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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Implications for the self determine benevolence and self-protection in intergroup relations

People often favor groups they belong to over those beyond the in-group boundary. Yet, in-group favoritism does not always occur, and people will sometimes favor an out-group over the in-group. We delineate theoretically when in-group favoritism (i.e., self-protection) and out-group favoritism (i.e., benevolence) should occur. In two experiments, groups’ relative status and competence stereotypes were manipulated; groups’ outcomes were non-contingent in Experiment 1 and contingent in Experiment 2. When allocating reward, members of a low-status group were self-protective, favoring the in-group over the out-group under both non-contingent and contingent outcomes. Those with high status benevolently favored the out-group when outcomes were non-contingent, but were self-protective with contingent outcomes. People were willing to engage in social activities with an out-group member regardless of competence. However, when task collaboration had implications for the self, those with low status preferred competent over less competent out-group members. Traits of high status targets were differentiated by those with low status in both experiments, whereas those with high status differentiated low-status members’ traits only when outcomes were contingent. A general principle fits the data: The implications of intergroup responses for the self determine benevolence and self-protection.     

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.     

David,Goliath, and reverend Bayes: Prior beliefs about defendants' status in personal injury cases

Two experiments were performed to ascertain the effect of the extra-legal factor of defendants' status on subjects' judgements in a simulated jury task. In support of the ‘deep-pocket’ hypothesis, high-status defendants were perceived as less sympathetic and were more likely to lose their case, even though the factual evidence was identical, than low-status defendants. There was a spillover effect, such that plaintiffs (Davids) suing high-status defendants (Goliaths) were themselves viewed as more sympathetic. The effect of defendants' status was mediated by the sentiments that it aroused toward both litigants; it was negligible with sympathy partialled out. Contrary to the deep-pocket hypothesis, high-status defendants did not have to pay more for the same injury; subjects are able to ignore status in awarding compensation when compensatory and punitive damages are clearly separated. In treating defendants differently depending on their status, subjects relied on relevant prior beliefs about the relationship of defendants' status to wealth, propensity to cause harm, and standards of accountability. The results are discussed in terms of the sometimes conflicting norms between an optimal decision-making model like Bayes' Theorem and legal guidelines for judgements of liability and compensation.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

EFFECTS OF VISUAL PERSPECTIVE AND NARCISSISM ON SELF-PERCEPTION:

Abstract— Would people still see themselves through rose-colored glasses if they had the same perspective as others do? We contrast predictions from narcissism theory with cognitive-informational accounts of self-perception bias Study 1 showed that narcissists enjoy situations in which they can view themselves from an external perspective, and report that such situations boost their self-confidence. In Study 2, subjects evaluated their performance in a group task from the normal visual perspective of the self and from a "reversed" perspective (manipulated via videotape) Narcissists overestimated their performance, and reversing visual perspective did not reduce this self-enhancement bias Instead, we found a person-situation interaction. Narcissists became even more positively biased in the reversed-perspective condition, whereas nonnarcissists showed even less bias. Thus, allowing narcissistic individuals to observe themselves on videotape further increased their self-admiration, just as the mythical Narcissus admired his reflection in the pond     

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.     

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.     

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。     

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.