Ethnic Identity, Legitimizing Ideologies, and Social Status: A Matter of Ideological Asymmetry

Abstract

This paper examines the ideological asymmetry hypothesis with respect to the interface between legitimizing ideologies and psychological attachment to one's ethnic group. The ideological asymmetry hypothesis suggests that hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing ideologies should be positively associated with ingroup attachment among high-status groups, but that among low-status groups these associations should be either less positive in magnitude (isotropic asymmetry) relative to high-status groups or negative in direction (anisotropic asymmetry). The opposite pattern should be found with respect to the interface between hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing ideologies and ingroup attachment: Among high-status groups these associations should be negative, but among low-status groups these associations should be either less negative in magnitude (isotropic asymmetry) relative to high-status groups or positive in direction (anisotropic asymmetry). The presence of isotropic versus anisotropic asymmetry is hypothesized to depend on the degree of disparity in status between the groups being compared: Wider status gaps should tend toward anisotropic asymmetries. The relationships between legitimizing ideologies and ingroup attachment were compared for (1) relatively high-status ethnic groups (European and Asian Americans) versus relatively low-status ethnic groups (Latinos and African Americans) in the United States, (2) the higher-status Jewish ethnic group (Ashkenazim) versus the lower-status Jewish ethnic group (Mizrachim) in Israel, and (3) the high-status Israeli Jews versus the low-status IsraeliArabs. The data were largely consistent with the ideological asymmetry hypothesis. The implications of these findings are discussed within the theoretical frameworks of social dominance theory and other approaches to intergroup relations.

A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo

“…Consistent with this formulation, Levin et al (1998) reported that conservatism was associated with significant levels of ingroup favoritism among European and Asian American respondents and with significant levels of outgroup favoritism among Latinos and African Americans. Similarly, Jost and Thompson (2000, study 4) administered measures of political ideology and intergroup bias; conservatism was indeed associated with increased ingroup favoritism among European Americans (d = 0.30, n = 342) and increased outgroup favoritism among African Americans (d = -0.43, n = 105).…”

“…Although Hornsey, Spears, Cremers, and Hogg (2003) have found support for the maineffect hypothesis, several other studies have obtained the crossover interaction pattern and no main effect (see Jost, 2001;Jost & Burgess, 2000;Levin, Sidanius, Rabinowitz, & Federico, 1998;Major et al, 2002). A conceptually related hypothesis is that system justification tendencies in general should moderate the expression of ingroup and outgroup favoritism:…”

Who Is to Blame?

“…Relationship between identification and deprivation 21 Verkuyten, 2003) would suggest that perceived discrimination and identification are negatively related: Levin, Sidanius, Rabinowitz and Federico (1998) found that identification and legitimising ideologies are negatively related for minority members;…”

Dealing With Cultural Diversity

“…For the former, it presents the possibility for maintaining their own culture and a greater likelihood of parity in terms of social equality. For the latter, cultural diversity and minority rights are often seen as threats to the dominant position and higher social status (e.g., Levin et al, 1998;Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002). This difference in attitude toward diversity can lead to problematic relational outcomes (Bourhis et al, 1997;Zagefka & Brown, 2002).…”