to Groups
tend divide into relative hierarchies based on status
Status = an individual's relative standing in a group's hierarchy based on prestige, honor, and respect Your position in a status hierarchy reflects
These
how good people think you are
hierarchies are the product of all status-relevant information available
"Status characteristics"
Characteristics of individuals that are status-relevant
Information about these characteristics is
combined to create a general sense of each person's position in the group's status hierarchy
Bases
of status differentiation ("status characteristics") include....
Bases of discrimination in the larger society
Race Gender Sexual Orientation Wealth Power Attractiveness
But also, more merit-based factors that more
directly reflect perceived levels of competence or virtue
Education Specific skills Intelligence Generosity, honesty
Thus, status hierarchies are based on both fair and
unfair criteria And status hierarchies have both good and bad effects
They lead to patterns of discrimination But also streamline interaction and help groups coordinate action
What does status do? Higher Status standing
Greater respect from others Greater influence
leads to....
More opportunities to speak Ideas/thoughts more positively evaluated Higher perceived competence Higher perceived honesty and integrity Better pay More lenient standards of evaluation
Making it hard to lose status
Status
hierarchies are relative You are "ranked" relative to others around you or in your group
The exact same person could be low
status in one setting (popular kids, wealthy people) but high in another (with nerdy kids, poor people) Likewise, you could have apparently high status characteristics (wealthy, white male) but be low status in a certain group
In one day one person could occupy
many status levels
Think of an example from your life
Steerage, Alfred Stieglitz
Different
cultures and historical periods develop different criteria for status stratification
The Geneaology of Morals (1887)
Romans
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 1900)
vs. Christians
Roman idea of morality and what is
deserving of respect based on might, power, competence, excellence
Virtue = virtuoso
Michael Jordan, Bill Gates, Yo-Yo Ma
Christian conception based on
generosity, honesty, self-sacrifice
Virtue = Principled, ethical, chaste
Research shows that even those unfairly disadvantaged by status beliefs tend to hold them Goldberg 1968
Both men and women rated a text authored
Kenneth and Mamie Clark doll experiments
by a woman lower than if the same text was authored by a man
Black children viewed white dolls as prettier,
preferred playing with them, and colored themselves as lighter than they really were Research cited in Brown vs. the Board of Education (1954)
Part of the impetus for "black is beautiful"
1st and 2nd African-Americans to receive PhDs from Columbia
Kenneth and Mamie Clark
movement of 1970's Replicated recently: See "A Girl Like Me," on youtube
Theory developed in the 1960's at Stanford University (Berger et al.) Asserts that observable characteristics that differentiate group members (e.g., age, gender, & race) are:
Differentially valued in a culture Generate differential competency expectations for
group members And consequently lead to a hierarchical distribution of participation & influence across members of the group
Diffuse
Attributes that are believed to provide an
indirect indication of a member's level of ability on the group's task (e.g. race, gender)
Specific
Attributes that more directly and precisely
indicate someone's level of ability on the group's task (e.g., knowledge of history or cars)
May be relevant or non-relevant to the task
Scope conditions
Groups working on a task Collectively-oriented
Status characteristics that differentiate group members can affect status hierarchies even when they are unrelated to the group's task SCT predicts how diffuse and specific status characteristics combine to create status hierarchies in groups SCT makes very accurate predictions for participation and influence rates between status-differentiated individuals in groups
"Status and performance on mental ability tests" (Lovaglia et al. 1998) Wanted to offer another perspective on "The Bell Curve"
Psychology research that attributed lower test scores by African-Americans to innate biological inferiority
Maybe these effects were driven by status
differences, not innate differences in ability If status differences are made salient, low status individuals should perform worse than high status individuals on tests Researchers identified a characteristic unrelated to status in the study population: handedness (left/right)
In one condition participants were told that left-
handers were better at a logic test that all participants were about to take In the other condition they said this about righthanders Added other stigmas (e.g., a sign saying "harassment of left/right-handers will not be tolerated")
Found a significant testing gap This gap was created purely by the stigmatization of a category previously unrelated to status, and totally unrelated to ability on the test Perhaps this is the process that produces past race test score gap?
Motherhood as a Status Characteristic (Correll, Benard, & Paik 2006)
Researchers wanted to explain "motherhood wage
penalty"
Mothers tend to make less money relative to women without children, fathers
Set up a resume evaluation study
Manipulated whether men/women were parents or not
Found that mothers were assigned lower wages,
likelihood of promotion even if their qualifications were the same But fathers received a boost Mothers were seen as less competent and committed
Motherhood as a Status Characteristic, cont'd
Lab results replicated in an "audit study" Job applications sent out for white collar
jobs in NYC
Mothers got fewer call backs No effect for men of being fathers or not
Does discrimination persist in the job market?
(Devah Pager 2002; 2006)
Many say "no" Especially economists who claim that discrimination would be eliminated by market forces Sociologists point to data that shows women still make less than men, blacks and Latinos less than whites, etc. But many answers to these data exist, including that the wages reflect real differences in credentials So who is right?
Clearly an experiment is needed!
Take 2 job applicants who are identical in credentials, but one is white and the other is black. Will the white applicant be more likely to get the job?
Similar logic to Lovaglia et al. (1998)
Pager has conducted several
"audit" studies
Experimental where studies confederates actually apply for jobs to study discrimination This is her most recent study...
