Fluent Essays

I need help with the Soc class Question Question 1 (Fill-in-the-blank) [BLANK] focuses on how status beliefs influence people’s attitudes, perceptions, and behavior. Question 2 (Fill-in-the-blank) Despite playing no role in the work of a group, [BLANK] encourage people to believe that someone will be superior to others even when considering specific skills and abilities relevant to the task. Question 3 (One Answer) There are two types of status characteristics that are described by Status Characteristics Theory, which of the following are examples of each type of status characteristic: 1. Race and gender 2. Educational attainment and class 3. Public speaking ability and gender 4. Public speaking ability and athletic ability Question 4 (One Answer) Interactional hierarchies induce beliefs about the worthiness and competence of: 1. Group performance 2. Individual performance 3. Categories of actors 4. People from different backgrounds Question 5 (Multiple Answers) According to Kalkhoff and Barnum (2000), despite the highly dynamic aspect of a person’s social identity that means they are simultaneously members of several different groups, self-categorization theorists argue that: 1. Every group a person belongs to influences their behavior 2. People are influenced by only a limited number of groups at once 3. People are influenced by their primary group 4. A self-categorization is accessible if an individual is motivated or prepared to think in terms of the category Question 6 (Type your answer) Drawing from Kalkhoff and Barnum’s (2000) interpretation of status and social identity theories, why might individuals regard in-group responses as more accurate, more appropriate, or more desirable than out-group responses? Your Answer: 1 Paragraph Question 7 (Type your answer) According to Kalkhoff and Barnum (2000), what is the distinction between group membership and a status characteristic? Your Answer: 1 Paragraph Question 8 [BONUS 10 points] Researchers in this area suggest that applying expectation states theory to social change would involve the disruption of the formation of status beliefs, thereby reducing the formation of status distinctions that drive inequality. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not? From an expectation states theory perspective, what would be the most effective way to disrupt the formation of status beliefs? What do you think the results would be for (a) macro-level patterns of inequality and (b) micro-level interactions? Your Answer: 1 Paragraph Social Psychology Quarterly 2000, Vol. 63, No. 2, 95-115 The Effects of Status-Organizing and Social Identity Processes on Patterns of Social Influence* WILL KALKHOFF CHRISTOPHER BARNUM The University of Iowa Two theories of social influence, status characteristics theory (SCT) and social identity theory (SIT), have achieved an uncommon degree of theoretical cumulation. SCT focuses on the influence of status-differentiated actors in goal-oriented settings, while SIT addresses the influence of in-group versus out-group members in intergroup con- texts. We explore the joint effect of status and social identity. Using a modification of SCTs standardized experimental setting, we found that status-organizing and social identity processes operated concurrently: group membership combined with a diffuse status characteristic in a manner consistent with the aggregation assumption of SCT The study has implications for the theoretical integration of SCT with SIT The avenue we suggest would describe how status-organizing and social identity processes are interrelated through their interactive effect on the legitimation of informal power and prestige orders. Social influence has interested social psychologists for many years. From the clas- sic studies of conformity and obedience to explorations of persuasion, status, and in- group bias, researchers employing the con- cept of social influence have provided us with fascinating, non-obvious findings on how human actors lead one another to mod- ify their actions and beliefs. Two theories involving social influence have achieved an uncommon degree of the- oretical cumulation. These are status charac- teristics theory (e.g., Berger, Cohen, and Zelditch 1972; Berger et al. 1977) and social identity theory (e.g., Hogg and Abrams 1988; *Authors contributed equally. We gratefully acknowledge the support for this project received from the Center for the Study of Group Processes at the University of Iowa. We also sincerely appreciate the helpful feedback we received from participants in the Group Processes sessions of the American Sociological Association (August 1997, 1998). Also, Lisa Troyer, Michael Lovaglia, Barry Markovsky, Martha Foschi, Joseph Berger, and Kristen Marcussen offered especially helpful suggestions on earlier versions of this paper. Not least, we wish to thank Lynn Smith-Lovin and the anonymous SPQ reviewers who provided excellent suggestions and commentary. Address correspondence to Will Kalkhoff, Department of Sociology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242; E-mail: william- [email protected] Tajfel and Turner 1979; Turner 1982, 1985; Turner et al. 1987). Although they emerged from two different camps of social psycholo- gy, status characteristics theory (hereafter SCT) and social identity theory (hereafter SIT) have