Dominant Group Members Research Articles

Hierarchy as a signal of culture and belonging: Exploring why egalitarian ideology predicts aversion to hierarchical organizations

Variation in people's ideological preference for the maintenance of inequality between social groups (i.e., social dominance orientation; SDO) predicts important sociopolitical outcomes, such as endorsement of different social policies, institutions, and belief systems. We argue that SDO may also inform people's engagement with work organizations. Specifically, we propose that SDO may impact attraction to different organizational structures. Across 6 experiments (N = 3034), we find that people with relatively egalitarian values are less attracted to organizations with much (vs. little) managerial hierarchy; this gap in attraction is attenuated for relative anti-egalitarians (Studies 1a-b). These effects are not moderated by whether dominant vs. subordinate group members occupy positions of power in hierarchical arrangements (Study 2a-b) and are driven by signals concerning likelihood of organizational belonging that egalitarians (vs. anti-egalitarians) derive from managerial hierarchy (Studies 3a-b). We discuss implications for social dominance theory and research connecting ideology to organizational attraction.

Ethnocentric Universalism: Its Nature, Epistemic Harm, and Emancipatory Prospects

ABSTRACT This paper does three interrelated things. First, it argues that the universalism that forms the target of criticism and attack by decolonial theorists from the Global South is a debased form of universalism, what might be termed ‘ethnocentric universalism’. Second, equipped with a conceptual grip on ethnocentric universalism, it shows that the picture on which ethnocentric universalism confers some innocuous epistemic privilege to members of dominant groups is not quite accurate – ethnocentric universalism is incompatible with the epistemic flourishing of members of dominant groups. And third, based on that claim, and the additional consideration that ethnocentric universalism equally undermines the epistemic flourishing of members of historically marginalized groups, it proposes an emancipatory framework for engaging with it.

“That's funny but…!”: University students, humor, and critical consciousness about anti‐black racism

AbstractUsing an exploratory sample of focus groups and surveys, we captured university students' experiences of comedic/satirical videos. We mined students' feedback to determine if those videos could enhance critical perspectives/consciousness about racial inequities, especially inequities impacting Black Americans. The literature on humor overflows with psychological explanations; we are more interested in sociological explanations. We find that when students interpret comedic materials intended as springboards for university discussions about racial inequities, they pay attention to social factors. These factors include the diversity or mixed company of classrooms; the social, cultural, historical, and/or linguistic contexts in comedic/satirical performances; and the racial/ethnic identities of both the comedians and the butts of the comedians' jokes. Intersectional identities may also play a role in perceptions of marginalized and dominant group members featured in the video clips. More specifically, students are more tolerant of Black comedians poking fun at Black characters/issues or critiquing, with levity, dominant group members and structures that are sources of racial inequities, especially inequities impacting Black Americans. Appropriate attention to social factors like these may lay a foundation for comedic/satirical materials to facilitate a reading of the world that helps students to become more reflexive about social/racial injustices.

The Dark Side of Safety: A Call for a More Thorough Consideration of Racism and Collective Power Motivations in the Social Psychology of Firearms.

This paper situates current social psychological research on the symbolic use of firearms (e.g., as a source of personal safety) in broader historical context to motivate a more thorough consideration of collective power motives. Historically, firearms have been used to dominate racial outgroup members (e.g., White Americans use of firearms and firearm laws to dispossess indigenous people of land or control free and enslaved Black people) or, at times, attempt to resist group-based oppression (e.g., Black Americans use of firearms to struggle against White Jim Crow terrorism). Given most gun owners report self-protection as their primary reason for firearm ownership and yet anti-Black attitudes are still a consistently important predictor of firearm ownership among dominant group members (e.g., White Americans), this paper examines how guns may function as a perceived source of personal safety and collective power. I center the persistent role of White supremacy and anti-Blackness in original U.S. firearm psychology and policy to illuminate the interrelatedness of personal safety and collective power perceptions, and how perceived threats to in-group power may motivate the use of guns and policies that selectively regulate gun access to mitigate associated safety concerns. Seeking to nudge social psychology to more thoroughly examine firearms' potential function as a symbolic source of collective power, I end by discussing how considering collective power can help us better understand how historically dominant and historically marginalized groups view firearms today while also illuminating some barriers to the pursuit of gun safety for all.

