Perceptions and explanations of status in the United Arab Emirates: The role of ascribed and achieved characteristics

Abstract

Ascribed and achieved characteristics influence individuals’ positions in a social hierarchy. I explore how status characteristics and status ideologies influence expectations about economic opportunities in the United Arab Emirates, a wealthy, highly diverse, and internationally stratified society where beliefs in meritocracy are nationally supported. In Studies 1 and 2, participants reported the extent to which they perceived various characteristics to influence an individual’s salary. Participants whose nationality placed them higher in the economic hierarchy expected achieved markers of status to play a larger role than ascribed markers in determining pay. Across groups, the more participants believed in meritocracy, the more they expected achieved markers to play a role. In Study 3, participants predicted the economic success of individuals who varied in ascribed and achieved characteristics. Across participant groups, both ascribed and achieved characteristics were expected to influence an individual’s economic success. Taken together, results suggested that both ascribed and achieved characteristics are expected to influence an individual’s position in the socioeconomic hierarchy, but only differences rooted in achieved characteristics are legitimized. Group differences and implications for system stability are discussed.

Keywords

economic hierarchy legitimizing ideology status status ideology

Societies create hierarchies that systematically advantage or disadvantage different groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Individuals’ status within society determines both the role they are expected to play and the access they have to social and material goods (Anderson et al., 2012; Savin-Williams, 1979; Sherif et al., 1955). Status reflects a complex range of components that theorists have argued can reflect either ascribed or achieved characteristics (Linton, 1936). Ascribed characteristics represent inherited categories, such as an individual representing a privileged race or nationality within a particular social context. Achieved characteristics, on the other hand, represent individual accomplishments, such as developing a particular skill or gaining relevant experience that serves the group’s needs. The extent to which ascribed and achieved characteristics influence an individual’s status varies across context and society.

Within contexts and societies, individuals develop status ideologies which describe and explain the social system (Major et al., 2007). Such status ideologies may be system justifying (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost & Hunyady, 2005; Lipkus et al., 1996; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) or they may challenge its legitimacy (see Major et al., 2007; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Western capitalist societies tend to encourage a meritocratic worldview, depicting the social system as rewarding individual efforts or abilities (see Major et al., 2007). However, individuals who face chronic discrimination may reject meritocratic ideologies (Levin et al., 1998; O’Brien & Major, 2005). Thus, there may be important relationships between an individual’s status ideology and the role they perceive different status characteristics to play within their social system. To the extent that individuals endorse meritocracy beliefs, they typically justify a hierarchical system and show reduced hostility in response to differential treatment of their groups (Jost & Hunyady, 2005; Maitner, 2015; Sagioglou et al., 2019).

Arab cultures traditionally value personal relationships (Joseph, 2008; Nydell, 2012; San Martin et al., 2018), and social class and family background have historically taken precedence over individual achievement in determining one’s status (Cunningham & Sarayrah, 1994; Kanna, 2011; Moore-Jones, 2017; Nydell, 2012). This suggests that markers of ascribed status reflecting inherited or social privilege may take precedence over achieved status characteristics to influence individuals’ outcomes.

However, empirical research shows that both ascribed characteristics, such as nationality, and achieved characteristics, such as skill, influence perceptions of and actual differences in salary in the United Arab Emirates (UAE; Maitner & DeCoster, 2015; Tong & Al Awad, 2014). Although strongly connected to its Arab roots, the UAE is a state capitalist society embracing a neoliberal ethos (see Kanna, 2011; Maitner & Stewart-Ingersoll, 2016), and belief in equal opportunity is codified as a citizenship responsibility for Emiratis (Government of the United Arab Emirates, 2012). Like other Gulf States, the UAE is highly diverse. Approximately 88% of the population comprises foreign nationals (United Arab Emirates National Bureau of Statistics, 2011). These foreign residents make up the majority of the private sector workforce, which, historically, has been stratified both in terms of which nationalities occupy which jobs, and in terms of how much people from different nationalities are paid for the same job. Tong and Al Awad (2014) reported that education and occupation positively impacted wages in private sector employment in the UAE. However, after controlling for age, education, and occupation, nationality also influenced wages for both men and women. Specifically, they found that European nationals were paid more than Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Arabs,¹ followed by non-GCC Arab, Asian, and African workers. This national hierarchy is also perceived and expected by UAE residents (Maitner & DeCoster, 2015). However, explanations for the national hierarchy varied somewhat by national grouping. GCC Arabs expected wealth of the nation of origin to make a smaller difference in how much individuals were paid, whereas non-GCC Arabs expected wealth of the nation of origin to make a larger difference in how much individuals are paid relative to other groups in society (Maitner & DeCoster, 2015). It is unclear what other characteristics are expected to influence salary, and whether those expectations are related to status ideologies, or are perceived as just and fair.

Research shows that, under certain circumstances, members of low-status groups may be more strongly motivated than members of high-status groups to justify the status quo (e.g., Jost & Burgess, 2000). Thus, one possibility is that groups lower in the socioeconomic hierarchy would justify the system more strongly regardless of whether they view it as reflecting ascribed or achieved characteristics. However, when system justification motives conflict with other motives, such as self-interest or ingroup favoritism, individuals from socially disadvantaged groups may be no more likely than individuals from more advantaged groups to support the status quo (Jost et al., 2003; see also Brandt, 2013). Thus, it is also possible that participants’ evaluations of the system will reflect their status ideologies, with more fairness perceived when the system matches the way they perceive or explain hierarchy, such as when people who endorse meritocracy beliefs view hierarchy as reflecting differences in individual achievements.

Results from other research in the UAE support this latter possibility, showing that when faced with lower payment tied to their nationality, the more individuals perceived an opportunity for merit to influence outcomes, the less anger they felt, the more they perceived the system as just and fair, and the more they reported a desire to work within the system (Maitner, 2015). When their meritocratic worldview was thwarted, anger and shame increased (Maitner, 2015; see also Sagioglou et al., 2019, for similar findings from outside the UAE). This work suggests that individuals expect ascribed status characteristics such as nationality to play a role in how much they are paid. However, it also showed that the more they perceived that achieved status characteristics such as skill or merit could also play a role in their individual outcomes, the more they justified the system.

In 2015, the UAE enacted an antidiscrimination and antihatred law which aims to prevent discrimination “on the basis of religion, caste, doctrine, race, colour, or ethnic origin” (Government of the United Arab Emirates, 2019). Thus, the neoliberal, capitalist economy, rooted in a cultural context where hierarchy traditionally reflected ascribed characteristics, is undergoing state-led change that could affect how participants perceive or evaluate the system. The goal of the current research was to explore expectations about economic opportunities in the UAE, where research shows that both ascribed and achieved characteristics have played a role in individuals’ outcomes. First, drawing from emic perspectives of status and hierarchy, I investigated how multiple characteristics were expected to influence individuals’ position in the local socioeconomic hierarchy. Second, I investigated how status ideologies were associated with perceptions that specific characteristics influence pay. Third, I explored how different status attributions influenced the extent to which the system was perceived as just and fair. Finally, going beyond self-report of general status cues, I investigated how participants used specific status cues when making predictions about an individual target’s likelihood of economic success. Across questions, I compared participants whose nationality placed them in different strata of the local socioeconomic hierarchy.

