Group Stereotypes and The Self: How Social Status and Interaction Expectation Affect Self-Stereotyping

This study examined how ingroup status affects the tendency for people to internalize ingroup stereotypes (i.e. self-stereotype) when expecting to interact with another individual who holds stereotypic views of them. Past research has demonstrated that people self-stereotype when they want to affiliate with another individual who holds stereotypic views of them. By self-stereotyping, individuals create a common bond or shared set of beliefs with the other individual. This line of research has not yet examinedif there are any moderators in the relationship between affiliation motivation and self-stereotyping. However, there is reason to believe that members of lower-status groups are more likely to feel the need to create this common bond through self-stereotyping because 1) they identify more closely with their social group, 2) their group identity is more salient 3) they are more aware of the expectations of others, 4) and they care more about the quality of an interaction with a member from a higher-status group. For this experiment, I recruited twenty-seven members of Alpha Chi Omega andtwenty-eight members of Delta Gamma, two sororities that are perceived to be middle-ranked (as determined by a pre-test survey). Upon arriving to the study, half the participants were informed that they would be interacting with a member of Kappa Kappa Gamma, a higher-ranked sorority (as determined by a pre-test survey) and half the participants were informed that they would be interacting with a member of a Chi Omega, a lower-ranked sorority (as determined by a pre-test survey). Participants were also informed that this partner held stereotypic views of their (i.e. the participant’s)sorority. After, participants were given the Self-Stereotyping Measure in which they rated how well sixteen characteristics described themselves. The results of the series of analyses performed on participants’ ratings on the Self-Stereotyping Measure indicated that when expecting to interact with another individual, members of low-status groups self-stereotype more than members of high-statusgroups and those who do not expect to interact. Furthermore, unexpectedly, among members of high-status groups, those who expected to interact with a member of a low-status group self-stereotyped less than those who did not expect to interact. Thus, this research provides support for the hypothesis that group status is a moderator in the relationship between self-stereotyping and affiliation motivation.

The Supreme Court Confirmation Process and Its Implications

In recent history, there has been a trend of increasing partisan polarization throughout most of the American political system. Some of the impacts of this polarization are obvious; however, there is reason to believe that we miss some of the indirect effects of polarization. Accompanying the trend of increased polarization has been an increase in the contentiousness of the Supreme Court confirmation process. I believe that these two trends are related. Furthermore, I argue that these trends have an impact on judicial behavior. This is an issue worth exploring, since the Supreme Court is the most isolated branch of the federal government. The Constitution structured the Supreme Court to ensure that it was as isolated as possible from short-term political pressures and interests. This study attempts to show how it may be possible that those goals are no longer being fully achieved. My first hypothesis in this study is that increases in partisan polarization are a direct cause of the increase in the level of contention during the confirmation process. I then hypothesize that the more contention a justice faces during his or her confirmation process, the more ideologically extreme that justice will then vote on the bench. This means that a nominee appointed by a Republican president will tend to vote even more conservatively than was anticipated following a contentious confirmation process, and vice versa for Democratic appointees. In order to test these hypotheses, I developed a data set for every Supreme Court nominee dating back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt¿s appointments (1937). With this data set, I ran a series of regression models to analyze these relationships. Statistically speaking, the results support my first hypothesis in a fairly robust manner. My regression results for my second hypothesis indicate that the trend I am looking for is present for Republican nominees. For Democratic nominees, the impacts are less robust. Nonetheless, as the results will show, contention during the confirmation process does seem to have some impact on judicial behavior. Following my quantitative analysis, I analyze a series of case studies. These case studies serve to provide tangible examples of these statistical trends as well as to explore what else may be going on during the confirmation process and subsequent judicial decision-making. I use Justices Stevens, Rehnquist, and Alito as the subjects for these case studies. These cases will show that the trends described above do seem to be identifiable at the level of an individual case. These studies further help to indicate other potential impacts on judicial behavior. For example, following Justice Rehnquist¿s move from Associate to Chief Justice, we see a marked change in his behavior. Overall, this study serves as a means of analyzing some of the more indirect impacts of partisan polarization in modern politics. Further, the study offers a means of exploring some of the possible constraints (both conscious and subconscious) that Supreme Court justices may feel while they decide how to cast a vote in a particular case. Given the wide-reaching implications of Supreme Court decisions, it is important to try to grasp a full view of how these decisions are made.