Vincenz Frey , Andreas Flache , Dieko Bakker , Michael Mäs
{"title":"谁对地位较低的人影响更大?是地位较高的外群体还是地位较低的内群体?研究观点问题与事实问题之间的区别","authors":"Vincenz Frey , Andreas Flache , Dieko Bakker , Michael Mäs","doi":"10.1016/j.ssresearch.2024.103060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>People are influenced by members of high-status groups and members of their ingroup. These principles of “status orientation” and “ingroup orientation” can imply opposing forces for people of lower status. Are lower-status individuals more influenced by members of higher-status outgroups or by members of their lower-status ingroup? Engaging status characteristics theory and self-categorization theory, we predict that status orientation is relatively stronger on questions about facts, which have an objectively correct answer, whereas ingroup orientation is stronger when it comes to ‘opinion questions’ that have no objectively correct answer. Results of an online survey experiment confirm that on factual questions, less-educated individuals are more strongly influenced by highly-educated outgroup individuals than by less-educated ingroup individuals. On opinion questions, we observe relatively weaker status orientation, with status orientation and ingroup orientation being about equally strong. These findings suggest that it is harder to reach societal consensus on opinion questions than on factual questions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48338,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Research","volume":"123 ","pages":"Article 103060"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X24000826/pdfft?md5=54425992a9d91d86f4d91911e91a9eba&pid=1-s2.0-S0049089X24000826-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who influences lower-status individuals more: People of higher-status outgroups or people of their lower-status ingroup? Examining the difference between matters of opinion and matters of fact\",\"authors\":\"Vincenz Frey , Andreas Flache , Dieko Bakker , Michael Mäs\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ssresearch.2024.103060\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>People are influenced by members of high-status groups and members of their ingroup. These principles of “status orientation” and “ingroup orientation” can imply opposing forces for people of lower status. Are lower-status individuals more influenced by members of higher-status outgroups or by members of their lower-status ingroup? Engaging status characteristics theory and self-categorization theory, we predict that status orientation is relatively stronger on questions about facts, which have an objectively correct answer, whereas ingroup orientation is stronger when it comes to ‘opinion questions’ that have no objectively correct answer. Results of an online survey experiment confirm that on factual questions, less-educated individuals are more strongly influenced by highly-educated outgroup individuals than by less-educated ingroup individuals. On opinion questions, we observe relatively weaker status orientation, with status orientation and ingroup orientation being about equally strong. These findings suggest that it is harder to reach societal consensus on opinion questions than on factual questions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Science Research\",\"volume\":\"123 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103060\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X24000826/pdfft?md5=54425992a9d91d86f4d91911e91a9eba&pid=1-s2.0-S0049089X24000826-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Science Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X24000826\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X24000826","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Who influences lower-status individuals more: People of higher-status outgroups or people of their lower-status ingroup? Examining the difference between matters of opinion and matters of fact
People are influenced by members of high-status groups and members of their ingroup. These principles of “status orientation” and “ingroup orientation” can imply opposing forces for people of lower status. Are lower-status individuals more influenced by members of higher-status outgroups or by members of their lower-status ingroup? Engaging status characteristics theory and self-categorization theory, we predict that status orientation is relatively stronger on questions about facts, which have an objectively correct answer, whereas ingroup orientation is stronger when it comes to ‘opinion questions’ that have no objectively correct answer. Results of an online survey experiment confirm that on factual questions, less-educated individuals are more strongly influenced by highly-educated outgroup individuals than by less-educated ingroup individuals. On opinion questions, we observe relatively weaker status orientation, with status orientation and ingroup orientation being about equally strong. These findings suggest that it is harder to reach societal consensus on opinion questions than on factual questions.
期刊介绍:
Social Science Research publishes papers devoted to quantitative social science research and methodology. The journal features articles that illustrate the use of quantitative methods in the empirical solution of substantive problems, and emphasizes those concerned with issues or methods that cut across traditional disciplinary lines. Special attention is given to methods that have been used by only one particular social science discipline, but that may have application to a broader range of areas.