Self-Categorization, Status, and Social Influence ...

Self-Categorization, Status, and Social Influence Author(s): Julian A. Oldmeadow, Michael J. Platow, Margaret Foddy and Donna Anderson Source: Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 2, Special Issue: Social Identity: Sociological and Social Psychological Perspectives (Jun., 2003), pp. 138-152 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1519844 Accessed: 18-11-2015 02:51 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1519844?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Sage Publications, Inc. and American Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Psychology Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 136.186.77.178 on Wed, 18 Nov 2015 02:51:03 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SocialPsychology Quarterly 2003,Vol. 66,No. 2, 138-152

Self-Categorization, Status,and SocialInfluence* JULIANA. OLDMEADOW MICHAEL J.PLATOW

La TrobeUniversity

MARGARET FODDY

CarletonUniversity

DONNA ANDERSON

La TrobeUniversity

Thedomainofsocialinfluence is central tosocialpsychology, andis claimedas a core domainoftwoimportant theories: aspectoftheexplanatory self-categorization theory andexpectation In thispaperwecontrast andthetheory states. ofstatuscharacteristics predictions derived fromeachtheory abouttherelative influence ofgroupmembers In the whodiffer and on statuscharacteristics. bothon sharedcategory membership firstoftwoexperiments, participants wereaskedto decidewhichoffourpeoplewere answerto a task;sharedgroupmembership, relative mostlikelyto knowthecorrect werevaried. Wefoundbothstatus andinandrelevant/irrelevant groupstatus, expertise A secondexperiment abouttheimportance groupidentity effects. provided evidence of tosharedidentity andstaandsimilarity, as related perceptions ofrelative competence tus,intheinfluence process.

(see Blau Two aspectsofsocialstructure 1977) stand out as particularlypowerful of a person'sabilityto infludeterminants ence others:social statusand sharedgroup membership.People of highsocial status, are ofteninflusuchas whitemalephysicians, situations in a wide of social array ential becausepeopleexpectthemto be competent at a varietyof tasks.People also are influenced frequently by membersof theirown notbecausethose socialgroupsor categories, individualsare expertsbutbecause theyare in important ways. similarto themselves The idea that both status and group in the influence are important membership processcan be tracedback at least as faras Frenchand Raven's (1959) analysisof social

is made between power,wherea distinction power.Sincethen, expertpowerand referent in statuscharacteristics theory developments (Berger,Fisek,et al. 1977)and in self-categorizationtheory(Turner1991;Turneret al. of these 1987) have increasedunderstanding two processes as related to true influence Both compliance. ratherthanto power-based theoriesare well developedand established and each withintheirrespectivedisciplines, offersdistinctperspectiveson social influence.Yet theyalso displaya basiccompatibilitythatmayproveusefulforexploringthe combinedeffectsof statusand groupmembershipon socialinfluence. Theoryand Social StatusCharacteristics Influence

* The authorswould like to thankProfessorMike Hogg and threeanonymousreviewersfortheirhelpful commentson earlier versionsof thispaper, and Dr. Ben Ong forhis statisticaladvice.This research was carriedout whileMargaretFoddy was an associate professorof psychologyat La Trobe University. Send requests for reprintsto Julian Oldmeadow, School of PsychologicalScience,La Trobe University, Bundoora 3086, Victoria,Australia;j.oldmeadow@ latrobe.edu.au

Statuscharacteristics theoryexplainsthe developmentof inequalitiesin participation and influenceduringinitialinteractionsin groups where membersare motivatedto make correctdecisionson a valued taskfor whichthereis no obviouslycorrectanswer. rates participation Accordingto the theory, intaskgroupsare a funcandsocialinfluence 138


