Positive Attitudes of Low-Status Groups towards High-Status Groups

Abstract

The main goal of this study is to compile research findings that explain the attitude of low-status groups towards high status group, conceptualized as out-group favoritism, and to discuss the findings on the basis of self-esteem, efficacy and continuity identity motivations. The research findings gathered within the scope of the study were handled in the context of the Fundamental Correspondence Bias (FCB) and Terror Management Theory (TMT). Findings of studies on the tendency towards FCB show that the reason of the positive attitude of low-status groups toward high status group may be related to the sense of control, which is a basic motivation, and related to anticipating the possible threats from them and being cautious against those threats. Findings of studies examined in the context of TMT show that the reason of low-status groups’ supportive attitude towards the system may be related to that the system fulfills various identity motives.

Keywords

• outgroup favoritism,identity motivation,self-evaluation motivation,fundamental correspondence bias,terror management theory

DÜŞÜK STATÜLÜ GRUPLARIN YÜKSEK STATÜLÜ GRUPLARA YÖNELİK OLUMLU TUTUMU

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın temel amaçlarından biri toplumsal yapı içerisinde düşük sosyal konumda bulunan grupların üyelerinin yüksek sosyal konumdaki gruplara yönelik dış grup tarafgirliği olarak kavramlaştırılan tutumuna farklı açıklama getiren araştırma bulgularını derlemek ve bu bulguları özsaygı, kontrol algısı, süreklilik kimlik motivasyonları temelinde tartışmaktır. Çalışma kapsamında derlenen araştırma bulguları Temel Uyuşma Yanlılığı (TUY) ve Terör Yönetimi Kuramı (TYK) bağlamında ele alınmıştır. TUY eğilimi ile ilgili yapılan çalışmaların bulguları düşük statülü grupların içinde bulunduğu dezavantajlı konumun sorumluluğunu kendilerine yüklemelerinin nedeninin temel bir motivasyon olan kontrol algısı ile ilgili olabileceğini; üst statülü grupların konumlarıyla ilgili başarılarını onların içsel özelliklerine atfetmelerinin ise onlardan gelebilecek olası tehditleri öngörme ve bunlara karşı tedbirli olmayla alakalı olabileceğini göstermektedir. TYK bağlamında incelenen çalışma bulguları da düşük statülü grupların sosyal eşitsizlik üreten sistemi (toplumsal yapıyı) destekleme sebebinin bu yapının kendilerinin hayatına bir düzen, süreklilik ve anlam getirerek başta özsaygı olmak üzere çeşitli ihtiyaçlarını tatmin etmesi ile ilgili olabileceğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

• dış grup tarafgirliği,kimlik motivasyonları,benlik değerlendirme motivasyonu,temel uyuşma yanlılığı,terör yönetimi kuramı

References

1. Andrews, Paul W. (2001). “The Psychology of Social Chess and the Evolution of Attribution Mechanisms: Explaining the Fundamental Attribution Error”. Evolution and Human Behavior, C. 22, S. 1, s. 11-29.
2. Arndt, Jamie ve Jeff Greenberg (1999). “The Effects of a Self-Esteem Boost and Mortality Salience on Responses to Boost Relevant and Irrelevant Worldview Threats”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, C. 25, S. 11, s. 1331-1341.
3. Arndt, Jamie vd. (1997). “Subliminal Exposure to Death-related Stimuli Increases Defense of the Cultural Worldview”. Psychological Science, C. 8, S. 5, s. 379-385.
4. Batalha, Luisa vd. (2007). “Outgroup Favoritism: The Role of Power Perception, Gender, and Conservatism”. Current Research in Social Psychology, C. 13, S. 4, s. 38-49.
5. Baumeister, Roy F. (1998). “The Self”. Advanced Social Psychology: The State of The Science, s. 680-740.
6. Bègue, Laurent (2005). “Self-Esteem Regulation in Threatening Social Comparison: the Roles of Belief in a Just World and Self-Efficacy”. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, C. 33, S. 1, s. 69-76.
7. Bernard, Mark M. vd. (2006). “Cultural Estrangement: The Role of Personal and Societal Value Discrepancies”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, C. 32, S. 1, s. 78-92.
8. Blaine, Bruce ve Jennifer Crocker (1993). “Self-esteem and Self-serving Biases in Reactions to Positive and Negative Events: An Integrative Review.” Self-esteem, s. 55-85.