generated especially well-devel- oped programs of research. By examining influence processes as described by SCT and SIT and by exploring the extent to which they operate concurrently, we may shed new light on influence processes. At the core of such a consideration is the fact that SCT and SIT specify different operating principles of social influence. According to SCT, influence follows from actors expectations that certain members of a task collectivity will be more competent at a task. Specifically, influence occurs when less competent (lower-status) task members defer to the recommendations made by more competent (higher-status) task mem- bers. By contrast, social identity theorists argue that influence follows from uncertain- ty that results when a disagreement arises between self and others categorized as simi- lar to self (i.e., in-group members). Because people believe that the opinions of in-group members are likely to match those which they themselves would express, uncertainty is reduced when in-group members achieve agreement. Thus, to reduce uncertainty, a 95 This content downloaded from �������������139.78.24.113 on Sat, 04 Jul 2020 15:51:50 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 96 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY person will view in-group members respons- es as more accurate than those of out-group members (Hogg and Turner 1987; Turner 1991;Turner and Oakes 1986, 1989). Because SCT and SIT specify distinct processes of social influence, an immediate question for research is whether status-orga- nizing and social identity processes operate concurrently to produce social influence. To assess this problem, one must examine the separate effects of the two processes in a common setting. To investigate the interplay between status-organizing and social identi- ty processes, we conducted a laboratory experiment guided by the following ques- tions: (1) If status-organizing and social identity processes influence behavior sepa- rately in a common setting, then is the strength of their effects comparable? (2) Do status-organizing and social identity process- es operate concurrently in a setting? (3) If status-organizing and social identity process- es operate concurrently in a setting, then how do they concurrently affect patterns of influence? The answers to these questions may set the stage for the more rigorous task of formally integrating SCT with SIT. We begin with an overview of SCT and SIT, and then describe the details of the experimental method used to investigate our questions. After presenting the results of the study, we conclude by suggesting some of the studys implications for future research. STATUS CHARACTERISTICS THEORY SCT is a branch of expectation states research that was developed to explain par- ticipation inequalities in task- and collective- ly oriented settings where actors are initially distinguishable as to culturally eval- uated attributes (Berger, Rosenholtz, and Zelditch 1980). Such attributes are known as status characteristics. Two types of status characteristics exist: specific and diffuse. 1 Task orientation occurs when individuals are motivated to solve a problem that they perceive has correct and incorrect outcomes. Collective orienta- tion occurs when individuals consider it necessary and legitimate to consider each others suggestions in attempting to solve a task problem (Berger et al. 1972). Task and collective orientation define the scope, or domain of applicability, of SCT. Although actors use both of these to infer one anothers ability at a task, specific status characteristics entail a more explicit, more bounded range of competencies. Mathematical ability or physical strength are examples of specific status characteristics. By comparison, diffuse status character- istics also are associated culturally with some specific skills, but (more important) they carry general expectations for compe- tence that are unlimited in range. Men in the United States, for example, are expected according to cultural stereotypes to be bet- ter than women at fixing cars and worse at nurturing, but they are also expected to be generally more able than women at almost any task. Therefore, sex functions as a dif- fuse status characteristic. SCT specifies five logically connected assumptions that link status characteristics with interaction patterns in task settings.2 First, the theory assumes that a status char- acteristic must be salient in order to serve as a basis by which actors in a task setting form expectations of competence. If a status characteristic differentiates members of a task setting or is perceived as relevant to the task, it will be salient. For example, sex in a task group composed of males and females differentiates members, while mechanical ability is relevant to a group attempting to fix a broken-down automobile. Second, if a status characteristic is salient and has not been explicitly disasso- ciated from a task, actors in the setting will form expectations of competence for one another that are consistent with the states of the characteristic. Disassociation is any con- vincing act or claim that breaks the link between the task and the status characteris- tic. If sex is the discriminating status charac- teristic in a setting, then men in the setting will be expected to have more task ability than women in the setting as long as the actors do not encounter strong evidence indicating the irrelevancy of sex for the spe- cific task at hand. More formally, status characteristics the- orists use graph-theoretic techniques to model the link between actors, status charac- 2 For a more complete discussion of the assump- tions of SCT, see Berger et al. (1980). This content downloaded from �������������139.78.24.113 on Sat, 04 Jul 2020 15:51:50 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms STATUS AND SOCIAL IDENTITY 97 teristics, expectations, and task outcomes.3 Using this modeling technique, SCT posits that stronger expectation states are pro- duced by status characteristics that are linked more directly to a task. Because spe- cific status characteristics relevant to a task are linked more directly to task outcomes, they produce stronger expectation states than diffuse status characteristics. For exam- ple, if several actors are attempting to solve an arithmetic problem, information that dif- ferentiates them in terms of mathematical ability (a specific status characteristic) would produce stronger expectation states and hence stronger influence effects than would information differentiating their level of education (a diffuse status characteristic). The third assumption of SCT describes what occurs when actors exit or enter an ongoing task engagement. It is assumed that performance expectations produced from status information in one encounter are pre- served, even when particular actors change. For example, if a man interacts with a woman in one task encounter (and if sex is the only salient status characteristic), the man will form higher performance expecta- tions for himself. However, if the woman leaves the task setting and is replaced by a new male interactant, the first man will retain somewhat higher performance expec- tations for himself as a result of his interac- tion with the (lower-status) woman (Webster 1996). The fourth assumption of SCT describes how actors form expectations of competence in situations where multiple status character- istics are salient. It is assumed that actors combine status information by way of a prin- ciple of organized subsets. According to this principle, individuals first combine into cognitive subsets all positively evaluated sta- tus information and all negatively evaluated status information for each actor separately, including self. Specifically, each additional piece of similarly evaluated status informa- tion that enters a given subset has less weight than if it had entered alone (the attenuation principle). Next, the principle of organized subsets specifies that actors com- 3 For a presentation of the graph-theoretic formu- lation of SCT, see Berger et al. (1977). bine the subsets to produce aggregated expectations, a single quantity for each member of the collectivity. Because status characteristics are culturally shared evalua- tions of attributes, it is further assumed that each actor arrives at the same set of aggre- gated expectations for all members of the collectivity. The final assumption of SCT is that once actors have formed aggregated expectations for self and other, an actors power and prestige position in the collectivity will be a direct function of his or her expectation advantage over others in the collectivity. An actors expectation advantage is that actors aggregated expectations minus the aggregat- ed expectations for each other actor (i.e., separately). The greater an actors expecta- tion advantage over others, the higher the actors rank in the collectivitys power and prestige order. A key indicator of an actors position in a power and prestige order is the degree to which that actor secures agree- ment from others over contested issues (i.e., an actors level of influence over the collec- tivitys decisions). A principle derivation of SCT is as follows: In task settings, higher- status actors will exert more influence than lower-status actors over decisions made by the task collectivity. SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY In contrast to SCTs focus on individu- als status characteristics as determinants of participation behavior in task settings, the goal of SIT is to understand the effect of category membership on peoples percep- tions and behavior. The theory stems from two classic experiments conducted by Tajfel (1959) and Tajfel and Wilkes (1963). The purpose of these experiments was to investi- gate whether peoples perceptions of physi- cal objects are altered by categorization, the explicit classification of objects into groups. Subjects in these experiments were required to judge the similarity of several physical objects. In one experimental condition, the objects were divided into two sets and were presented as separate groups. In a second condition, the same objects were divided into sets but were not explicitly categorized. Tajfel discovered that when the sets were This content downloaded from �������������139.78.24.113 on Sat, 04 Jul 2020 15:51:50 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 98 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY categorized, peoples perceptions of the objects were distorted. They tended to per- ceive greater similarity within the sets and less similarity between sets. Tajfel proposed that this accentuation effect occurred