Stabilizing Inequality: Identifying Psychological Mechanisms That Underpin Group-Based Differences

Abstract

In three papers, with data from three cultural contexts, and using both experimental and correlational methods, this dissertation addresses the psychological mechanisms that stabilize inequality. In Paper 1, I address the ideological dimension of inequality. Whereas previous work on legitimizing ideologies has tended to focus on secular attitudes and on Western contexts, I use structural equation modeling to show that Indian participants high in social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) recruit one particular religious belief, Karma, as a means of justifying their support for policies that enhance differences between caste groups. In Paper 2, I demonstrate that even high identifiers in low-status groups sometimes fail to reject hierarchy-enhancing beliefs. Across four studies, I show that baseline perceptions of legitimacy can render social identification politically inert for low-status group members, even as it remains politicized for high-status groups. While previous work has emphasized the importance of social identification in driving low-status groups to engage in collective action, the results of Paper 2 in fact suggest that social identification alone is not sufficient for individuals to endorse beliefs that serve the interest of the group. Rather, Paper 2 shows, it takes active efforts to highlight system illegitimacy for high identifiers in low-status groups to challenge inequality as much as high-identifiers in high-status groups defend it. Across four studies, Paper 3 shows how even perceptual processes can have the effect of reinforcing group boundaries. In particular, high SDO individuals in high-status groups ascribed ingroup characteristics to high-status targets, and denied these characteristics to low-status targets. This is the first evidence that antiegalitarians aren’t simply more restrictive in terms of who they include in the ingroup, but are sensitive to the status implications of inclusionary/exclusionary decisions, and seek to sharpen status boundaries. This is also the first work to investigate how similar processes play out for people high in RWA, showing that these individuals are sensitive as to whether a target is conformist vs. nonconformist, denying ingroup characteristics in the case of the latter but not the former.