9. Cosmides, Leda ve John Tooby (1992). “Cognitive Adaptations for Social Exchange”. The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, s. 163-228.
10. Cozzarelli, Catherine ve Joseph A. Karafa (1998). “Cultural Estrangement and Terror Management Theory”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, C. 24, S. 3, s. 253-267.
11. Dalbert, Claudia (1999). “The World is More Just for Me than Generally: About the Personal Belief in a Just World Scale’s Validity”. Social Justice Research, C. 12, S. 2, s. 79-98. Dechesne, Mark vd. (2003). “Literal and Symbolic Immortality: the Effect of Evidence of Literal Immortality on Self-esteem Striving in Response to Mortality Salience”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, C. 84, S. 4, s. 722-737.
12. Feather, Norman T. (1974). “Explanations of Poverty in Australian and American Samples: The Person, Society, or Fate?” Australian Journal of Psychology, C. 26, S. 6, s. 199-216.
13. Fein, Steven (1996). “Effects of Suspicion on Attributional Thinking and the Correspondence Bias”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, C. 70, S. 6, s. 1164-1184.
14. Fein, Steven vd. (1990). “Suspicion of Ulterior Motivation and the Correspondence Bias”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, C. 58, S. 5, s. 753-764.
15. Försterling, Friedrich ve Udo Rudolph (1988). “Situations, Attributions, and the Evaluation of Reactions”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, C. 54, S. 2, s. 225-232.
16. Furnham, Adrian (1982). “Why Are the Poor Always with Us? Explanations for Poverty in Britain”. British Journal of Social Psychology, C. 21, S. 4, s. 311-322.
17. Furnham, Adrian (1983). “Attitudes toward the Unemployed Receiving Social Security Benefits”. Human Relations, C. 36, S. 2, s. 135-149.
18. Gilbert, Daniel T. ve Patrick S. Malone (1995). “The Correspondence Bias”. Psychological Bulletin, C. 117, S. 1, s. 21-38.
19. Greenberg, Jeff vd. (1986). “The Causes and Consequences of a Need for Self-esteem: A terror management theory.” Public self and private self. 189-212.
20. Harmon-Jones, Eddie vd. (1997). “Terror Management Theory and Self-Esteem: Evidence That Increased Self-Esteem Reduces Mortality Salience Effects”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright, C. 72, S. 1, s. 24-36.
21. Haslam, Nick vd. (2000). “Essentialist Beliefs about Social Categories”. British Journal of Social Psychology, C. 39, S. 1, s. 113-127.
22. Hilton, James L. vd. (1993). “Suspicion and Dispositional Inference”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, C. 19, S. 5, s. 501-512.
23. Hogg, Michael A. ve Graham M. Vaughan (2011). Sosyal Psikoloji. çev. İbrahim Yıldız ve Aydın Gelmez, Ankara: Ütopya.
24. Jost, John T. (2001). “How Status and Power Differences Erode Personal and Social Identities at Work: A System Justification Critique”. Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts, s. 181-196.
25. Jost, John T. ve Mahzarin R. Banaji (1994). “The Role of Stereotyping in System-justification and the Production of False Consciousness”. British Journal of Social Psychology, C. 33, S. 1, s. 1-27.
26. Jost, John T. ve Diana Burgess (2000). “Attitudinal Ambivalence and the Conflict between Group and System Justification Motives in Low Status Groups”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, C. 26, S. 3, s. 293-305.
27. Jost, John T. ve Orsolya Hunyady (2003). “The Psychology of System Justification and the Palliative Function of Ideology”. European Review of Social Psychology, C. 13, S. 1, s. 111-153.
28. Kelley, Harold H. (1973). “The Processes of Causal Attribution.” American psychologist, C. 28, S. 2, s. 107-128.
29. Kılınç, Sibel ve Fuat Torun (2011). “Adil Dünya İnancı”. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar, C. 3, S. 1, s. 1-14.
30. McPherson, Mary B. ve Stacy L. Young (2004). “What Students Think When Teachers Get Upset: Fundamental Attribution Error and Student Generated Reasons for Teacher Anger”. Communication Quarterly, C. 52, S. 4, s. 357-369.
31. Moradi, Bonnie ve Nadia Talal Hasan (2004). “Arab American Persons’ Reported Experiences of Discrimination and Mental Health: The Mediating Role of Personal Control”. Journal of Counseling Psychology, C. 51, S. 4, s. 418-428.
32. Nail, Paul R. ve Ian McGregor (2009). “Conservative Shift Among Liberals and Conservatives Following 9/11/01”. Social Justice Research, C. 22, S. 3, s. 231-240.
33. Pyszczynski, Tom vd. (2004). “Why do People Need Self-esteem? A Theoretical and Empirical Review.” Psychological bulletin, C. 130, S. 3, s. 435-468.
34. Rosenblatt, Abram vd. (1989). “Evidence for Terror Management Theory: I. The Effects of Mortality Salience on Reactions to Those Who Violate or Uphold Cultural Values”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, C. 57, S. 4, s. 681-690.
35. Ross, Lee (1977). “The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process1.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, C. 10, s. 173-220.
36. Ross, Lee D. vd. (1977). “Social Roles, Social Control, and Biases in Social-perception Processes”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, C. 35, S. 7, s. 485-494.
37. Ruggiero, Karen M. ve Donald M. Taylor (1997). “Why Minority Group Members Perceive or Do Not Perceive the Discrimination That Confronts Them: The Role of Self-esteem and Perceived Control”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, C. 72, S. 2, s. 373-389.
38. Ruggiero, Karen M. ve Donald M. Taylor (1995). “Coping with Discrimination: How Disadvantaged Group Members Perceive the Discrimination that Confronts Them”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, C. 68, S. 5, s. 826-838.
39. Ruggiero, Karen M. ve Brenda N. Major (1998). “Group Status and Attributions to Discrimination: Are Low-or High-status Group Members More Likely to Blame Their Failure on Discrimination?”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, C. 24, S. 8, s. 821-837.
40. Schmitt, Michael T. vd. (2003). “Women’s Emotional Responses to the Pervasiveness of Gender Discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, C. 33, S. 3, s. 297-312. Vignoles, Vivian L. vd. (2002). “Evaluating Models of Identity Motivation : Self-Esteem is Not the Whole Story”. Self and Identity, C. 1, S. 3, s. 201-219.
41. Vonk, Ross (1999). “Effects of Outcome Dependency on Correspondence Bias”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, C. 25, S. 3, s. 382-389.
42. Wallston, Kenneth A. vd. (1987). “Perceived Control and Health”. Current Psychology, C. 6, S. 1, s. 5-25.
43. Willer, Robb (2004). “The Effects of Government-issued Terror Warnings on Presidential Approval Ratings”. Current Research in Social Psychology, C. 10, S. 1, s. 1-12.