because people relied on a peripheral dimension (the category labels) as an aid in judging the focal dimension (the objects). Categorization, then, is a cognitive function that individuals use to organize a complex environmental state. Soon after these early experiments, Tajfel and his colleagues (Doise 1978; Doise, Deschamps, and Meyer 1978; Tajfel 1969, 1978, 1981; Tajfel, Sheikh, and Gardner 1964; Turner 1975,1978a, 1978b) used the accentu- ation effect to explain perceptions of social phenomena. The categorization of individu- als generates the accentuation effect: people perceive increased similarity within groups and decreased similarity between groups. Categorization essentially generates stereo- typical perceptions. These stereotypes are both descriptive and prescriptive: they define the groups designating characteris- tics as well as its normative behaviors. According to SIT, categorization is guid- ed by self-enhancement motives (Hogg, Terry, and White 1995; Tajfel 1981). People strive to achieve a positive view of self. Therefore, because group memberships pro- vide people with meaningful self-definitions, an evaluator who is comparing groups will strive to achieve a positive definition of his or her own group in relation to other rele- vant groups. For example, members of a col- lege basketball team who know that their team is relatively poor at making free throws, but relatively strong at making out- side shots, will tend to make comparisons with opposing teams in terms of outside shooting. Social identity theorists, however, emphasize that intergroup comparisons are embedded in a structure of power and status relations. The process of social comparison provides individuals with information about their place in this structure. In a social con- text, an in-group that possesses comparative- ly low status provides an individual with a negative social identity; an in-group with comparatively high status provides an indi- vidual with a positive social identity (Tajfel 1974; Tajfel and Turner 1979). Because peo- ple desire positive social identity, members of low-status groups are motivated either to leave their group or to achieve a positive reevaluation of the group (Tajfel 1974,1978; Tajfel and Thrner 1979). If the structure of the existing system is permeable-that is, if it allows an individual to pass freely from a lower-status to a higher-status group-indi- viduals in a lower-status group are likely to engage in social mobility (Tajfel and Turner 1979). If the structure is nonpermeable, indi- viduals in a lower-status group can only attempt to produce social change. The type of social change that emerges depends on whether the system possesses secure or insecure status (Tajfel 1978; Tajfel and Turner 1979). If the structure is secure (i.e., legitimate and stable), group members cannot conceive of alternatives to the sys- tem. Hence they are likely to use social cre- ativity (e.g., changing comparison groups or changing the dimension of evaluation) to enhance in-group status. If the structure has insecure status, group members are able to envision alternatives to the existing order and are likely to engage in social competi- tion (e.g., by attempting to change the social structure). To manage the natural complexity of categorization, much SIT research has employed a minimal group experimental design (Billig 1973; Billig and Tajfel 1973; Turner 1978a). This design utilizes subjects who are of the same age, sex, and race so that only the categories manipulated by the experimenter become the basis for inter- group discrimination. Typically, subjects are putatively separated into groups on the basis of some trivial criterion such as the flip of a coin or stated preferences for a painting. (The actual method of assignment is ran- dom.) Subjects then are assigned code num- bers that correspond to their group membership and are asked to distribute points to others in the experiment, two per- sons at a time. Those who receive points are anonymous to the distributor except for their group memberships. Subjects use spe- cial allocation matrices to distribute points (Hogg 1987; Tajfel and Billig 1974; Tajfel et al. 1971). The matrices determine whether subjects give points to two in-group mem- This content downloaded from �������������139.78.24.113 on Sat, 04 Jul 2020 15:51:50 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms STATUS AND SOCIAL IDENTITY 99 bers, two out-group members, or an in-group member and an out-group member. Subjects choose one of several distribution strategies; these include giving both the in-group and the out-group member numerous points, giv- ing each only a few points, or giving either the in-group member or the out-group mem- ber most of the points. Results of experiments employing the minimal group paradigm have consistently found that subjects exhibit behavior advan- tageous to in-group members (Billig and Tajfel 1973; Brown and Turner 1981; Hogg and Abrams 1988; St. Claire and Turner 1982; Turner 1978a, 1978b). Turner (1975) argues that behavior in minimal groups is an almost automatic result of social competi- tion. That is, subjects are more concerned with relative group standing than with the acquisition of resources.4 Self-Categorization Theory and Social Influence Generally considered an extension of SIT, Turners self-categorization