Low-status Group Members Research Articles

Asymmetries in responses to group-based relative deprivation: The moderating effects of group status on endorsement of right-wing ideology

Feelings of group-based relative deprivation (GRD) motivate collective responses to defend the ingroup. As such, there may be status-based asymmetries in the associations GRD has with ideologies that perpetuate inequality—namely, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). Study 1 examined this hypothesis using a national sample of adults ( N = 41,007) and revealed that the correlations GRD had with RWA and SDO were positive among members of a high-status group but negative among members of low-status groups. Study 2 examined these associations longitudinally ( N = 22,083) across eight annual assessments. Although a traditional cross-lagged panel analysis identified status-based asymmetries in the longitudinal associations between our variables of interest, analyses partitioning between-person stability from within-person change found no evidence that GRD leads to differences in RWA or SDO (or vice versa). The theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.

Intergroup competition, group status, and individuals’ cooperation behavior: Evidence from a laboratory experiment

Intergroup competition has been proven to increase ingroup cooperation, but it will also divide individuals into high-status groups and low-status groups, which may lead to group-level conflict and affect cooperation behavior among different status group members. In this paper, we conduct a laboratory experiment to find how group status caused by intergroup competition changes individuals’ cooperation behavior in two representative social dilemma frameworks, the public goods game and the prisoner's dilemma game. Experimental results show that both high-status group members and low-status group members will improve ingroup cooperation, and there exists the framing effect of cooperation which affects different status group members’ decisions under different situations. Specifically, the increase of ingroup cooperation occurs among low-status group members in the public goods game and high-status group members in the prisoner's dilemma game. Besides, we find no evidence of any significant change in outgroup cooperation among different status group members.

Servant-Leadership at ServiceMaster: A Commitment to Love, Development, and Diversity

In society and business, there is increased energy and focus on caring and inclusive forms of leadership. An emphasis on control and exchange has shifted to more personalized forms, including but not limited to transformational, authentic, ethical, and spiritual leadership. Servant-leadership in particular is gaining traction as a practice that potentially facilitates multiple benefits for organizations and individuals. While servant-leadership ideals and practices have resonated with religious, non-profit, and educational institutions, they have also emerged in the for-profit business sector. In management scholarship, curiosity about the model in the 1990s has evolved into an earnest examination of the framework (Eva et al., 2019; Parris & Peachey, 2013). The management origins of servant-leadership harken back to Robert Greenleaf (1977, 1998), a long-time manager at AT&T who was deeply interested in conceptualizing the work of leaders as empowering others. Beyond individual leaders, business was also to act as a “serving institution” for its members and customers (Greenleaf, 1996). The servant-leader is motivated by the desire to serve and their efforts are measured by the development and well-being of those who are served (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). This leader model is evident at ServiceMaster, a Fortune 500 firm differentiated by servant-leadership practices of the founder and early leaders, for whom biblical accounts of servanthood (e.g., Jesus washing the disciples’ feet and instructing them to do the same for each other, John 13:13-15) shaped the firm’s leadership praxis. In 2006, CEO Bill Pollard identified several important themes of servant-leadership germane to this paper—leadership as a means rather than an end, leadership as service rather than position or power, and leadership as an act of loving the diverse world created by God. Pollard’s speech illustrates a theologically rooted model of the servant-leader who is motivated to serve first. Such subordination is perhaps more remarkable when the person who serves is of higher status than the one being served. Leadership theory often fails to account for the leader’s identity, context, and position or power (Tilghman-Havens, 2018), assuming that all leaders share a similar baseline of perceived legitimacy. People’s implicit concepts of the prototypical leader (Northouse, 2022) are shaped by experience, personality, and cultural values (Lord & Emrich, 2001). In U.S. society, the Euro American male is consciously or unconsciously regarded as an ideal leader. In contrast, servant-like behaviors are often attributed to the female gender or members of lower status groups which has negative implications for their visibility as leaders, performance evaluations, and advancement (Bowles & McGinn, 2005). Researchers and practitioners must address possible implications of the leader prototype mismatch. Investigating this question necessitates an exploration of the costs and benefits related to adopting a servant-leadership framework. Although servant-leadership is ultimately about outcomes for those who are served, there is a substantial demand on personal leadership, and organizations should work to bolster their support of leaders to maximize positive benefits and mitigate costs. The purpose of this paper is to examine servant-leadership from a critical perspective, proposing a conceptual framework for investigating the potential costs and benefits to individuals who adopt servant-leadership in their organizations. I begin by briefly highlighting the salient benefits of servant-leadership and the current literature gap in addressing issues of identity related to gender, race, and ethnicity. I will also propose possible pathways for organizations to support servant-leaders from minority groups, extrapolated from the stories and practices of ServiceMaster, a firm that pursued servant-leadership over multiple generations.

