Abstract

Social scientists have produced major theoretical and empirical advances documenting the importance of group status in shaping the group members’ perceptions of themselves and of society at large. Evidence is accumulating showing that members of high-status groups favor individualistic and autonomous self-conceptions and worldviews, whereas members of low-status groups turn to more collectivistic and less personalized ones. This paper reports on research that has examined this phenomenon with a focus on social class divisions. It outlines two main explanations that have been developed to account for this self-group discrepancy in status hierarchies. One explanation rests on the long run diverging socialization processes that take place in high and low social classes. A complementary explanation is based on social identity dynamics. It suggests that such orientations result from differing motivations among members of high-status and low-status groups: While the former aim to protect a positive social identity, the latter must cope with a social identity threat.

Highlights

  • Social scientists have produced major theoretical and empirical advances documenting the importance of group status in shaping the group members’ perceptions of themselves and of society at large

  • Group status is the outcome of the rank ordering of groups on valued dimensions

  • Despite being widely shared in the society, individualistic ideologies are endorsed to different degrees depending on one’s in-group status

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Social scientists have produced major theoretical and empirical advances documenting the importance of group status in shaping the group members’ perceptions of themselves and of society at large. The personal and the collective in status hierarchies Recent research has demonstrated that individualistic and collectivistic perceptions of self and society can be arrayed on a status continuum (e.g., Kraus et al, 2012; for a similar claim using the constructs of agency and communion, see Rucker, Galinsky, & Magee, 2018).

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call