Study 1

In previous research investigating perceptions of the economic hierarchy (Maitner & DeCoster, 2015), participants estimated likely salaries, national wealth, and national skill levels of 29 different visible groups within the UAE. Researchers then investigated associations among those variables. In this study, I extend that work by asking participants directly how a wider variety of characteristics are expected to influence salary, using 10 characteristics generated locally by an informal focus group. I then investigated the extent to which perceptions that status characteristics influence salary are associated with status ideologies and perceptions that the system is just and fair.

Method

Participants were invited to complete a large survey on perceptions of status in society that tested multiple research hypotheses. All questions were presented on computers running MediaLab software (Jarvis, 2012). In what follows, I outline the measures related to the current research questions; however, all measures included in the larger survey are available in the supplemental material (SM). There are no experimental conditions and I report all data exclusions for each study. All studies reported in this paper were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the American University of Sharjah.

Participants

Participants were 245 students (91 men, 154 women, one unreported; M_age = 19.96, SD = 1.50) at an American-style institution in the UAE, who completed the study for partial course credit. I report data separately for GCC Arab (n = 69; four Bahraini, 53 Emirati, one Omani, one Qatari, 10 Saudi), non-GCC Arab (n = 119; one Algerian, 31 Egyptian, 10 Iraqi, 28 Jordanian, 10 Lebanese, one Libyan, 13 Palestinian, four Sudanese, 14 Syrian, one Yemeni, six Arab unspecified), and non-Arab (n = 56; one Afghan, five American, three Bangladeshi, three British, one Cameroonian, five Canadian, one Chinese, one Ethiopian, two Filipino, one Greek, six Indian, three Iranian, 14 Pakistani, two Russian, one Somali, seven non-Arab unspecified) nationals. Note that the non-Arab group represents a highly diverse collection of residents who vary in conferred status. This group serves as a point of contrast against Arab participants, but data from this group should be interpreted carefully.²

Procedure

An informal focus group generated a list of 10 characteristics they thought were associated with salary in this national context. In this study, after completing informed consent documentation, participants began by indicating whether they were an Emirati citizen or not, then were asked to reflect on those 10 characteristics. Participants were asked how much each of the characteristics matters in how much people are paid for the same job. They reported the extent to which nationality, countries a person has lived in, status, family name, whom a person knows, a person’s social connections, qualifications, experience, education, and how hard a person works influence salary (1 = not at all, 6 = very much). Participants evaluated each characteristic, and characteristics were presented in random order.

Participants were also asked to evaluate the system, reflecting on how just (“The status hierarchy in UAE society is just,” “The status hierarchy in UAE society is fair”; r = .68, p < .001), beneficial (“The status hierarchy in UAE society is harmful,” “The status hierarchy in UAE society is beneficial”; r = −.43, p < .001), natural (“The status hierarchy in UAE society is natural,” “The status hierarchy in UAE society is normal”; r = .69, p < .001), and correct (“The status hierarchy in UAE society is right,” “The status hierarchy in UAE society is accurate”; r = .69, p < .001) they perceived the status hierarchy to be. These eight items were highly intercorrelated (α = .90), but I focused analyses on the two-item measure of justice to ensure that results reflect a face-valid indicator of the intended construct. However, it is noteworthy that the more just and fair the system was perceived, the more beneficial, normal, and rightful it was perceived to be. In other words, it is clear that perceptions of fairness promote perceptions of system legitimacy, and reflect beliefs that hierarchy is natural and good.

Next, participants were asked to complete a four-item Meritocracy Beliefs Scale (MB) adapted from Major et al. (2007; e.g., “If people work hard they almost always get what they want”; α = .61) before reporting demographics, including sex, age, and nationality. Finally, participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation.

Results

Perceptions of factors influencing salary

This study investigated a list of characteristics generated within the local context. To establish the factor structure of these novel items, I conducted an exploratory factor analysis using principal components analysis with oblimin rotation, allowing for some association between resulting factors. The analysis allowed extraction of factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, and yielded two factors explaining 50% of the variance in responses (27.68% and 22.40% of the variance, respectively). As seen in Table 1, all 10 items showed primarily factor loadings above .50, and no items had cross-loadings above .20. Factor loadings are shown in Table 1. Factor 1 (α = .75) reflected social relationships, nationality and residencies, and overall status, and is thus labeled social and ascribed characteristics. Factor 2 (α = .73) reflected qualifications, experiences, and effort, and is thus labeled achieved characteristics. These two factors were correlated, r = −.13, p = .044.

Table 1.

Structure matrix depicting factor loadings for 10 characteristics influencing salary.

	Factor 1Social and ascribed characteristics	Factor 2Achieved characteristics
Family name	.75	−.07
Social connections	.74	.01
Who you know	.73	.03
Nationality	.64	−.16
Status	.58	.06
Countries lived in	.58	.07
Qualifications	−.02	.81
Education	.01	.77
Experience	.01	.75
Hard work	.002	.66

To investigate how different groups in society expected factors to influence salary, I conducted a Group (GCC Arab, non-GCC Arab, non-Arab) × Status Component (social and ascribed vs. achieved) mixed-model ANOVA. Sensitivity analyses conducted in G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) indicated that the minimum detectable effect size (MDES) for the main effects and within-between interaction, given the sample size, correlation between measurements, and 95% power was f = .19. Cohen (1988) defines a small effect as f = .10 and a medium effect as f = .25. Thus, the sample was sufficient to detect small to medium effect sizes with high power. This analysis yielded only a marginal main effect of status component, F(1, 241) = 3.14, p = .078, η_p² = .01, qualified by an interaction, F(2, 241) = 13.86, p < .001, η_p² = .10; main effect of group: F(2, 241) = 0.78, p = .458, η_p² = .01. Descriptive statistics for this analysis are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Perceptions that salary is determined by social and ascribed versus achieved characteristics by group: Study 1.

	GCC Arab	Non-GCC Arab	Non-Arab
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Social and ascribed characteristics	4.29^a (1.11)	4.74^b (0.77)	4.98^b (0.65)
Achieved characteristics	4.76^b (0.78)	4.48^a (0.83)	4.32^a (0.88)

Note. Superscripts that differ within rows indicate means are significantly different. GCC = Gulf Cooperation Council.

As can be seen, GCC Arabs tended to perceive markers of social and ascribed status as having less influence over salary than both non-GCC Arab (p = .001; 95% CI for difference [−0.70, −0.19]) and non-Arab (p < .001; 95% CI [−0.99, −0.38]) participants did, who did not differ from one another (p = .087; 95% CI [−0.51, 0.04]). In contrast, GCC Arabs perceived markers of achieved status as more influential than non-GCC Arabs (p = .031; 95% CI [0.03, 0.53]) and non-Arabs did (p = .004; 95% CI [0.14, 0.73]), who did not significantly differ from one another (p = .242; 95% CI [−0.11, 0.42]).

Moreover, GCC Arabs perceived markers of achieved status as having a stronger effect on salary than markers of social and ascribed status (p = .002; 95% CI [−0.76, −0.18]). In contrast, non-GCC Arab (p = .024; 95% CI [0.03, 0.48]) and non-Arab (p < .001; 95% CI [0.33, 0.97]) participants tended to perceive markers of social and ascribed status as having a stronger effect on salary than markers of achieved status. Conceptually replicating previous research, and extending it to a wider range of status characteristics, GCC Arabs perceived salary as primarily reflecting something earned, whereas non-GCC Arabs perceived salary to primarily reflect something inherited or socially determined (see Maitner & DeCoster, 2015).

Perceptions of fairness

I conducted a one-way ANOVA investigating the extent to which members of the three groups in society perceived the hierarchy to be just and fair. Analysis revealed a significant effect of group, F(2, 229) = 15.54, p < .001, η_p² = .12. Least significant differences post hoc analyses indicated that GCC Arabs (M = 3.62, SD = 1.03) perceived the system as significantly fairer than non-GCC Arabs did (M = 3.20, SD = 1.22, p = .017; 95% CI for difference [0.08, 0.77]), who perceived the system as significantly fairer than non-Arabs did (M = 2.48, SD = 1.00, p < .001; 95% CI [0.35, 1.08]).

I next investigated how perceptions that social and ascribed versus achieved characteristics influence salary affected perceptions of system fairness, using moderated regression analyses. I entered perceptions that social and ascribed (centered) and achieved (centered) status characteristics influence salary, as well as group (Dummy Code 1: GCC Arabs = 1, non-GCC Arabs = 0, non-Arabs = 0; Dummy Code 2: GCC Arabs = 0, non-GCC Arabs = 0, non-Arabs = 1) at Step 1 of the analysis, and entered the four interactions between status markers and dummy codes at Step 2. This analysis allowed me to control status markers while investigating whether group moderated associations between status markers and perceptions of fairness. Results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Results of moderated regression analyses: Study 1.

Predictor	β	t	p	F	df	p	R ²
Predicting perceptions of system fairness from ascribed and achieved characteristics
Model Step 1				15.97	4, 227	< .000	.22
Dummy Code 1	.09	1.34	.183
Dummy Code 2	−.21	−3.31	.001
Salary ascribed	−.30	−4.96	.000
Salary achieved	.11	1.77	.077
Model Step 2				1.19	4, 223	.316	.24
Ascribed × Dummy 1	.12	1.39	.166
Ascribed × Dummy 2	.08	1.06	.288
Achieved × Dummy 1	.02	0.27	.789
Achieved × Dummy 2	−.10	−1.39	.166
Predicting perceptions that ascribed characteristics influence salary from group and MB
Model Step 1				7.85	3, 239	< .001	.09
Dummy Code 1	−.21	−3.24	.001
Dummy Code 2	.12	1.77	.079
MB	−.09	−1.50	.135
Model Step 2				0.41	2, 237	.665	.09
MB × Dummy 1	−.05	−0.68	.499
MB × Dummy 2	.03	0.31	.754
Predicting perceptions that achieved characteristics influence salary from group and MB
Model Step 1				7.67	3, 239	< .001	.09
Dummy Code 1	.13	1.96	.051
Dummy Code 2	−.07	1.12	.263
MB	.23	3.67	< .001
Model Step 2				0.62	2, 237	.541	.09
MB × Dummy 1	.05	0.58	.562
MB × Dummy 2	.09	1.09	.276
Predicting perceptions of system fairness from group and MB
Model Step 1				10.83	3, 228	< .001	.13
Dummy Code 1	.15	2.33	.021
Dummy Code 2	−.26	−3.86	< .001
MB	.07	1.26	.247
Model Step 2				0.72	2, 226	.490	.13
MB × Dummy 1	.09	1.14	.256
MB × Dummy 2	.06	0.76	.448

Note. MB = meritocracy beliefs.

As can be seen, the model was significant at Step 1 due to main effects of the second dummy code, social and ascribed status, and a marginal effect of achieved status. The more participants perceived salary to be awarded based on social and ascribed characteristics, the less fair they perceived the system to be. The more they perceived salary to be awarded based on achieved status characteristics, the marginally fairer they perceived the system to be. Inclusion of the two-way interactions at Step 2 did not increase the predictive power of the model, ΔR² = .02, suggesting that these relationships are consistent across groups.

Meritocracy beliefs

Finally, I investigated the extent to which the three groups endorsed MB, a status ideology which is nationally emphasized and has been linked to perceptions of system fairness in the UAE (Maitner, 2015) and other countries (see Jost & Hunyady, 2005). Analysis revealed that GCC Arabs (M = 3.50, SD = 0.79), non-GCC Arabs (M = 3.35, SD = 0.82), and non-Arabs (M = 3.29, SD = 0.93) endorsed MB to a similar extent, F(2, 240) = 1.06, p = .347, η_p² = .01.

I then investigated whether MB influenced perceptions that (a) salary was based on social and ascribed characteristics; (b) salary was based on achieved characteristics; and (c) the system was just and fair, using moderated regression analyses. I entered MB (centered) and group (dummy-coded as aforementioned) at Step 1 of the analysis, and the interactions between MB and dummy codes at Step 2. All results are presented in Table 3.

The analysis of social and ascribed characteristics was significant at Step 1 due to a main effect of the first dummy code and a marginal main effect of the second dummy code, as evidenced by the ANOVA results reported before. MB did not significantly affect perceptions that salary is determined by social and ascribed characteristics nor did it moderate the effects of group, ΔR² < .01.

The analysis of achieved characteristics was also significant at Step 1 due to a main effect of the first dummy code and a main effect of MB. The more individuals endorsed MB, the more they believed that achieved characteristics influence payment. Group did not moderate the effect of MB on expectations that achieved characteristics influence payment, ΔR² < .01.

Finally, the analysis of system fairness was significant at Step 1 due to a main effect of both dummy codes. MB did not directly influence perceptions that the system was just and fair or moderate the effect of group, ΔR² = .01.

Discussion

Conceptually replicating previous work, I found that participants expected social and ascribed as well as achieved markers of status to influence salary in the UAE. Also replicating previous work, GCC Arabs, a nationally privileged group, and one holding a citizenship obligation to perceive equal opportunities in society, expected achieved markers to play a larger role than social and ascribed markers of status in determining an individual’s salary. The reverse was true for non-GCC Arabs and other participants, who also labeled the system as less fair overall. Across groups, the more participants believed that social and ascribed characteristics play a role in salary, the less fair the system was perceived to be.

In addition, holding a meritocratic worldview promoted a perception that achieved characteristics influence salary in the local economic system. Because beliefs that achieved characteristics influence salary marginally increased perceptions that the system is just and fair, this suggests that endorsing MB indirectly influences perceptions of system fairness. It did not significantly influence perceptions that salary is affected by social and ascribed characteristics nor did it directly influence perceptions that the overall system is just and fair.

