Jennifer R. Overbeck

Internal Status Sorting in Groups: The Problem of too many Stars

Social and task groups need a few high-status members who can be leaders and trend setters, and many more lower-status members who can follow and contribute work without challenging the groups direction (Caporael (1997). Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 276–298; Caporael & Baron (1997). In: J. Simpson, & D. Kenrick (Eds), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 317–343). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; Brewer (1997). In: C. McGarty, & S.A. Haslam (Eds), The message of social psychology: Perspectives on mind in society (pp. 54–62). Malden, MA: Blackwell). When groups come together without a priori status differentiation, a status hierarchy must be implemented; however, if the new members are too homogeneously status seeking, then it is not clear what will result. We argue that hierarchy will develop even in uniformly status-seeking groups, and that the social context and members’ relational characteristics – specifically, the degree to which they are group oriented rather than self-serving – will predict which status seekers succeed in gaining status. We discuss why and how a “status sorting” process will occur to award status to a few members and withhold it from most, and the consequences of this process for those who are sorted downward.

Resistant versus Acquiescent Responses to Ingroup Inferiority as a Function of Social Dominance Orientation in the USA and Italy

Social identity theory typically emphasizes how low status group members resist and challenge imputations of inferiority (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), whereas system justification theory emphasizes the tendency to accept and justify status hierarchies (Jost & Banaji, 1994). On the theoretical assumption that responses to ingroup inferiority would vary according to individual differences in social dominance orientation (SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), we predicted and found in two studies that low SDO members of low status groups engage in resistance and social competition, as social identity theory would predict, whereas high SDO members follow system justifying patterns of acquiescence and even active bolstering of the status quo. The fact that the studies were conducted in two cultures (USA and Italy) that differ with regard to hierarchical traditions and beliefs about social mobility increases the generalizeability of the results and strengthens the conclusion that SDO predicts acquiescent vs. resistant responses to ingroup inferiority.

Status, Race, and Money The Impact of Racial Hierarchy on Willingness to Pay

A deeply entrenched status hierarchy in the United States classifies African Americans as lower status than Caucasians. Concurrently, African Americans face marketplace discrimination; they are treated as inferior and poor. Because having money and spending money signify status, we explored whether African Americans might elevate their willingness to pay for products in order to fulfill status needs. In Studies 1 and 2, explicit activation of the race concept led some African Americans to pay more than they would otherwise pay and also more than Caucasians. Individual differences in perceived status disadvantage and racial identification moderated this result. In Study 3, when race was salient, an overt status threat (inferior treatment in a purchasing context) similarly led African Americans, but not Caucasians, to pay more than they would otherwise pay. This research illustrates how African Americans whose status is threatened use spending as a way to assert status.