Data and Code

Permanent link for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/2022/21653

Browse

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8

Mapping the Content of Asian Stereotypes in the United States: Intersections with ethnicity, gender, income, and birthplace
(Sage, 2023-06) Benard, Stephen; Manago, Bianca; Russian, Anna; Cha, Youngjoo
How are people of Asian origin perceived in contemporary U.S. culture? While often depicted as a “model minority” – competent and hardworking, but also quiet, unsociable, or cold – little work measures whether and how these stereotypes vary for Asians in different social locations. We use a large (n ~4,700) quota sample of the United States, matched to key U.S. demographics, to map the content of Asian stereotypes across ethnicity, gender, income, and birthplace. We find that some stereotypes are largely consistent across subgroups– such as the perception that Asians lack sociability, but not warmth, relative to white Americans – while others vary substantially. Perceptions of dominance vary by income, while perceptions of competence are moderated by income and ethnicity in complex ways. Stereotypes have important consequences, ranging from everyday frustrations to depressive symptoms and employment discrimination. Our work provides a detailed picture of how stereotypes vary across social locations.
An “eye for an eye” versus “turning the other cheek”? The status consequences of revenge and forgiveness in intergroup conflict (2023-05-24)
(Oxford University Press, 2023) Benard, Stephen; Doan, Long; Nicholson, D. Adam; Meanwell, Emily; Wright, Eric L.; Lista, Peter
Conflict between groups plays a powerful role in shaping social interaction within groups. Within groups, social status – respect, prestige, and deference – organizes, motivates, and stratifies social interaction. Yet, studies exploring how conflict between groups shapes social status within groups are relatively rare. We argue that intergroup conflict creates opportunities for individuals to gain or lose status by demonstrating group commitment. We examine two contrasting intergroup behaviors – revenge and forgiveness – and evaluate the idea that these behaviors will be viewed as status-worthy to the extent that they are perceived to signal group motivation. Further, we test the hypothesis that avengers and forgivers gain status by offering group-motivated accounts of their behavior. Pairing an original national probability sample with an experimental survey design, we examine how avengers and forgivers are viewed in everyday conflicts across three widely-held identities: national identity, political partisanship, and sports team fandom. We find that Americans perceive intergroup forgiveness as more status-worthy, and a stronger indicator of group motivation, than intergroup revenge. In open-ended survey questions, forgiving ingroup members were described as more status-worthy, competent, and warm, and less dominant than their vengeful counterparts. However, we find little evidence that individuals can directly gain status by claiming that their actions are motivated by concern for the group. Our work speaks to theories of conflict, identity, and social status. More broadly, understanding how Americans value intergroup revenge and forgiveness offers insight into the frequency and intensity of identity-based conflict in contemporary American society.
An “eye for an eye” versus “turning the other cheek”? The status consequences of revenge and forgiveness in intergroup conflict
(Oxford University Press, 2023-05-05) Benard, Stephen; Doan, Long; Nicholson, D. Adam; Meanwell, Emily; Wright, Eric; Lista, Peter
Conflict between groups plays a powerful role in shaping social interaction within groups. Within groups, social status – respect, prestige, and deference – organizes, motivates, and stratifies social interaction. Yet, studies exploring how conflict between groups shapes social status within groups are relatively rare. We argue that intergroup conflict creates opportunities for individuals to gain or lose status by demonstrating group commitment. We examine two contrasting intergroup behaviors – revenge and forgiveness – and evaluate the idea that these behaviors will be viewed as status-worthy to the extent that they are perceived to signal group motivation. Further, we test the hypothesis that avengers and forgivers gain status by offering group-motivated accounts of their behavior. Pairing an original national probability sample with an experimental survey design, we examine how avengers and forgivers are viewed in everyday conflicts across three widely-held identities: national identity, political partisanship, and sports team fandom. We find that Americans perceive intergroup forgiveness as more status-worthy, and a stronger indicator of group motivation, than intergroup revenge. In open-ended survey questions, forgiving ingroup members were described as more status-worthy, competent, and warm, and less dominant than their vengeful counterparts. However, we find little evidence that individuals can directly gain status by claiming that their actions are motivated by concern for the group. Our work speaks to theories of conflict, identity, and social status. More broadly, understanding how Americans value intergroup revenge and forgiveness offers insight into the frequency and intensity of identity-based conflict in contemporary American society.
Mapping the Content of Asian Stereotypes in the United States: Intersections with ethnicity, gender, income, and birthplace
(Sage, 2022) Benard, Stephen; Manago, Bianca; Russian, Anna Acosta; Cha, Youngjoo