SELF-CATEGORIZATION,STATUS,AND INFLUENCE thatgroupmembers tionoftheexpectations hold for themselvesand for othersabout their relative abilityat the task (Berger, Wagner,and Zelditch1985;Humphreysand Berger1981).Those who are expectedto be morecompetentat the group'staskparticipate more and exertmore influenceover groupdecisionsthanthosewhoare expected to be less competent;when disagreements arise,theyare resolvedlargelyin the direcmembers'views. tionofthehigher-status The theoryarguesthatexpectationsof competenceoftenare generatedat theoutset of interaction throughcomparisonsbetween groupmembersin termsof statuscharacteris anycharacteristics.A statuscharacteristic in the istic that is evaluated differentially broadersocietyand is associatedwitheither specificor generalexpectationsof competence(Bergeret al. 1977;Websterand Foschi 1988).Througha processof "statusgeneralization"(Websterand Driskell1978),group memberswithrelativelyhighsocial status outsidethe groupare expectedto be more at thegroup'staskthanlower-stacompetent tusgroupmembers. To capturetheeffectsof different status characteristicson expectationsin specific task contexts,statuscharacteristics theory distinguishesbetweenspecificand diffuse and takesintoaccount statuscharacteristics, theirrelevanceto the group'stask.Specific are thosewhichimplya statuscharacteristics levelofcompetenceat specifictasksor skills, or artisticability(e.g., suchas mathematical Foddy and Smithson1996). Diffusestatus characteristics,such as gender,race, and are associated with physicalattractiveness, and generalpositiveor negativeexpectations forone's expectedcomso haveimplications petence at almost any task (Webster and notonly Driskell1983).Statuscharacteristics generategeneralor specificexpectationsof in addition, theeffect ofanystacompetence; on expectationsand influtus characteristic ence dependslargelyon itsrelevanceto the task (Foddy 1988; Foddy and Riches 2000; Norman,Smith,and Berger 1988). Status characteristics theorysets out precisepathways,called paths of relevance, through whichanygivenstatuscharacteristic can be linkedto anygiventaskability(Bergeret al. is to 1977).The morerelevanta characteristic

139

thetask,thestronger theexpectations itgenerates.The relevanceofa givenstatuscharacteristicdependson whetherit is specificor andwhether thereis a culturalassocidiffuse, ation between that characteristicand the abilityrequiredto completethetask. An important aspectofthetheoryis that statuscharacteristics neednotbe directly relevantto thegroup'staskin orderto generate ofcompetenceand affectsocial expectations influence. Any statuscharacteristic thatdifferentiates individualsin a groupor is relevantto thegroup'staskmaybe used to infer groupmembers'relativecompetencein the immediatecomparativecontext.As a result, broad statuscharacteristics such as gender and race affectpeople's expectations in almost all task situationsunless they are explicitlydissociatedfromthe task (Foddy and Smithson1999).Overallexpectations of of thepositive competenceare a summation and negativeexpectationsderivedfromall salientstatuscharacteristics (Balkwellet al. 1992;Berger,Norman,et al. 1992). For statuscharacteristics theory,then, patternsof influencein task groupsare a functionof group members'expectations abouteachother'srelativecompetenceat the task. These expectations are generalized fromstatuscharacteristics; theyare a functionofthenumberand typeofstatuscharacteristicssalientin the context,and of their relevanceto thetaskat hand.Throughexpectationsof competence, statusgeneratestrue influenceratherthan inducingcompliance through power.People deferto higher-status groupmembersbecause theythinktheyare morelikelyto be correctand to facilitate the group'sprogresstowardssuccessfulcompletionofa task(Bergeret al. 1977). Self-Categorization Theoryand Social Influence Self-categorization theoryextendsand elaborateson conceptsoriginally discussedin social identitytheory(Hogg and Abrams 1988;Tajfel1982;Tajfeland Turner1986).A keyfeatureof socialidentity theoryis thata consistslargelyofhisor her person'sidentity "knowledgethathe [or she] belongsto certainsocial groups,togetherwithsome emotionaland value significance to him[or her]