Is diversity enough? Cross-race and cross-class interactions in college occur less often than expected, but benefit members of lower status groups when they occur.

More than ever before, institutions of higher education are seeking to increase the racial and social class diversity of their student bodies. Given these efforts, the present research asks two broad questions. First, how frequently do intergroup interactions occur across the lines of race and social class, and to what extent do these interactions reflect the diversity of a setting? Second, when cross-race and cross-class interactions occur, how do individuals experience them and what consequences do they have for their outcomes in these settings? Leveraging a longitudinal design and daily diary methods, we conducted the first large study (Ninteractions = 11,460) which tracks the frequency, experience, and consequences of meaningful cross-race and cross-class interactions. We found that students reported far fewer cross-race and cross-class interactions than would occur at chance given the racial and social class diversity of their student bodies. Furthermore, students experienced less satisfaction and perspective-taking in cross-race and cross-class interactions compared to same-race and same-class interactions, respectively. Nevertheless, these cross-group interactions predicted better academic performance for underrepresented racial minority students and students from working and lower class backgrounds. They did so, in part, by increasing students' feelings of inclusion (i.e., increased belonging and reduced social identity threat). Together, these findings suggest that the mere presence of diversity is not enough to foster meaningful intergroup interactions. Furthermore, fostering intergroup interactions may be one important pathway toward reducing racial and social class disparities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The contributions of positive outgroup and negative ingroup evaluation to implicit bias favoring outgroups

People sometimes prefer groups to which they do not belong (outgroups) over their own groups (ingroups). Many long-standing theoretical perspectives assume that this outgroup favorability bias primarily reflects negative ingroup evaluations rather than positive outgroup evaluations. To examine the contributions of negative ingroup versus positive outgroup evaluations to outgroup bias, we examined participants' data (total n > 879,000) from Implicit Association Tests [A. G. Greenwald, D. E. McGhee, J. L. K. Schwartz, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 1464-1480 (1998)] measuring intergroup attitudes across four social domains in exploratory and preregistered confirmatory analyses. Process modeling [F. R. Conrey, J. W. Sherman, B. Gawronski, K. Hugenberg, C. J. Groom, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89, 469-487 (2005)] was applied to the responses of participants who demonstrated implicit outgroup bias to separately estimate the contributions of negative ingroup and positive outgroup evaluations. The outgroup biases of lower-status group members (i.e., Asian, Black, gay and lesbian, and older people) consistently reflected greater contributions of positive outgroup evaluations than negative ingroup evaluations. In contrast, the outgroup biases of higher-status group members (i.e., White, straight, and younger people) reflected a more varied pattern of evaluations. We replicated this pattern of results using explicitly measured intergroup evaluations. Taking these data together, the present research demonstrates a positive-negative asymmetry effect of outgroup bias, primarily among members of lower-status groups.

‘We will show our strength!’: the independentists’ support for group-based hierarchy to guarantee and legitimate ingroup status-enhancement (‘¡Mostraremos nuestra fuerza!’: el apoyo de los independentistas a la jerarquía basada en el grupo para garantizar y legitimar la mejora del estatus del endogrupo)

ABSTRACT We propose that support for group-based hierarchy among members of low-status or subordinate groups may be boosted by beliefs in future ingroup high status. Specifically, the more individuals believe their group may hold a higher status, the more they support hierarchical intergroup relations (i.e., high social dominance orientation; SDO), by boosting ingroup favouritism. In turn, SDO should be positively associated with collective action tendencies by increasing social competition intentions. Using samples from Catalonia (N = 152) and the Basque Country (N = 262), results showed that independence supporters’ beliefs in future ingroup status enhancement reinforced participants’ SDO, through nationalist sentiments (i.e., ingroup bias) but not through patriotism in the Catalan sample, and directly in the Basque sample. In turn, SDO increased collective actions towards independence by reinforcing individuals’ motivation to compete with the opponent dominant outgroup (Madrid region), especially in the Catalan sample. We discuss the implications of considering situational and contextual factors to better understand individuals’ support for group-based hierarchies and inequality.