Submissive behaviour is affected by group size in a social fish.

For social groups to form and be stable over time, animals must develop strategies to cope with conflict among group members. Animals may behave submissively either by fleeing from an aggressor, or by signalling submission. The use of these two submissive responses may vary depending on the social and ecological context. Group size is a key aspect of social context for group living animals, as individuals in smaller groups may respond to aggression differently than those from larger groups. Here, we examine the relationship between group size and submissive behaviour in a cooperatively breeding fish, the daffodil cichlid (Neolamprologus pulcher). We found that subordinate fish showed similar levels of submission signals in response to dominant aggression in larger and smaller groups, however, subordinates from larger groups were less likely to flee from dominant aggression than those in smaller groups. Subordinates in larger groups also showed more digging behaviour which may be also used to avoid conflict with the dominant group members. Our data show that social context affects submissive behaviour in a cooperatively breeding fish.

Harnessing the many facets of White identity to reduce feelings of threat and improve intergroup relations

Whiteness in the US is often conceptualized largely as the absence of a meaningful cultural identity. Research from my own lab suggests that overlooking the nuances inherent in White identity (e.g., differences between ethnic groups) can induce feelings of threat and backlash against multiculturalism among dominant group members. Based on this research, I argue that conceptualizing Whiteness as multifaceted—for example, by acknowledging not only interethnic but also religious and socioeconomic differences—may mitigate dominant group members’ threat perceptions and increase their comfort amidst growing discussions of diversity, equity, and inclusion in institutions and organizations. Further, attending to the complexities of White identity may produce more positive intergroup outcomes, such as reduced racial/ethnic prejudice and greater perceived personal contributions to diversity, and may benefit groups that are classified as “White” on demographic forms but often do not perceive themselves as such (e.g., Middle Eastern and North African Americans, Hispanic/Latino[a] Americans).

Who counts as diverse? The strategic broadening and narrowing of diversity.

A large majority of US organizations profess a commitment to diversity, but their definitions of diversity can vary greatly. While previous research demonstrates a shift in diversity definitions to include fewer protected demographic groups and more non-demographic characteristics, the present research examines whether this shift might be a motivated process among dominant group members related to anti-egalitarian and colorblind belief systems. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, we explored potential underlying ideologies that may be associated with White Americans' shifting definitions of diversity. White Americans (N = 498) were asked how they define diversity, as well as who should be included in a range of diversity initiatives. White participants' higher anti-egalitarian belief was associated with stronger colorblind ideology endorsement, which was then associated with shifting their definition of diversity to include fewer disadvantaged demographic groups, more advantaged demographic groups, and non-demographic groups, as well as employing a colorblind inclusion rhetoric. Instead of only "broadening" diversity to include more characteristics than diversity's original focus, White Americans higher in anti-egalitarian and colorblind motives exhibited a simultaneous "narrowing" of diversity to include fewer protected demographic characteristics. Taken together, these findings have implications for dominant group members' definition of diversity and the subtle ways in which colorblind ideology may be enacted.

An Exploration of Positive Stereotypes: Legitimating the System and Naïve Challenges to It

Scholars have documented harm associated with positive stereotypes about groups that experience inequality. We surveyed five samples from the United States to explore antecedents to dominant group endorsement of positive stereotypes about women, gay men, Asian Americans, Black Americans, and Native Americans. We found more liberal participants, and those with more close contact with members of these groups, were more internally motivated to respond without prejudice, which was then associated with greater endorsement of positive stereotypes about women, gay men, Black Americans, and Native Americans. In contrast, more conservative participants were more likely to believe in system legitimacy, which was then associated with greater endorsement of positive stereotypes about women and Asian Americans. We theorize that positive stereotypes are used by dominant group members in divergent ways, sometimes to legitimate inequality and other times with concern about inequality. The latter likely involves naivety regarding the harmful nature of positive stereotypes.