140

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY

of the groupmembership" (Tajfel1982:31). People's self-concepts thusconsistnot only of theirunique personal identitiesbut of theirsocial identitiesas well: the attitudes, beliefs,and perceptionsof the groupsone identifieswithformpartof one's own selfconcept. Social identitiesthus provide a frameof referenceforthe appropriateattitudes,beliefs,and perceptionsone "should" hold (Hogg 2001a,2002).Social identity theoryalso arguesthatpeople are motivatedto maintaindistinctive and positivesocialidentities;theydo thisin partbyshowingbias in favoroftheirowngroups(Tajfel1982;Tajfel andTurner1986),especiallywhentheirsocial is threatenedby comparisonwitha identity higher-statusor very similar out-group (Branscombeet al. 1999;Jetten, Spears,and Manstead1997;Spears,Doosje, and Ellemers 1997). Self-categorization theoryelaborateson the cognitivemechanisms involvedin social identity. Accordingto thistheory, socialidentification involvesthecategorization ofsocial stimuliinto in-groups(categoriesto which one belongs)and out-groups(categoriesto whichone does notbelong).The categorizationprocessleadsto an accentuation ofintracategory similarities and intercategory as a result,selfand othersare differences; stereotypedin termsof the attributesthat definethe in-groupwhileat the same time it froma comparisonoutdifferentiating group(Haslam et al. 1999;Hogg and Turner 1987;Tajfel1959). Although self-categorizationtheory focuseson social cognition, therole ofmotivationsin intergroup behaviorhas remained a centralpartofthetheory. The motivation to maintaina distinctiveand positive social interms hasbeendiscussedprimarily identity of itsimplications forself-esteem and intergroup discrimination(Abrams and Hogg 1988; Long and Spears 1997; Long, Spears, and Manstead1994),whilethemotivation to reduce uncertaintyhas been discussed in relationto social influence(McGartyet al. 1993;Turner1991;Turnerand Oakes 1989) and in regardto group identificationand intergroupdiscrimination(Hogg 2000b, 2001a;Hogg and Mullin1999). The natureof social influencedescribed by self-categorization theoryderivesfrom

the cognitiveprocessof self-categorization togetherwithmotivationsassociated with groupmembership. Because people derive manyof theirattitudes, beliefs,and perceptionsfromthe social categoriestheybelong to, they are influencedby the attitudes, beliefs,and perceptionsof prototypicalingroup members and expect them to be sharedby the in-groupas a whole (Turner 1991; Turnerand Oakes 1989). Subjective is a centralpartof group-based uncertainty influencebecause it leads people towards socialcomparisonand rendersthemopen to influencefromothers(Festinger1954;Hogg 2000a;Turner1991;Turnerand Oakes 1989). In ambiguousor unclearsituations, actualor anticipateddisagreementwithothersleads peopleto agreewithin-group membersmore readilythanwithout-groupmembersas a means of reducinguncertainty. As in status characteristics thistypeofinfluence is theory, not merelyreluctantconformity or compliance but a formof trueinfluence, in which one internalizesthe attitudes,beliefs,and perceptionsof social in-groupsbecause it is normaland appropriatethatpeople in those groupshold such attitudes, beliefs,and perceptions (Turner1991; Turnerand Oakes 1989). Status always has been an important aspectof social identity theory(Tajfel1982; Tajfeland Turner1979,1986),and self-catethe congorizationtheoryhas incorporated ceptin researchon discrimination (Bourhis, Turner,and Gagnon 1997; Sachdev and Bourhis 1987, 1991), minorityinfluence (Clark and Maass 1988; David and Turner 1996, 1999) and leadership (Hogg 2001b; Platow,Haslam, et al. forthcoming; Platow and van Knippenberg2001). Most of this research,however,has conceptualizedstatus as an aspector outcomeof groupmembership ratherthan focusingon the distinct involvedin each processand on mechanisms howtheymayinteract. The separateprocesses describedby statuscharacteristics theory and by self-categorization theorysuggest and theoretiscope forfurther investigation cal developmentin the domain of social influence.