Overall then, results suggest that participants expect both ascribed and achieved characteristics to play a role in people’s economic opportunities. However, both nationality and status ideology influenced participants’ perceptions of how status is allocated, and whether that process is perceived as just and fair.

Study 2

In Study 2, I sought to replicate the factor structure and descriptive results obtained in Study 1 with a larger sample, collecting data from as many participants as possible across two semesters, aiming for 100 participants per comparison group (twice that of Study 1). In targeting a larger sample, I also specifically targeted South Asian participants to create a more homogeneous, non-Arab comparison group which, as a whole, tends to occupy a lower status position in the local economic hierarchy. In addition, I explored whether social dominance orientation, a status ideology associated with preferences for hierarchy, influenced perceptions of status characteristics (Pratto et al., 1994).

Participants

All students in the participant pool were invited to participate in this study across 2 semesters. All participants who did not hold Arab or South Asian nationality, or who reported completing the study in the prior semester, were excluded a priori. This yielded a sample size of 440 participants (131 men, 309 women; M_age = 19.51, SD = 1.51) who completed the study for partial course credit. I report data for GCC Arab (n = 144; six Bahraini, 106 Emirati, five Kuwaiti, 27 Saudi), other Arab (n = 194; three Algerian, 59 Egyptian, three Iraqi, 46 Jordanian, 21 Lebanese, seven Moroccan, 14 Palestinian, 13 Sudanese, 24 Syrian, two Tunisian, two Yemeni), and South Asian (n = 102; one Bangladeshi, 77 Indian, 23 Pakistani, one Sri Lankan) nationals.

Procedure

Participants completed the study via Qualtrics from home. Participants who elected to sign up and completed the electronic consent documentation were told that the study was investigating people’s opinions about where status comes from. Participants were first asked to evaluate the extent to which each characteristic, independent of salary, was perceived as ascribed versus achieved.³

Factors influencing salary

Participants then completed the same 10 items from Study 1 asking how characteristics influence salary in the local context, completing items in a random order (1 = not at all, 7 = very much).⁴

Status ideologies

Next, participants completed the same four-item MB scale from Study 1 (α = .71), as well as a 15-item measure of social dominance orientation (SDO; α = .86; Pratto et al., 1994). These factors were only marginally associated with one another, r = .10, p = .052.

Attention checks

Because the study was administered online and remotely, it also included two attention check items asking participants to select a specific answer. Twenty-three participants failed at least one of these attention check items and were excluded from analyses, resulting in a final sample of 417 participants (120 men, 297 women; M_age = 19.47, SD = 1.48; 137 GCC Arab, 184 other Arab, 96 South Asian).

Demographics

Finally, participants reported demographics, including sex, age, and nationality before being debriefed and thanked for their parti-cipation.

Results

Perceptions of factors influencing salary

Study 1 showed that participants expected two factors to influence salary in UAE society, with Factor 1 reflecting social and ascribed characteristics and Factor 2 reflecting individual efforts or achievements. To confirm this measurement model and investigate whether the factor structure was similar across the three participant groups, I conducted a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) testing three models. The configural model establishes whether the basic organization of the constructs is similar across groups, with a given set of indicators predicted by the same latent variables. The metric model establishes whether items relate similarly to constructs across all groups, requiring factor loadings to be equal across groups. Finally, the scalar model establishes that factor loadings and item intercepts are equal across groups (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016). I first tested for configural invariance across groups. Next, to investigate metric and scalar invariance, I used cut-off criteria suggested by Chen (2007) for sample sizes that vary across groups and are below 300: ΔCFI = .005, ΔRMSEA = .01.

The configural model showed acceptable fit, χ²(102) = 178.07, p < .001, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .93, and the metric model did not significantly differ on fit, Δχ²(16) = 16.09, p = .447, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .93. The scalar model showed poorer fit as indicated by a significant change in χ² and a CFI that decreased by .027; Δχ²(35) = 65.32, p = .001, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .91. This suggests that the 10 items related similarly to the two constructs but that item intercepts varied across groups. However, partial invariance is typically sufficient to allow for group comparisons (Byrne et al., 1989). Overall, CFA suggests that, across groups, participants perceive two meaningfully different constructs to influence salary. As in Study 1, one factor was associated with social and ascribed characteristics (α = .81) and the other was associated with personal achievements (α = .73). These factors were correlated, r = −.19, p < .001.

Replicating Study 1, to investigate how different groups in society (GCC Arab, non-GCC Arab, South Asian) perceive the factors to influence salary, I conducted a Group × Status Component (social and ascribed vs. achieved) mixed-model ANOVA. Again, sensitivity analyses conducted in G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) indicated that the MDES for the main effects and interaction, given the sample size, correlation between measurements, and 95% power was f = .15, suggesting sufficient power to detect small to medium effects. The analysis yielded only a Group × Status Component interaction, F(2, 414) = 3.81, p = .023, η_p² = .02; main effect of group: F(2, 414) = 1.83, p = .162, η_p² = .01; main effect of status component: F(2, 414) = 2.01, p = .157, η_p² = .01. Descriptive statistics for this analysis are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Perceptions that salary is determined by social and ascribed and achieved characteristics by group: Study 2.

	GCC Arab	Non-GCC Arab	South Asian
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Social and ascribed status	4.95^a (1.12)	5.30^b (1.01)	5.05^ab (1.21)
Achieved status	5.32^b (0.94)	5.18^b (0.98)	5.14^b (0.94)

Note. Superscripts that differ within rows indicate means are significantly different. GCC = Gulf Cooperation Council.

As can be seen, GCC Arabs perceived markers of social and ascribed status as having less influence over salary than non-GCC Arab participants did (p = .005; 95% CI for difference [−0.59, −0.11]). They did not differ from South Asian participants (p = .493; 95% CI [−0.39, 0.19]), who also did not differ from non-GCC Arabs (p = .069; 95% CI [−0.02, 0.52]). In this study, the three groups did not differ on the extent to which they expected markers of achieved status to influence pay (all ps > .169).

However, replicating Study 1, GCC Arabs perceived markers of achieved status as having a stronger impact on salary than markers of social and ascribed status (p = .006; 95% CI [−0.63, −0.10]). In contrast, non-GCC Arab (p = .293) and South Asian (p = .561) participants reported that social and ascribed as well as achieved characteristics influence payment similarly.

Status ideologies

I next investigated the extent to which the three groups endorsed status ideologies associated with beliefs in merit (MB) and support for hierarchy (SDO) using a 3 (GCC Arab, non-GCC Arab, South Asian) × 2 (MB, SDO, measured within-participants) mixed-model ANOVA. Analysis revealed only a significant main effect of ideology, F(1, 414) = 362.32, p < .001, η_p² = .47. The main effects of group, F(2, 414) = 0.75, p = .751, η_p² < .01, and interaction, F(2, 414) = 2.35, p = .097, η_p² = .01, were not significant. Overall, participants endorsed MB (M = 3.43, SD = 0.97) more strongly than they endorsed SDO (M = 2.34, SD = 0.74).

