No abstract

We propose that individuals low (vs. high) in socioeconomic status (SES) are vulnerable to impaired relationship functioning through two different mutually reinforcing paths that both directly implicate perceptions of control and relational devaluation. The first of these involves chronic exposure to relational devaluation as a function of factors such as stigmatization in broader society that serves to undermine low SES individuals' perceptions of control. The second involves enhanced reactivity to relationally devaluing experiences such as discrimination and ostracism as a function of this limited reserve of perceived control. We present a perceived control-relationally devaluing experiences model of low SES vulnerability to impaired relationship functioning that incorporates these predictions and further specifies how low SES individuals' reduced perceptions of control may help account for documented associations between low SES and negative interpersonal outcomes such as hostility, aggression, and reduced relationship quality. We conclude by considering implications for intervention as well as potential alternative and complementary mechanisms.

The importance of social connection to well-being is underscored by individuals' reactivity to events highlighting the potential for rejection and exclusion, which extends even to observing the social exclusion of others ("vicarious ostracism"). Because responses to vicarious ostracism depend at least in part on empathy with the target, and individuals tend to empathize less readily with outgroup than ingroup members, the question arises as to whether there is a boundary condition on vicarious ostracism effects whereby individuals are relatively immune to observing ingroup-on-outgroup ostracism. Of particular interest is the case where members of a dominant ethnic group observe fellow ingroup members ostracize a member of a disadvantaged ethnic minority group, as here there is a compelling potential alternative: Perceived violation of contemporary social norms condemning prejudice and discrimination might instead lead dominant group members to be especially upset by "dominant-on-disadvantaged" ostracism. Accordingly, the present research examines, across four studies and 4413 participants, individuals' affective reactions to observing dominanton-disadvantaged versus dominant-on-dominant ostracism. In each study, dominant group members (White/Europeans) observed dominant group members include or ostracize a fellow dominant group member or a disadvantaged ethnic minority group member (a Black individual) in an online Cyberball game. Results revealed that dominant group members felt more guilt, anger, and sadness after observing severe ostracism of a disadvantaged as opposed to dominant group member. Although no direct effects emerged on behavioral outcomes, exploratory analyses suggested that observing ostracism of a disadvantaged (versus dominant) group member had indirect effects on behavior via increased feelings of anger. These results suggest that observing ostracism may be a sufficiently potent and relatable experience that when it occurs across group boundaries it awakens individuals' sensitivity to injustice and discrimination.

In contrast to when members of marginalized groups choose to share their personal experiences on their own terms and in service of their own goals, when outside forces impose a focus on personal experiences in discussions of intergroup policies, there is instead the potential for disempowering implications: Being asked by someone else to approach intergroup issues through the specific lens of their personal experience may lead members of marginalized groups to sense that they are seen as the target of others’ harmful (e.g., discrimination) or benevolent (e.g., empathy) moral actions. According to research and theory on moral typecasting, perceiving a person as a target is fundamentally incompatible with perceiving them as an agent and thus is linked to lower perceived competence. Extending this theory to self-perceptions, seven studies provide evidence for an imposed experience focus effect, whereby being prompted to talk about their personal experiences (vs. reasoning) in discussions of intergroup issues reduces racialized individuals’ momentary feelings of power and power-relevant behaviors such as exerting social influence over White individuals’ opinions. Perceptions of being viewed as less competent by others or seeing themselves as less competent in the moment were consistently implicated in this effect, which was not evident for White individuals or in discussions of general topics. Asking members of marginalized groups for their opinions in an open manner, or asking about their reasoning or personal firsthand knowledge, all appear to constitute means of learning about their perspective on intergroup issues in a more empowering way.

No abstract