User:Jalf psu/Expectation States Theory

Expectation States Theory is a social psychological theory first proposed by Joseph Berger. Most recently, it has been utilized by sociologist Cecilia Ridgeway to explain the origins and influence of beliefs about the status of different social groups, particularly as they relate to social inequality.

Basic Concepts of Expectation States Theory

Scope of the Theory

The primary goal of Expectation State Theory as applied to gender is to explain how observed differences between social groups become the basis for inequality in everyday social encounters (Ridgeway, 2001; Ridgeway & Bourg, 2004). While Expectation States Theory describes the development of status beliefs broadly, and can be applied to the study of any social groups, it is most commonly used to examine and explain inequality as it relates to gender.

Basic Assumptions of the Theory

Expectation States Theory makes a number of unique assumptions in accounting for gender inequality. First, barriers to women’s advancement to upper-level positions of authority are due to gender’s status element, rather than something inherent to gender itself. Inequality is thus due to basic evaluative assumptions about women’s competence as opposed to that of men (Ridgeway, 2001). Therefore, the predictions Expectation States Theory makes about inequality are the same for any two groups about which evaluative assumptions can be made about one group as compared to the other. The theory can therefore account for not only gender inequality, but also racial and other types of inequality.

A second and related assumption is that all status assumptions resulting in inequality associate the advantaged group with higher levels of skill or resources (Webster & Foshci, 1988). In other words, status beliefs imply not only group differences but also group inequality. With regards to gender, status beliefs hold men to have higher levels of instrumental competence (Eagly & Mladinic, 1994).

Third, Expectation States Theory makes no assumptions regarding gender differences in individual ability to lead or achieve high levels of success (Ridgeway & Bourg, 2004). Thus, Expectation States Theory grounds hierarchical inequality in the sex categories themselves rather than individual strength, competence, or lactation status (Ridgeway, 2001).

Finally, Expectation States Theory assumes that gender status beliefs affect performance expectations (and therefore result in inequality) only when gender is salient to the situation/task at hand. Thus, gender inequality will typically not surface except in mixed-sex groups, particularly if they are working on a task that is relevant to stereotypical gendered competence (Ridgeway, 2001; Ridgeway & Bourg, 2004).

Related Theories

The predictions made by Expectation States Theory are in many ways similar to those made by Eagly’s Social-Role Theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002). The key distinguishing feature of Expectation States Theory is that it is able not only to make predictions about the extent to which particular inequalities are due not only to gender but also to other status relevant differences.

A second related theory is Glick and Fiske’s (1999) theory of stereotype content. These theories make similar predictions about how gender inequality is most likely to surface in contexts of cooperative interdependence and the “prescriptive element” of gender beliefs. However, the distinguishing feature here is that Expectation States Theory holds this prescriptive element to relate not only to gender but to any group distinction that may foster inequality.

Formation of Status Beliefs

At the heart of Expectation States Theory is the concept of status beliefs. Status beliefs are defined as “widely held cultural beliefs that link greater social significance and general competence, as well as specific positive and negative skills, with one category of a social distinction compared to another” (Ridgeway, 2001).

Status beliefs arise from repeated interactions among members of different social groups, in which members of one group are observed to have some sort of structural advantage over members of another group. That is, they are perceived to have advantages in influencing members of other groups, due to possessing greater resources (such as money or prestige). If such perceived differences are observed across multiple interactions, in multiple contexts, they may become ingrained as a status belief (Ridgeway & Bourg, 2004). In such cases, individuals take them to heart and continue to spread such beliefs in future interactions.

Over time and repeated interactions, such beliefs can give rise to a hierarchy, in which individuals from groups with perceived greater status are granted power, authority, and influence over groups perceived to have lower status. It is important to highlight that the construction and enacting of status beliefs typically appears consensual, in that both the perceived higher and lower status groups take part in their formation and propagation (Ridgeway, 2001).

Expectation States Theory and Gender

According to Expectation States Theory, gender status beliefs attribute greater competence and social status to men than women. Similar to Eagly’s Social-Roles Theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002), Expectation States Theory holds that gender stereotypes are prescriptive in nature, meaning the stereotype regards not only the way things are but the way they should be. Coupled with the theory’s stance that status beliefs are consensual (shared by men and women), the prescriptive element leads women to act in ways that are commensurate with the status belief. In summary, status beliefs, which hold men to possess greater competence, have a prescriptive element. Due to the notion that status beliefs are widely held, they have great power in determining the behavior of both men and women in mixed gender settings (Ridgeway, 2001).

