Dataset Information

Do Members of Disadvantaged Groups Explain Group Status With Group Stereotypes?

ABSTRACT: Recent research on group attitudes in members of disadvantaged groups has provided evidence that group evaluations closely align with societal stigma, reflecting outgroup favoritism in members of those groups that are most strongly stigmatized. While outgroup favoritism is clearly evident among some groups, there is still debate about the psychological mechanisms underlying outgroup favoritism. The current research focuses on a less intensively examined aspect of outgroup favoritism, namely the use of status-legitimizing group stereotypes. We present data from members of four disadvantaged groups (i.e., persons who self-categorize as gay or lesbian, n = 205; Black or African American, n = 209; overweight n = 200, or are aged 60-75 years n = 205), who reported the perceived status of their ingroup and a comparison majority outgroup and provided explanations for their status perceptions. Contrary to assumptions from System Justification Theory, participants rarely explained perceived group status differences with group stereotypes, whereas they frequently explained ingroup disadvantage with perceived stigmatization and/or systemic reasons. Further exploratory analyses indicated that participants' status explanations were related to measures of intergroup attitudes, ideological beliefs, stigma consciousness, and experienced discrimination. Our results highlight the need to develop a better understanding whether, under what circumstances, and with which consequences members of disadvantaged groups use group stereotypes as attributions of ingroup status and status differences.

SUBMITTER: Degner J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8636313 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Only dominant individuals have unrestricted access to contested resources in group-living animals. In birds, subordinates with restricted access to resources may respond to intragroup contests by acquiring extra body reserves to avoid periods of food shortage. In turn, higher body mass reduces agility and increases predation and mortality risk to subordinates. Birds often live in hierarchically organized mixed-species groups, in which heterospecific individuals are considered to substitute for conspecifics as protection against predators at a significantly reduced competition cost. Crested tits (Lophophanes cristatus) and willow tits (Poecile montanus) form mixed-species groups during the non-reproductive season that typically exhibit a nearly linear dominance hierarchy ('despotic' social structure) in which the highest ranking male willow tit is fourth in the overall hierarchy after the dominant male, female and subordinate juvenile crested tit, respectively. Much less frequently, 'egalitarian' dominance structures occur in which the adult willow tits rank second and the hierarchy is less steep, or linear. We present a rare long-term data set in which egalitarian flocks are common enough to assess the consequences of this simple change in hierarchy structure as well as a potential driver of the pattern. A comparison of individuals in the despotic mixed-species groups revealed a strong negative correlation between subcutaneous fat stores and dominance rank in the interspecific dominance hierarchy, whereas in egalitarian groups, subordinate willow tits had significantly lower fat reserves and they foraged in safer parts of the canopy than willow tits in despotic groups. Moreover, egalitarian groups exhibited markedly less within-group aggression, higher group cohesion and improved winter survival in both tit species. However, winter survival of birds in egalitarian groups was impaired relative to despotic groups in forests recently affected by industrial forestry. This suggests that the more egalitarian bird societies may best be adapted to less-disturbed environments.

Project description:BACKGROUND:People from socioeconomically disadvantaged population groups are less likely to be physically active and more likely to experience adverse health outcomes than those who are less disadvantaged. In this umbrella review we examined across all age groups, (1) the effectiveness of interventions to improve physical activity among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, (2) the characteristics of effective interventions, and (3) directions for future research. METHODS:PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus were searched up to May 2017 to identify systematic reviews reporting physical activity interventions in socioeconomically disadvantaged populations or sub-groups. Two authors independently conducted study screening and selection, data extraction (one author, with data checked by two others) and assessment of methodological quality using the 'Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews' scale. Results were synthesized narratively. RESULTS:Seventeen reviews met our inclusion criteria, with only 5 (30%) reviews being assessed as high quality. Seven (41%) reviews focused on obesity prevention and an additional four focused on multiple behavioural outcomes. For pre school children, parent-focused, group-based interventions were effective in improving physical activity. For children, school-based interventions and policies were effective; few studies focused on adolescents and those that did were generally not effective; for adults, there was mixed evidence of effectiveness but characteristics such as group-based interventions and those that focused on physical activity only were associated with effectiveness. Few studies focused on older adults. Across all ages, interventions that were more intensive tended to be more effective. Most studies reported short-term, rather than longer-term, outcomes and common methodological limitations included high probability of selection bias, low response rates, and high attrition. CONCLUSIONS:Interventions can be successful at improving physical activity among children from socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, with evidence for other age groups weak or inconclusive. More high-quality studies in this population group are needed, which adopt strategies to increase recruitment rates and reduce attrition, report longer term outcomes, and provide adequate intervention details, to allow determination of the characteristics of effective interventions. We recommend that the benefits of physical activity be recognised more broadly than obesity prevention in future studies, as this may have implications for the design and appeal of interventions.

Dataset Information

Do Members of Disadvantaged Groups Explain Group Status With Group Stereotypes?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets