Dominant Group Members in Intergroup Interaction: Safety or Vulnerability in Numbers?

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 498-511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacquie D. Vorauer
2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 867-874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacquie D. Vorauer ◽  
Matthew S. Quesnel

What situational forces might enhance ethnic minority group members’ voice and ability to exert social influence during exchanges with dominant group members? Two experiments involving face-to-face dyadic intergroup interaction examined whether making multiculturalism salient to minority group members would increase the extent to which they persuaded a dominant interaction partner of their own point of view on a series of controversial social issues. Results were consistent with this hypothesis and further indicated that minority group members expressed their own point of view more clearly and directly when multicultural ideology was made salient to them as compared to when it was not, which contributed (marginally) to their heightened persuasiveness. Salient multiculturalism did not have comparable effects on dominant group members’ persuasiveness or clarity of expression. These results raise the possibility that making multicultural ideology salient might set the stage for minority group members to have a stronger voice in intergroup exchanges.


2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacquie D. Vorauer ◽  
Matthew S. Quesnel

The present research examined how messages advocating different intergroup ideologies affect outcomes relevant to minority group members’ ability to exert power in exchanges with dominant group members. We expected that salient multiculturalism would have positive implications for minority group members’ feelings of power by virtue of highlighting essential contributions they make to society, and that no such empowering effect would be evident for them in connection with alternative ideologies such as color-blindness or for dominant group members. Results across four studies involving different participant populations, operationalizations of ideology, ethnic minority groups, and experimental settings were consistent with these hypotheses and further indicated that the effects of salient multiculturalism on feelings of power had downstream implications for expectations of control in an ostensibly upcoming intergroup interaction and general goal-directed cognition.


2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 549-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacquie D. Vorauer ◽  
Matthew S. Quesnel

What power dynamics are instantiated when a minority group member empathizes with a dominant group member during social interaction? How do these dynamics compare to those instantiated when the dominant group member instead does the empathizing? According to a general power script account, because empathy is generally directed “down” toward disadvantaged targets needing support, the empathizer should come out “on top” with respect to power-relevant outcomes no matter who it is. According to a meta-stereotype account, because adopting an empathic stance in intergroup contexts leads individuals to think about how their own group is viewed (including with respect to power-relevant characteristics), the dominant group member might come out on top no matter which person empathizes. Two studies involving face-to-face intergroup exchanges yielded results that overall were consistent with the meta-stereotype account: Regardless of who does it, empathy in intergroup contexts seems more apt to exacerbate than mitigate group-based status differences.


2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 160897 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dieter Lukas ◽  
Tim Clutton-Brock

Cooperative breeding systems, in which non-breeding individuals provide care for the offspring of dominant group members, occur in less than 1% of mammals and are associated with social monogamy and the production of multiple offspring per birth (polytocy). Here, we show that the distribution of alloparental care by non-breeding subordinates is associated with habitats where annual rainfall is low. A possible reason for this association is that the females of species found in arid environments are usually polytocous and this may have facilitated the evolution of alloparental care.


Communication ◽  
2021 ◽  

Co-cultural communication theory, or co-cultural theory for short, emerged from the scholarly research of Mark Orbe in the 1990s. A co-cultural theoretical approach provides a lens to understand how traditionally underrepresented group members communicate within societal structures governed by cultural groups that have, over time, achieved dominant group status. The theory’s foundation was established by Orbe and colleagues by exploring the communicative lived experiences of underrepresented group members in the United States; the earliest work engaged the communication of co-cultural groups defined through race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, disability, and sexual orientation. The theory centralizes the lived experiences of co-cultural group members and focuses on instances when cultural difference is regarded as salient. At its core, co-cultural theory explores one basic question: How do co-cultural group members use communication to negotiate their cultural identities with others (both like and unlike themselves) in a societal context where they are traditionally marginalized? Through discovery-oriented qualitative research, six factors emerged (field of experience, abilities, perceived costs and rewards, communication approach, preferred outcome, and situational context) as central to the selection of specific co-cultural practices. Since its inception, co-cultural theory has been embraced as a core theory for individuals interested in studying the intersection of culture, power, and communication.


Author(s):  
Kristin J. Anderson

This chapter explores the ways in which entitlement facilitates ignorance, egocentrism, and inconsiderateness. People with power tend to engage in shoddy information processing. Compared to those who are marginalized, dominant group members think in shortcuts. Power emboldens people to be careless about repercussions, at least compared to those without power. Power holders do not feel compelled to view things from another person’s perspective and they do not feel obliged to know much about people with less power. For marginalized people, their very lives depend on understanding the idiosyncrasies of power holders and they understand these dynamics much better than powerful people. Power entitles people to conveniently and self-servingly assume they know more than they actually do when it comes to telling women and people of color how to think about sexism and racism (e.g., mansplaining and whitesplaining). At the same time, power entitles people to claim they know less than they actually do when they are called to account for sexual violence.


2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 451-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Dixon ◽  
Mark Levine ◽  
Steve Reicher ◽  
Kevin Durrheim

AbstractThis response clarifies, qualifies, and develops our critique of the limits of intergroup liking as a means of challenging intergroup inequality. It does not dispute that dominant groups may espouse negative attitudes towards subordinate groups. Nor does it dispute that prejudice reduction can be an effective way of tackling resulting forms of intergroup hostility. What it does dispute is the assumption that getting dominant group members and subordinate group members to like each other more is the best way of improving intergroup relations that are characterized by relatively stable, institutionally embedded, relations of inequality. In other words, the main target of our critique is the model of change that underlies prejudice reduction interventions and the mainstream concept of “prejudice” on which they are based.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document