Outgroup favoritism

Last updated

Outgroup favoritism is a social psychological construct intended to capture why some socially disadvantaged groups will express favorable attitudes (and even preferences) toward social, cultural, or ethnic groups other than their own. [1] Considered by many psychologists as part of a variety of system-justifying motives, outgroup favoritism has been widely researched as a potential explanation for why groups—particularly those disadvantaged by the normative social hierarchy—are motivated to support, maintain, and preserve the status quo. [2] [3] Specifically, outgroup favoritism provides a contrast to the idea of ingroup favoritism, which proposes that individuals exhibit a preference for members of their own group over members of the outgroup. [4]

Contents

Outgroup favoritism and system justification

In a 1994 review of the existing literature on the ideas people employ to legitimize and support ideas, structures, and behaviors, psychologists John T. Jost and Mahzarin Banaji observed that the existing theories of ego-justification (i.e., the utilization of stereotypes as a means to protect the self) [5] [6] and group justification (i.e., the utilization of stereotypes to protect the status of a given social group) [7] [8] could not adequately explain why members of a given ingroup would express negative stereotypes about themselves, often times leveraging these in contexts that disadvantaged their own group. [1]

Thus, it was arguably out of the attempt to explain the phenomena of outgroup favoritism that led to the development of what would later become system justification theory. According to Jost and Banaji, system justification theory is constructed around the notion that people have three basic needs: 1) a need for certainty and meaning, 2) a need for safety and security, and 3) a need for a shared reality (i.e., epistemic, existential, and relational needs). [1] Taking inspiration from the immense body of work already examining how people justify their experiences to themselves on the individual and group levels, Jost and Banaji additionally proposed that people meet these three needs on a systemic level.

Contrary to the long-standing idea that strong identification with the group on an individual level will generate the opposite (i.e., individuals are motivated to preserve a positive image of their own group), system justification theory is founded upon the idea that people meet their epistemic, existential, and relational needs on a systemic level, sometimes above and beyond the individual and group-levels. Thus, conceptualized within a system justification theory framework, outgroup favoritism is best understood as an expression of how people are motivated to defend/preserve the status quo of a given system even when the normative ideologies and practices run counter to their own interests. [1] [9]

Proof of concept

The current research[ as of? ] on this phenomenon tends to fall into three dominant streams. The first of these examines assessments of outgroup favoritism on the group attitude level. [10] [11] Work in this area commonly involves asking members of socially disadvantaged groups the extent to which they would support policies or structures that favor socially advantaged groups. Scholars have examined group-level expressions of out-group favoritism along dimensions ranging from political ideology to economic status to gender. [3] [12] [13] For example, in one of the classic (albeit, somewhat debated) studies, Mark Hoffarth and John Jost analyzed two different samples of sexual minority participants to examine the relationship between implicit stereotypic attitudes about sexual minorities, political orientation, and support for same-sex marriage.

Across two samples, the authors found a three-way interaction across the implicit association of sexual minorities with negative stereotypes, conservative political ideology, and support of same-sex marriage. Specifically, they found support for their original hypotheses that political conservatism is strongly associated with the endorsement of negative stereotypes on the implicit level and opposition to same-sex marriage, even amongst sexual minority groups. [12] While the exact interpretation of these findings is still a topic of debate within the system justification literature, [14] [15] this study is one of the most widely cited within the academic community for demonstrating that even groups disadvantaged by the (in this case, legal) structures of the existing status quo will express and employ negative stereotypes about their own group and oppose policies that appear to contradict their own interests.[ citation needed ]

Proposed mechanisms and correlates

The second predominant stream within the literature investigates the potential mechanisms and correlated constructs that might fuel the behaviors characteristic of outgroup-favoritism-based motivations. [4] [16] In this area, scholars have struggled to isolate the mechanisms behind outgroup favoritism specifically from those of system-justifying motives more broadly. Consequently, much of the literature in this area tends to focus on how outgroup favoritism interacts with other components of system justification theory such as negative self-stereotyping, depressed entitlement, and the role of individual beliefs. [1] [9] [17]

Implicit associations

According to the American Psychological Association's dictionary, implicit association captures the subconscious attitudinal associations people express toward various object/evaluative pairings. The most common method of capturing these underlying attitudes is via the implicit association test, a task in which participants are asked to sort members of specific categories (e.g., race) into specific evaluative categories (e.g., good/bad). One common method for capturing outgroup favoritism is via the implicit association test, the idea being that minority group members exist within a societal context that repeatedly reinforces their minority (and commonly, inferior) status. Scholars argue that this repeated exposure embeds rationalizing social inequality on an automatic level such that outgroup preference expresses itself most saliently using implicit measures. [4] [16]