Culturally Diverse Societies and Genital Cutting Controversies

We are all always culturally embedded. But some people in Western multicultural societies are treated as though they are more affected by cultural norms than others (Williams, in: Minorities within minorities, Cambridge University Press, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490224.002; Kukathus in Political Theory 20: 105–139, 1992. ; Shahvisi in International Journal of Impotence Research, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00514-8; Galeotti in Constellations 14: 91–111, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.2007.00424.x, in European Journal of Political Theory 14: 277–296, 2015; Townsend in Philosophy & Social Criticism 46: 878–898, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719854212, in: The child’s right to genital integrity:Protecting the child, resisting harmful practices, and enabling sexual autonomy, 2021a. http://hdl.handle.net/10871/125329, in International Journalof Impotence Research, 2021b. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00503-x). Members of marginalised cultural groups are treated as more ‘driven’ by culture than their dominant cultural group member counterparts (Honig, in: Is multiculturalism bad for women? Princeton University Press, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400840991-005). I focus on the treatment of genital cutting and modification practices conducted by diverse groups in contemporary Western societies and argue that they should all be understood as culturally ‘influenced’ as reported by Chambers (Sex, culture, and justice: The limits of choice, Penn State University Press, 2008). Further, different legal and moral treatment of genital cutting and modification practices within Western liberal societies is a form of cultural discrimination that hinders productive intercultural dialogue and the integration of diverse groups. I argue that policy on genital cutting and modification should be the same across groups to reduce socio-cultural disadvantage and enable smoother integration in Western democracies.

Examining the Ad Industry’s Race and Ethnicity Problem: Application and Extension of Co-Cultural Theory

Historically, White people have been overrepresented in the advertising industry, making them the dominant group. Through in-depth interviews with twenty-five co-cultural advertising professionals living in the United States, we examined how minorities working in the advertising industry employ various communication practices while engaging with White dominant group members. Using co-cultural theory, we were able to identify situations of assimilation-based practices, accommodation-based practices, and separation-based practices. Further, we identified four new communication practices, extending previous research. Implications are discussed.

Marked and managed: performing a “good” White identity in non-White spaces

ABSTRACT As dominant group members, Whites tend to experience race as a low salience identity, particularly in interactions in White settings with other Whites. Using data collected from in-depth interviews with White partners in interracial relationships, this paper analyses what happens when Whites enter non-White settings and become racially marked. How do Whites understand the meaning of their Whiteness in these settings and what strategies do they use to manage others’ impressions? White participants reported experiencing hypervisibility, a sharp awareness of their racial identity, and heightened apprehensions about being perceived as potentially racist and culturally inept. Consequently, participants made conscious changes to their behaviours (e.g. body language, food consumption), speech, and appearance as a means of signalling a “good” White identity and establishing belonging in spaces where they were marked as racial and cultural outsiders.

Effects of pro-white identity cues in American political candidate communication

Abstract American politicians have always harnessed the group nature of politics to build political power. Yet it is unclear whether explicit appeals to dominant group identities (e.g., white identity) can help political leaders win support from dominant group members (e.g., white Americans). Four experimental studies (N = 2,279; two pre-registered) used the identity ownership perspective (Kreiss et al., 2020) to examine how a fictional candidates’ support or opposition toward renting city space to dominant group members (e.g., white Music Association) affected white Americans’ evaluations of that candidate. Support for white groups was perceived as prototypical of Republicans, but expressing such support decreased candidates’ favorability. However, findings suggested: (a) decreases were smaller for white Republican (vs. Democrat) participants (Study 2) and (b) candidates faced similar negative evaluations if they communicated opposition to policies favoring white people (Studies 3–4). Results offered some support for candidate prototypicality as a mechanism for these effects.

One Too Many: Hermeneutical Excess as Hermeneutical Injustice

AbstractHermeneutical injustice, as a species of epistemic injustice, is when members of marginalized groups are unable to make their experiences communicatively intelligible due to a deficiency in collective hermeneutical resources, where this deficiency is traditionally interpreted as a lack of concepts. Against this understanding, this article argues that even if adequate concepts that describe marginalized groups’ experiences are available within the collective hermeneutical resources, hermeneutical injustice can persist. This article offers an analysis of how this can happen by introducing the notion of hermeneutical excess: the introduction of additional concepts into collective hermeneutical resources that function to obscure agents’ understanding of the lived experiences of marginalized groups. The injustice of hermeneutical excesses happens not due to hermeneutical marginalization (the exclusion of members of marginalized groups from the construction of hermeneutical resources), but rather from hermeneutical domination: when members of dominant groups have been inappropriately included in the construction of hermeneutical resources. By taking as exemplary cases the concepts of “reverse racism” and “nonconsensual sex,” this article shows how such excesses are introduced as a kind of defensive strategy used by dominant ideologies precisely when progress with social justice is made.