theory (Turner 1985, 1991; Turner et al. 1987; Turner 1991) elaborates the process of categoriza- tion (Hogg et al. 1995). Turner (1985) argues that the self is a set of cognitive representa- tions. Furthermore, these representations exist on a continuum of abstraction ranging from personal identifications through social identifications to superordinate identifications (Brown and Turner 1981; Turner 1985, 1991). Personal identifications are instances of behavior that are not influ- enced by group behavior; they are idiosyn- cratic. Social identifications are instances of social behavior that are determined by group membership. Superordinate identifi- cations are the most abstract, existing at a 4 Sherif et al. (1961) argued that group members personality characteristics are not necessary for the development of intergroup hostilities. Instead the authors believed that competition between groups for scarce resources is sufficient to generate such hostility. Turner (1975) calls this type of competition realistic competition. He argues, however, that realistic competition is not a necessary condition for intergroup hostility. Such hostilities can emerge from social competition (which occurs if two or more group identities are salient) even if no realistic com- petition exists. global level; that is, they tend to exist at a level beyond group comparisons, such as the level of humanity. All social behavior resides on this theoretical continuum. Most behav- ior is located near the middle, where both personal and group influences are active (Tajfel 1978). Thrner focuses mostly on the impact of group behavior or social identifi- cations. According to Turner, a person deter- mines whether a collection of people is a group by comparing them to a prototype (Turner 1985; Thrner et al. 1987). A proto- type is a cognitive depiction of a groups defining characteristics. It can be regarded as comprising the levels of characteristics that an ideal-typical member of the group would possess. Prototypes are learned or are con- structed from information in the immediate situation. An evaluator will perceive a col- lection of people as a group insofar as they are similar to the prototype. The evaluator also determines whether an individual is a member of the group by assessing his or her similarity to the prototype. Because of the highly dynamic aspect of a persons social identity, people in most social contexts are simultaneously members of several different groups. Self-categoriza- tion theorists, however, argue that only a limited number of groups influence a per- sons behavior at any time. Salient groups tend to be those which are most accessible to the individual and those which best fit perceptual input (Hogg and McGarty 1990; Oakes, Haslam, and Turner 1994; Turner 1985; Thrner et al. 1987). A self-categoriza- tion is accessible if an individual is motivat- ed or prepared to think in terms of the category. A self-categorization fits the stimulus data insofar as (1) the categorization, given a set of relevant dimensions for comparison, minimizes intracategory differences and maximizes intercategory differences along the dimensions (comparative fit); and (2) the stereotypical content of the categorization is congruent with the behavior of the interac- tants in the setting (normative fit). For example, the categorization youth/adult is likely to become salient in a setting where the interactants tend to think of the world in terms of these categories (accessibility); This content downloaded from �������������139.78.24.113 on Sat, 04 Jul 2020 15:51:50 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 100 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY where the attitudes expressed by youths and adults in the setting (a relevant dimension for comparison) can be organized by the cat- egorization such that there are greater dif- ferences between the groups and smaller differences within the groups along this dimension (comparative fit); and where the youths are behaving defiantly toward the adults who are behaving authoritatively (normative fit). The salience of group membership (as determined by accessibility and fit) gener- ates an accentuation effect. An important result of this perceptual bias is depersonal- ization. When depersonalization occurs, individuals shift to thinking of themselves in terms of the stereotypical attributes that define their social identity, and tend less to think of themselves as unique individuals. Depersonalization is the basis of all group phenomena including ethnocentrism, cohe- sion, cooperation, and influence. To explain influence in particular, self- categorization theorists invoke several addi- tional assumptions (see Hogg and Turner 1987; Turner 1991; Turner and Oakes 1986, 1989). On the basis of Festingers (1954) social comparison theory, it is assumed that people rely on agreement with similar others to determine what is true about reality. Individuals perceiving disagreement between their own opinion and that of simi- lar others experience uncertainty. The uncer- tainty produced by in-group disagreement governs a process of mutual influence among group members (in essence, the reduction of uncertainty). Because a person believes that the, opinions of in-group mem- bers are likely to match those which he or she would give, uncertainty is reduced when