an agentic-communal model of hierarchy and inequality · 2020-01-30 · understanding the...

Understanding the Psychology of

Advantage and Disadvantage

AN AGENTIC-COMMUNAL MODEL OF

HIERARCHY AND INEQUALITY

Adam D. Galinsky, Columbia University

Derek D. Rucker, Northwestern University

Joe C. Magee, New York University

Elements of Inequality

1. Resources: Income, wealth

2. Deference: Submissive behavior, influence on judgments

3. Evaluations: Competence, credit for favorable outcomes

4. Opportunities: Interviews, promotion, corporate boards

PREMISE 1:

Disparities in resources, deference,

evaluations, and opportunities create

social hierarchy and inequality

Systems

• Social Class

• Gender

• Race

• Power

Elements

• Resources

• Deference

• Evaluations

• Opportunities

Agentic-Communal Model of Inequality

Inequality

Systems of Inequality

Social Class

DEFERENCE

Blue-collar individuals express more deference to an interviewer Lenski & Leggett (1960) AJS

RESOURCES

Higher social class individuals have higher incomes and greater wealth

OPPORTUNITIES

Applicants from upper-class backgrounds get more interviews and offers

from prestigious employers Lin et al. (1981) ASR; Rivera (2012) ASR

EVALUATION

Upper-class children are evaluated more positively for identical performanceDarley & Gross (1983) JPSP


Gender

DEFERENCE

Women engage in more nonverbal displays of deferenceLaFrance et al. (2003) PB; Leffler et al. (1982) SPQ; Dovidio et al. (1988) JPSP

RESOURCES

Women earn only 77% of what men earn White House (2014)

OPPORTUNITIES

Male entrepreneurial pitches funded twice as often aspitches by womenBrooks et al. (2014) PNAS

EVALUATION

Males evaluated more favorably than females for a lab positionMoss-Racusin et al. (2012) PNAS


Race

DEFERENCE

Black respondents defer to White partner’s judgment more than vice-versaWebster and Driskell (1978) ASR

RESOURCES

Blacks and Hispanics make less than 75% of the median income of Whites

and receive smaller pay increasesBureau of Labor Statistics, 2010; Castilla (2008) AJS

OPPORTUNITIES

A resume with a stereotypically White name receives more callbacks than a

stereotypical Black nameBertrand & Mullainathan (2004) AER

EVALUATION

White leaders are evaluated more favorably than non-White leadersRosette et al. (2008) JAP


Power

RESOURCES

CEOs influence their own remuneration relative to less powerful managers Allen (1981); Wade et al. (2006) Org Science

OPPORTUNITIES

Managers who begin in more powerful departments are promoted fasterSheridan et al. (1990) AMJ

EVALUATION

Observers evaluate supervisors as more competent than subordinates Georgesen & Harris (1998) PSPR; Sande et al. (1986) JPSP

DEFERENCE

Low-power individuals interrupt more than high-power individualsLeffler et al. (1982) SPQ

PREMISE 2:

Agency and communion are two

fundamental orientations that guide

behavior

Connection with others

Getting along

Focus on warmth

Communal OrientationAgentic Orientation

Separation from others

Getting ahead

Focus on achievement

Measure of Agentic-Communal Goal PursuitDiekman et al. (2013)