Finally, I investigated whether MB and SDO influenced perceptions that (a) salary was based on social and ascribed characteristics or (b) salary was based on achieved characteristics, using moderated regression. I entered MB (centered) and SDO (centered) and group (Dummy Code 1: GCC Arabs = 1, non-GCC Arabs = 0, South Asians = 0; Dummy Code 2: GCC Arabs = 0, non-GCC Arabs = 0, South Asians = 1) at Step 1 of the analysis, and the four two-way interactions between status ideologies and dummy codes at Step 2. All results are available in Table 5.

Table 5.

Results of moderated regression analyses: Study 2.

Predictor	β	t	p	F	df	p	R ²
Predicting perceptions that ascribed characteristics influence salary
Model Step 1				8.71	4, 412	< .001	.08
Dummy Code 1	−.15	−2.95	.003
Dummy Code 2	−.09	−1.67	.095
MB	−.24	−5.04	< .001
SDO	.002	0.04	.966
Model Step 2				0.70	4, 408	.594	.08
MB × Dummy 1	.002	0.03	.975
MB × Dummy 2	.05	0.80	.424
SDO × Dummy 1	.08	1.34	.183
SDO × Dummy 2	.05	0.91	.362
Predicting perceptions that achieved characteristics influence salary
Model Step 1				15.06	4, 412	< .001	.13
Dummy Code 1	.07	1.41	.161
Dummy Code 2	−.03	−0.57	.572
MB	.35	7.49	< .001
SDO	.02	0.40	.687
Model Step 2				0.46	4, 408	.769	.13
MB × Dummy 1	.04	0.63	.529
MB × Dummy 2	−.01	−0.18	.858
SDO × Dummy 1	.02	0.32	.747
SDO × Dummy 2	−.05	−0.83	.405

Note. MB = meritocracy beliefs; SDO = social dominance orientation.

The analysis of social and ascribed characteristics was significant at Step 1 due to main effects of the first dummy code and of MB. The more participants endorsed MB, the less they expected social and ascribed characteristics to influence salary. SDO did not significantly affect perceptions that salary is determined by social and ascribed characteristics, and nationality did not moderate these effects.

The analysis of achieved characteristics was also significant at Step 1 due solely to a main effect of MB. Replicating Study 1, the more participants endorsed meritocracy beliefs, the more they expected achieved characteristics to influence salary. No other effects were significant.

Discussion

Replicating Study 1, participants expected salary to reflect two factors. Extending from Study 1, I show that this factor structure holds for three independent groups. Replicating Study 1, GCC Arab participants expected achieved characteristics to play a larger role in salary than social and ascribed characteristics. However, differing from Study 1, I did not find that non-GCC Arabs expected ascribed characteristics to play a larger role than achieved characteristics in determining salary. It is unclear whether first labeling characteristics as earned or inherited could have primed participants’ status ideologies thereby shifting responses, or whether the effect is simply unstable in an environment undergoing state-led change. Nevertheless, results clearly suggest that when asked how characteristics influence salary, participants expected both social and ascribed as well as achieved characteristics to play a role, with ascribed characteristics considered less impactful by GCC Arab participants. South Asian participants represented a new group not included in Study 1. Although salary surveys place this group as lower in the socioeconomic hierarchy overall, they did not differ clearly from either Arab group. Across groups, the more participants endorsed MB, the more they expected personal achievements to influence salary, and the less they expected social and ascribed characteristics to do so. Perceiving opportunities for individual mobility, such as when one expects merit to influence outcomes, is likely associated with a sense of personal control over one’s status and is thus likely to further motivate hard work and promote stability within the system.

Study 3

Studies 1 and 2 showed that UAE residents expect both social and ascribed as well as achieved characteristics to influence salary, and that such perceptions are influenced by the perceiver’s national group. Across studies, GCC Arabs reported that achieved characteristics played a stronger role than ascribed characteristics in an individual’s salary. However, these studies simply asked participants how much they expected different characteristics to influence salary, and do not show that individuals use characteristics in that way when confronted with a specific exemplar. In Study 3, I manipulated a target person’s ascribed (nationality) and achieved (grade point average [GPA]) characteristics to investigate participants’ sensitivity to status characteristics when presented with a specific target person. I again measured individual status ideologies, investigating whether MB and SDO affected economic success judgements when confronted with an exemplar identified by specific characteristics.

Participants

Participants were 374 students (154 men, 220 women; M_age = 20.03, SD = 1.37) at an American-style institution in the UAE, who completed the study for partial course credit. I report data for GCC Arab (n = 87; seven Bahraini, 68 Emirati, one Kuwaiti, one Omani, 10 Saudi), other Arab (n = 188; 69 Egyptian, five Iraqi, 28 Jordanian, 18 Lebanese, one Libyan, three Moroccan, 25 Palestinian, seven Sudanese, 31 Syrian, one Yemeni), and South Asian (n = 99; four Bangladeshi, 61 Indian, 31 Pakistani, three Sri Lankan) nationals. Participants who did not indicate one of these categories of nationality were excluded a priori. I invited as many participants as possible across 2 semesters, with the goal of recruiting at least 100 participants per group. Participants were randomly assigned to the cells of a 2 (target nationality: American vs. Pakistani) × 2 (target GPA: 3.85 vs. 2.40) between-participants design.

Procedure

Participants completed a paper-and-pencil informed consent. All study materials were presented on computers running MediaLab software (Jarvis, 2012), and are available in the supplemental material.

Status manipulations

Participants were told that the study concerned their ability to predict a student’s future economic success. They were given a small amount of information about the student, including his initials (M. S.), nationality (American = high ascribed status; Pakistani = low ascribed status), major (marketing), and GPA (3.85 = high achieved status; 2.40 = low achieved status).

Nationality and GPA were selected for this study because they are objective and quantifiable characteristics that are likely to be listed on candidate résumés, and directly (nationality) or indirectly (GPA, as an indicator of qualifications, education, and/or hard work) operationalize the constructs identified in Studies 1 and 2. Reanalysis of data from Study 2 shows that, in addition to the fact that all three groups labeled nationality as an ascribed characteristic, GCC Arabs (M = 5.21, SD = 1.70) and South Asians (M = 5.26, SD = 1.77) expected nationality to play a significantly weaker role in salary than did non-GCC Arabs (M = 5.83, SD = 1.47), F(2, 414) = 7.07, p = .001, η_p² = .03. Because economic data, and data highlighting perceptions of the status hierarchy, place Westerners at the top of the salary hierarchy and South Asians at the lower end of it (Maitner & DeCoster, 2015; Tong & Al Awad, 2014), I selected U.S. and Pakistani nationalities to represent a strong comparison.

Data collected from half the sample from Study 2 showed that participants overwhelmingly labeled GPA an achieved characteristic (95% of GCC Arabs, 95% of South Asians, and 99% of non-GCC Arabs labeled it an achieved characteristic). Moreover, although the three groups did not differ on their overall perceptions of the extent to which achieved characteristics influence salary in Study 2, GCC Arabs (M = 4.55, SD = 1.65) and South Asians (M = 4.50, SD = 1.31) expected GPA to play a marginally stronger role in salary than did non-GCC Arabs (M = 4.04, SD = 1.21), F(2, 188) = 2.82, p = .062, η_p² = .03. It is worth noting that, across groups, participants expected nationality to play a larger role than GPA in expected salary. Importantly, all results from Studies 1 and 2, including specific analyses reported here, suggest that GCC Arabs should be less affected by nationality than should non-GCC Arabs. That trend should disappear or reverse for GPA.