in-group members achieve agreement. Thus one can deduce from self-categorization the- ory that individuals will regard in-group responses as more accurate, more appropri- ate, or more desirable than out-group responses (Hogg and Turner 1987; Turner 1991; Turner and Oakes 1986, 1989). Evidence from a series of studies (Hogg and Turner 1987) supports this prediction from self-categorization theory. Since its inception, SIT has increased our understanding of group processes. The theory explains a wide range of phenomena, and many of its hypotheses have enjoyed considerable empirical success. At times, however, the discursive presentation of the theory has made its domain of applicability difficult to determine. Barnum (1997) pro- vides a useful articulation of the theorys scope conditions. According to Barnum, SIT applies to contexts where a person is evalu- ating two or more others, where one of the others is in the same group as the evaluator, and where group membership serves as a basis for discriminating actors. We refer to such contexts as evaluative contexts. STATUS AND SOCIAL IDENTITY Both status-organizing and social identi- ty processes generate social influence. No existing research, however, systematically addresses the interplay of the two processes. One likely reason for the lack of research comparing SCT with SIT is the academic divide between U.S. and European social psychology. Another likely reason is the fact that these theories describe (as we have shown) different processes of social influ- ence. At the micro level, the account of social influence offered by SCT is patently individualistic (Turner and Oakes 1986). An individual is influential insofar as she or he possesses (or is presumed to possess) valid information. In short, influence repre- sents a change in individuals produced by [presumably more competent] individuals (Kiesler and Kiesler 1969:26). In contrast, SIT locates influence in the transitory expe- rience of self as group member via deper- sonalization. Yet, although it may not be advisable to attempt an integration of these very different theories (Hogg et al. 1995), a comparison is warranted because SCT and SIT overlap in their domain of explanation (social influence). At this point it would be premature to conclude that the theories have nothing to contribute to one another, nor to a new theory of social influence that combines elements of both. One immediate question for research is whether status-orga- nizing and social identity processes operate concurrently to produce social influence. To design an empirical setting that will permit examination of this question, we must clarify two issues. First, are the scope This content downloaded from �������������139.78.24.113 on Sat, 04 Jul 2020 15:51:50 UTC������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms STATUS AND SOCIAL IDENTITY 101 conditions of SCT and SIT compatible? It would appear that they are. On the one hand, the task- and collective orientation requirements of SCT are not violated in evaluative contexts (required by SIT). Meeker (1990) clarifies the meaning of the scope conditions of SCT. She argues that task orientation requires only that actors envision some point in the future when they will know whether they have succeeded at their task, and that actors view their present activities as related to … STATUS & Expectation States ORGANIZING 01. EXPECTATION STATES THEORY Macro-level applicability MACRO-LEVEL APPLICABILITY From an expectation states theory perspective, social inequality arises when members of one group are perceived to have greater status & prestige than members of another group Social Change Social Change DISTINCTION Distinction occurs when members of a group systematically perceive that some members have a structural advantage LEGITIMIZATION Systematic perceptions develop as individuals reinforce these beliefs in interactions with members of both high & low status groups DISRUPTION By understanding how these beliefs form & lead to certain groups becoming marginalized, EST provides insight for breaking these patterns 02.EXPECTATION STATES THEORY Critiques CRITIQUES EST suggests that status cues create performance expectations, which lead to interaction inequalities Socially significant characteristics Social rewards Behavioral interchange patterns Performance expectations Behavioral inequality/ status hierarchies Critics argue that performance expectations could possibly be caused by neural impulses instead of cognitive processes CRITIQUES Despite the large amount of research utilizing models of cognition & status stereotypes, they are subject to certain limitations that account for their failures to address important features of social cognition CRITIQUES One critique challenges the images of humans as mechanistic or rationalistic information processors Humans use heuristics, make sloppy assumptions about the world, & are influenced in their thinking by emotional, motivational, & other factors A Many decision-making processes are characterized by a limited amount of rationality B EXAMPLE ONE One study showed that humans tend to use heuristics under conditions of uncertainty that can produce erroneous judgments Another study argues that much social interaction is mindless & involving less cognitive activity than is often assumed because people routinely follow