SELF-CATEGORIZATION,STATUS,AND INFLUENCE

141

To measure social influence,Kalkhoff and Barnum(2000) recordedtheproportion of timesthe participantsdeferredto each Althoughstatuscharacteristicstheory partner's opinionswhentheyall disagreedon and self-categorization theoryhave devel- whichwas the correctresponse.The results withintheseparatesubdis- indicatedthatsocialstatusand socialidentity oped respectively ciplines of sociological and psychological affectedpatternsof influenceseparately; socialpsychology, theyoccupysomecommon whencombined,theireffectswere additive. groundin the domain of social influence. When both status and group membership First,theyboth describesocial comparison were known,participantswere influenced processes that lead to influence.In status morereadilyby a high-status in-grouppartcharacteristics socialcomparisons are nerthanbyeitheran in-grouppartneralone theory, made in termsofstatusand lead to differen- or a high-statuspartner alone. The two tial expectationsof competenceat a valued processes, however,appeared to operate task. In self-categorizationtheory,social throughdifferent mechanisms: statusgenercomparisonsare made in termsof the cate- ated expectationsof competenceforhighgoriesto whichpeoplebelongand determine status partners, whereas shared group whetherothersare consideredrelatively dif- membership did not. ferentor similarto theselfin theimmediate Kalkhoffand Barnum's (2000) study context. comparative providessome evidencethatstatus-organizSecond,boththeoriescan be regardedas ingand socialidentity processesoperateconmechanismsto reduceuncertain- currently in task-group settings and describing ty.As discussed above, the reduction of contribute jointlyto patternsof social influis a keyconceptin theself-cate- ence.The additiveeffects uncertainty ofstatusand social gorization theory of social influence identitythroughdifferent mechanismsraise and some questionsabout the processof social (McGartyet al. 1993;Turner1991;Turner Oakes 1989). Status characteristics theory influencethatwarrantfurther investigation. stressesthe importanceof usingambiguous One question concernsfactorsthat might tasksin orderto maximizeuncertainty and moderate the strengthof each process: lead subjectsto relyon statuscharacteristics Under whatconditionswilla target'sstatus to decidewhichresponseis mostlikelyto be be mostimportant, and underwhatcondicorrect(Bergeret al. 1977).Thereforeboth tionswillthe target'sgroupmembership be statusandgroupmembership maycontribute mostimportant? Anotherquestionconcerns to patternsofinfluence reductionof the mechanismthroughwhichsharedgroup through uncertaintyabout ambiguous or unclear membershipproduces influence in task situations. groups:Are in-groupmembersexpectedto Despitesubstantial empiricalsupportfor be morecompetent thanout-group members, both statuscharacteristics theoryand self- and ifnot,whyare theymoreinfluential? A each has been tested thirdquestion concerns how to gain the categorizationtheory, primarilyin isolationfromthe other.One clearest theoreticalunderstandingof the exceptionis a recentstudyexaminingthe additiveeffects ofstatusand groupmemberjoint effectsof status generalization and ship:What principlesor conceptsmightbe socialidentity on patternsofsocialinfluence used to linkthetwotheories, accountingfor (Kalkhoffand Barnum2000).In a simulated the different mechanismsand the additive task-groupsetting,participantsinteracted effectsof statusand groupmembershipon withtwo(fictitious) to solvea word- influence? partners task.In twocriticalconditions, matching parIn thispaperwe presenttwoshortexperticipants were led to believe that their imentsto illustrate and exploretheseissues. werea high-status partners in-group member In the first,we examined the factorsthat and a low-statusout-groupmemberin one mightaffectthe strength of each processon and a high-status condition, out-groupmem- patternsof influence. We identified two facber and low-statusin-groupmemberin the torsthought to be centralto theeffects ofstaother. tus and groupmembershipon the relative ComparingStatusCharacteristics Theory WithSelf-Categorization Theory