Supplemental Material for Is Diversity Enough? Cross-Race and Cross-Class Interactions in College Occur Less Often Than Expected, but Benefit Members of Lower Status Groups When They Occur

Supplemental Material for Is Diversity Enough? Cross-Race and Cross-Class Interactions in College Occur Less Often Than Expected, but Benefit Members of Lower Status Groups When They Occur

Diversity's Impact on the Quality of Deliberations.

The present research builds on previous models of jury diversity's benefits by exploring how diversity impacts the deliberation process. In Study 1, community members (N = 433) participated in a jury decision-making study manipulating the strength of evidence (ambiguous vs. weak) and the diversity of the jury. When the evidence in the case was ambiguous, both white and black jurors made high-quality contributions to discussion in diverse juries than in nondiverse juries. In Study 2, undergraduate students (N = 369) were randomly assigned to wealth and power conditions and then deliberated in diverse and nondiverse groups. Diverse juries were less likely to convict the defendant, and jurors on diverse juries made high-quality contributions to discussion. Although previous work has documented effects of diversity on high-status jurors' contributions to deliberations, this work suggests that diversity may relate to more complex evidence evaluation for members of low-status groups as well.

Support for group-based inequality among members of low-status groups as an ingroup status-enhancement strategy

We discuss the idea that competition-based motives boost low-status group members’ support for group-based hierarchy and inequality. Specifically, the more low-status group members feel motivated to compete with a relevant high-status outgroup, based on the belief that existing status positions may be reversed, the more they will defend status differentials (i.e., high social dominance orientation; SDO). Using minimal groups (N = 113), we manipulated ingroup (low vs. high) status, and primed unstable status positions to all participants. As expected, we found that SDO positively mediates the relation between ingroup identification and collective action, when ingroup’s status is perceived to be low and status positions are perceived as highly unstable. We discuss the implications of considering situational and contextual factors to better understand individuals’ support for group-based hierarchies and inequality, and the advantages of considering ideological processes in predicting collective action.

Hierarchy profiling: How and why a job's perceived impact on inequality affects racial hiring evaluations

Prior work suggests that high-status group members are favored for hierarchy-maintaining roles, while low-status group members are favored for hierarchy-attenuating ones—but the mechanisms driving this phenomenon are largely unknown. The current work examines this phenomenon in the domain of race, testing three potential mechanisms: role status, representativeness, and hierarchy profiling. According to a role status account, hierarchy-maintaining roles are seen as higher-status than hierarchy-attenuating ones, driving effects. A representativeness account suggests that hierarchy-maintaining roles are seen as including more White (or fewer minority) job-holders than hierarchy-attenuating ones, driving effects. Finally, a hierarchy profiling account suggests that evaluators see the typical hire for hierarchy-maintaining roles as more conservative (or less liberal), driving effects. In three studies, White evaluators rated a White male applicant a better fit for a hierarchy-maintaining role (e.g., CEO of a hedge fund) than a hierarchy-attenuating one (e.g., CEO of a nonprofit). There was, however, no impact of a role's perceived impact on inequality on ratings of Black male or Latino applicant fit (Studies 1–3). This effect persisted regardless of role status (Study 2), negating a role status account. However, a final study supported representativeness and hierarchy profiling accounts. White evaluators rated the typical hire for a hierarchy-maintaining role as more White and conservative, mediating ratings of White applicant fit (Study 3). Three supplemental studies replicated all results. Findings reveal the mechanisms that can hold social hierarchy in place, keeping high-status group members in hierarchy-maintaining roles and low-status group members in hierarchy-attenuating ones.

Social Dominance Orientation Boosts Collective Action Among Low-Status Groups.

We propose that low-status group members' support for group-based hierarchy and inequality (i.e., social dominance orientation; SDO) may represent an ideological strategy to guarantee the legitimacy of future ingroup status-enhancement. Specifically, we argue that, under unstable social structure conditions, SDO serves as an ideological justification for collective action tendencies aimed at competing for a higher status. In such context, SDO should be positively related with actions aimed to favor the ingroup (i.e., collective actions) by increasing group members' motivation to engage in direct competition with a relevant higher-status outgroup. We conducted two studies under highly competitive and unstable social structure contexts using real life groups. In Study 1 (N = 77), we induced Low vs. High Ingroup (University) Status and in Study 2 (N = 220) we used competing sports groups. Overall, results showed that, among members of low-status groups, SDO consistently increased individuals' motivation to get involved in actions favoring the ingroup, by boosting their motivation to compete with the opposing high-status outgroup. We discuss the results in light of the social dominance and collective action framework.

