The two faces of dominance: The differential effect of ingroup superiority and outgroup inferiority on dominant-group identity and group esteem

Chow, Rosalind M.; Lowery, Brian S.; Knowles, Eric D.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.11.002

Cited by 34 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…44For example, see Chow, Lowery, and Knowles 2008; Knowles and Peng 2005; Lowery, Knowles, and Unzueta 2007; Knowles et al 2009.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Racial Identity and Voting: Conceptualizing White Identity in Spatial Terms

Weller¹,

Junn²

2018

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent political events have prompted an examination of the analytical tools and conceptual frameworks used in political science to understand voting and candidate choice. Scholars in the behavioral tradition have highlighted the empirical relationship between racial resentment and anti-black affect among white voters during and after President Obama’s successful run for re-election. The theoretical role of white identity within the context of the privileged status of this racial group has seen much less scholarly attention by political scientists, particularly with respect to racial group identification and its implications. To address this lacuna, we argue that racial identification among white voters can be conceived of as a utility-based trait relevant to candidate choice, combining a social-psychological approach of group membership together with a rational choice perspective. This conceptualization of the political utility of white racial identity provides wider conceptual latitude for empirical tests and explanations of voting in U.S. elections.

show abstract

“…44For example, see Chow, Lowery, and Knowles 2008; Knowles and Peng 2005; Lowery, Knowles, and Unzueta 2007; Knowles et al 2009.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Racial Identity and Voting: Conceptualizing White Identity in Spatial Terms

Weller¹,

Junn²

2018

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As Pinker (2005a) noted, "People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples, rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true" (p. 18). The conviction that one's own social group is somehow special, or even better than other comparable groups (e.g., Chow, Lowery, & Knowles, 2008), or the belief that one's current partner is the most amazing and irreplaceable person in the world (e.g., Murray, Holmes, Dolderman, & Griffin, 2000) could lead the believer to behave in ways that might contribute to his or her social success (e.g., conferring privileges to in-group members could lead to repeated exchange interactions benefiting all parties, or investing in a romantic partner might result in the production of viable offspring, etc. ).…”

Section: Sociality Ecology and The Adaptive Problems Of Our Ancestorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive Rationality: An Evolutionary Perspective on Cognitive Bias

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A casual look at the literature in social cognition reveals a vast collection of biases, errors, violations of rational choice, and failures to maximize utility. One is tempted to draw the conclusion that the human mind is woefully muddled. We present a three-category evolutionary taxonomy of evidence of biases: biases are (a) heuristics, (b) error management effects, or (c) experimental artifacts. We conclude that much of the research on cognitive biases can be profitably reframed and understood in evolutionary terms. An adaptationist perspective suggests that the mind is remarkably well designed for important problems of survival and reproduction, and not fundamentally irrational. Our analysis is not an apologia intended to place the rational mind on a pedestal for admiration. rather, it promises practical outcomes including a clearer view of the architecture of systems for judgment and decision making, and exposure of clashes between adaptations designed for the ancestral past and the demands of the present.

show abstract

“…Although ethnographic evidence (e.g.,Flagg, 1993;Frankenberg, 2001) suggests that White people, as members of a numerically and politically hegemonic group, often lack racial self-awareness, psychological research suggests that White people are quite capable of appreciating the link between their personal fates and the fate of their racial group as a whole (e.g.,Chow, Lowery, & Knowles, 2008;Knowles & Peng, 2005;Lowery, Unzueta, Knowles, & Goff, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the malleability of ideology: Motivated construals of color blindness.

Knowles

Lowery

Hogan

et al. 2009

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

206

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors propose that the content of certain sociopolitical ideologies can be shaped by individuals in ways that satisfy their social motivations. This notion was tested in the context of color-blind ideology. Color blindness, when construed as a principle of distributive justice, is an egalitarian stance concerned with reducing discrepancies between groups' outcomes; as a principle of procedural justice, however, color blindness can function as a legitimizing ideology that entrenches existing inequalities. In Study 1, White people high in antiegalitarian sentiment were found to shift their construal of color blindness from a distributive to a procedural principle when exposed to intergroup threat. In Studies 2, 3A, and 3B, the authors used manipulations and a measure of threat to show that antiegalitarian White people endorse color blindness to legitimize the racial status quo. In Study 3B, participants' endorsement of color-blind ideology was mediated by increases in their preference for equal treatment (i.e., procedural justice) as a response to threat. In the Discussion section, the authors examine implications of the present perspective for understanding the manner in which individuals compete over the meaning of crucial ideologies.

show abstract

The two faces of dominance: The differential effect of ingroup superiority and outgroup inferiority on dominant-group identity and group esteem

Cited by 34 publications

References 29 publications

Racial Identity and Voting: Conceptualizing White Identity in Spatial Terms

Racial Identity and Voting: Conceptualizing White Identity in Spatial Terms

Adaptive Rationality: An Evolutionary Perspective on Cognitive Bias

On the malleability of ideology: Motivated construals of color blindness.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About