American ethnic status hierarchies are consensually agreed upon across all groups

Evidence

Most modern human societies are characterized by the presence of group-based status hierarchies. Although these hierarchies may be predicated upon different features (e.g., age, gender, education level), what these hierarchies have in common is the presence of one or more dominant social groups that enjoy disproportionate social advantages while other groups suffer disproportionate social disadvantages (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In addition to being pervasive, these hierarchies also tend to be both stable and consensual in that there is typically high agreement among society members on the ordering of groups within the status hierarchy. For example, Sidanius and Pratto (1999) asked 723 UCLA undergraduates to rate the social status of five ethnic groups (whites, Asians, Arabs, blacks, and Latinos). These researchers found extremely high consensus among respondents in the ratings of the groups (average intraclass r = .999) and found that this consensuality in the perceived social status of American ethnic groups was largely unaffected by the group to which the respondent belonged. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 851

Categorization

• XREF: Consensual hierarchy confirms social dominance theory’s core claim, and the near-perfect r=.999 consensus across in-groups directly parallels the reader’s prior thread on how even target groups internalize their own status ordering — comparable to Allport’s analysis of minority self-deprecation.
• SHARE: The r=.999 intraclass consensus that Arab, black and Latino respondents rank their own groups low exactly like whites do is a striking datum for anyone working on internalized hierarchy.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 851