Taking the High Ground: The Impact of Social Status on the Derogation of Ideological Opponents

Abstract

People tend to derogate their ideological opponents. But how does social status affect this tendency? We tested a prediction derived from hierometer theory that people with higher status would derogate ideological opponents less (i.e., evaluate them more charitably). We further predicted that greater rhetoric handling prowess (RHP: feeling more confident and less intimidated while arguing) would mediate the effect. Study 1 established a link between higher status and lesser opponent derogation correlationally. Study 2 did so experimentally.Using a scale to assess RHP developed and validated in Study 3, Study 4 established that RHP statistically mediated the correlational link between status and derogation. In Study 5, experimentally manipulating status affected RHP as predicted. However, in Study 6, experimentally manipulating RHP did not affect opponent derogation as predicted. Thus, our findings were substantially, but not entirely, consistent with our theoretically-derived predictions. Implications for hierometer theory, and related theoretical approaches, are of whom had donated at least $200 towards their preferred congressional candidate. These partisans expressed far warmer sentiments towards ideological allies than towards ideological opponents. Specifically, along a 0-to-100 feeling thermometer, the average ratings were 71 versus 24 for Democrats, and 79 versus 14 for Republicans. More generally, research conducted under the rubric of the similarity-produces-liking hypothesis confirms that attitudinal agreement fosters interpersonal amity. There remains some dispute over whether an overlap in attitudes prompts more favorable evaluations, conducive to interpersonal attraction (Byrne, Clore, & Smeaton, 1986), or whether discrepancies between attitudes prompt less favorable evaluations, conducive to interpersonal repulsion (Rosenbaum, 1986).Recently, Garcia, Bergsieker, and Shelton (2015) provided an illustration of how attitudinal discrepancies affected interpersonal liking both among long-established friends and recently acquainted strangers, and in ways that reflects intergroup dynamics. In a racially mixed US sample, they found that Black participants-for whom racial issues loom larger, and whose social standing is more precarious-were especially prone to dislike other Black participants if their attitudes on race diverged.Considerations concerning the structure of society lead us to the specific question we address in this article: How does social status affect opponent derogation? Does having SOCIAL STATUS AND IDEOLOGICAL OPPONENTS 4 higher status lead one to derogate those with whom one disagrees more or less? At first blush, higher status might seem to prompt greater derogation. Society, after all, is hierarchically stratified: People occupy a particular social rank, either enviably higher or regrettably lower (Fiske, 2010). Moreover, this stratification has often been interpreted as reflective of systemic dominance and oppression (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). If so, then people of higher sta...

Taming the Lion: How Perceived Worth Buffers the Detrimental Influence of Power on Aggression and Conflict

“…That is, higher status was associated with, or led people to, a reduction in opponent derogation. The Gregg et al (2018) results dovetail with the current findings, indicating that higher status, reflecting social worth, can curtail the tendency to behave aggressively toward potentially threatening others (see also Henry, 2009 ).…”

“…The current work adds to a small body of evidence highlighting the benefits of perceived worth in interpersonal and inter-group relations. For example, Gregg et al (2018) found that, although in general people derogate (i.e., evaluate as less intelligent and moral) their ideological opponents, higher status—measured or manipulated—moderated this effect. That is, higher status was associated with, or led people to, a reduction in opponent derogation.…”

When Low Power Meets Status: Powerlessness Triggers Behavioral Inhibition Only Under Low Status

“…Since powerless individuals are often evaluated (Fiske, 1993;French & Raven, 1959;Galinsky et al, 2003), they are easily affected by status conferral. Low status conferral threatens the need to be socially valued (Anderson et al, 2015;Gregg et al, 2018). Powerlessness associated with low status-in particular with being incompetent-is a double challenge, thwarting an individual's natural resources for coping with adversity.…”

“…These examples show that the outcomes of people in ordinary powerless positions depend on whether they meet desired standards and expectations regarding their competence and value. Yet little is known about the interactive effects of low power and people's competence, prestige, and reputation (e.g., their status; Anderson, Hildreth, & Howland, 2015;Gregg, Mahadevan, & Sedikides, 2018;Ridgeway & Erickson, 2000). This article investigates the joint effects of powerlessness and status on people's emotions, motivation, and action orientation.…”

When imitating successful others fails: Accidentally successful exemplars inspire risky decisions and can hamper performance

“…For example, Bodenhausen, Schwarz, Bless, and Wänke (1995) found that well-liked, successful, and affluent African American exemplars heightened awareness of discrimination against African Americans. Likewise, priming admired (versus disliked) exemplars led to more positive (vs. negative) implicit attitudes towards particular age, racial, and ideological groups (Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001;Gregg, Mahadevan, & Sedikides, 2018). Essentially, exemplars have the power to change people's attitudes towards the group they belong to, even if the exemplar is rather atypical (Bless, Schwarz, Bodenhausen, & Thiel, 2001).…”