Social status attainment and racial category selection in the contemporary United States

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. 91-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert DeFina ◽  
Lance Hannon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Status ◽  
Status Attainment ◽  
Racial Category ◽  
Contemporary United States

White Categorical Ambiguity: Exclusion of Middle Eastern Americans From the White Racial Category

2020 ◽  
pp. 194855062093054
Author(s):  
Kimberly E. Chaney ◽  
Diana T. Sanchez ◽  
Lina Saud
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Status ◽  
Middle Eastern ◽  
The United States ◽  
North African ◽  
Racial Categorization ◽  
Racial Category ◽  
History Of ◽  
Racially Ambiguous ◽  
Middle Eastern Americans

Despite legal classification as White, Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) Americans experience high levels of discrimination, suggesting low social status precludes them from accessing the White racial category. After first demonstrating that the rated Whiteness of MENA Americans influences support for discriminatory policies (Study 1), the present research explores ratings and perceptions of Whiteness of MENA Americans by demonstrating how MENA ethnicities shift racial categorization of prototypically White and racially ambiguous targets (Studies 2–4), and how MENA Americans’ social status influences rated Whiteness (Study 5). As few studies have explored the relative Whiteness of different ethnicities in the United States despite the fluid history of the White racial category, the present studies have implications for the processes that inform White categorization and lay categorizations of MENA Americans.

scholarly journals Who Attains Status? Similarities and Differences Across Social Contexts

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole M. Lawless DesJardins ◽  
Sanjay Srivastava ◽  
Albrecht Kuefner ◽  
Mitja Back
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Status ◽  
The United States ◽  
Social Contexts ◽  
Status Attainment ◽  
Group Interactions ◽  
Collective Decisions ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Informal Groups

Informal groups form hierarchies and allocate social status in order to coordinate action and make collective decisions. Although researchers have identified characteristics of people who tend to get status, the extent to which these characteristics are context-dependent is unclear. In two studies, participants from the United States (N = 157) and Germany (N = 95) engaged in affiliative or competitive group interactions. We investigated whether the nature of the group’s task moderated the relationship between status attainment and personality. As in previous research, we found that extraversion predicted status in both competitive and affiliative contexts. In contrast, agreeableness was only associated with status in affiliative contexts. These findings underscore the importance of examining the relationship between personality and social status in context.

The Process of Status Attainment in the United States and Great Britain

1975 ◽  
Vol 81 (3) ◽  
pp. 563-583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald J. Treiman ◽  
Kermit Terrell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
The United States ◽  
Status Attainment

scholarly journals Social stress and risk of declining cognition: a longitudinal study of men and women in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jutta Lindert ◽  
Kimberley C. Paul ◽  
E. Lachman Margie ◽  
Beate Ritz ◽  
Teresa Seeman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Executive Functioning ◽  
Episodic Memory ◽  
Social Status ◽  
Social Stress ◽  
The United States ◽  
Subjective Social Status ◽  
Linear Regression Models ◽  
Men And Women

AbstractLimited research is available on the relationship between social stress and risk of declining cognition. We sought to examine whether social stress has adverse effects on risk of declining episodic memory and executive functioning in aging individuals. We used data from the MIDUS study, a national probability sample of non-institutionalized, English speaking respondents aged 25–74 living in the 48 contiguous states of the United States. The initial wave (1995) included 4963 non-institutionalized adults aged 32–84 (M = 55, SD = 12.4). We used an analytic sample from MIDUS-II (1996/1997) and MIDUS-III (2013) (n = 1821). The dependent variables are episodic memory and executive functioning, which were assessed with the Brief Test for Cognition (BTACT). The independent variables were social stress variables (subjective social status, family and marital stress, work stress and discrimination). To evaluate episodic memory and executive functioning changes over a time period of 10 years, we estimated adjusted linear regression models. Women report significantly lower subjective social status and more discrimination stress than men across all age groups. Controlling for education and income, age, and baseline episodic memory and executive functioning, lower subjective social status had additional adverse effects on declines in episodic memory in men and women. Marital risk had adverse effects on episodic memory in men but not in women. Daily discrimination had adverse effects on executive functioning on all individuals. Public health strategies should focus on reducing social stress in a socio-ecological perspective. Especially, subjective social status and discrimination stress might be a target for prevention efforts.

SHIFTING POWER

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (02) ◽  
pp. 417-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brianna Remster ◽  
Rory Kramer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
African American ◽  
Racial Differences ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
Racial Inequalities ◽  
Rural Districts ◽  
Contemporary United States ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Legislative Districts

AbstractWhile prisoners cannot vote, they are counted as residents of the often rural legislative districts where they are incarcerated rather than their home districts. We examine the extent to which incarceration shifts the balance of a representative democracy by considering its impact on legislative apportionment. Drawing on data from the Census, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and Pennsylvania Redistricting Commission, we develop a counterfactual framework to examine whether removing and returning prisoners to their home districts affects equal representation. Because prisoners are disproportionately African American, we also employ this counterfactual to assess racial differences in the impact of prison gerrymandering. Findings indicate that incarceration shifts political power from urban districts to suburban and rural districts through legislative apportionment. Moreover, non-White communities suffer the most. We conclude by considering how our findings fit a growing literature on the role of mass incarceration in [re]producing racial inequalities in the contemporary United States.

Why Should We Care about Group Inequality?

1987 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 249-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glenn C. Loury
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Preferential Treatment ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
Moral Imperative ◽  
Group Preference ◽  
Economic Disparities ◽  
Practical Matter ◽  
Contemporary United States ◽  
Group Inequality

This essay is about the ethical propriety and practical efficacy of a range of policy undertakings which, in the last twenty years, has come to be referred to as “affirmative action.” These policies have been contentious and problematic, and a variety of arguments have been advanced in their support. Here I try to close a gap, as I see it, in this “literature of justification” which has grown up around the practice of preferential treatment. My principal argument along these lines is offered in the next section. I then consider how some forms of argument in support of preferential treatment, distinctly different from that offered here, not only fail to justify the practice but, even worse, work to undermine the basis for cooperation among different ethnic groups in the American democracy. Finally, I observe that as a practical matter the use of group preference can, under circumstances detailed in the sequel, produce results far different from the egalitarian objectives which most often motivate their adoption.It may seem fatuous in the extreme to raise as a serious matter, in the contemporary United States, the question “Why should we care about group inequality?” Is not the historical and moral imperative of such concern self-evident? Must not those who value the pursuit of justice be intensely concerned about economic disparities among groups of persons? The most obvious answer to the title question would seem, then, to be: “We should care because such inequality is the external manifestation of the oppression of individuals on the basis of their group identity.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document