaction between status and size as well as between status and trait valence: intergroup bias was highest in the high status minority, and low status groups showed less bias than high status groups on negatively valenced traits. In fact, minority members showed the reverse of PNAE. In addition, majority members favoured the outgroup on negatively valenced traits, but favoured their ingroup on positively valenced traits. Different explanations for these results are discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Minority influence: The effect of majority reactionaries and defectors,and minority and majority compromisers,upon majority opinion and attraction

The effects of shifting opinions within a group upon majority opinion, communication between members and perceived attractiveness of other members were studied. Each subject perceived himself to be a member of the majority in a group whose opinion was divided 6–2 on an important issue. But later one to three group members changed their vote. Six conditions of change were established: Control, majority reactionary, majority compromise, majority defection (5-3), minority compromise, minority compromise plus majority reactionary. Only majority compromise or defection affected majority opinion (private and public). Majority members were disliked when they deviated from majority opinion, but particularly so when they shifted toward minority opinion. Minority members were liked most when they induced a majority member to compromise (but not defect). Majority communication to minority occurred most when the minority was compromising, but most disagreement with minority opinion was expressed when a majority member had either compromised or defected.     

Social categorization and the formation of group stereotypes: Further evidence for biased information processing in the perception of group-behavior correlations

An experiment tested the hypothesis that the mere categorization of people into social groups spontaneously instigates a mechanism through which group-relevant information is perceived and processed in a biased manner. This in turn may result in the erroneous perception of correlation between group and behavior. Subjects were initially assigned to be members of a minority group, a majority group, or were not assigned to a group. They were then presented with a series of statements that described members of the two groups performing either desirable or undesirable behaviors. Results showed that unaffiliated subjects perceived an illusory group-behavior correlation, indicating the operation of a cognitive bias to associate the minority group with distinctive behaviors. Subjects who were themselves members of the observed groups perceived illusory correlations that favored their own group, indicating a very different sort of bias. The results suggest that a categorization-based ingroup favoritism guided the manner in which group information was processed. These data lend support to the contention that social categorization spontaneously instigates specific cognitive mechanisms that contribute to group stereotype formation.     

Social Identity and Intergroup Conflict

This paper explores why people identify with social groups and what this identification signifies for their sense of self, status in society and intergroup conflict. We describe various theories of social identity to elucidate ways in which individuals can negotiate their different social identities, and what this means for intergroup relations. We consider the implications for both majority and minority group members, and those from high and low status groups. We show that social identification is an essential part of an individual’s social existence, and that such identification is inextricably related to intergroup conflict. While overarching common identities have been hailed as a possible panacea for conflict, we demonstrate that such identities have differential effects for minority and majority group members. There is a serious tension between the assimilationist preference that the majority wishes for minority members to adopt, and the integrationist position that the minority group themselves prefer. We conclude with a call to focus research efforts on how to balance the needs of the many and the few in pluralist and unequal societies.     

Trust and Acceptance in Response to References to Group Membership: Minority and Majority Perspectives on Cross‐Group Interactions1

This research examined anticipated feelings of trust and acceptance in cross‐group interactions among members of ethnic minority and majority groups, depending on whether an out‐group member referred to their group membership. In Study 1, Asian, Latino, and White participants read scenarios describing interactions between them and an in‐group member, an out‐group member, or an out‐group member who referred to their group membership. Participants from each group responded more negatively toward interactions with out‐group members when they referred to group membership. These findings were replicated in Study 2 with samples of Black and White participants, also showing that anticipated prejudice partially mediated the effects of out‐group members' references to group membership on feelings of trust and acceptance. Implications of these findings are discussed in terms of facilitating intergroup communication and conversations about group differences.     

Favoritism,Bias, and Error in Performance Ratings of Scientists and Engineers: The Effects of Power,Status, and Numbers

In this paper we argue that the sociostructural position of groups must be taken into consideration along with motivational and cognitive processes to explain evaluations received and made by women, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. With this framework, we analyze performance ratings for a sample of 2,445 scientists and engineers from 24 U.S. companies and find that (a) there is more evidence of in-group favoritism than of out-group derogation; (b) high status, dominant, and majority group members enjoy favoritism expressed as a global prototype of them as competent; and (c) subordinate, minority group members overshoot in opposite ways toward other groups depending on their status and the status level of the target group. We find these effects even after controlling for self-reported productivity and for various errors inherent in the evaluation process.     

IN-GROUP IDENTIFICATION AS A FUNCTION OF DEPERSONALIZATION, DISTINCTIVENESS, AND STATUS

Abstract— Artificial social categories were created in a laboratory context in order to test predictions regarding the relative importance of group size and status as determinants of in-group favoritism. Subjects were assigned to categories of "overestimator" or "underestimator" and were told that one category included a majority of college students while the other represented a minority. Prior to category assignment, half of the subjects had been given confidentiality instructions designed to make them feel highly depersonalized. Based on feedback about test performance, status differentials between the two estimation categories were introduced.
Consistent with predictions, there was a three-way interaction between depersonalization, in-group size, and in-group status as determinants of evaluative in-group bias on social trait ratings. Under control conditions (no depersonalization), group status and majority size both contributed to positive valuations of the in-group. Under the depersonalization condition, however, subjects valued minority group membership more than majority categorization, and the effect of status was eliminated.     

Relative deprivation versus system justification: Polemical social representations and identity positioning in a post‐Soviet society

Societal changes involving power reversal may pose challenges to system justification by a subordinate minority group that had previously held a more privileged position. Derived from originally exploratory qualitative investigation, this paper presents an account of endorsement of justifying the status quo versus the voicing relative deprivation in the context of post‐Soviet Estonia. Experiences of alternative societal arrangements in history were actively deployed by (minority ethnic) Estonian Russians to generate temporal comparisons with the past as a cognitive alternative to the present status quo and give voice to experiences of relative deprivation. A struggle for positive social identity was interpreted to motivate Estonian Russians to mobilize the past as a cognitive alternative to delegitimize the status quo. By contrast, Russians were portrayed as invaders, and the Soviet past was represented as unjust by (the majority ethnic) Estonians, whereas the present system was depicted as fair and equitable. Mutually, polemical representations of history and narratives of identity provide the lenses through which the legitimacy of new societal arrangements following the major social change is interpreted. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Minority status,access to information,and individual performance

With growing nationality diversity in organizations, the question under which circumstances differences in nationality background between team members affect individual performance increases in importance. Research showed that dissimilarity may negatively affect individual performance and that the status difference between nationality majority and nationality minority moderates this effect. We take this analysis an important step further by recognizing that not all nationality minorities are low status and propose that status differences among nationality minority groups influence the extent to which nationality minority background affects individual performance. We identify the elaboration of distributed information in the team as a mediator and process accountability as a moderator in this effect. Results of a multilevel team experiment in which we manipulated team nationality composition and process accountability supported our hypotheses, testifying to the value of status-based distinctions between minority groups in the study of relational demography effects. The mediating role of the elaboration of distributed information also provides an important bridge to team diversity research inviting further conceptual integration.