Prototypicality threat drives support for nativist politics in U.S. and U.K. elections

Recent research shows that increasing diversity due to immigration can lead members of dominant ethnic groups (e.g., Whites in America) to experience prototypicality threat – the concern that their claim to best represent their national identity may be lost. Here we examine the emotional and behavioral responses to prototypicality threat in the domain of politics. Across eight years, five studies, two nations, and four electoral contexts (White Americans’ support for Trump in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election; White Britons’ support for the 2016 Brexit Referendum; White Americans’ support for Congressional candidates in 2018 U.S. Midterm Election; and White Americans’ support for a fictitious Congressional candidate in the 2022 U.S. Midterm Election), we show that prototypicality threat explains support for nativist policies and candidates. Furthermore, when those high in prototypicality threat see their favored nativist politics as victorious, they report lower anxiety and threat after the election. By demonstrating the role of prototypicality threat in support for nativist politics specifically, this work helps us understand how people respond to broad societal issues and suggests novel strategies for addressing politics hostile to immigrants.

Help (Un)wanted: Why the most powerful allies are the most likely to stumble — and when they fulfill their potential

Members of dominant groups can play a critical role as allies to members of marginalized groups in creating more diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplaces. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that aspiring allies often fail to advance equity and may sometimes even amplify inequity. To shed light on the causes of—and cures for—ineffective allyship, we apply a relational lens, integrating theories of power, trust, and humility. We propose that power creates a paradox, offering opportunities for allies to help but also creating obstacles to their trustworthiness in the eyes of marginalized group members. We examine how allies can overcome the power paradox and establish trustworthiness through behavioral humility, elevating others’ personal power to most effectively share their positional power. This relational approach sheds light on when and why attempted allyship may elicit backlash, and how allies can translate good intentions into supportive actions.

Examining awareness of privilege among midwestern college students: An analysis of race/ethnicity, gender, and religion.

Dominant group members often are not aware of the privileges they benefit from due to their dominant group membership. Yet individuals are members of multiple groups and may simultaneously occupy multiple categories of dominance and marginality, raising the question of how different group memberships work in concert to facilitate or inhibit awareness of multiple forms of privilege. Examining awareness of privilege is important as awareness may be linked to action to dismantle systems of privilege that maintain oppression and inequality. Grounded in intersectional scholarship, in this study we examined how occupying intersecting categories of race/ethnicity, gender, and religion corresponded to an awareness of White, male, and Christian privilege. In a sample of 2321 Midwestern college students, we demonstrated that students from marginalized groups broadly reported greater awareness of all forms of privilege than students from dominant groups, and the difference between marginalized and dominant groups was most pronounced when the specific group category (e.g., gender) aligned with the type of privilege (e.g., male privilege). We also tested interactions among race/ethnicity, gender, and religion, only finding an interaction between race/ethnicity and religion for awareness of White and male privilege. These findings helped to clarify that multiple group memberships tended to contribute to awareness as multiple main effects rather than as multiplicative. Finally, we examined mean differences among the eight intersected groups to explore similarities and differences among groups in awareness of all types of privilege. Taken together, these findings quantitatively demonstrate the ways in which group memberships work together to contribute to awareness of multiple forms of privilege. We discuss study limitations and implications for community psychology research and practice.