Pager had confederates apply for
real (low wage) jobs in NYC
They reported identical qualifications Applied to exact same employers But varied applicants by ethnicity/race
Study A: White, black, and Latino confederates applied for jobs Looked at rate of positive responses
Being offered job, called back for a second interview
Results: Whites: Latinos: Blacks:
23% positive response rate 19% 13%
Study B: How extreme is the race/ethnicity penalty? Does it compare to the penalty for being a felon? Black, Latino, and white with a past felony confederates applied for jobs Results: White felons: 13% positive response rate Latinos: 14% Blacks: 10%
Examples of employers telling black applicants that they were looking for a different "kind of person"...then hiring an identical white applicant fresh out of prison the same day
Conclusions Several examples of employers channeling black/Latino applicants into lower status jobs and whites into higher status jobs Being black in the low-wage labor market was about as difficult an impediment to employment as being fresh out of prison Latinos faced less discrimination than blacks, but were still disadvantaged relative to whites despite identical qualifications
And did not receive much better job prospects than a white felon
Does
status solve the "collective action problem?" (Willer 2009)
What is the collective action problem? The problem of how it is that groups are able to mobilize individuals to make contributions to the group
Why is it that individuals contribute to collective action rather than just free-riding on others' contributions?
Littering: we'd prefer a world without littering, but everyone is tempted to be selfish and litter Public protest: you might like a protest to be big and successful, but you are tempted to stay home and do something else with your time Charities: you'd like charities, like Katrina relief efforts, to be successful, but you don't wan to spend the money Potluck: we want a successful potluck, but everyone is tempted not to prepare a dish and just eat everyone else's
All are situations where individual and
The problem is, if everyone yields to the temptation to be selfish then collective action fails
The pot-luck sucks, Katrina relief is inadequate,
littering is a big problem, the protest goes unattended Hobbes' "state of nature," where everyone is selfish
So why do people overcome their temptation to be selfish, and opt instead to give to the group?
Perhaps it is to gain status in the group Giving to the group indicates generosity, concern
Study A: I set up a collective action/group task situation
where everyone could contribute resources into a pool that would benefit the whole group, or they could keep their resources and "free ride" on others' contributions
Everyone had an endowment of $5 which they could invest in a pool The pool was doubled and divided equally Everyone would like to keep their endowment, but if everyone does, then there's no pool to be doubled
Results: Those who gave more...
Were seen as higher status Had more influence in a subsequent task Were given more resources in an altruism opportunity Were cooperated with more often
Giving "pays"
Study B: Same study, except after giving ratings
participants were given feedback on how others rated them
Actually false feedback Participants either told that 2 other group members had high or low respect for them
Then several more rounds where participants could
contribute to the public pool Results: When participants got feedback indicating the others respected them, they...
Tended to give even more after that Identified more with the group Saw the group as having greater solidarity and cohesion
A virtuous cycle: giving leads to respect leads to giving
Study B: Same study, except after giving ratings
participants were given feedback on how others rated them
Actually false feedback Participants either told that 2 other group members had high or low respect for them
Then several more rounds where participants could
contribute to the public pool Results: When participants got feedback indicating the others respected them, they...
Tended to give even more after that Identified more with the group Saw the group as having greater solidarity and cohesion
A virtuous cycle: giving leads to respect, which leads
to giving
Individual's Collective Action Contributions
Perceived Group Motivation of Individual
Individual's Collective Action Contributions
Perceived Group Motivation of Individual
Individual's Collective Action Contributions
Individual's Relative Status Standing
Perceived Group Motivation of Individual
Individual's Influence Over Group Members
Individual's Collective Action Contributions
Individual's Relative Status Standing
Cooperation and Gifts From Group Members
Perceived Group Motivation of Individual
Individual's Influence Over Group Members
Individual's Collective Action Contributions
Individual's Relative Status Standing
Cooperation and Gifts From Group Members
Expressions of Respect from Group Members
Perceived Group Motivation of Individual
Individual's Influence Over Group Members
Individual's Collective Action Contributions
Individual's Relative Status Standing
Cooperation and Gifts From Group Members
Actual Group Motivation of Individual
Expressions of Respect from Group Members
Individual's Feelings of Solidarity, Cohesion, and Identification with Group
Perceived Group Motivation of Individual
Individual's Influence Over Group Members
Individual's Collective Action Contributions
Individual's Relative Status Standing
Cooperation and Gifts From Group Members
Actual Group Motivation of Individual
Expressions of Respect from Group Members
Individual's Feelings of Solidarity, Cohesion, and Identification with Group
Perceived Group Motivation of Individual
Individual's Collective Action Contributions
Individual's Relative Status Standing
Actual Group Motivation of Individual
Expressions of Respect from Group Members
How Sartre's Error solves Hobbes' Dilemma The Social Contract
Status hierarchies are relative Status standing based on
meritorious characteristics, but also bases of discrimination Status characteristics are culturally determined Status has many effects on how individuals are perceived and treated
Status leads to discrimination But status earned for generous
behavior are part of the fundamental social fabric, helping us come together in groups So status has good and bad effects we should be mindful of
Careful to judge people as individuals And if someone does a good thing for a group you care about, give them their due credit