Economic success predictions

Participants were asked to predict the likelihood that M. S. would find a job in Dubai within 3 months (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely); assuming he found a job, what his starting salary would be (1 = lowest end of pay scale, 7 = highest end of pay scale); the likelihood he would get a promotion or raise (two items) within the first year (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely); and the likelihood he would get fired within the first year (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely [reverse-coded]). These five items formed a reliable scale of expectations of economic success (α = .71).

Status ideologies

Participants completed the same 15-item measure of SDO used in Study 2 (α = .86; Pratto et al., 1994), a five-item MB scale (the same four items from Study 1 plus the item, “Most people who don’t get ahead should not blame the system; they really have only themselves to blame”; α = .67; Levin et al., 1998; Major et al., 2007), an eight-item measure of belief in a just world (BJW; α = .63; Lipkus et al., 1996), and a seven-item sense of control measure (SC; α = .73; Lachman & Weaver, 1998; see supplemental material).

Next, participants reported demographics, including sex, age, nationality, and their own perceived status. Specifically, participants reported their position on the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (1–10; with higher numbers indicating “people who are best off—who have the most money, the most education, and the most respected jobs”; Adler & Stewart, 2007). They also reported estimates of family income (1 = far below average, 5 = far above average), family connections (1 = far below average, 5 = far above average), perceptions of academic success (1 = far below average, 5 = far above average), and actual academic success (GPA). Participants were then debriefed and thanked for their participation.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 6 presents descriptive statistics for status indicators by national group. As can be seen, GCC Arab and non-GCC Arab participants reported having higher subjective social status than South Asian participants did, while GCC Arabs reported having higher family connections than did non-GCC Arab and South Asian participants. This pattern reflects the status hierarchy described to be prevalent in the UAE. Although GCC Arabs perceived themselves to have lower academic success than non-GCC Arabs, reported GPA scores show that participants hold equal achieved status across groups.

Table 6.

National differences in ascribed and achieved status characteristics.

	GCC Arab	Non-GCC Arab	South Asian
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Status ladder	6.83^a (1.68)	6.50^a (1.40)	6.10^b (1.63)	F(2, 364) = 5.23, p = .006, η_p² = .03
Family income	3.45^a (0.69)	3.37^a (0.73)	3.36^a (0.83)	F(2, 360) = 0.35, p = .702, η_p² < .01
Family connections	3.70^a (1.10)	3.13^b (1.06)	3.27^b (1.06)	F(2, 347) = 7.90, p < .001, η_p² = .04
Perceived academic success	3.23^b (0.59)	3.49^a (0.82)	3.45^ab (0.81)	F(2, 363) = 3.51, p = .031, η_p² = .02
Academic success	2.91^a (0.46)	3.02^a (0.50)	2.99^a (0.53)	F(2, 342) = 1.28, p = .279, η_p² = .01

Note. Superscripts that differ within rows indicate means are significantly different. GCC = Gulf Cooperation Council.

Predicted economic success

To investigate the effect of manipulations of ascribed (nationality) and achieved (GPA) status and participant nationality on predicted economic success, I conducted an Ascribed Status × Achieved Status × Participant Group ANOVA. Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 7. Analysis revealed main effects of ascribed status, F(1, 362) = 68.38, p < .001, η_p² = .16, and achieved status, F(1, 362) = 48.70, p < .001, η_p² = .12. Overall, participants expected M. S. to be more successful if he were American (M = 4.51, SD = 0.90) than if he were Pakistani (M = 3.75, SD = 0.99), and participants expected him to be more successful if he had a high (M = 4.45, SD = 0.96) than a low GPA (M = 3.78, SD = 0.97). No other effects reached significance (all ps > .144). Thus, regardless of participant group, participants expected M. S.’s economic outcomes to reflect both ascribed and achieved characteristics.⁵

Table 7.

Expected economic success by ascribed (nationality) and achieved (GPA) characteristics.

	GCC Arab		Non-GCC Arab		South Asian
	American	Pakistani	American	Pakistani	American	Pakistani
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
High GPA	5.02 (0.67)	3.94 (0.81)	4.69 (0.93)	4.25 (1.04)	4.78 (0.83)	4.11 (0.89)
Low GPA	4.13 (0.84)	3.19 (0.91)	4.15 (0.96)	3.44 (0.89)	4.39 (0.71)	3.37 (0.77)

Note. GPA = grade point average. GCC = Gulf Cooperation Council.

Results from Studies 1 and 2 suggest that I should have found a three-way interaction, with GCC Arabs showing less sensitivity to target nationality than non-GCC Arab participants, while showing either equal or more sensitivity to target GPA than non-GCC Arabs. Instead, no interactions emerged and, at a descriptive level, GCC Arabs showed larger differences in predictions about economic success between the American and Pakistani target than did non-GCC Arabs and South Asians. Sensitivity analyses conducted in G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) indicated the MDES for that three-way interaction, given the sample who completed this measure (N = 374) and 80% power was f = .15, and the MDES given 95% power was f = .19. Thus, the sample was sufficient to detect small to medium effect sizes with high power.

Status ideologies

Table 8 shows the extent to which participants endorse social dominance orientation, meritocracy beliefs, belief in a just world, and sense of control by participant nationality. As can be seen, participants only varied in SDO, with both Arab groups scoring higher on SDO than South Asian participants.

Table 8.

National differences in endorsement of system justifying ideologies.

	GCC Arab	Non-GCC Arab	South Asian
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
SDO	2.66^a (0.74)	2.65^a (0.76)	2.36^b (0.75)	F(2, 371) = 5.88, p = .003, η_p² = .03
MB	3.41^a (0.86)	3.41^a (0.80)	3.47^a (0.85)	F(2, 370) = 0.18, p = .840, η_p² < .01
BJW	3.03^a (0.70)	3.00^a (0.64)	3.05^a (0.61)	F(2, 371) = 0.19, p = .826, η_p² < .01
SC	3.93^a (0.78)	3.86^a (0.84)	3.92^a (0.80)	F(2, 371) = 0.31, p = .733, η_p² < .01

Note. Superscripts that differ within rows indicate means are significantly different. GCC = Gulf Cooperation Council; SDO = social dominance orientation; MB = meritocracy beliefs; BJW = belief in a just world; SC = sense of control.

Because status ideologies were associated with expectations of what influenced salary in Studies 1 and 2, I investigated whether MB and SDO moderated findings of predicted success, using moderated regression. Because participant nationality did not influence predictions of success, I excluded it from this model. Instead, I used ascribed status (dummy-coded), achieved status (dummy-coded), and each system-justifying ideology (centered) as predictors at Step 1, all two-way interactions between ascribed and achieved status and status ideologies at Step 2, and both three-way interactions at Step 3. The more participants endorsed MB, the higher expectations they had for the individual’s economic success, but SDO and MB did not moderate any of the described effects (see Table 9).⁶

Table 9.

