Social hierarchies and intergroup discrimination: The case of the intermediate status group

Caricati, Luca; Monacelli, Nadia

doi:10.1348/014466610x489876

Cited by 15 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In terms of self-reported attitudes, most generally we expected a similar pattern of graded preferences that has been reported by prior work in South Africa, with more positivity associated with Whites than Coloureds and Coloureds than Blacks (Shutts et al, 2011). However, we also expected lower-status Black children to shift the basis of their intergroup comparisons, favoring their ingroup even more than Coloured children on dimensions that offered a more straightforward possibility of self-enhancement (Caricati & Monacelli, 2010). We therefore predicted greater ingroup bias with respect to other social categories, including gender, nation, and neighborhood, a possibility we dub "compensatory parochialism.…”

Section: The Current Worksupporting

confidence: 75%

“…This places members of lower-status or stigmatized groups in a bind, because almost by definition most social comparisons will not favor them. However, one strategy that is open to such perceivers is to shift the ground of comparison by focusing on other intergroup contrasts, in particular those in which they are less obviously lacking in status (Caricati & Monacelli, 2010;Hogg, 2000). In the case of our investigation, this could lead members of lower-status racial groups to strategically favor their ingroup on dimensions other than race.…”

Section: Attitudes In Low-and Intermediate-status Childrenmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…There are several reasons why comparisons between members of low-and intermediate-status groups might be important (for more detailed discussion, see Caricati, 2012;Caricati & Monacelli, 2010;Craig, DeHart, Richeson, & Fiedorowicz, 2012). At a broad sociological level, such comparisons speak to an oft-noted…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

From a Different Vantage: Intergroup Attitudes Among Children from Low- and Intermediate-Status Racial Groups

Dunham¹,

Newheiser²,

Hoosain³

et al. 2014

Social Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social groups are often described as hierarchically ordered in terms of social status. Intergroup research has generally focused on the relationship between the highest-status group and a single lower-status group, leaving relationships among nondominant groups relatively unexplored. Focusing on low-status Black and intermediate-status Coloured (multiracial) South African elementary school-children, we examined the attitudes members of these two groups hold toward one another and toward a range of other locally salient groups, as well as their wealth-related stereotypes and preferences. Results indicated that both Coloured and Black children implicitly preferred Coloured over Black, and also strongly associated Coloured (vs. Black) with wealth, suggesting a powerful tendency to internalize the status quo. However, Black children exhibited stronger preferences for other social groups, as well as stronger preferences for wealth in general, possibly as a means of compensating for their devalued status in the domain of race. Implications for theories of intergroup attitudes are discussed.

show abstract

Section: The Current Worksupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Attitudes In Low-and Intermediate-status Childrenmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From a Different Vantage: Intergroup Attitudes Among Children from Low- and Intermediate-Status Racial Groups

Dunham¹,

Newheiser²,

Hoosain³

et al. 2014

Social Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Caricati and Monacelli (2010) analyse this particular kind of group, which has been surprisingly overlooked in intergroup research. In their analysis, they suggest that intermediate‐status group members could shift intergroup comparisons from up to down and vice versa .…”

Section: Intergroup Comparison Of the Intermediate Status Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The aim of this work was to test hypotheses about intergroup comparisons of intermediate status groups, building upon both SIT and Caricati and Monacelli's (2010) work. The main premise is that intermediate‐status group members can use both upward and downward comparisons to satisfy social identity needs.…”

Section: Hypotheses About the Choice Of Group For Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upward and downward comparison in the intermediate‐status group: The role of social stratification stability

Caricati

2011

British J Social Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work analyses intergroup comparison choices made by intermediate-status group members. Seventy-six psychology students were categorized in an intermediate position with respect to other faculties. Stability was manipulated at three levels: stable, upwardly unstable, and downwardly unstable. Data on strength of comparison, comparison for enhancing, comparison for evaluation, and ingroup identification were collected. Results revealed that in the stable condition, participants were equally engaged in both upward and downward comparison. In the upwardly unstable condition, participants were more likely to compare themselves with the high-status group, whereas in the downwardly unstable condition, they were more likely to choose a downward comparison. In this latter condition, both downward comparison for enhancement and in-group identification were lower than in other conditions.

show abstract

Contrasting explanations for status-legitimacy effects based on system justification theory and social identity theory

Caricati

Sollami²

2017

J Theo Soc Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments tested two competing hypotheses about the legitimacy of social systems among disadvantaged groups. The first hypothesis was derived from social identity theory, and assumes that perceived legitimacy is positively linked to group interest. The second hypothesis was drawn from system justification theory and states that perceived legitimacy is negatively linked to group interests. In Studies 1 (79 nursing students) and 2 (49 psychology students) participants believed that their in-group had either intermediate status (i.e., a disadvantaged group who might experience some advantages from the hierarchy) or low status in the hierarchy. They rated the legitimacy of general, national health, and intergroup hierarchy systems. Study 3 considered ingroup threat, and involved 101 nursing students. The results indicate that perceived legitimacy was generally higher in the intermediate-status condition than in the low-status condition. Ingroup threat was higher in the low-status condition, and partially mediated the effect of status on system justification. This paper contributes to knowledge about the mechanisms of legitimization of social hierarchies and social systems and suggests that disadvantaged groups are more likely to justify the social hierarchy if they derive some advantages from it. One way in which disadvantaged groups may derive social advantages from the hierarchy is by performing positive downward social comparisons, for example, an intermediate group comparing itself with a group lower in the hierarchy. It is argued that system justification may be used as an identity management strategy to avoid social identity threat.

show abstract

Social hierarchies and intergroup discrimination: The case of the intermediate status group

Cited by 15 publications

References 30 publications

From a Different Vantage: Intergroup Attitudes Among Children from Low- and Intermediate-Status Racial Groups

From a Different Vantage: Intergroup Attitudes Among Children from Low- and Intermediate-Status Racial Groups

Upward and downward comparison in the intermediate‐status group: The role of social stratification stability

Contrasting explanations for status-legitimacy effects based on system justification theory and social identity theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About