Expectation States Theory views individuals not only as a man/woman but as an aggregate whole of all identities which bestow them status in the eyes of others. The theory holds that while people are sex-categorized in almost every situation, they are also categorized according to other markers as well (e.g,. race, education, or sexual orientation) (Ridgeway & Bourg, 2004). A key tenet of the theory is that it not only includes traditional demographic differences as important contributors to status beliefs but also important aspects of an individual’s identity such as education, title, and social role. Depending on which status characteristics are salient at a given time, gender and such other identities will combine to influence the ultimate performance expectations held by the individual and observers. In summary, an individual’s behavioral and status differences are determined not only by his/her gender, but they are a function of the aggregate expectation of all identities relevant to a given task (Ridgeway, 2001).

Support for Expectation States Theory

Experimental Tests of Expectation States Theory

One characteristic of Expectation States Theory that sets it apart from many other psychology or sociological theories of inequality is that is has been tested empirically. In particular, recent experimental studies have tested and found support for the development of status beliefs relating to gender.

In particular, a study by Ridgeway and colleagues (Ridgeway, Backor, Li, Tinkler, and Erickson, 2009) placed men and women into a fabricated decision-making screnario, in which members of one group were manipulated to have greater resources than another. Results showed that both men and women were more likely to listen to ascribe greater authority to individuals in the high status group, suggesting that both men and women take part in the formation and propagation of status beliefs. Interestingly, the researchers also found that, when women were in the high status group, they would perceive themselves to have legitimate authority, but would be less likely to act on it than would male participants. It was suggested that this hesitation may arise out of a perceived greater social consequence for women who wrongfully exert authority than for men (Ridgeway et al., 2001). This has clear, practical implications for gender inequality. Similarly, in a second part of this study, the researchers found that women in both the perceived high and perceive low status groups were unlikely to resist a partner's influence, whereas males in the high status group were much more likely to displace resistance than males in the low status group.

Evidence for Gender and Leadership Emergence

Much of the research evidence on Expectation States Theory regards women and leadership emergence. In order for such research to support Expectation States Theory, five pieces of evidence must be presented (Ridgeway & Bourg, 2004). First, men should show more signs of emerging as leaders in mixed groups working on a gender-neutral task. This would support the theory’s claim that the higher performance expectations for men should lead them to act and be accepted accordingly. Second, these same results should be stronger in mixed-sex groups working on a masculine task because the status beliefs should be even more salient. Third, women should show slightly higher levels of emergence when the task is feminine in nature. This is because women are attributed higher competence in such situations. Fourth, in order to confirm Expectation States Theory’s claim that status itself causes these differences rather than something inherent to gender, similar effects should be observed from other status characteristics such as race. Finally, differences in leadership emergence should be mediated by competence perceptions.

First, there is a good amount of evidence showing that men in mixed sex groups show more signs of leadership emergence. In a study of 24 mixed sex dyads performing a non-gendered task, men showed higher levels of power through verbal and nonverbal communication. Similarly, Wood and Karten (1986) observed that men engaged in more task-related behaviors such as opinion-giving while working in four person mixed sex groups. A recent meta-analysis found that men are more talkative than women in general but that the difference is even greater in mixed-sex groups (Leaper & Ayres, 2007). Finally, a meta-analysis by Eagly and Karau (1991) showed that men were more likely to be selected for leadership roles than women. However, a recent study by Burke, Stets, and Cerven (2007) found that even when women were selected into a formal managerial role they used more of the resources they had at their disposal. The researchers attributed this finding to women’s “trying harder” to succeed in light of self-perceptions that they were of lower competence than men in similar positions.

The second piece of evidence was that men should show even more signs of leadership emergence when the task is masculine in nature. Dovidio and colleagues’ (1988) study is particularly supportive of this second necessary piece of evidence. First, men showed higher levels of verbal and nonverbal communication than women on a gender-neutral task. However, when the dyads worked on a masculine task (discussing changing oil in a car), the difference became ever greater. The study also provided support for the third piece of evidence (i.e. women should show slightly greater signs of leadership emergence when task is feminine in nature) because when the topic shifted to feminine in nature women actually exhibited greater power. Providing further evidence that status beliefs are central to these phenomena, several studies have shown that no differences appear when the task is performed in same sex groups (Carli, 1991; Pugh & Wahrman, 1983).