For an example of how this operates, Ashburn-Nardo and Johnson (2008) recruited 110 African-American undergraduate students and asked them to categorize faces across two categories: Black/White and pleasant/unpleasant. After completing the IAT task, participants were presented with a task and told that their partner would either be Black or White. Participants were then asked to rate their partner in terms of performance expectations and likability. The authors found that for stereotypically "White" tasks, African Americans implicitly favored Whites, giving them higher performance evaluations and likability—the implication being that, in strongly racially-stereotyped contexts, individuals from minority groups will implicitly express outgroup favoritism. [16]

Negative self-stereotyping

Negative self-stereotyping refers to the idea that members of various groups will express or endorse group stereotypes about fellow members of their own group that are unflattering and even outright harmful. [18] While much of this work is concentrated on examining gender, [19] [20] scholars have demonstrated that negative self-stereotyping occurs across a variety of social identities including race [10] [21] and sexuality. [12] [22] For an example of how this works (and the proposed connections to outgroup favoritism): Burkley and Blanton conducted a 2008 study in which they asked men and women to complete a math test. All participants received failure feedback and were additionally asked to complete a stereotype endorsement measure with the order of these two components varying across conditions. The authors found that women were far more likely to embrace a negative stereotype about gendered math ability after receiving failure feedback, which they interpret as supporting the notion that individuals will palliatively leverage negative stereotypes against their own group. Extending this work, other scholars in this area have conducted studies on how women will negatively self-stereotype themselves as lacking a wide range of "masculine" traits or competencies after being exposed to information that threatens a gendered status quo. [23]

However, similar to Jost and Hoffarth's analyses of conservative sexual minority members, scholars are continuing to critique how negative self-stereotyping interacts with outgroup favoritism. [15] Though many agree that the two share close links, there is an ongoing debate as to whether negative self-stereotyping is an expression of outgroup favoritism or whether it should be operationalized and studied as an independent, but related concepts. [18] On the one hand, several authors argue that, because outgroup favoritism is operationalized as a motive instead of a behavior or attitude, negative self-stereotyping is a clear behavioral and attitudinal expression of an underlying outgroup preference motive that is itself the product of internalized inferiority (essentially, that the stereotyping behavior can't occur without a motive and the motive itself can't be measured independent of its behavioral correlate). [12] Jost explicitly states that it is "not that people have a special motivation to favor the outgroup merely because it is an outgroup. Rather, outgroup favoritism is seen as one manifestation of the tendency to internalize and thus perpetuate the system of inequality." [17] Furthermore, given that system justification theory is motivation-based, some scholars propose that behavioral and attitudinal constructs like negative self-stereotyping would not be appropriate to consider independently of their motives in a purely motive-based understanding of system justification. [6] [9]

On the other hand, those that consider negative self-stereotyping as a separate construct under the system justification umbrella note that negative self-stereotyping mediates similar outcomes to outgroup favoritism regardless of whether outgroup favoritism is considered as a variable. [14] The amorphous nature of this debate is not helped by the research indicating that both negative self-stereotyping and outgroup favoritism engender similar beneficial and detrimental outcomes. For example, many scholars' findings support that both negative self-stereotyping and outgroup favoritism have similarly palliative effects by allowing individuals within unjust systems to rationalize the status quo as fair and valid (in line with system justification theory).[ citation needed ]

Specifically, this work finds that both constructs provide the positive effect of buffering one's self-image against personal and social threats. [24] Additionally in line with the "as sub-components" argument, research has demonstrated that the rationalization that occurs as a product from both negative self-stereotyping and outgroup favoritism allows individuals to justify existing inequality. Scholars have found that for both constructs, the perception that preservation of the status quo is the most important goal within a society has the detrimental side-effect of reducing the drive to challenge or change existing discriminatory systems by relieving an individual of his/her/their personal responsibility to engage in such efforts. [9] Due to the similarities in outcomes for both constructs, research has trended toward looking at negative self-stereotyping and outgroup favoritism as interactive system justification components, but this is an area still under discussion.[ citation needed ]

Depressed entitlement

Within the psychological literature, entitlement is defined as the judgments people make about their deservingness of specific outcomes based upon their identity or their actions. [25] In 1997, as part of the evolving solidification of system justification theory, Jost and Banaji proposed that one of the important cognitive mechanisms for reconciling outgroup favoritism is a depressed sense of what a given individual deserves. Essentially, in order to hold the idea that the outgroup is more favorable and therefore more deserving of specific outcomes that preserve the status quo, the oppressed ingroup must rationalize these beliefs with a depressed sense of entitlement to various cognitive, social, and psychological resources within a system. [26]

