Perceived Group Status Differences and the Effects of Gender, Ethnicity, and Religion on Social

By Shana Levin. 2004

107 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3bb6d00d7629982526d1fffe5b4b6dd73ac50864

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

1. Chris G. Sibley
2. J. Duckitt
3. A. Ho
4. K. Kahn
5. M. Verkuyten
6. E. Green
7. J. Sidanius
8. Felicia Pratto

In Social Psychology

1. Chris G. Sibley
2. J. Duckitt
3. J. Sidanius
4. A. Ho
5. M. Verkuyten
6. Lotte Thomsen
7. E. Green
8. Felicia Pratto

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Chris G. Sibley
2. J. Duckitt
3. J. Sidanius
4. Lotte Thomsen
5. A. Ho
6. M. Verkuyten
7. E. Green
8. Felicia Pratto

Citations in the corpus

• Group status, perceptions of threat, and support for social inequality (2009, background): “Speaking more directly to the idea that belonging to a relatively high-status group triggers greater preferences for inequality, members of groups that are perceived as high (versus low) in status tend to be higher in social dominance orientation, or SDO (Levin, 2004; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).”
• Multicultural recognition and ethnic minority rights: A social identity perspective (2006, methodology): “A possible solution is to use context framing (Levin, 2004) to make two different national situations salient in which one group is an ethnic minority in one situation and a national majority in the other.”
• We will hunt them down: How social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism fuel ethnic persecution of immigrants in fundamentally different ways (2008, background): “…argued elsewhere, this all also implies that people’s SDO levels dynamically vary with how hierarchical their current group position and context is (Levin, 1996, 2004; see also Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov, & Duarte, 2003), and that SDO levels and their effects depend on mutual, overlapping group…”
• A Meta‐Analytic Review of Paternalistic Leadership (2019, background): “These social hierarchies may provide higher status to one group over another group and allow one group to dominate another (Sidanius, Levin, Liu, & Pratto, 2000; Levin, 2004).”
• Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: a dual-process motivational model. (2010, background): “Experimental research has also shown that SDO is increased when membership in competitively dominant social groups is made salient or when group relations are characterized by high levels of societal resource scarcity and competition (e.g., Danso & Esses, 2001; Guimond et al., 2003; Huang & Liu, 200”
• Social Dominance Theory: Its Agenda and Method (2004, unknown): “also Guimond et al., 2003; Levin, 2004).”
• Effects of Dangerous and Competitive Worldviews on Right‐Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation over a Five‐Month Period (2007, unknown): “levels of competition and resource scarcity (e.g., Danso & Esses, 2001; Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov, & Duarte, 2003; Levin, 2004).”
• A Dual-Process Motivational Model of Ideology, Politics, and Prejudice (2009, background): “Somewhat more recent research has also shown that membership in competitively dominant social groups and high levels of societal resource scarcity and competition increases SDO (e.g., Danso & Esses, 2001; Guimond et al., 2003; Huang & Liu, 2005; Levin, 2004; Schmitt, Branscombe, & Kappen, 2003).”
• The Space between Us and Them: Perceptions of Status Differences (2009, methodology): “Individuals’ perceptions of what others in society believe may be a type of refl ected appraisal about their own status (e.g. Federico & Levin, 2004), which may differ from their personal beliefs.”