Finally, differences in leadership emergence should be mediated by competence perceptions. This evidence is that in a particularly convincing study by Wood and Karten (1986). The researchers displayed that status based assumptions regarding men’s superior competence mediated the tendency for men to evidence higher levels of leadership emergence in mixed gender settings. This study further supported the notion that it is status, not inherent strengths/weakness of gender differences, which foster gender inequality.

As an additional note, there is also considerable research evidence that evaluations of women’s performance in leadership roles mirrors the effects found in the previously discussed literature on leadership emergence. Indeed, men Eagly and colleagues (1995) found that men were rated as more effective overall, and that the effect was stronger for masculine tasks. Also consistent with the previously described findings, women were evaluated as more effective in feminine settings. Similarly, a recent study of men and women performing both masculine and feminine tasks found that women were only received similar performance evaluations to men if their leadership status was legitimated through a title (Burke, Stets, & Cerven, 2007).

Expectation States Theory and Other Social Groups

As previously suggested, Expectation States Theory does not apply to gender exclusively. In support of this, empirical evidence supports the double standard predicted by Ridgeway (2001), whereby in order to prove their competency, lower status groups must achieve higher levels of performance than higher status groups. A number of studies confirm that double standards emerge not only for gender, but also for other social categories, such as race (Biernat & Kobrynowicz, 1997; Foschi, 2000).

Practical Implications

Macro-Level Applicability

In general, much of the research regarding Expectation States theory does not speak to the larger question of whether the theory can account for macro level gender inequality. However, a recent study by Brashears (2008) utilized an innovative methodology to show that large scale cross national trends are consistent with the predictions of Expectation States (or Status Construction) Theory. The study used the frequency with which respondents indicated their best friend to be female as a surrogate for status. They found that individuals were more likely to report their best friend to be a female in countries which have a higher percentage of females working in supervisory positions. This supports the notion that status beliefs regarding gender are weaker (or at least less salient) in nations in which women possess more authority. While the evidence was not causal, it does provide an indication that Expectation States Theory does have the potential to explain large scale gender inequality.

Implications for Everyday Life

Expectation States theory focuses on how status beliefs are enacted in everyday life. While the theory does address the origins of status belief, the focus is instead on how these status beliefs influence peoples’ attitudes, perceptions, and behavior. This clearly has practical implications in any situation in which status distinction can be particularly salient. In such situations, where members of one group are perceived to have greater status and legitimacy than members of another, expectation states theory can be useful in predicting how members of both the higher and lower status groups will act and treat one another. This theory describes how individuals with higher status tend are more likely to be listened to, receive more positive evaluations, and exert gretaer influence than individuals with lower status. Conversely, individuals in lower status positions will be more likely to defer to those with high status.

With regard to gender, the theory generally predicts that men will tend to have basic advantages in mixed group settings, even when performing a gender-neutral task. In general, men will be expected to exercise the authority conferred by their perceived structural advantages that cross social contexts (e.g., higher pay), and will be more likely to be recognized and rewarded for doing so (Ridgeway, 2001). In exercising such power based on status, they will often be expected to talk more, make more suggestions, and display more assertive gestures that will women. In the traditional workplace, where many traditional roles as masculinized (Mumby, 1998), Expectation States Theory suggests this would form the basis for gendered inequality.

In the workplace, another clear example of the applicability of expectation states theory is in predicting backlash against female leaders in an organization. According to this theory, since women are often ascribed a position of lower status than men, when a woman in a leadership role exercises authority, expectation states theory predicts that there may be a backlash against her, on the grounds that her power is perceived to be illegitimate. Expectation states theory can be used to explain (and be used as a means to counter) situations such as these.

Implications for Social Change

According to expectation states theory (e.g., Ridgeway & Bourg, 2004), inequality arises when members of one group are perceived to have greater status and prestige than members of another group. This distinction occurs when members of a particular social group systematically perceive that some members have a structural advantage (such as more money, knowledge, or other resources). These systematic perceptions develop as individuals share and reinforce these beliefs among one another, legitimizing such beliefs as members of both high and low status groups act on their ascribed social status. By understanding how these beliefs form and lead to certain groups becoming marginalized, expectation states theory provides an avenue for breaking this pattern. According to this theory, positive social change would involve disruption of the formation of these status beliefs, thereby reducing the formation of status distinctions that drive inequality.

