Racial stratification is well documented in many spheres of social life. Much stratification research assumes that implicit or explicit bias on the part of institutional gatekeepers produces disparate racial outcomes. Research on status-based expectations provides a good starting point for theoretically understanding racial inequalities. In this context it is understood that race results in differential expectations for performance, producing disparate outcomes. But even here, the mechanism (i.e., status-based expectations) is often assumed due to the lack of tools to measure status-based expectations. In this article, we put forth a new way to measure implicit racial status beliefs and theorize how they are related to consensual beliefs about what “most people” think. This enables us to assess the mechanisms in the relationship between race and disparate outcomes. We conducted two studies to assess our arguments. Study 1 demonstrates the measurement properties of the implicit status measure. Study 2 shows how implicit status beliefs and perceptions of what “most people” think combine to shape social influence. We conclude with the implications of this work for social psychological research, and for racial stratification more generally.

Racially minoritized students in the United States constitute 30% of the U.S. population, but students from these populations represent a smaller proportion of those who earn science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate degrees. This disproportionality contributes to race/ethnic income, status, and power inequalities linked to STEM careers. Using a combination of vote counting and narrative approaches, the authors synthesize 50 recent articles about the factors related to college students’ STEM participation. Consistent with cumulative disadvantage and critical race theories, findings reveal that the disproportionality of racially minoritized students in STEM is related to their inferior secondary school preparation; the presence of racialized lower quality educational contexts; reduced levels of psychosocial factors associated with STEM success; less exposure to inclusive and appealing curricula and instruction; lower levels of family social, cultural, and financial capital that foster academic outcomes; and fewer prospects for supplemental STEM learning opportunities. Policy implications of findings are discussed.

Status distinctions have important consequences for most aspects of life, including inequalities in wealth, segregation, and interaction patterns in small groups. Much work documents such inequalities, but the mechanisms producing them are less understood. In our 2019 ASR article, “Status Characteristics, Implicit Bias, and the Production of Racial Inequality,” we showed that a novel measure of implicit status beliefs explained some of the effect of race on social influence. The measure is based on an implicit association test (IAT) assessing the association between status and racial categories. In their comment, Bursell and Olsson (2020) assert that the IAT may be capturing evaluative bias, not status beliefs. Furthermore, Bursell and Olsson suggest our measure may work better for white compared to black participants. In this response, we review work in the sociology of culture and social psychology establishing the multidimensionality of cultural beliefs, and we present results from a new experiment, showing status and evaluations load on distinct underlying constructs. Results also show no racial differences in these measurement properties. We conclude with a discussion of ways to further refine the racial status IAT and the broader implications of this exchange.

No abstract

Existing theories explain how the states of nominal characteristics acquire status value and the implications of status characteristics for the distribution of rewards, honor, and esteem in groups. It is less clear how characteristics lose status value. In this article, we combine the logic of status construction theory with loss aversion from decision theory to develop novel predictions about status loss. We predict that removing the mechanism of status construction theory will result in fading consensual status beliefs and that this will occur faster for low status actors. This results in a period of conflicting or asymmetric status beliefs between groups. Results from a six-condition controlled experiment support key predictions of consensual status loss, with low status actors viewing a gain in their status faster than high status actors view a loss to theirs. We discuss ways to extend and refine the work and the implications of our theory for racial and gender status-based inequalities.