Orthogonal Modes of Being

Communion

Ag

en

cy

Agentic Orientation

• Self-focused

• Achievement

• Mastery

Communal

Orientation

• Other-focused

• Social connection

• Helping others

Outcomes

• Perspective-taking

• Empathy

• Goal pursuit

• Overconfidence

• Spending behavior

• Unethical behavior


MAIN PROPOSITION

MIAN PROPOSITIONS

Proposition 1: Being higher in a social hierarchy

fosters a sense of advantage that orients an

individual towards agency

Proposition 2: Being lower in a social hierarchy

fosters a sense of disadvantage that orients an

individual towards communion

Systems

• Social Class

• Gender

• Race

• Power

Agentic Orientation

• Self-focused

• Achievement

• Mastery

Communal

Orientation

• Other-focused


• Helping others

Outcomes


• Empathy

• Goal pursuit

• Overconfidence



Elements

• Resources

• Deference

• Evaluations

• Opportunities

Inequality

Sense of

Advantage

Sense of

Disadvantage


Evidence for Agency &

Communion in Social Class

Lower Class Individuals are More Communal

Stephens et al. (2007) JPSP

Lower Class Better Identify Others’ Emotions

Kraus et al., 2010, Psych Science

23

24

25

26

27

28

Lower Class Upper Class

Stereotype Threat

40

45

50

55

60

Lower Class Upper Class

Threat

No Threat

Croizet & Claire, 1998, PSPB


Communion in Gender

Communion in Social Interaction

Moskowitz et al., 1994, JPSP

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Women Men

Nissan, Shapira & Liberman, 2015, PSPB

23

24

25

26

27

28

Women Men

Women Better Identify Others’ Emotions

Stereotype Threat

0

5

10

15

20

25

Women Men

Threat

No Threat

Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 2001, JESP

Likelihood of Negotiating Salary

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Women Men

Babcock & Laschever (2009) Women Don't Ask


Communion in Race

Collectivism

3

3.5

4

4.5

White African-American

Latino Asian-American

Gaines et al., 1997, JPSP

Stereotype Threat

0

2

4

6

8

10

Blacks Whites

Threat

No Threat

Steele & Aronson, 1995, JPSP


Communion in Power

Endorsement of Agentic vs. Communal Goals

Schley et al., In Progress

Nissan, Shapira & Liberman, 2015, PSPB

23

24

25

26

27

28

Low Power High Power

Less Powerful Better Identify Others’ Emotions

Stereotype Threat

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Low Power High Power

Threat

No Threat

Kang et al., 2015, PSPB

Likelihood of Negotiating for Car

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

Low-Power High-Power

Magee, Galinsky, & Gruenfeld (2007) PSPB

When the Disadvantaged are Agentic

PROPOSITION 3a:

The Disadvantaged Are Agentic

When it Signals Status

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

Low Status Product High Status Product

Control Low Power High Power

Low Power Pay More for High-Status Products

Rucker & Galinsky (2008) Journal of Consumer Research

Conspicuous Consumption Charles, Hurst, & Roussanov, 2009, QJE

PROPOSITION 3b:

When Inequality is seen as Illegitimate,

the Disadvantaged become Agentic

Only Legitimate Power Leads to Action

Effect Sizes across Four Experiments

Within legitimacy:

Effect of power

Within illegitimacy:

Effect of power

Meta-analysis M = .27

Z = 3.95

p < .001

M = -.15

Z = -2.16

p = .03

Lammers, Galinsky, Gordijn, & Otten (2008) Psych Science

Women who perceive patriarchy as less legitimate feel more anger

and report a greater intention to participate in collective action Iyer and Ryan (2006) JSIO

When the Advantaged are Communal

PROPOSITION 4:

When individual dispositions or active goals

are communal, advantaged individuals are

oriented toward communion

Communals Become Generous with PowerChen et al. (2001) JPSP

Systems

• Social Class

• Gender

• Race

• Power

Agentic Orientation

• Self-Focused

• Achievement

• Mastery

Communal

Orientation

• Other-focused


• Helping others

Moderators

• Status Seeking Motives

• Legitimacy of Inequality

• Personal Goals

Outcomes

• Perspective-Taking

• Empathy

• Goal Pursuit

• Overconfidence

• Spending Behavior

• Unethical Behavior

Elements

• Resources

• Deference

• Evaluations

• Opportunities


Inequality

Sense of

Advantage

Sense of

Disadvantage

Inequality Accessibility

Which System of Inequality is Most Accessible?

PROPOSITION 5:

Identification with a group (e.g., social class,

gender, or race) will predict feelings of

relative advantage vs. disadvantage

Systems

• Social Class

• Gender

• Race

• Power

Agentic Orientation

• Self-focused

• Achievement

• Mastery

Communal

Orientation

• Other-focused


• Helping others

Moderators

• Individual differences

• Impression management

• Legitimacy of inequality

• Identification

Outcomes


• Empathy

• Goal pursuit

• Overconfidence



Elements

• Resources

• Deference

• Evaluations

• Opportunities


Inequality

Sense of

Advantage

Sense of

Disadvantage

an agentic-communal model of hierarchy and inequality · 2020-01-30 · understanding the...

Documents