Additional Reading

Brashears (2008) Using an annually administered international survey, the research examined associations between goal objects and a surrogate indicator of status to see if they exhibited patterns consistent with predictions from Expectation States Theory. In order to measure status, the study used an item from the survey which asked respondents to indicate whether their best friend was a man or a woman. Rationale for the use of this indicator was based on the tendency individuals have to desire association with individuals of greater status than they themselves have. Therefore, it was determined that the if a higher percentage of respondents in a given nation indicated a woman to be their best friend, then women likely had attained a higher level of status in that nation. Goal objects (an item that is desirable regardless of hw easily it can be exchanged) in the study included the proportion of the full time labor force that was female and the proportion of the supervisor force that was female. Although no association was found between status and labor force, there was a positive association between status and the proportion. Other findings included that participating in the workforce and working as a supervisor decreased the likelihood that an individual would select a woman as their best friend. In summary, the article provided initial evidence that macro-level associations between indicators of status and goal attainment are consistent with the predictions of Expectation States Theory.

Dovidio, Brown, Heltman, Ellyson, & Keating (1988) The researchers performed a lab study which utilized 24 mixed sex dyads assigned to discuss masculine, feminine, and gender-neutral topics. The authors examined differences between men and women in their display of verbal and nonverbal behaviors based on the gender-type of the task the dyad was performing. Consistent with the predictions of Expectation Stats Theory, men exhibited higher levels of both verbal and nonverbal behaviors on the masculine and gender neutral tasks. Similarly, women exhibited greater power through verbal behaviors such as time speaking and nonverbal behaviors such as looking while speaking. These results were consistent with Expectation States Theory’s predictions, providing initial support that the theory may help explain gender differences in leadership emergence.

Ridgeway, Backor, Li, Tinkler, & Erickson (2009) The researchers examined the effects of gender on the formation and propagation of status beliefs in a two-part experimental study. In the first part, male and female participants were assigned to either a low or high resource (pay) condition. In two successive trials of a cooperative decision making, it was modeled that individuals in the high pay condition had the greater authority. In a third trial, participants were asked to complete a measure assessing their status beliefs regarding themselves and their partners, and were then asked to complete an additional decision making task. It was found that both men and women formed status beliefs that ascribed greater legitimate authority to individuals with greater resources. Furthermore, it was found that men were more likely than women to assert their authority when they were part of the perceived "favored" group. This was thought to be because there are more severe perceived social consequences for women who assert authority illegitimately. In further support of this, a second phase of the study found that men in the perceived higher status group were less likely to submit to a partner's influence than men in the perceived lower status group; however, there was no such status group effect for women, suggesting that gender itself was influencing participants' willingness to resist influence.

References

Biernat, M. & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender and race based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 544-557.

Brashears, M. E. (2008). Sex, Society, and Association: A cross-national examination of status construction theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71, 72-82.

Burke, P. Stets, J.E. & Cerven, C (2007). Gender, legitimation, and identity verification in groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70, 27-40.

Carli, L. L. (1991). Gender, status, and influence. In E. J. Lawler, B. Markovsky, C. L. Ridgeway, & H. Walker (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 8, pp. 89–113). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Dovidio, J. F., Brown, C. E., Heltman, K., Ellyson, S. L., & Keating, C. F. (1988). Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender linked tasks: A multichannel study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 580–587.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685–710.

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145.

Eagly, A.H. & Karau, S.J. (2002). Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.

Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 21–42.

Leaper, C. & Ayres, M. (2007). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults' language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 328-363.

Pugh, M., & Wahrman, R. (1983). Neutralizing sexism in mixed-sex groups: Do women have to be better than men? American Journal of Sociology, 88, 746–762.

Ridgeway, C.L. & Bourg, C. (2004). Gender as Status. In A.H. Eagly, A.E. Beall & R.J.59, Sternberg (Eds.), The Psychology of Gender (pp. 217-241). Guilford Press.

Ridgeway, C.L. (2001). Gender, Status, and Leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 637-655.

Wood, W., & Karten, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in interaction style as a product of perceived sex differences in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 341–347.

Ridgeway, C.L., Backor, K., Li, Y.E., Tinkler, J.E., & Erickson, K.E. (2009). How easily does a social difference become a status distinction? Gender matters. American Sociological Review, 74, 44-62.