142

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY

we reasonedthattheneedto agree therelevanceofthe Therefore influenceoffourtargets: to the issue at withotherin-groupmembersin relationto available statusinformation hand,and theextentto whichthestatements out-groupmemberswould be greaterwhen targetswerebelievedto the statements were thoughtto be opinions madebyinfluencing be opinionsor facts.In the second experi- ratherthanfacts.Conversely,we believed, underlying statuseffectsshouldbe strongeron matters mentwe exploredthemechanism on patterns offact. the effectof groupmembership of influencein tasksituationsby examining the perceptionsand expectationsgenerated Method by status and group membership,and we Participants.One hundredseventy-six relateto the examinedhowtheseperceptions university students(32 males,144 Australian offourtargetindividrelativepersuasiveness sampledfromvarinot stated), females, one uals.We use the insightsgainedfromthese campus, participated ous around locations experimentsto suggesta theoreticallink ranged Ages in this experiment. voluntarily and self-catebetweenstatus-generalization = 18 years). from 17 to 47 years (median gorizationprocesses in relation to social werepresentedwith Design.Participants and to suggestdirectionsforfurinfluence, a word-definition and asked which problem therresearch. of fourinfluencing targets'responsesthey thoughtwas correct.Each of theinfluencing EXPERIMENT 1 memberor an targetswas eitheran in-group In this experiment we manipulated out-groupmemberin termsof nationality betweensubjectstwo factorsthoughtto be (Australianor American),and eitherhighor and self-cate- low in statusin termsofpositionin theteam centralto status-generalization gorizationprocesses of influence,and we (a captainora juniormember).Twovariables examinedtheireffectson patternsof influ- were manipulatedindependentlybetween ence.The firstof thesewas therelevanceof subjectsin a factorialmanner:(1) thelength thestatusinformation to thetaskat hand.As ofthepathofrelevanceand (2) whetherthe targets discussedabove,relevanceis a centralvari- statementsmade by the influencing thedegreeto whichstatus were describedas opinionsonlyor whether able determining individuals'rela- one (unidentified)statementwas factually differentiates information tive competenceand subsequentinfluence. correct.Because the influenceoccurredin Differentiation on morehighlyrelevantsta- the domain of word definition,we operaleadsto a greaterdifferentia- tionalizedthe shorterpath of relevanceby tusinformation thetargetsas debatingteammemin tion social influence than does less describing (Foddy and Smithson bers (i.e., knowledgeableabout words);we relevantinformation createdthelongerorweakerpathbydescrib1996;Moore 1968). The second manipulated factor was ing the targetsas volleyballteam members. wereassigned whethertheresponsesgivenbythefourtar- Equal numbersofparticipants getswere presentedas opinionsonly,or as randomlyto each of the four conditions faceitherfactuallycorrector incorrect.Some derivedfromthis2 x 2 between-subjects authors maintain that the validityof all torialdesign.Withinsubjectswe manipulated targets'countryof origin knowledgeis ultimatelya matterof social (1) theinfluencing consensus(Hogg and Mullin1999;Moscovici (AustraliaandAmerica)and (2) theinfluencthat"facts"maybe ing targets'status(team captainand junior 1976).We argue,however, seen as properties of the superordinate teammember). Materials and procedure. The entire (human) category,whereasopinionsimply was presentedon a singlequesand so are between experiment groups disagreement properties of groups at a lower level of tionnaire page as a study comparing abstraction.Hence influenceon issues of Australians'and Americans'understanding read words.Participants opinion may reflectintergroupprocesses ofEnglish-language themthattheywere informing moreclearlythaninfluenceon issuesof fact instructions in the second phase of a two(see Mugny et al. 1995; Wagner 1984). participating


