The Influence of Social Status on Individuals’ Assessment and Self-Assessment

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Abstract
Introduction
Discussion
Conclusion
References

Abstract

People are perceived to be smarter or more knowledgeable depending on their positions or their roles in society. Social status does not only influence the way powerful individuals are assessed but it also has an impact on individuals’ self-assessment and the choice of behavioral patterns which can be the reason why they are perceived more knowledgeable.

In terms of the present research it was conducted a quiz game which required the role of a questioner and that of the answerer thus the target of evaluation became “self” versus “partner”. Results indicate that the roles in the Quiz-Game affected how observers judged the questioner and answerer.

We also saw that role did have an effect of how the questioner and answerer viewed themselves. Powerful individuals act more situation-consistent not only in terms of researches but in the real life as well, which can be either beneficial or harmful for the development of overall society.

Introduction

People are perceived to be smarter or more knowledgeable depending on their positions or their roles in society. Additionally how we perceive ourselves when compared to others on same level of role with ourselves as equal or less knowledge to someone similar to ourselves, I basically agree with their research that we are perceived according to our role that we play in society so this is what my research is about it can also be referred to as (FAE) fundamental attribution error and related article as supported in social psychology.

Admittedly, more powerful people act in a different way and reveal more variable reactions to various situations which can be the reason why they are perceived more knowledgeable. Thus, Guinote (2008) reported that powerful individuals tended to act differently in accordance with different situations.

The survey’s findings also suggest that powerful individuals change their behavioral patterns across various situations more as compared to powerless individuals. Due to such situation-consistency powerful individuals are regarded as more experienced and more knowledgeable. Notably, this perception is often generalized since powerful individuals are not assessed by their past behavior or performance, instead they are perceived as knowledgeable due to their social status.

Social status does not only influence the way powerful individuals are assessed but it also has an impact on individuals’ self-assessment and the choice of behavioral patterns. For instance, according to Lammers and Stapel (2009) having power influences the way individuals try to solve moral dilemmas.

Lammers and Stapel (2009) found that more powerful individuals tended to concentrate on rules and principles, whereas less powerful individuals focused on the consequences. It is worth mentioning that in situations when decisions based on principles and rules threatened participants’ self-interest, more powerful individuals tended to solve the problem concentrating on the consequences.

Thus, individuals’ status is a very important (if not essential) factor which influences their behavior. Notably, not only other people regard powerful people as more knowledgeable, but powerful individuals assess themselves likewise. Such self-assessment makes powerful individuals act in accordance with their self-interest and in terms of conventional rules.

Nevertheless, sometimes this peculiarity of people’s assessment can be harmful, since some more powerful people can use their position in to reach their own aims. Cooper (2002) reports that police officers who are more powerful individuals do not always try to help less powerful individuals. Instead these more powerful individuals make use of their position, and their decisions often regarded as correct due to the assessment that more powerful people are more knowledgeable.

Admittedly, powerful individuals are regarded as more knowledgeable and due to this perception they are often in more favorable position than less powerful individuals. Ross et al. (1977) considered the correlation between social status and individuals’ assessment. According to Ross et al. (1977) powerful individuals are perceived as more knowledgeable on the basis of their status.

Moreover, powerful people are aware of their favorable position and often use it to “inappropriately deem members of their own caste well-suited to their particular leadership tasks” (Ross et al., 1977, p.494). It is necessary to point out that despite the considerable amount of surveys on the correlation between status and individual perception, the problem needs further research.

Discussion

In psychology attribute biases are ubiquitous, to some extent they are referred to contemporary social psychology’s bedrock. The attribution biases lead us to underrating the significance of unresponsive, situational factors over the responsive human factors.

Ross et al (1977) indicates that when making correct social judgments, self-presentation benefits and limitations should be adequately recognized on performers of social roles. Experimentation used to examine social insight in an encounter where a participant made hard questions that were based on general knowledge while another participant attempted to solve the exact questions.

Findings showed that perceivers do not give adequate allowance and leave a biasing effect on the “interviewer” and the “interviewee.” When judging the both of the participants the questioners gave an allowance to demonstrate esoteric knowledge that they exhibit in composing the questions. They were always recognized as superior to the ones answering their questions.

Interpersonal encounters present adequate knowledge on social judgments and when evaluating oneself. Personal performances on such occasion fortified by the social roles each individual partakes. There are notable biased effects upon performance. In regard to the quiz game the specific empirical demonstration deals with the roles of the “questioner” and the “answerer” it also entails the bias discernment of the general knowledge that lead to random task, it purposes to fulfill the roles of the quiz game.

Ross et al (1977) the tasks participated by the questioner is to compose a list of general knowledge quiz and then give them to the answerer contestant. The two participants and a couple of observers are present in the whole process. The role of the observers is to assess the contestants’ general knowledge in the whole exercise. Great emphasis is put on the role conferred, in general knowledge the advantages and the disadvantages of self-presentation in quiz game. Their role of these advantages and setbacks are neither understated nor concealed.

The present research also proves that social status does influence individuals’ assessment. In the first place, individuals who were put in more favorable position, i.e. the position of the questioner who had the questions and the answers at hand, were regarded by observers as more powerful, i.e. more knowledgeable.

Notably, the observers were likely to think that the questioners were more knowledgeable largely concentrating on the superior status of the more powerful individuals. It goes without saying that questioners did not have to reveal the scope of their knowledge to prove their level, they only asked questions. It follows that the observers did not have the real opportunity to assess the level of the questioners’ knowledge, but they still evaluated the questioners as more knowledgeable.

