Week 7: Status Quo Flashcards
The status quo
how things are not (the existing social structure)
The status quo is often unequal
Status Threat - Does the high-status group perceive their status to be secure?
Those who have high status (i.e., advantaged, majority, high-power groups) may experience status threat when they perceive that there could be a possible change to the status quo (i.e., they may lose their higher status)
There is physiological evidence of status threat
Those from higher (vs. lower) status experienced higher blood pressure when they thought that their status might change (i.e., they might lose their higher status)
- > higher status groups tend to show a physiological threat response
Status threat can be conceptualised in various ways
- Threat to security and stability of status
- Demographic decline
- Progress towards equality
Relative Deprivation vs. Relative Gratification
Low status/wealth: feel worse off than others
High wealth/status: feel better than others
Does relative deprivation or relative gratification promote more intergroup bias?
Both prosperity and deprivation can be associated with negative outgroup attitudes
Wealth Paradox - Social identity theorising
People are motivated to maintain a positive identity - > want their group to compare favourably to others
Thus, higher-status groups will aim to maintain and protect their high-status
Social identity theorising argues that socio-structural context shapes intergroup relations. Are the status relations secure or insecure? Can people move from on group to another
Q.1. legitimacy of group differences - the relative differences between groups are fair
Stability of the social structure - the relative differences between groups are stable
Q.2. Permeability of group boundaries - the possibility of movement between groups
The wealthy are likely to experience status threat when…
There is high permeability of grou boundaries - less wealth may ‘encroach upwards’ and we may ‘fall down’
Groups status is unstable - wealthy position can change at any moment
Groups position is legitimate - sense of entitlement to justify exclusion
Permeability problem
Concerned with upward mobility
Fear of downward mobility
Instability - Wealth Paradox
The instaibility of the economic system can affect the wealthy
During times of economic instability (vs. stability), the wealth were more concerned about their future
Wealthy group was most sensitive to stability of the economy
‘Fear of Falling’ amongst the wealthy
Status threat -> Collective Angst -> Opposition to Immigration, but also Status Threat -> Opposition to Immigration
> Loss of future wealth
Instability of income
Income of the poor increases relative to the constant (high) income of the wealthy
Demographic Decline
The size of a minority group can evoke an experience of threat for the majority group
How does the majority groups react to majority-minority racial demographic shifts?
-> is it viewed as a threat to their group’s status?
Demographic Decline - Feelings threatened about the future
White minority + perceived threat = outgroup anger ; white minority = out group anger
White minority + perceived threat = outgroup fear; white minority = outgroup fear
White minority + perceived threat = ingroup sympathy; white minority = ingroup sympathy
Found effects on explicit and implicit racial attitudes, as well as attitudes toward various racial minority groups
Progress towards equality
the progress towards equality between groups can be experienced as a threat towards the social hierarchy
This progress can be seen as a form of discrimination against the high-status, high-power, majority group
Status-legitimizing beliefs
Set of beliefs that rationalises and justifies social inequality
Asserts that anyone can improve their social status if they are hard-working and motivated enough
For high-status grous, these beliefs are compatible with system justification and social dominance
System-legitimizing beliefs -examples
America is a just society where differences in status between racial/ethnic groups reflect actual group differences
American is an open society where individuals of any ethnicity/race can achieve higher status
If people work hard they almost always get what they want
Backlash to progressive movements
Increase in women’s voice (i.e., being heard and taken seriously about sexual assault) contributes to perceptions of bias against men - especially amongst conservatives (right-learning)
Perceptions of men’s victimhood led to less willingness to work with women and more reluctance to fight against sexual misconduct - especially those who are highly conservative
Zero-Sum Thinking
The gains or progress for one group is seen as the loss for another group
Driven by:
-> perceived lack of valued resources available (resources stress)
-> a potentially competitive outgroup (perceived group competition)
Zero Sum Thinking - Bias experiment
For white respondents, bias against white people and bias against black people were negatively correlated for each decade
Thus, participants linked lower levels of anti-black bias with higher levels of anti-white bias
moreover,
reported experiences of discrimination show that instances of anti-black bias does not coincide with increase in anti-white bias
How is LGBT progress perceived by Christians?
Cisgender heterosexual Christians tend to view LGBT+ individuals as being a zero-sum relationship with Christians
Zero-sum beliefs associated with more prejudice towards LGBT+ individuals and lower support for same sex marriage
Summary - Christians vs. LGBT
Christians perceive decreasing discrimination against LGBT individuals as corresponding to increasing discrimination against Christians
LGBT and non-Christians viewed decreases in LGBT discrimination, and slight increase in Christian discrimination
-> but, they always viewed LGBT individuals as experiencing more bias than Christians
Perceiving social demographic and cultural shifts away from Christianity leads to greater perceived threat and subsequently, greater endorsement of zero sum beliefs - examples
Culture change - “some scholars have concluded that the moral compass of the US is no longer guided by Christian values”
Symbolic Threat - “I am worried that people in America do not respect Christian values”
Realistic Values - “I am concerned that Christian businesses will be boycotted for trying to be true to their values”
Zero Sum Beliefs: “ When LGBT individuals get rights they are taking rights away from Christians”
Zero Sum Thinking
On average, endorsement of zero-sum beliefs tend to be low
Zero-sum beliefs shape perceived bias against men and women over time
High zero-sum beliefs -> perceive men and women to have comparable levels of discrimination in recent decades