The classic study in this area was conducted by Jost in 1997. Jost recruited 132 undergraduate students (68 men and 64 women) from Yale College. The participants were asked to generate "open-ended thought-lists" in response to a prompt and later evaluate the quality and deservingness of their own efforts. The thought-lists were then rated by two independent judges (one woman and one man) who were unaware of the hypotheses and the gender of the participants. The judges evaluated the thought-lists on seven dimensions: meaningfulness, logicality, sophistication, vividness, persuasiveness, originality, and insightfulness.[ citation needed ]

The purpose of this rating procedure was to ensure that there were no differences in the objective quality of thought-lists generated by men and women. Jost found that the independent judges perceived no differences in quality between thought-lists written by men and thought-lists written by women on any of the eight dimensions, indicating that the objective quality of the thought-lists did not differ based on the gender of the author. However, when participants evaluated and paid themselves for their thought-list contributions, women's self-ratings were significantly lower than men's self-ratings on the dimensions of self-payment and insight. According to Jost, the finding that the independent judges did not perceive any differences in the quality of thought-lists generated by men and women, but women evaluated and paid themselves differently by rating their own contributions lower than men demonstrated the "depressed-entitlement effect" observed in previous research. Specifically, that depressed entitlement may be the cognitive mechanism that leads to the expression of outgroup preference (though, like most dimensions of system justification theory, this is a matter of academic debate). [14] [15]

Role of individual belief systems

Just-world fallacy

Originally proposed by Melvin J. Lerner in 1980, the just-world fallacy proposes that individuals have a need to believe that their environment is a just and orderly place where people usually get what they deserve. [27] In confirming the existence of this cognitive bias, Lerner and Simmons conducted what has now become the classic study in the just world fallacy literature. Incorporating heavy influence from Stanley Milgram, the researchers asked participants to observe a confederate receiving electric shocks. The severity of the shocks and the innocence of the victim were manipulated. The researchers found that participants tended to derogate the victim more when the shocks were severe, suggesting that people are more likely to blame innocent victims when the outcomes are more negative. [28]

Given the advances in ethics in the social sciences that constrain such methodologies, but still inspired by Lerner and Simmons' original work, current research in this area commonly involves presenting participants with scenarios or vignettes that involve innocent victims experiencing negative outcomes. [29] Participants are then asked to evaluate the victims and assign responsibility or blame for their situation. These studies often manipulate the severity of the outcome or the perceived innocence of the victim to examine how these factors influence participants' reactions. Extensions of this work typically involve manipulating factors such as the attractiveness or likability of the victim, the presence of empathy instructions, or the level of personal involvement in the situation. These studies consistently show that people are more likely to derogate innocent victims when they perceive the world as just and orderly. [29] [30] [31]

In terms of outgroup favoritism, researchers have proposed that just world beliefs potentially contribute to the expression of favorable attitudes toward advantaged groups. [6] [9] Specifically, some researchers propose that just world beliefs serve as an ideological foundation for outgroup favoritism, the logic being that in a just and fair hierarchical system, a position of advantage is internally attributable to the members of the advantaged group (i.e., advantaged group members must deserve what they have because the world is a fair place).

Meritocracy

In a similar vein to just world beliefs, the American Psychological Association's dictionary defines meritocracy as a system that rewards individuals based on what they accomplish within said system. Specifically, the term was first credited to the sociologist Michael Young in his book The Rise of the Meritocracy . Given the complexity of meritocracy as a concept, researchers have historically focused on the role of meritocratic beliefs in informing prejudices and biases. [32] [33] For example, several sociological and psychological scholars have found that meritocratic beliefs are correlated with increased prejudice and discrimination on the basis of aspects of social identity like gender or educational status. [32] [33] In terms of outgroup favoritism, researchers have proposed that meritocratic beliefs serve a similar role to those of just world beliefs, meaning that meritocratic beliefs may serve as a form of ideological foundation leading to an increase in outgroup preference.

Negative consequences

The third stream of literature on outgroup favoritism is dedicated to examining the consequences minority group members might bear as a result of holding implicit preferences for outgroup members. Numerous studies examining members of minority groups have found that expressions of outgroup favoritism correlate with a number of different detrimental psychological outcomes under specific conditions. Specifically, that while outgroup favoritism and other system justification motives serve palliative functions, there is a point at which reality/perception incongruence inhibits this palliative effect. Outgroup favoritism appears to be beneficial to psychological wellbeing depending on the individual's level of internalization of dominant ideologies [34] [35] and their awareness of system rigidity. [36]

To exemplify how this works: a 2007 study examining the psychological health of 316 Black undergraduates found that implicit outgroup favoritism (i.e., African American students implicitly favoring Whites) is correlated with increased depression and lower overall psychological functioning. [16] However, since this study other scholars have examined the relationships between implicit "anti-Black" bias, the centrality of social identity, and psychological health. These studies found that while Black participants with higher levels of anti-Black bias were found to be at higher risk for depression, this outcome varied as a function of the amount of racial discrimination they perceived to begin with. [37] Such findings support the dual-outcome model of outgroup favoritism (particularly for minority groups). On the one hand, outgroup favoritism can lead to benefits by allowing individuals to justify systems of inequality. Yet once the evidence that inequality exists becomes salient enough, such tendencies actually lead to decreases in psychological well-being as individuals begin to attribute perceived discrimination internally (i.e., to themselves) rather than externally. [6] [17] [37]

Critiques

As somewhat alluded to in the previous sections, academics are continuing to discuss the nature of system justification theory (and by extension, outgroup favoritism). Considering outgroup favoritism as part of the broader ecosystem of system justification theory means accepting the basic premise that the need to justify the systemic status quo is sufficiently powerful that people will endorse ideologies and practices supportive of "the norm" even when these ideologies and practices run counter to their own interests. [6] Yet, in a debate that continues to the present day, outgroup favoritism has been critiqued as contradicting the long-standing idea that strong identification with the group on an individual level will generate the opposite (i.e., individuals are motivated to preserve a positive image of their own group. [3] [13] [16] Specifically, critics argue that the instances of outgroup favoritism thus far observed within the literature are best attributed to demand characteristics or the internalization of social norms (which inherently elevate the status of the dominant group).

Interactions with social identity theory

This perspective is echoed in some of the broader critiques of system justification theory—particularly those emphasizing that a need for "social accuracy" and a "positively distinct social identity" [15] are sufficient to explain the expression of outgroup favoritism observed by members of low-status groups. In 2023, Rubin and colleagues posited a new model for understanding outgroup favoritism within the context of social identity theory (of which ingroup favoritism is a core component). They termed this new model the Social Identity Model of System Attitudes (SIMSA). Within SISMA, the authors propose that outgroup favoritism is instead best understood as a functional adaptation that fulfills a social-identity-based need to perceived the social world in an accurate way. [15]

In a published rejoinder in the British Journal of Social Psychology, Jost and colleagues refuted this idea as incorrectly equating outgroup favoritism with the accurate perception of an unjust reality. The main argument being that outgroup favoritism goes beyond simply acknowledging that a system is unjust or unfair, but rather demonstrates a motivated preference for the prioritization of a group outside of one's own. Citing the work on implicit associations, negative self-stereotyping, and depressed entitlement, Jost and his colleagues emphasize that if outgroup favoritism was merely an expression of accurate social perception, scholars would not have observed the cognitive mechanisms people employ whilst expressing outgroup favoritism if it did not serve some system-justifying function above and beyond a social-identity one. [38] Rubin and colleagues have since responded by clarifying their position, arguing that they were not equating outgroup favoritism with acceptance of an unjust social reality but rather accurate perception. Jost and his colleagues have yet to respond. [39]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prejudice</span> Attitudes based on preconceived categories

Prejudice can be an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership. The word is often used to refer to a preconceived evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived personal characteristics, such as political affiliation, sex, gender, gender identity, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, culture, complexion, beauty, height, body weight, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other perceived characteristics.

The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.

In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">In-group and out-group</span> Sociological notions

In social psychology and sociology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. People may for example identify with their peer group, family, community, sports team, political party, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nation. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.

System justification theory is a theory within social psychology that system-justifying beliefs serve a psychologically palliative function. It proposes that people have several underlying needs, which vary from individual to individual, that can be satisfied by the defense and justification of the status quo, even when the system may be disadvantageous to certain people. People have epistemic, existential, and relational needs that are met by and manifest as ideological support for the prevailing structure of social, economic, and political norms. Need for order and stability, and thus resistance to change or alternatives, for example, can be a motivator for individuals to see the status quo as good, legitimate, and even desirable.

