Three studies demonstrated that meta-stereotypes held by members of dominant groups about how their group is viewed by a lower status group have important implications for intergroup relations. Study 1 confirmed that White Canadians hold a shared negative meta-stereotype about how they are viewed by Aboriginal Canadians; Studies 2 and 3 extended these results to people's beliefs about an individual out-group member's impressions of them. Feeling stereotyped was associated with negative emotions about intergroup interaction as well as decreases in current self-esteem and self-concept clarity. The perceptions of low- and high-prejudiced persons (LPs and HPs) diverged in a manner consistent with their distinct personal values and group identifications. LPs held a more negative meta-stereotype than did HPs. However, in a one-on-one interaction, HPs sensed that they were stereotyped, whereas LPs felt that they conveyed a counterstereotypical impression.
Although the desire for high status is considered universal, prior research suggests individuals often opt for lower status positions. Why would anyone favor a position of apparent disadvantage In 5 studies, we found that the broad construct of status striving can be broken up into two conceptions: one based on rank, the other on respect. While individuals might universally desire high levels of respect, we find that they vary widely in the extent to which they strive for high-status rank, with many individuals opting for middle- or low-status rank. The status rank that individuals preferred depended on their self-perceived value to the group: when they believed they provided less value, they preferred lower status rank. Mediation and moderation analyses suggest that beliefs about others' expectations were the primary driver of these effects. Individuals who believed they provided little value to their group inferred that others expected them to occupy a lower status position. Individuals in turn conformed to these perceived expectations, accepting lower status rank in such settings.
Socioeconomic status (SES) encompasses not just income but also educational attainment, financial security, and subjective perceptions of social status and social class. Socioeconomic status can encompass quality of life attributes as well as the opportunities and privileges afforded to people within society. Poverty, specifically, is not a single factor but rather is characterized by multiple physical and psychosocial stressors. Further, SES is a consistent and reliable predictor of a vast array of outcomes across the life span, including physical and psychological health. Thus, SES is relevant to all realms of behavioral and social science, including research, practice, education and advocacy.
SES affects overall human functioning, including our physical and mental health. Low SES and its correlates, such as lower educational achievement, poverty and poor health, ultimately affect our society. Inequities in health distribution, resource distribution, and quality of life are increasing in the United States and globally. Society benefits from an increased focus on the foundations of socioeconomic inequities and efforts to reduce the deep gaps in socioeconomic status in the United States and abroad.
Studies on human cooperation using economic games rarely include ecologically relevant factors. In studies on non-human primates however, both status and sex typically influence patterns of cooperation. Across primate species, high status individuals are more likely to cooperate, though this depends on the species-specific social structure of each sex. Based on human social structure, we predict that higher status males who interact more in hierarchical groups than females, will invest more than high status females in valued same-sex peers after successful cooperation. Across three studies, 187 male and 188 female participants cooperated with a (fictitious) same-sex partner who varied in competence. Participants then divided a reward between themselves and their partner. High status was induced in three different ways in each study, social influence, leadership and power. No overall sex difference in reward sharing was observed. Consistent with the hypothesis however, across all three studies, high status males invested more than high status females in cooperative partners, suggesting that high status males intuitively evaluate sharing rewards with same-sex partners as more beneficial.
Although empirical evidence with humans is scarce, there is some evidence suggesting that high status human males are more likely than high status females to cooperate with lower status same-sex individuals. Specifically, cooperation between professors in the same department on a joint publication was found to be more common between higher and lower status men than between higher and lower status women . In contrast, high status male and female professors were just as likely to cooperate with same-sex individuals of identical high status. Other studies suggest that high ranked females and males interact differently in cooperative settings, with high status male classmates interacting more equally with unrelated same-sex classmates than high status females both in early childhood , and in middle childhood . Several studies additionally demonstrate that compared with higher-status women, higher-status men perceive lower-status same-sex peers more positively [30, 31]. However, although suggestive, a more direct measure of how much high status males and females value cooperative partners is given by reward sharing following cooperation, something that, to our knowledge, has not been directly examined.
There exist several aspects of economic behavior in which there are well-documented sex differences (see  for a review). There is however little direct evidence for sex differences in cooperative behavior [6, 7, 33], although see . To our knowledge, status has not been included in any study of cooperative behavior despite being considered perhaps the most important factor that predicts cooperation in non-human primates .
The aim of the following studies was thus to examine the interaction between status and sex. In humans, high status results from a variety of sources, including positions of leadership or power , prestige or dominance , or any form of social influence. Because high status takes such differing forms, we defined status using separate definitions in each of the three following studies: social influence, leadership, and power. We specifically tested the hypothesis that higher status men would choose to invest more than higher-status women in lower-status same-sex individuals with whom they had cooperated to obtain a reward. To avoid any potential influence of prior experience, we created de novo three experimental games in which we could manipulate status and partner value in a neutral setting with anonymous partners. In each game, we modelled a situation in which a participant and a partner each make an individual, quantifiable contribution to a joint task, and as a consequence of this, receive a joint reward. The participant is then asked to distribute the reward between themselves and the partner. This basic situation is a form of dictator game with joint production, where the production phase involves obtaining a reward as a function of the combined efforts of two partners . This was designed to model behavior in an organizational setting, where a task is split up into components, but rewards are distributed by a single individual. In each game, status is manipulated experimentally. Partners differed in the extent to which they contributed to the joint results, with the constraint that the relative contribution of the partner was either equal or inferior to that of the participant. This was done in order to avoid any overt conflict between high status and relative competence. These games did not examine the decision to cooperate, but looked at reward distribution following cooperation.
In our first study, we aimed to create an entirely gender-neutral context so that potential sex differences in responses to contents, talent, and attitudes towards compensation would be minimized. In this, we presented participants with a series of situations each of which showed the participant and one fictitious same-sex partner. Participants were informed on screen that the pair had succeeded in doing an unidentified joint task, and were asked to distribute a reward between themselves and the partner. Three dimensions were varied. Relative status of the participant was manipulated by varying the description of the participant as influential or not and was a between-subjects variable. For each situation, the competence level of the participant (expressed as the probability of the participant being able to finish the task alone) and that of the partner was shown. The relative difference in competence levels between participant and partner was varied as a within-subjects variable. In addition, for each situation, the reward (in points) given for successfully completing the task was shown, and was also varied as a within-subjects variable.
44 female and 44 male Canadian undergraduate students participated individually. After the study was explained and verbal consent obtained, the participant was seated at a computer which provided all instructions. Initially, the computer randomly assigned the participant to either the high or low status condition. In this study, status was defined as exerting influence over a group of same-sex individuals. Half of the participants of each sex were randomly assigned to the high or low status condition. In the high status condition, participants were asked to imagine that they belonged to a group in which they wielded the most influence:
After assignment to a status condition, participants then completed 12 trials, each of which described the results of cooperating with a fictitious partner. On each trial, the screen displayed an icon representing the participant and a fictitious partner. All icons depicted faces of the same sex as the participant. Under each icon was a number constituting the probability of being successful at completing the task on their own (i.e. their competence level), and the amount of the reward that could be gained by cooperating (expressed in terms of points). Three quantities of rewards were provided: 10, 20 or 40 points. The participant then was informed that the pair had done well enough to merit a reward. The participant then had to indicate how much of the reward to allocate to his or her partner. Note that in this experiment, points were not translated into any concrete rewards. 59ce067264