Status differenttals and intergroup behaviour

Sachdev, Itesh; Bourhis, Richard Y.

doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420170304

Cited by 281 publications

(204 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

175

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is clear that the psychological research is right to suggest that low status group members value own group membership less, and are more deferential to high group status subjects as a result. Our study also replicates the psychological finding that low status subjects get lower satisfaction from group membership than on high status subjects (e.g., Ellemers et al 1988Ellemers et al , 1992Sachdev and Bourhis 1987); so do minority subjects, with minorities generally being perceived more negatively than majorities (Lücken and Simon 2005;Seyranian et al 2008).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Group status, minorities and trust

Tsutsui

Zizzo

2013

Exp Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present the results of an experiment measuring the impact of low group status and relative group size on trust, trustworthiness and discrimination. Subjects interact with insiders and outsiders in trust games and periodically enter markets where they can trade group membership. Low status and minority subjects have low morale: that is, they comparatively dislike being low status and being minority subjects. Group discrimination against low status and minority subjects is unchanged. However, low status subjects are deferential to high status subjects in terms of comparatively higher trust, and minority subjects are deferential to majority subjects in terms of comparatively higher trustworthiness.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Group status, minorities and trust

Tsutsui

Zizzo

2013

Exp Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These characteristics, however, also may differ in their relative status (or how much they are valued and respected in the organization; Berger and Conner 1974). Differences in status between groups have been shown to affect behavior and cognition (Pettit and Lount 2010;Sachdev and Bourhis 1987;Thomas-Hunt, Ogden and Neale 2003). When working on a task, one's status is also used as a proxy for expected competence, such that individuals with low relative status are expected to be less competent or perform worse on the task (Ridgeway and Berger 1986).…”

Section: Relationship Focus Tradeoffmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Category Diversity Promotes Premeeting Elaboration: The Role of Relationship Focus

Loyd

Wang

Phillips

et al. 2013

Organization Science

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A purported downside of social category diversity is decreased relationship focus (i.e., one’s focus on establishing a positive social bond with a coworker). However, we argue that this lack of relationship focus serves as a central mechanism that improves information processing even prior to interaction and, ultimately, decision-making performance in diverse settings. We introduce the construct of premeeting elaboration (i.e., the extent to which individuals consider their own and others’ perspectives in the anticipation of an interaction) and explore its link with social category diversity and relationship focus. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrate that when disagreement occurs, social category diversity increases premeeting elaboration, with relationship focus as a central causal mechanism. Experiment 3 shows that premeeting elaboration has important implications for performance: disagreeing dyads with social category diversity elaborate more prior to meeting and, as a result, perform better on a decision-making task than those with social category homogeneity. We discuss the value of studying early-stage interaction and propose a reconsideration of the “downside” of social category diversity.

show abstract

“…Members of high-status groups (e.g., men and managers) are viewed as more valuable and competent persons and have more positive attitudes attributed to them. They also objectively possess more social and economic power than members of groups with lower social status (e.g., women and laborers) (Ridgeway, 2001; see also Sachdev & Bourhis, 1987, 1991. Thus, social categories often carry group status information that can affect social relations and provide a stable system of power and status inequalities (i.e., status value asymmetry) between groups (Jackman, 1994).…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%