Social dominance theory (SDT) is a social psychological theory of intergroup relations that examines the caste-like features of group-based social hierarchies, and how these hierarchies remain stable and perpetuate themselves. According to the theory, group-based inequalities are maintained through three primary mechanisms: institutional discrimination, aggregated individual discrimination, and behavioral asymmetry. The theory proposes that widely shared cultural ideologies provide the moral and intellectual justification for these intergroup behaviors by serving to make privilege normal. For data collection and validation of predictions, the social dominance orientation (SDO) scale was composed to measure acceptance of and desire for group-based social hierarchy, which was assessed through two factors: support for group-based dominance and generalized opposition to equality, regardless of the ingroup's position in the power structure.

Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.

Optimal distinctiveness is a social psychological theory seeking to understand ingroup–outgroup differences. It asserts that individuals desire to attain an optimal balance of inclusion and distinctiveness within and between social groups and situations. These two motives are in constant opposition with each other; when there is too much of one motive, the other must increase in order to counterbalance it and vice versa. The theory of optimal distinctiveness was first proposed by Dr. Marilynn B. Brewer in 1991 and extensively reviewed in 2010 by Drs. Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Cynthia L. Pickett, and Marilynn Brewer.

Aversive racism is a social scientific theory proposed by Samuel L. Gaertner & John F. Dovidio (1986), according to which negative evaluations of racial/ethnic minorities are realized by a persistent avoidance of interaction with other racial and ethnic groups. As opposed to traditional, overt racism, which is characterized by overt hatred for and discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities, aversive racism is characterized by more complex, ambivalent expressions and attitudes nonetheless with prejudicial views towards other races. Aversive racism arises from unconscious personal beliefs taught during childhood. Subtle racist behaviors are usually targeted towards African Americans. Workplace discrimination is one of the best examples of aversive racism. Biased beliefs on how minorities act and think affect how individuals interact with minority members.

Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation, it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stereotype</span> Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are often overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information. A stereotype does not necessarily need to be a negative assumption. They may be positive, neutral, or negative.

Ambivalent prejudice is a social psychological theory that states that, when people become aware that they have conflicting beliefs about an outgroup, they experience an unpleasant mental feeling generally referred to as cognitive dissonance. These feelings are brought about because the individual on one hand believes in humanitarian virtues such as helping those in need, but on the other hand also believes in individualistic virtues such as working hard to improve one's life.

In social psychology, self-stereotyping is a process by which an individual integrates and internalizes commonly held characterizations of an in-group into their self-concept. It is described as part of social identity theory (SIT) and, more specifically, self-categorization theory (SCT).

An implicit bias or implicit stereotype is the pre-reflective attribution of particular qualities by an individual to a member of some social out group.

Intergroup anxiety is the social phenomenon identified by Walter and Cookie Stephan in 1985 that describes the ambiguous feelings of discomfort or anxiety when interacting with members of other groups. Such emotions also constitute intergroup anxiety when one is merely anticipating interaction with members of an outgroup. Expectations that interactions with foreign members of outgroups will result in an aversive experience is believed to be the cause of intergroup anxiety, with an affected individual being anxious or unsure about a number of issues. Methods of reducing intergroup anxiety and stress including facilitating positive intergroup contact.

Intergroup relations refers to interactions between individuals in different social groups, and to interactions taking place between the groups themselves collectively. It has long been a subject of research in social psychology, political psychology, and organizational behavior.

In social psychology, a metastereotype is a stereotype that members of one group have about the way in which they are stereotypically viewed by members of another group. In other words, it is a stereotype about a stereotype. They have been shown to have adverse effects on individuals that hold them, including on their levels of anxiety in interracial conversations. Meta-stereotypes held by African Americans regarding the stereotypes White Americans have about them have been found to be largely both negative and accurate. People portray meta-stereotypes of their ingroup more positively when talking to a member of an outgroup than to a fellow member of their ingroup.

Diversity ideology refers to individual beliefs regarding the nature of intergroup relations and how to improve them in culturally diverse societies. A large amount of scientific literature in social psychology studies diversity ideologies as prejudice reduction strategies, most commonly in the context of racial groups and interracial interactions. In research studies on the effects of diversity ideology, social psychologists have either examined endorsement of a diversity ideology as individual difference or used situational priming designs to activate the mindset of a particular diversity ideology. It is consistently shown that diversity ideologies influence how individuals perceive, judge and treat cultural outgroup members. Different diversity ideologies are associated with distinct effects on intergroup relations, such as stereotyping and prejudice, intergroup equality, and intergroup interactions from the perspectives of both majority and minority group members. Beyond intergroup consequences, diversity ideology also has implications on individual outcomes, such as whether people are open to cultural fusion and foreign ideas, which in turn predict creativity.