scripts EXAMPLE TWO EST does not adequately address different approaches to human cognitive processes, resulting in an overly narrow depiction of what cognition encompasses CRITIQUES CRITIQUES Limited Scope Conditions Status organizing processes occur in a broader range of settings than those defined by the scope conditions of EST (i.e., collectively-oriented task groups) ● For example, the settings where individuals take socially important mental ability tests, such as the SAT, ACT, & GRE, which are all highly task-oriented but clearly lack a collective orientation Example One study demonstrated that individuals randomly assigned to low status conditions, in experiments, scored lower on a test of mental ability than those assigned to high status conditions. They contend that any attempt to measure mental ability needs to account for the way that salient status processes actually interfere with test taking performance Task-oriented without a collective orientation CREDITS: This presentation template was created by Slidesgo, including icons by Flaticon, and infographics & images by Freepik ALL! THAT’S http://bit.ly/2Tynxth http://bit.ly/2TyoMsr http://bit.ly/2TtBDfr STATUS & Expectation States ORGANIZING 01. EXPECTATION STATES THEORY Aims to explain how our preconceived notions about others, based on their identities, are the basis for status hierarchies in small groups Why Expectation States Theory Matters On the group level, we evaluate others’ competence & credibility based on status characteristics (socially significant characteristics, rewards, & behavioral interchange patterns), which form the basis for status hierarchies ● These trends perpetuate themselves over time, resulting in certain types of individuals having more influence & power over others ● Status hierarchies based on perceptions of class, race, gender, age, etc. may be fostered & perpetuated by what happens in small group interactions STATUS DIFFERENCES Higher status members are more likely to be listened to, received more positively, & exert more influence There may be backlash against those of lower status in positions of authority because their power is perceived as illegitimate INCONSISTENT CHARACTERISTICS While expectation states theory does not address the origins of status beliefs, the focus is instead on how these status beliefs influence people’s attitudes, perceptions, & behavior EVERYDAY LIFE —RALPH WALDO EMERSON “When the eyes say one thing, and the tongue another, a practiced man relies on the language of the first.” ” 02.APPLICATION & RESEARCH Expectation states theory has been subjected to rigorous empirical evaluation, which has generated considerable evidence in support of the theory STATUS UNEQUAL GROUPS When peers interact, they look more while listening than while speaking. When male ROTC officers & cadets interact, officers looked as much while listening & speaking. Cadets looked substantially more while listening than while speaking Eye Gaze STATUS UNEQUAL GROUPS Replicated the previous study on female dyads differentiated by age & educational attainment High status females looked while speaking nearly as much as while listening; low status females looked much more while listening A When the same high & low status females were placed in subsequent interaction with a new partner who was their equal in status, they reverted to the more usual proportions among peers B STATUS UNEQUAL GROUPS One of the vocal cues most commonly studied in relation to status is the speed with which a person responds to a group task ● One study told female participants whether they were higher or lower than their partners in a task. ○ Subjects assigned high status were more likely to respond before their partners on problem-solving trials STATUS UNEQUAL GROUPS Another study examined loudness & speech rates of men & women in same- & mixed-sex groups ● Although there were no effects on speech rates, women spoke louder in a task-oriented discussion with women than with men ○ These results demonstrate that much nonverbal behavior between males & females in task situations reflects the status value of being male or female rather than distinct, sex-role-based behavior STATUS EQUAL GROUPS Subjects’ positions in the initial eye-glance hierarchy correlated positively & significantly with the participation rank they later achieved during group discussion One study measured the eye-glance hierarchies of three-man & three-woman groups Some researchers suggest that eye contact behaviors reflect perceived status differences STATUS EQUAL GROUPS One study argues that group members with a minority opinion can influence the majority if they actively present their point of view with consistency & confidence In a follow-up, researchers found that a confederate holding a minority opinion was influential when he was seen actively choosing a head seat before interaction, but not when he was assigned that seat A This shows that nonverbal behavior & the nature of responses, relative to other group members, leads to attributions of confidence, independence, or competence & increases the influence & status they attain in a group of peers B CREDITS: This presentation template was created by Slidesgo, including icons by Flaticon, and infographics & images by Freepik ALL! THAT’S http://bit.ly/2Tynxth http://bit.ly/2TyoMsr http://bit.ly/2TtBDfr