Hateful Counterspeech

Faced with hate speech, oppressed groups can use their own speech to respond to their verbal oppressors. This “counterspeech,” however, sometimes itself takes on a hateful form. This paper explores the moral standing of such “hateful counterspeech.” Is there a fundamental moral asymmetry between hateful counterspeech, and the hateful utterances of dominant or oppressive groups? Or are claims that such an asymmetry exists indefensible? I argue for an intermediate position. There is a key moral asymmetry between these two forms of speech. But, this asymmetry notwithstanding, hateful counterspeech is capable of enacting serious harms—and so, contrary to what many legal theorists have argued, it is in principle an appropriate object of legal regulation. I begin by considering the central argument for thinking that hateful counterspeech is not seriously troubling. This argument holds that oppressed groups lack authority—and, by extension, “speaker power.” Yet this argument, I suggest, sits in tension with the fact that low-status members of dominant groups can, through their utterances, seriously harm members of oppressed groups. Philosophers of language have developed sophisticated arguments to explain this last phenomenon: they have argued that speaker power is relativised to particular jurisdictions; that it can be acquired dynamically in local settings; and that it is socially dispersed. I argue that, in light of these arguments, it appears that hateful counterspeech, too, can generate serious harms. Nevertheless, I show that this conclusion is compatible with recognising a crucial moral asymmetry between hateful counterspeech and the hate speech of oppressors.

“That's bang out of order, mate!”: Gendered and racialized micro‐practices of disadvantage and privilege in UK business schools

AbstractThe existence of gendered and racialized inequalities in academia has been well documented. To date, research has primarily addressed the intersectional disadvantages faced by members of minority groups with much less attention paid to the privileges experienced by dominant group members. This paper draws on 21 interviews and 36 audio‐diary entries completed by a diverse group of senior higher education leaders who have successfully navigated the career ladder in UK business schools. By juxtaposing minority with dominant group members' narratives, the study advances intersectionality research, offering a contextualized analysis of the micro‐practices of both disadvantage and privilege in academia. Through a focus on how micro‐practices perform differently for members of different groups, it foregrounds “obvious” as well as nuanced differences that contribute to the accumulation of disadvantage and privilege throughout an individual's career and emphasizes simultaneity as crucial to understanding the workings of gendered and racialized disadvantage and privilege.

Collective system‐supporting inaction: A conceptual framework of privilege maintenance

AbstractRecent protest movements such as #MeToo exposed that institutional change initiatives targeting harassment and discrimination have so far failed to achieve equity. We propose that this is because such policy initiatives fail to account for the motivation of those privileged by inequality regimes to maintain and perpetuate these systems. Addressing gaps in collective action scholarship, we introduce a normative framework conceptualising the inaction of dominant groups as system‐supporting behaviour to preserve the status quo. System‐supporting inaction is a central and highly effective technique used by dominant group members to hinder processes of change and preserve their power, and it often preludes escalation to violent backlash over time. Building on sociological models of inequality and power, we develop a conceptual model that accounts for the group dynamics associated with collective system‐supporting (in)action. We propose an agenda for future research that focuses on resistance to change as a means of maintaining privilege.

Fill the Earth and Subdue It: Christian Nationalism, Ethno‐Religious Threat, and Nationalist Pronatalism

What fuels both enthusiasm for increasing “American” birth rates and fears about their decline? Citing the prevalence of fertility campaigns in authoritarian regimes characterized by ethno‐nationalist Christianity, we theorize that, in addition to patriarchal attitudes, perceived ethno‐cultural threat and desire for ethno‐cultural dominance substantially drive “nationalist pronatalism” (promoting fertility to strengthen “the nation” and avoid national decline). We expect pronatalist ideology focused on American births is associated with (1) belief that dominant cultural group members (Whites, Christians, men) are threatened and (2) White Christian nationalism—an ideology that looks to conform American identity and values to those of a traditionalist, ethnicized Christianity. Recent, nationally representative data reveal Christian nationalist ideology is the second strongest predictor of support for nationalist pronatalism, second only behind patriarchal attitudes. This association is stronger for men and virtually non‐existent among Blacks. The belief that Whites or Christians face “the most discrimination” as opposed to various minorities also predicts nationalist pronatalism. Contemporary support for pronatalist ideology focused on American births is thus undergirded not only by attitudes that subordinate women but also (1) an ethno‐racially contingent ideology that insists the United States should reflect and institutionalize traditionalist Christian culture and (2) perceptions that Christians and Whites are persecuted.