In social psychology, social projection is the psychological process through which an individual expects behaviors or attitudes of others to be similar to their own. Social projection occurs between individuals as well as across ingroup and outgroup contexts in a variety of domains. Research has shown that aspects of social categorization affect the extent to which social projection occurs. Cognitive and motivational approaches have been used to understand the psychological underpinnings of social projection as a phenomenon. Cognitive approaches emphasize social projection as a heuristic, while motivational approaches contextualize social projection as a means to feel connected to others. In contemporary research on social projection, researchers work to further distinguish between the effects of social projection and self-stereotyping on the individual’s perception of others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Axes of subordination</span>

In social psychology, the two axes of subordination is a racial position model that categorizes the four most common racial groups in the United States into four different quadrants. The model was first proposed by Linda X. Zou and Sapna Cheryan in the year 2017, and suggests that U.S. racial groups are categorized based on two dimensions: perceived inferiority and perceived cultural foreignness. Support for the model comes from both a target and perceivers perspective in which Whites are seen as superior and American, African Americans as inferior and American, Asian Americans as superior and foreign, and Latinos as inferior and foreign.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Jost, John T.; Banaji, Mahzarin R. (March 1994). "The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness". British Journal of Social Psychology. 33 (1): 1–27. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x. ISSN   0144-6665.
  2. ↑ Liaquat, Usman; Jost, John T.; Balcetis, Emily (January 2023). "System justification motivation as a source of backlash against equality-promoting policies—and what to do about it". Social Issues and Policy Review. 17 (1): 131–154. doi:10.1111/sipr.12093. ISSN   1751-2395. S2CID   256262275.
  3. 1 2 3 Owuamalam, Chuma Kevin; Rubin, Mark; Spears, Russell; Weerabangsa, Maas Misha'ari (March 2017). "Why Do People from Low-Status Groups Support Class Systems that Disadvantage Them? A Test of Two Mainstream Explanations in Malaysia and Australia". Journal of Social Issues. 73 (1): 80–98. doi:10.1111/josi.12205. ISSN   0022-4537. S2CID   151458273.
  4. 1 2 3 Axt, Jordan R.; Moran, Tal; Bar-Anan, Yoav (2018-11-01). "Simultaneous ingroup and outgroup favoritism in implicit social cognition". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 79: 275–289. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.007. ISSN   0022-1031. S2CID   148822106.
  5. ↑ Govorun, Olesya; Fuegen, Kathleen; Payne, B. Keith (June 2006). "Stereotypes Focus Defensive Projection". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 32 (6): 781–793. doi:10.1177/0146167205285556. ISSN   0146-1672. PMID   16648203. S2CID   18038504.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Jost, John T. (April 2019). "A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications". British Journal of Social Psychology. 58 (2): 263–314. doi:10.1111/bjso.12297. ISSN   0144-6665. S2CID   54660351.
  7. ↑ "Intergroup Behaviour", Social Identifications, Routledge, pp. 40–67, 2006-06-07, doi:10.4324/9780203135457-8, ISBN   978-0-203-13545-7 , retrieved 2023-12-01
  8. ↑ Rutland, Adam; Brown, Rachel (March 2001). "Stereotypes as justifications for prior intergroup discrimination: Studies of Scottish national stereotyping". European Journal of Social Psychology. 31 (2): 127–141. doi:10.1002/ejsp.25. ISSN   0046-2772.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 Osborne, Danny; Sengupta, Nikhil K.; Sibley, Chris G. (April 2019). "System justification theory at 25: Evaluating a paradigm shift in psychology and looking towards the future". British Journal of Social Psychology. 58 (2): 340–361. doi:10.1111/bjso.12302. ISSN   0144-6665. PMID   30525206. S2CID   54571797.
  10. 1 2 Ji, Yadong (2022). "Stereotypes from the Inside: Chinese International Students' Experiences with Peers' Outgroup Favoritism". Journal of International Students. 12 (1): 258–274. doi: 10.32674/jis.v12i1.3174 . ISSN   2166-3750.