How are people of Asian origin perceived in contemporary U.S. culture? While often depicted as a “model minority” – competent and hardworking, but also quiet, unsociable, or cold – little work measures whether and how these stereotypes vary for Asians in different social locations. We use a large (n ~4,700) quota sample of the United States, matched to key U.S. demographics, to map the content of Asian stereotypes across ethnicity, gender, income, and birthplace. We find that some stereotypes are largely consistent across subgroups– such as the perception that Asians lack sociability, but not warmth, relative to white Americans – while others vary substantially. Perceptions of dominance vary by income, while perceptions of competence are moderated by income and ethnicity in complex ways. Stereotypes have important consequences, ranging from everyday frustrations to depressive symptoms and employment discrimination. Our work provides a detailed picture of how stereotypes vary across social locations.
Democratic Competition for Rank, Cooperation, and Deception in Small Groups
(Wiley, 2020-12) Benard, Stephen; Barclay, Pat
ABSTRACT: Stratified groups face at least two obstacles in solving collective action problems and producing public goods. Individuals face temptation to free-ride, and high-ranking group members face incentives to protect their position at the group’s expense. We introduce democratic competition for rank as a solution to the problem of cooperation in groups. We argue that democratic competition for high rank creates incentives for cooperation that are absent in non-democratic groups. In a small-group behavioral experiment, we contrast groups in which individuals compete for a valuable high-ranking position through democratic elections with groups in which individuals compete for high rank in resource-based competitions. Groups faced a fluctuating external threat, and group members could invest resources in manipulating the apparent (but not actual) level of this threat. We find that democratic groups reward high contributors by electing them to the high-ranking position at greater rates than low contributors. We also find evidence that individuals in democratic groups contribute more to the public good than individuals in non-democratic groups. However, high-ranking individuals in democratic groups exaggerate threats to the group at similar rates to high-ranking individuals in non-democratic groups. The findings suggest that democratic competition increases public goods production and overall group efficiency, but does not eliminate – and may exacerbate – individuals’ tendency to deceive their peers.
The effects of social versus asocial threats on group cooperation and manipulation of perceived threats
(Cambridge University Press, 2020) Barclay, Pat; Benard, Stephen
Individuals benefit from maintaining the well-being of their social groups and helping their groups to survive threats such as intergroup competition, harsh environments, and epidemics. Correspondingly, much research shows that groups cooperate more when competing against other groups. However, “social” threats (i.e., outgroups) should elicit stronger cooperation than “asocial” threats (e.g., environments, diseases) because: a) social losses involve a competitor’s gain, and b) a strong cooperative reaction to defend the group may deter future outgroup threats. We tested this prediction in a multi-round public goods game where groups faced periodic risks of failure (i.e. loss of earnings) which could be overcome by sufficient cooperation. This threat of failure was framed as either a social threat (intergroup competition) or an asocial threat (harsh environment). We find that cooperation was higher in response to social threats than asocial threats. We also examined participants’ willingness to manipulate apparent threats to the group: participants raised the perceived threat level similarly for social and asocial threats, but high-ranking participants increased the appearance of social threats more than low-ranking participants did. These results show that people treat social threats differently than asocial threats, and support previous work on leaders’ willingness to manipulate perceived threats.
When is retaliation respected? Status and vengefulness in intergroup and interpersonal contexts
(Sage, 2020) Benard, Stephen; Doan, Long
We investigate how conflict between groups shapes social status within groups. Conflict may create opportunities for individuals to gain or lose status by demonstrating group commitment. Pursuing revenge for an intergroup affront can serve as a source of status in settings characterized by a “culture of honor” or “code of the street”. Yet, we know little about whether this holds in everyday settings. We develop a theoretical account of the relationship between vengeful behavior and social status. We test our predictions with four online survey experiments. Respondents generally perceive intergroup retaliation as more status-worthy than interpersonal retaliation, these status rewards are similar for men and women, are specific to retaliation rather than initiating aggression, and are diminished by premeditation. Broader implications include understanding how status shapes the social organization of aggression, why trivial disputes escalate, and the link between inter- and intra-group relations.
Does Aggression Deter or Invite Reciprocal Behavior? Considering Coercive Capacity
(Sage, 2017-12) Benard, Stephen; Berg, Mark; Mize, Trent
How do people respond to aggression? Theory differs on whether aggressive behavior deters antagonists or provokes retaliation, and the empirical evidence is mixed. We bridge contradictory findings in the literature by identifying a previously unexamined moderating variable: the extent to which individuals can increase their coercive capability (which we call “escalating”). We argue that when escalating is costly, aggression deters potential antagonists. In contrast, when escalating is less costly, behaving aggressively fails to deter aggressive partners. We test these predictions in two behavioral experiments that manipulate the cost of escalating and whether interaction partners are aggressive or deferential. We find support for deterrence predictions when escalating is either high or low cost, but not when it is medium cost. Taken together, we provide evidence that the cost of escalation plays a key role in decisions about aggression.

Browse

Recent Submissions