Mobilized or marginalized? Understanding low-status groups' responses to social justice efforts led by high-status groups.

Members of high-status groups (e.g., men) often lead social justice efforts that seek to benefit low-status groups (e.g., women), but little is known about how observers respond to such instances of visible and influential solidarity. We presented information about a nonprofit organization seeking to address gender (Study 1, N = 198) or racial (Study 2, N = 216) inequality, in which the leadership team was manipulated to include a numerical majority of either high-status group members or low-status group members. Members of low-status groups who read about the majority high-status leadership team reported lower levels of collective action intentions, compared with those who read about the majority low-status leadership team. Mediation analyses (Studies 1 and 2) and an experimental-causal-chain design (Study 3, N = 405) showed that lower collective action intentions in response to the majority high-status leadership team were mediated by participants' perception of a specific problem presented by high-status group leaders (lower awareness of inequality) and lower levels of hope. Study 4 (N = 555) demonstrated that low-status group members responded more negatively to a majority high-status leadership team in an organization seeking to benefit their low-status ingroup (solidarity context), compared with organizations seeking to benefit other groups (nonsolidarity contexts). Results provide the first evidence that the presence of influential high-status group leaders can discourage members of low-status groups from joining a social justice effort that seeks to benefit their ingroup, and that these negative responses extend beyond preferences predicted by frameworks of ingroup bias and role congruity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

When intergroup helping helps intergroup relations: The moderating role of trust in the outgroup

Help offered by a member of a high status group to a member of a low status group is often resented because it may be perceived as motivated by a desire to reinforce status relations between the groups. The present research explored how trust in a high status group by members of a low status group can ameliorate these negative consequences. Study 1 examined how the trust of Israeli-Jews among Israeli-Arabs relates to their reactions to an offer of help from an Israeli-Jew. Additional studies investigated the reactions of low-status group members to help from a member of the high status group in a minimal group context (Study 2) and a real group setting (Study 3) while manipulating trust in the outgroup. The findings of the three experiments indicate that greater trust in the high status group elicited distinctively more positive intergroup responses to an offer of help from the high status group. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.

Group status rapidly shapes preschoolers’ social judgments in minimal group settings

Previous developmental research has consistently detected the presence of an explicit and implicit ingroup preference among preschoolers. More recent research has also demonstrated that this general ingroup bias is influenced by perceived social status when “real” groups are involved (i.e., groups with a previous history of interactions). Indeed, ingroup bias is significantly tempered among low-status group members. The main aim of the current study was to further investigate the role of social status by assessing both implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes in the context of newly formed groups. More specifically, children were randomly assigned to one of two fictitious groups on the basis of trivial criteria, thereby forming the so-called “minimal” groups. To manipulate group status, participants were then informed that one specific group—either the ingroup or the outgroup—was typically better than the other group during competitions. Finally, implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes were assessed. Overall, results showed that children rapidly formed implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes toward newly formed groups. Most important, the perceived status of the groups modulated such intergroup attitudes. Indeed, on both types of measures, ingroup bias emerged when the ingroup was associated with a high status, whereas it disappeared when the ingroup was in a low-status position.

Motivated Reasoning in Identity Politics: Group Status as a Moderator of Political Motivations

Western democracies are increasingly defined by identity politics, where politics appeals to both political and other social identities. Consequently, political information processing should depend not just on political identity, but also on other identities, such as gender, race, or sexuality. For any given issue, we argue that the extent to which reasoning is motivated by one’s political identity depends on citizens’ group status in other relevant identities, that is, that political identity more strongly motivates high-status group members than low-status group members for issues of identity politics. A survey experiment (N = 1012) concerning a gender quota policy shows that political identity motivates men more strongly than women, leading to political polarization between left-wing and right-wing men, but not women. This suggests that political motivated reasoning should be addressed differently in situations of identity politics, and urges the consideration of group status as a conditional factor of motivated reasoning.

They (Don't) Need Us: Functional Indispensability Impacts Perceptions of Representativeness and Commitment When Lower-Status Groups Go Through an Intergroup Merger.