  11. ↑ Davis, Darren W.; Brown, Ronald E. (2002). "The Antipathy of Black Nationalism: Behavioral and Attitudinal Implications of an African American Ideology". American Journal of Political Science. 46 (2): 239–252. doi:10.2307/3088374. ISSN   0092-5853. JSTOR   3088374.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Hoffarth, Mark R.; Jost, John T. (October 2017). "When Ideology Contradicts Self-Interest: Conservative Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Among Sexual Minorities—A Commentary on Pinsof and Haselton (2016)". Psychological Science. 28 (10): 1521–1524. doi:10.1177/0956797617694866. ISSN   0956-7976. PMID   28837397. S2CID   36490374.
  13. 1 2 Owuamalam, Chuma Kevin; Caricati, Luca; Rubin, Mark; Matos, Andrea Soledad; Spears, Russell (December 2021). "Why do women support socio-economic systems that favour men more? A registered test of system justification- and social identity-inspired hope explanations". European Journal of Social Psychology. 51 (7): 1073–1095. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2754. ISSN   0046-2772. S2CID   233914297.
  14. 1 2 3 Pinsof, David; Haselton, Martie (October 2017). "When Self-Interest Contradicts Ideology: A Reply to Hoffarth and Jost (2017)". Psychological Science. 28 (10): 1525–1527. doi:10.1177/0956797617723725. ISSN   0956-7976. PMID   28837392. S2CID   43010309.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 Rubin, Mark; Kevin Owuamalam, Chuma; Spears, Russell; Caricati, Luca (2023-07-03). "A social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA): Multiple explanations of system justification by the disadvantaged that do not depend on a separate system justification motive". European Review of Social Psychology. 34 (2): 203–243. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2022.2046422 . ISSN   1046-3283.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 Ashburn-Nardo, Leslie; Johnson, Nathan J. (2008-12-01). "Implicit Outgroup Favoritism and Intergroup Judgment: The Moderating Role of Stereotypic Context". Social Justice Research. 21 (4): 490–508. doi:10.1007/s11211-008-0078-8. ISSN   1573-6725. S2CID   143835818.
  17. 1 2 3 Jost, John T.; Hunyady, Orsolya (Oct 2005). "Antecedents and Consequences of System-Justifying Ideologies". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 14 (5): 260–265. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x. ISSN   0963-7214. S2CID   13892856.
  18. 1 2 Bell, Angela C.; Burkley, Melissa (December 2014). ""Women Like Me Are Bad at Math": The Psychological Functions of Negative Self-Stereotyping". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 8 (12): 708–720. doi:10.1111/spc3.12145. ISSN   1751-9004.
  19. ↑ Burkley, Melissa; Blanton, Hart (2008-01-01). "Endorsing a negative in-group stereotype as a self-protective strategy: Sacrificing the group to save the self". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 44 (1): 37–49. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.01.008. ISSN   0022-1031.
  20. ↑ Coleman, Jill M.; Hong, Ying-Yi (2008-01-01). "Beyond nature and nurture: The influence of lay gender theories on self-stereotyping". Self and Identity. 7 (1): 34–53. doi:10.1080/15298860600980185. ISSN   1529-8868. S2CID   144843925.
  21. ↑ Okeke, Ndidi A.; Howard, Lionel C.; Kurtz-Costes, Beth; Rowley, Stephanie J. (August 2009). "Academic Race Stereotypes, Academic Self-Concept, and Racial Centrality in African American Youth". Journal of Black Psychology. 35 (3): 366–387. doi:10.1177/0095798409333615. ISSN   0095-7984. PMC   2901128 . PMID   20625536.
  22. ↑ Boysen, Guy A.; Fisher, Mary; DeJesus, Michael; Vogel, David L.; Madon, Stephanie (April 2011). "The Mental Health Stereotype About Gay Men: The Relation Between Gay Men's Self-Stereotype and Stereotypes About Heterosexual Women and Lesbians". Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 30 (4): 329–360. doi:10.1521/jscp.2011.30.4.329. ISSN   0736-7236.
  23. ↑ Laurin, Kristin; Gaucher, Danielle; Kay, Aaron (June 2013). "Stability and the justification of social inequality". European Journal of Social Psychology. 43 (4): 246–254. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1949. ISSN   0046-2772.
  24. ↑ Rudman, Laurie A.; Feinberg, Joshua; Fairchild, Kimberly (August 2002). "Minority Members' Implicit Attitudes: Automatic Ingroup Bias As A Function Of Group Status". Social Cognition. 20 (4): 294–320. doi:10.1521/soco.20.4.294.19908. ISSN   0278-016X.
  25. ↑ Major, Brenda (1994-01-01), "From Social Inequality to Personal Entitlement: the Role of Social Comparisons, Legitimacy Appraisals, and Group Membership", in Zanna, Mark P. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Volume 26, vol. 26, Academic Press, pp. 293–355, doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60156-2, ISBN   978-0-12-015226-1 , retrieved 2023-12-01