Predicting perceptions of economic success from condition and status ideologies: Study 3

Predictor	β	t	p	F	df	p	R ²
Model Step 1				32.01	4, 368	.000	.26
Ascribed status condition	.37	8.23	< .001
Achieved status condition	.32	7.16	< .001
MB	.10	2.32	.021
SDO	−.001	−0.03	.976
Model Step 2				0.82	5, 363	.539	.27
Ascribed × Achieved Status	−.08	−1.07	.287
MB × Ascribed Status	−.04	0.60	.547
MB × Achieved Status	−.07	−1.24	.217
SDO × Ascribed Status	−.06	−1.02	.309
SDO × Achieved Status	.03	0.54	.591
Model Step 3				0.52	2, 361	.598	.27
MB × Ascribed × Achieved	−.06	−0.78	.444
SDO × Ascribed × Achieved	−.06	−0.66	.510

Note. MB = meritocracy beliefs; SDO = social dominance orientation.

Discussion

Overall, results from Study 3 suggest that participants use both ascribed and achieved status cues when making predictions about an individual’s economic outcomes. Previous research (Maitner & DeCoster, 2015) as well as Studies 1 and 2 suggest that participants from GCC Arab countries expected ascribed characteristics to have a weaker influence on salary than did non-GCC Arab participants. However, when confronted with an individual identified by specific status cues, GCC Arabs attended to ascribed and achieved characteristics similarly to other groups. Although we may not expect the two characteristics used in this study (nationality and GPA) to be equivalent in their overall impact on salary, what is clear is that both did influence participant judgements across groups, and GCC-Arabs were no less sensitive to ascribed markers of status than were other groups. Although MB was associated with higher expectations of success overall, it did not moderate how participants used either ascribed or achieved characteristics in making their predictions.

General Discussion

Results suggest that in a state capitalist system emerging from a more traditional and ascribed status hierarchy, participants representing different strata in the economic hierarchy expected both social and ascribed as well as achieved characteristics to influence economic outcomes. In Studies 1 and 2, GCC Arabs reported that social and ascribed characteristics were less influential than other participant groups, and were less influential than achieved characteristics. In addition, Studies 1 and 2 showed that achieved status attributions were associated with MB, suggesting that status ideologies rooted in merit may encourage or reflect a perception that achieved status characteristics influence outcomes. In Study 1, perceptions that achieved characteristics influenced outcomes were marginally associated with expectations that the system was just and fair, whereas perceptions that ascribed characteristics influenced outcomes were negatively associated with perceptions of system fairness. In that study, GCC Arabs reported that the system was most fair overall. Study 3 showed that, across groups, participants were equally sensitive to both ascribed and achieved characteristics when predicting economic outcomes for specific individuals. MB did not moderate these results, suggesting that even participants who expected merit to influence an individual’s outcomes also expected ascribed characteristics to do so (see also Maitner, 2015).

Although Studies 2 and 3 employed three groups of participants who categorically vary in their socioeconomic position within the UAE, there was no clear association between participants’ socioeconomic status and their perceptions of the system. All groups endorsed meritocracy beliefs similarly, and used status characteristics similarly when predicting an individual’s economic success. GCC Arabs and non-GCC Arabs differed on the perceptions they reported in Studies 1 and 2 regarding the role of ascribed characteristics in economic opportunities. However, members of the chronically disadvantaged group neither rejected meritocratic beliefs nor showed a stronger motive to justify the system. South Asians did not differ from either group in Studies 2 and 3, suggesting that the differential perceptions of how ascribed and achieved characteristics influence pay is not linearly associated with ingroup status. Instead, identity concerns or practical constraints more than status position per se may play a role in the way people perceive and evaluate the system. Thus, it is unclear whether other high-status groups in the UAE such as Western nationals, part of the diverse comparison group used in Study 1, would evaluate the system similarly to GCC nationals.

One intriguing question emerging from this research is why did GCC Arabs weigh markers of inherited status differently from non-GCC Arabs in Studies 1 and 2, but used such markers similarly to non-GCC Arabs and South Asians in predicting economic success in Study 3. There are several possibilities. First, an important difference between Studies 1–2 and Study 3 is that, whereas in Studies 1 and 2 participants reported their perceptions of the system overall, in Study 3 they were provided with specific data about an individuated target. That is, when considering how 10 different characteristics may affect people in society overall, GCC Arabs may expect that markers of achieved status are more important. However, when evaluating a single individual about whom the participant had limited information, the specific information given may have weighed more heavily or been perceived as more diagnostic of an individual’s likelihood of success.

In fact, previous research showed that GCC Arabs acknowledged that people would be paid differently based on nationality, but seemed to link those payment differences to differences in both skill and wealth of the nation of origin. Thus, it is possible that in Study 3, GCC Arab participants perceived nationality as associated with achievements. Stating that directly (of a broad perceiver group), Gulf News reported that “[l]ocal companies are still willing to pay a premium for Western expatriates from outside the region, due to the perception that they possess a particular skill set not locally available” (Nagraj, 2013). Ninety-one percent of participants in Study 2 labeled nationality as an ascribed status characteristic and reported that nationality was more reflective of something that an individual inherited than something they individually earned (see supplemental material). However, activating a particular nationality and all the rich conceptual knowledge that comes with it may have made that information appear useful, and perhaps may even have shifted whether participants considered the characteristic as purely ascribed versus potentially achieved. That is, characteristics identified as social and ascribed may be flexibly perceived in ways that allow participants to justify their use across circumstances, even, or especially, when they hold meritocracy beliefs.

Another possibility is that GCC Arabs explicitly believe in or strive for meritocracy—a construct that is promoted by the state and endorsed across all three groups—but hold implicit attitudes rooted in entrenched, historical practices suggesting that ascribed status and social connections influence outcomes. This cognitive conflict could lead them to unconsciously attend to ascribed characteristics when predicting an individual’s success while using more recently updated explicit knowledge when describing the system as a whole.

Overall, these results depict an interesting merging of capitalistic, merit-based beliefs with entrenched hierarchical ones. In fact, in a society experiencing such dramatic transition, overall perceptions may begin to reflect a blending of different values and expectations within individuals. Kanna (2011) argues that the UAE, and Dubai in particular, have cultivated a neoliberal identity that creates a class of flexible citizens who maintain elements of a traditional Arab and Emirati identity while embracing more individualistic and meritocratic values, a strategy explicitly amplified by the UAE government (Government of the United Arab Emirates, 2012). The young generation of students in our sample, self-selecting into an English-language, American-style institution, are likely to be highly representative of this class of citizen and resident, and may be meaningfully different from other residents classified by Kanna as neo-orthodox (or more traditional). Thus, for our participants, endorsing meritocratic beliefs alongside some traditional values may create ambivalence or reflect dialectical beliefs that can lead individuals to shift values across identities or circumstances (see also Maitner et al., 2017). Indeed, these flexible citizens often say that evaluations should reflect individual merit, work ethic, and self-improvement over family background. However, Kanna acknowledged that flexible citizenship is often performative, reflecting a cultural ideal perhaps more than a definitive reality (Kanna, 2011).