SELF-CATEGORIZATION,STATUS.AND INFLUENCE

143

part studyand that theywould be shown ofwhattheysaid.We conducteda 2 (country some of theresponsesgivenby fourpersons of influencing target)x 2 (statusof influencwho were asked the definitionsof various ing target)x 2 (team) x 2 (opinionvs. fact) English-languagewordsduringPhase 1 of log-linearanalysiswitha backwardeliminathe study.It was statedthatthe sample for tion procedure.The model fittingthe data Phase 1 consisted of members of the mostcloselyincludeda three-way interaction Australianand Americannational [volley- onlybetweencountry, status,and team;chiball/debating]teams, collected during a square(8,N = 176) = 5.35,p= .72. recenttournament held at a local university. Figure1 showsthepercentageofparticiThe instructions endedbystatingeitherthat pants in the volleyball team conditions (1) "thedefinitions providedbelowrepresent choosingtheanswerprovidedbyeach ofthe the opinions of the Australians and the fourtargets.More participants alignedtheir Americans"or that(2) "the definitions pro- ownviewswiththoseofthehigher-status invided below do not simplyrepresentthe groupmemberthanwiththoseof anyof the opinions of the Australians and the other targets.Status appeared to have an Americans;one of thedefinitions is thecor- effectonlyamongin-groupmembers;alterrectdefinition." natively,group membershiphad an effect Undertheseinstructions was written the only among high-statustargets.Figure 2 word therblig(Meredith 1953). Four lines showsthe percentageof participants in the were then presented, each containing a debating team conditions choosing the descriptionof the influencing target.Each answerprovidedbyeach of thefourtargets. targetwas identifiedby a supposedpartici- Amongthe low-statustargets,the in-group pantidentification number,his or her coun- targetwas more influentialthan the outtryof origin(eitherAustraliaor America), grouptarget.Unexpectedly, in-groupmemand his or herstatus(eitherteamcaptainor bersweremoreinfluential whentheywereof juniormember).Beside each targetwas writ- lowstatusthanwhentheywereofhighstatus, ten the definitionsupposedlyprovidedby and high-statusout-groupmemberswere thatpersonforthe wordtherblig. The four more influentialthan high-statusin-group definitions were (1) a typeof geologicalfor- members. mation,(2) one ofthebonesinsidethehand, (3) a primitive musicalinstrument, and (4) a Discussion unitof measurement.The pairingof these The three-way interaction between witheach of the influencing definitions tarcountry, status,and team suggeststhatboth getswas counterbalancedbetweensubjects social and statuscontributed identity to each in a Latin-squaredesign.Althoughtheorder level target's of influence in this setting, and inwhichtheinfluencing targetswerepresentin the effects ed remainedconstant(Australianteamcap- thatthesefactorshad different tain,Australianjunior member,American volleyballteamand thedebatingteamcondito ourexpectations, however, teamcaptain,Americanjuniormember),the tions.Contrary the opinion/fact manipulationexertedno definitions wererotatedbetweensubjects. We All participantsthenrespondedto the effecton any target'slevel of influence. had thought that the targets' group memberitem"If youhad to chooseone ofthesedefinitionsabove all others,whichone wouldit ship would be more importantwhen the be?" The answer provided served as the statements were presented as opinions because opinionsare moresociallyanchored dependentvariable. than facts and more open to variation between groups.At leastinthiscontext, howResults ever,it appearsthatthisdistinction is irreleBefore analysis,we coded participants' vantto theinfluence process. choicesas a functionof the influencing tarIn thevolleyballteamcondition(longer get,not as the actualdefinition chosen.This pathof relevance),theAustralian(in-group) provideda conservative testof theinfluence team captainwas moreinfluential thanany of specifictargetsbeyondtheactualcontent oftheothertargets; thisfinding suggeststhat


144

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY SlAmericans (Out-Group)UAustralians(In-Group) -

a35

30 -