  26. ↑ Jost, John T. (September 1997). "An Experimental Replication of the Depressed-Entitlement Effect Among Women". Psychology of Women Quarterly. 21 (3): 387–393. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00120.x. ISSN   0361-6843. S2CID   144555414.
  27. ↑ Lerner, Melvin J.; Miller, Dale T. (September 1978). "Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead". Psychological Bulletin. 85 (5): 1030–1051. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.5.1030. ISSN   1939-1455.
  28. ↑ Lerner, Melvin J.; Simmons, Carolyn H. (1966). "Observer's reaction to the "innocent victim": Compassion or rejection?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 4 (2): 203–210. doi:10.1037/h0023562. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   5969146.
  29. 1 2 Silver, Kristin E.; Karakurt, Gunnur; Boysen, Sarah T. (2015-09-14). "Predicting Prosocial Behavior Toward Sex-Trafficked Persons: The Roles of Empathy, Belief in a Just World, and Attitudes Toward Prostitution". Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma. 24 (8): 932–954. doi:10.1080/10926771.2015.1070231. ISSN   1092-6771. S2CID   143238945.
  30. ↑ Goodman, Simon; Carr, Philippa (July 2017). "The just world hypothesis as an argumentative resource in debates about unemployment benefits". Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 27 (4): 312–323. doi:10.1002/casp.2314. ISSN   1052-9284.
  31. ↑ Komáromy, Zsuzsa; János, Réka (2019-06-30). "Does long-term focus increase victim-blaming? A study on the just-world hypothesis using the modified Stroop task". Transylvanian Journal of Psychology. 20 (1): 33–50. doi: 10.24193/tjp.xx.1.2 (inactive 1 November 2024). ISSN   1454-797X.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
  32. 1 2 Kuppens, Toon; Spears, Russell; Manstead, Antony S. R.; Spruyt, Bram; Easterbrook, Matthew J. (2018-05-01). "Educationism and the irony of meritocracy: Negative attitudes of higher educated people towards the less educated". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 76: 429–447. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.001. ISSN   0022-1031.
  33. 1 2 Nielsen, Mathias W. (2015-08-28). "Limits to meritocracy? Gender in academic recruitment and promotion processes". Science and Public Policy. 43 (3): 386–399. doi:10.1093/scipol/scv052. ISSN   0302-3427.
  34. ↑ Bahamondes-Correa, Joaquín (November 2016). "System Justification's Opposite Effects on Psychological Wellbeing: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model in a Gay Men and Lesbian Sample in Chile". Journal of Homosexuality. 63 (11): 1537–1555. doi:10.1080/00918369.2016.1223351. ISSN   0091-8369. PMID   27715710. S2CID   27711703.
  35. ↑ Choma, Becky L.; Prusaczyk, Elvira (June 2018). "The Effects of System Justifying Beliefs on Skin-Tone Surveillance, Skin-Color Dissatisfaction, and Skin-Bleaching Behavior". Psychology of Women Quarterly. 42 (2): 162–177. doi:10.1177/0361684317747845. ISSN   0361-6843. S2CID   148605039.
  36. ↑ Godfrey, Erin B.; Santos, Carlos E.; Burson, Esther (January 2019). "For Better or Worse? System-Justifying Beliefs in Sixth-Grade Predict Trajectories of Self-Esteem and Behavior Across Early Adolescence". Child Development. 90 (1): 180–195. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12854 . ISSN   0009-3920. PMID   28631266.
  37. 1 2 Chae, David H.; Powell, Wizdom A.; Nuru-Jeter, Amani M.; Smith-Bynum, Mia A.; Seaton, Eleanor K.; Forman, Tyrone A.; Turpin, Rodman; Sellers, Robert (November 2017). "The Role of Racial Identity and Implicit Racial Bias in Self-Reported Racial Discrimination: Implications for Depression Among African American Men". Journal of Black Psychology. 43 (8): 789–812. doi:10.1177/0095798417690055. ISSN   0095-7984. PMC   5788304 . PMID   29386696.
  38. ↑ Jost, John T.; Bertin, Jeannine Alana; Javeed, Ali; Liaquat, Usman; Rivera Pichardo, Eduardo J. (2023-07-03). "Rejoinder to Rubin, Owuamalam, Spears, and Caricati (2023): Ideology is not accuracy; identity is not everything; and the social identity model of social attitudes does not explain system justification, it presupposes it". European Review of Social Psychology. 34 (2): 244–267. doi:10.1080/10463283.2022.2122319. ISSN   1046-3283. S2CID   257481194.
  39. ↑ Rubin, Mark; Owuamalam, Chuma Kevin; Spears, Russell; Caricati, Luca (2023-07-03). "Social identity explanations of system justification: Misconceptions, criticisms, and clarifications". European Review of Social Psychology. 34 (2): 268–297. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2023.2184578 . ISSN   1046-3283.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.