The emergence of status beliefs: From structural inequality to legitimizing ideology.

By Cecilia L. Ridgeway. 2001

101 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/408d43be74ffa5b43c6e7f952c30873eded1ed1e

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Minority Members' Implicit Attitudes: Automatic Ingroup Bias As A Function Of Group Status (2002, background): “Status beliefs differ from ingroup bias effects in that they are consensual, and “their apparent consensuality gives status beliefs social validity in the eyes of those who encounter them” (Ridgeway, 2001, p. 257).”
Effects of Structural Position on Allocation and Evaluation Decisions for Scientists and Engineers in Industrial R&D (2007, background): “…stable over time, those in the normative ingroup are believed to be more competent, are more liked, gain more influence, and garner more rewards than those in outgroups (Pettigrew, 1979; Berger, Rosenholtz, and Zelditch, 1980; Ridgeway, 1986, 1991, 2001; Webster and Hysom, 1998; Hogg, 2001).”
A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: implications for the origins of sex differences. (2002, background): “In an account of the emergence of female subordination that elaborates social–psychological mediational processes, inequalities between individual group members bias the development of influence hierarchies in encounters between members of the two groups (Ridgeway, 2001a, 2001b).”
Coexistence Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Evaluating Intergroup Encounter Interventions Between Jews and Arabs in Israel. (2004, background): “…1954; Pettigrew, 1998), it is presumed here that a symmetrical contact is preferable and more effective than an asymmetrical one in creating intergroup rapprochement and that contact in which members of one group dominate the others can powerfully reinforce status differences (Ridgeway, 2001).”
The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology (2002, background): “We interpret this evidence as indicating that one function of stereotyping is to explain, justify, and rationalise unequal social outcomes (see also Conway, Pizzamiglio, & Mount, 1996; Glick & Fiske, 2001; Jackman & Senter, 1983; Jost & Banaji, 1994; Ridgeway, 2001).”
Priming meritocracy and the psychological justification of inequality (2007, background): “Women’s low status relative to men is also justiWed by stereotyping women as more warm, communal, and nurturing, as well as less competent than men (Eagly & Mladinic, 1993; Glick & Fiske, 2001; Ridgeway, 2001).”
Identity Dynamics in Occupational Dirty Work: Integrating Social Identity and System Justification Perspectives (2006, background): “Although occupation members are likely to subscribe to the same general normative standards as are found in society (cf. status beliefs; Ridgeway 2001)—specifically, to regard physical, social, and moral occupational issues as legitimate sources of stigmas (Miller 1997)—they are apt to question the…”
Complementary justice: effects of "poor but happy" and "poor but honest" stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. (2003, background): “For example, the widespread assumptions that men (and members of other high-status groups) are competent but not likeable and that women (and other members of low-status groups) are likeable but not competent (Eagly & Mladinic, 1993; Glick & Fiske, 2001; Jackman, 1994; Ridgeway, 2001) may be similar”
College Sophomores in the Laboratory Redux: Influences of a Narrow Data Base on Social Psychology's View of the Nature of Prejudice (2008, background): “These measures are called ideology measures because of the theoretical role they play as mediator between support for inequality and opposition to affirmative action, serving as masks or justifications for resisting putting social equality into action (Ridgeway, 2001; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).”