The observers assessed the questioners focusing on their social status and behavior, not on their exact knowledge. What the observers did see was that the questioners were confident enough and could correct the answerer if the latter was not right. The observers did not take into account that the questioners simply had the answers written in their papers which made them more knowledgeable. It is necessary to point out that many questioners could fail to answer the questions if they were in the position of answerers.

Apparently, the observers did not pay much attention to that fact. It is possible to assume that the observers based their judgments on their previous experience: those who ask questions are, as a rule, more powerful and more knowledgeable. This kind of generalization works in the particular case of the quiz game.

Apart from this stereotypes which had impact on the observers’ assessment, influenced questioners and answerers’ self-assessment as well. It is important to state that not only observers but questioners and answerers shared the viewpoints about more and less powerful positions. Admittedly, individuals who found themselves in superior position (even if they occupied the position at random) felt more confident and that is why they did produce the impression of being more knowledgeable.

At the same time, answerers felt that they were in less favorable position. They could even feel a bit subordinate to questioners. The answerers were not very confident since they did not have the right answers at hand. The answerers did not feel that confident and could be even a bit nervous since they wanted to give the correct answers. It goes without saying that the answerers considered themselves to be less knowledgeable. This is supported by the present research findings.

The answerers’ self-assessment was also based on stereotypes to great extent. It is important to note that self-assessment influenced the participants’ behavior. Thus, questioners were confident and enjoyed their being regarded as powerful and more knowledgeable, the answerers were regarded as less knowledgeable and shared this opinion. It is possible to state that self-assessment influenced the participants’ behavior which contributed to creation of certain evaluation by observers.

Reportedly, the peculiarities of individuals’ assessment and self-assessment can be revealed not only during some surveys but in the real life. Admittedly, people tend to regard people who are in more powerful position as more knowledgeable due to their social status. Initially people judge other individuals in terms of their social status and only after this some personal features and behavior is taken into account.

It goes without saying that individuals’ self-assessment id dependant on their social status. More powerful individuals are more confident and can often make use of their position, whereas less powerful individuals may often feel subordinate to the former. Moreover, in the real life less powerful individuals tend to rely on more powerful people.

Reportedly, powerful individuals act more situation-consistent not only in terms of researches but in the real life as well, which is beneficial for the development of overall society since powerful people are thought to be bound to help powerless individuals.

For instance, McWilliams (1993) revealed a very useful trend when powerful individuals were called for being responsible for powerless individuals, children in particular. Admittedly, it is believed that powerful individuals being more knowledgeable and experienced can and should solve difficult issues.

Fortunately, powerful people share such opinion and tend to take control of various situations which in its turn contributes to their image of powerful individuals. Thus, the society admits that people occupying powerful position (like lawyers or officials) should take care of less powerful people due to the fact that they are more knowledgeable and, of course, they are able to implement the necessary changes in the society. In this case the peculiarities of individuals’ assessment can lead (and do lead) to many improvements the society.

On the one hand, such tendency when more powerful people take control of numerous situations is quite favorable, since the higher position is used to develop the society. Nevertheless, sometimes powerful individuals may use their position in some inappropriate way. First of all, they can use their position to achieve some personal goals which can have negative consequences for others.

This kind of situation can worsen since less powerful people tend to accept more powerful individuals’ decisions. On the other hand, individuals who are in more favorable, i.e. powerful, position are not necessarily more knowledgeable and experienced as other people can think. Thus, many decisions may be erroneous due to the fact that in reality more powerful individuals lack the necessary knowledge or experience.

Again this can lead to some undesirable effects since less powerful individuals who may really know the right solution will not be listened to because of the lack of authority or even will not express their opinion since they regard themselves as subordinates. This kind of situation is illustrated by the present research when questioners were regarded as more knowledgeable due to their position, though in reality they could know less than the answerers.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is possible to state that the present research proves that individuals’ assessment is to great extent based on the social position occupied by people assessed. Moreover, the social status also influences individuals’ self-assessment and their behavior. Thus, the questioners in the Quiz-Game were regarded as more knowledgeable basing on their superior position.

The self-assessment was very much alike: questioners and answerers regarded themselves as less knowledgeable. Admittedly, the same assessment patterns are found in the real life where people occupying higher social positions are considered to be more powerful, knowledgeable and experienced.

Such peculiarity of people’s perception can have both positive and negative effects. On the one hand, the society promulgates the authority of powerful people and makes them responsible for less powerful individuals. Powerful individuals share this opinion and are ready to implement the necessary changes and to make the necessary decisions.

On the other hand, some powerful individuals may use their position to reach their personal aims which can have negative effects for others. Moreover, not all powerful people are that knowledgeable as they are considered to be so they can often make erroneous decisions which will be brought to life due to their high position.

In this case the entire society can be threatened by the authority of people who in reality are not worth their positions. Thus, it is yet to find out whether the psychological peculiarity of people assessing other individuals on the basis of their social status is beneficial or ruinous for the society. It can be also helpful to research whether individuals’ assessment and self-assessment can be changed and how.

References

Cooper, S. (2002). A Closer Look at Racial Profiling. Foundation for American Communications. Web.

Guinote, A. (2008). Power and Affordances: When the Situation Has More Power Over Powerful Than Powerless Individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 237-252.

Lammers, J. and Stapel, D.A. (2009). How Power Influences Moral Thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 279-289.

McWilliams, J.M. (1993, February). Standing Up for the Powerless. ABA Journal, 8.

Ross. L., Amabile, T.M., and Steinmetz, J. (1977). Social Roles, Social Control, and Biases in Social-Perception Processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(7), 485-494.

Ross, L. (1977). The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process. New York: Academic Press.

Click Here To Order Now!