Status Differentials in In-Group Bias

social psychology代写 From a social psychology standpoint, status liability, group permeability, and legitimacy are projected

social psychology代写
social psychology代写

Student’s Name

Abstract social psychology代写

From a social psychology standpoint, status liability, group permeability, and legitimacy are projected to have pervasive effects on in-group bias among both high and low status groups. In this project, these projected effects were examined critically and exclusively for evaluation with regard to theoretical analysis and practical application. The results of the study are consistent with theoretical conjectures of the social identity theory in their inference that high status groups are more biased on identity (Aronson et al, 2010). Therefore, the analysis indicates that perceived social status as well as the projected status differences play a more definite role in the emergence of in-group bias.

Status Differentials in In-Group Bias

This project report contains a meta-analysis of the manner in which individual membership in high status groups was compared to that of low status groups regarding responsiveness to status hierarchy. The research was undertaken through a thorough and practical investigation of the numerous ways in which the social structure of such groupings affect in-group social processes and the emergence of biases and prejudices related to social identity. Essentially, the goal was to establish the ways in which such membership creates a perception of social identity and perceptions of class and status as a social psychology代写

Seeing as the project provides functional framework that helps the understanding of intergroup relations, the report begins with an overview of the social identity theory (Aronson et al, 2010). The primary focus from a social psychology perspective is to study the relationship within and between groups and the mechanisms that influence such relationships.

The projected findings were studied at length against evidence retrieved from peer reviewed the scholarly literature to proffer a sound and comprehensive analysis on the impact of social differentials on the in-group bias. Scholarly researchers apply the theoretical framework to help guide the understanding of the power of communication and persuasion in-group dynamics (Bourhis and Gagnon, 2001). The role of personal identity and social motivations was also pertinent in studying in-group dynamics.


The primary data set for this project entailed effect sizes that analyzed the bias score for low status and high status groups comparatively as shown in Table 1. Recorded in Table 1 are the bias effect sizes along with the respective values for particular coded variables. Additionally, there were two complimentary but distinctly separate data sets were analyzed. One included the inter group evaluations from both low status and high status groups while the other contained in group effect sizes (i.e. effect sizes that compared low status in-group variations to those of high status in-group variations).

Since the presence of high-value figures in a data set is likely to significantly distort the outcome of the analysis, we examined the distribution of the effect size estimates. According to this examination, an effect size, which is estimated as (d = +4.35) was the extreme outlier. In the in-group effect sizes, we identified two extreme outliers as (d = – 2.34 and d = -2.04) and another two above the mean (d = +2.47 and d = + 2.21). The extreme values in any given distribution are either modified or excluded depending on the nature of research (Sachdev, I. & Bourhis, 1987). For the purpose of this study, the value of each extreme effect was altered to equal that of the respective closest distribution.

Discussion social psychology代写

From the outset, it is important to understand that human beings are inherently social beings; theoretical claims about this basic inference date back to Aristotle’s social philosophy. As social beings, people have a biological tendency to form communities, family, societies, and other social groupings (Bettencourt et al, 2001). This process is also reffered to as the socialization process through which human beings recognize and acknowledge others as essential parts of who they are (Aronson et al, 2010). Social psychologists explain that human socialization is based on perceived identities; this means that they retreat to social groups based on whom they think they share social status. The concept social identity emerges to explain group behavior and the cognitive biases that come with it.

Initially, the development of social identity was driven by a methodology of classifying participants into two distinctive groups based on a flip the coin techniques along with other trivial categorizations such as individual preferences. Participants’ fondness and individual preferences were seen to match those of other members of the same social groups.

These results indicate social psychology代写

that in-group favoritism was largely representative of shared social class affiliations (Bettencourt et al, 2001). In-group bias or relative favoritism also showed a vast disparity between the preferences of members of other social groups depending on the perceived social hierarchy (Aronson et al, 2010). When participants were tasked to divide points and allocate them to people in their respective groups as well as to a relevant outside group, they showed cognitive bias against the latter category (Bettencourt et al, 2001).

The inter group discrimination by social identity was also seen to reinforce individual members’ self-esteem and their perception of others depending on their perceived place in the status hierarchy. It is important to note that no evidentiary proof was deduced to support or quantify the self-esteem hypothesis; however, judging by the perception of self and others, it would appear that group membership reinforced a sense of self worth.Another key observation is that that group members often engage in competitive strategies whenever they feel that the social structure or class hierarchy is illegitimate or unstable. This is an attempt to overthrow the established system and introduce a new one, which implies that there will be opposition and reaction as an effort to resist change. social psychology代写

imilarly, in-group bias within low status groups showed relatively greater dimensions on issues that were irrelevant to social distinctions (Bourhis and Gagnon, 2001). These observations implie that members of these groups obsessed too much with details irrelevant with the social perceptions and merely protested their place in the social hierarchy. This behavior was attributed to retaliation driven by perennial dissatisfaction with the unfavorable status perceptions. As a result, members of lower class struggle to introduce newer dimensions or more meaningful class distinctions as platforms for in-group identity.


Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. (2010). Social psychology. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Bettencourt, B., Dorr, N, Charlton, K & Hume, L. (2001). “Status differences and in-group bias: a meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability.” Psychology Bull. July 127 (4):520-42.
Bourhis, R. Y.; Gagnon, A. (2001). Brown, R.; Gaertner, S. L., eds. “Social Orientations in the Minimal Group Paradigm”. Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup processes. 3 (1): 133–152.
Sachdev, I. & Bourhis, R. (1987). “Status differentials and intergroup behaviour”. European Journal of Social Psychology. 17 (3): 277–293

social psychology代写
social psychology代写

更多其他:prensentation代写 文学论文代写 商科论文代写 Essay代写 研究论文代写 期末论文代写 毕业论文代写

合作平台:天才代写 幽灵代写  写手招聘