Intergroup changes occur often between subgroups who are asymmetric in status (e.g., size, power, prestige), with important consequences for social identification, especially among the members of lower-status groups. Mergers offer an example of such changes, when subgroups (merger partners) merge into a common, superordinate group (post-merger group). Lower-status subgroups frequently perceive they are less represented in the post-merger group, therefore committing less to the changes a merger implies. Five studies offered an intergroup relations’ perspective on mergers (N’s = 479, 150, 266, 113, and 229, respectively), examining how functional indispensability (instrumental contribution of the ingroup) positively influences perceptions of representativeness in the post-merger group (relative ingroup prototypicality), which, in turn, affect post-merger identification and, finally, change commitment. Additionally, the role of cognitive information processing (heuristic vs. systematic) on prototypicality was explored. Results suggest that functional indispensability impacts relative ingroup prototypicality (Studies 1–5), and this may be moderated by information processing (Study 2). Moreover, prototypicality and identification with the superordinate post-merged group mediated the effect of functional indispensability on change commitment (Studies 1–3). These findings provide important theoretical insights into prototypicality perceptions held by lower-status merger partners and minority groups in general, by identifying functional indispensability as a source of prototypicality other than relative status. In addition, by proposing a functional approach to the relations between social groups, these findings suggest better practices for managing structural changes, such as combining sources of strategic/functional and identity fit when announcing an intergroup change.

Collectivism and Individualism in Status Hierarchies: Socialization and Social Identity Explanations

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.

Accounting for unequal access to higher education: The role of social identity factors

Western societies stress the potential for anyone, irrespective of social background, to improve their position within society. However, disadvantaged students face barriers in gaining a good education. Two studies in secondary schools show how perceptions of identity compatibility and anticipated fit influence students’ university choices. It was found that relatively disadvantaged students scored lower on identity compatibility, and that low scores on identity compatibility were associated with lower anticipated fit at a local selective (Study 1) or highly selective (Study 2) university. Anticipated fit, in turn, predicted the type of university to which participants wanted to apply; those who anticipated fitting in more at selective universities were more likely to apply to higher status universities. These relations were significant while controlling for academic achievement. Together, these studies suggest that social identity factors play a relevant role in explaining higher education choices among low-status group members.

Imitating the winner leads to discrimination in spatial prisoner\u2019s dilemma model

The occurrence of discrimination is an important problem in the social and economical sciences. Much of the discrimination observed in empirical studies can be explained by the theory of in-group favouritism, which states that people tend to act more positively towards peers whose appearances are more similar to their own. Some studies, however, find hierarchical structures in inter-group relations, where members of low-status groups also favour the high-status group members. These observations cannot be understood in the light of in-group favouritism. Here we present an agent based model in which evolutionary dynamics can result in a hierarchical discrimination between two groups characterized by a meaningless, but observable binary label. We find that discriminating strategies end up dominating the system when the selection pressure is high, i.e. when agents have a much higher probability of imitating their neighbour with the highest payoff. These findings suggest that the puzzling persistence of hierarchical discrimination may result from the evolutionary dynamics of the social system itself, namely the social imitation dynamics. It also predicts that discrimination will occur more often in highly competitive societies.

Academic disparities and health: How gender-based disparities in schools relate to boys' and girls’ health

RationaleRecent research reveals that, although girls encounter some barriers in school (e.g., in science and math), on balance, boys perform worse academically. Moreover, other research has identified a correlation between exposure to a context characterized by large disparities in performance or resources and a range of negative outcomes, including negative health and well-being, among members of lower status groups. ObjectiveBuilding on these literatures, the present research tests the relationship between gender disparities in academic performance within a school and students' health outcomes. Specifically, we investigated whether boys had worse health when they attended schools where there was a greater disparity between boys' and girls’ academic performance. MethodWe tested this hypothesis in two different samples with different health outcomes. In a sample of healthy eighth graders (Study 1; 159 girls and 81 boys), we assessed two indices of metabolic syndrome, and in a sample of children with asthma (Study 2; 122 girls and 153 boys), we assessed immune function (Th1 and Th2 cytokine production) and self-reported symptoms. Participants in both samples also reported the name of the school that they attended so that we could access publicly available information about the percentage of girls and the percentage of boys in each school who met expectations for their grade level on standardized tests. ResultsIn both samples, the greater the gap in a school between the percentage of girls and the percentage of boys who met expectations for their grade level on standardized tests, the worse boys’ health. This pattern did not emerge among girls. ConclusionResults thus highlight the negative health correlates of academic disparities among members of lower-performing groups.