Here, even participants who endorsed a meritocratic ideology recognized that social and ascribed characteristics still influence individuals’ outcomes. Other research on Arab participants (Rashwan & Jenkins, 2017), including UAE-based participants (Maitner & Summerville, 2020), suggests that Arabs simultaneously endorse both primary and secondary control motives which are uniquely afforded in Western and Eastern contexts respectively (Morling et al., 2002). Primary control motives reflect perceptions that the individual can change their environment to suit the self, whereas secondary control motives reflect perceptions that the individual must adjust the self to fit the environment. Having access to both motives may allow participants to cope well in a system which is influenced by elements over which they may (achieved characteristics) or may not (ascribed characteristics) have individual control. In fact, in Study 3, meritocratic beliefs were related to participants’ sense of control (see supplemental material), suggesting that participants may perceive merit as a way to overcome the entrenched ascribed hierarchy, at least for themselves as hardworking individuals.

Thus, although participants report that economic outcomes based on ascribed characteristics are unjust, the potential for upward mobility based on individual merit seems to enhance a perception of the system as just and fair. In this way, shifting a nationally diverse economic system to one which at least performatively rewards merit seems to be one effective way to enhance system support and stability.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-gpi-10.1177_13684302211042421 – Supplemental material for Perceptions and explanations of status in the United Arab Emirates: The role of ascribed and achieved characteristics

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-gpi-10.1177_13684302211042421 for Perceptions and explanations of status in the United Arab Emirates: The role of ascribed and achieved characteristics by Angela T. Maitner in Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Footnotes

Author note

Angela Maitner is a White American woman. She has lived and worked in the UAE for 12 years. Experimental materials and raw data are available upon request.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Angela T. Maitner

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Adler

Stewart

(2007). The MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status. https://www.macses.ucsf.edu/research/psychosocial/subjective.php

Amadeo

(2021). Gulf Cooperation Council – GCC countries: Six rich countries that own the world’s oil. The Balance. https://www.thebalance.com/gulf-cooperation-council-3306357

Anderson

Willer

Kilduff

G. J.

Brown

C. E.

(2012). The origins of deference: When do people prefer lower status? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1077–1088. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0027409

Brandt

M. J.

(2013). Do the disadvantaged legitimize the social system? A large-scale test of the status-legitimacy hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 765–785. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031751

Byrne

B. M.

Shavelson

R. J.

Muthén

B. O.

(1989). Testing for equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial MI. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cunningham

R. B.

Sarayrah

R. K.

(1994). Taming wasta to achieve development. Arab Studies Quarterly, 16, 29–41. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/41858985

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

10.

Government of the United Arab Emirates. (2012). A document of conduct and ethics of the Emirati citizen. https://www.fahr.gov.ae/Portal/Userfiles/Assets/Documents/f3ec0bf6.pdf

11.

Government of the United Arab Emirates. (2019). Anti-discrimination/anti-hatred law: The UAE promoted and enforced non-discriminatory laws and policies for peaceful co-existence and sustainable society. https://u.ae/en/about-the-uae/culture/tolerance/anti-discriminationanti-hatred-law

12.

Jarvis

B. G.

(2012). MediaLab (Version 2012.4.120) [Computer software]. Empirisoft Corporation.

13.

Joseph

(2008). Familism and critical Arab family studies. In Yount

K. M.

Rashad

(Eds.), Family in the Middle East: Ideational change in Egypt, Iran, and Tunisia (pp. 25–39). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203894057

14.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. R.

(1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x

15.

Jost

J. T.

Burgess

(2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between Group and System Justification Motives in Low Status Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265003

16.

Jost

J. T.

Hunyady

(2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x

17.

Jost

J. T.

Pelham

B. W.

Sheldon

Sullivan

B. N.

(2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.127

18.

Kanna

(2011). Dubai, the city as corporation: Young professionals and the limits of the neoliberal response. University of Minnesota Press. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/10.5749/j.ctttsqq1

19.

Lachman

M. E.

Weaver

S. L.

(1998). The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 763–773. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.763

20.

Levin

Sidanius

Rabinowitz

J. L.

Federico

(1998). Ethnic identity, legitimizing ideologies, and social status: A matter of ideological asymmetry. Political Psychology, 19, 373–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00109

21.

Linton

(1936). The study of man: An introduction. D. Appleton-Century Co.

22.

Lipkus

I. M.

Dalbert

Siegler

I. C.

(1996). The importance of distinguishing the belief in a just world for self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 666–677. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296227002

23.

Maitner

A. T.

(2015). Emotional reactions to unequal payment: The impact of meritocratic ideology and salary negotiability. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214542255

24.

Maitner

A. T.

DeCoster

(2015). Perceptions of national wealth and skill influence pay expectations: Replicating global hierarchy on a microscale. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 703. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00703

25.

Maitner

A. T.

Mackie

D. M.

Pauketat

J. V. T.

Smith

E. R.

(2017). The impact of culture and identity on emotional reactions to insults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48, 892–913. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117701194

26.

Maitner

A. T.

Stewart-Ingersoll

(2016). Social identity and peace in the modern Middle East: Insights from the United Arab Emirates. In McKeown

Haji

Ferguson

(Eds.), Understanding peace and conflict through social identity theory: Contemporary and world-wide perspectives (pp. 317–331). Springer International Publishing.

27.

Maitner

A. T.

Summerville

(2020). “What was meant to be” versus “what might have been”: Cross-cultural similarities and differences in counterfactual thinking. Unpublished manuscript.

28.

Major

B. M.

Kaiser

C. R.

O’Brien

L. T.

McCoy

S. K.

(2007). Perceived discrimination as worldview threat or worldview confirmation: Implications for self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1068–1086. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1068

29.

Moore-Jones

P. J.

(2017). Social stratification in Dubai and its effects on Emirati students and multicultural faculty members in higher education. Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies R&D, 2, 1–18. https://c253747a-515d-4eb2-b683-02fa2dff8681.filesusr.com/ugd/ab838c_510a5d375ed94282bde90d18c59ffc0a.pdf

30.

Morling

Kitayama

Miyamoto

(2002). Cultural practices emphasize influence in the United States and adjustment in Japan. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286003

31.

Nagraj

(2013, March 4). Revealed: GCC Asian expats earn 26% less than Western peers. Gulf Business. https://gulfbusiness.com/revealed-gcc-asian-expats-earn-26-less-than-western-peers/

32.

Nydell

M. K.

(2012). Understanding Arabs: A contemporary guide to Arab society (5th ed.). Nicholas Brealey.

33.

O’Brien

Major

(2005). System justifying beliefs and psychological well-being: The role of group status and identity. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1718–1729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205278261

34.

Pratto

Sidanius

Stallworth

L. M.

Malle

B. F.

(1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741

35.

Putnick

D. L.

Bornstein

M. H.

(2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004

36.

Rashwan

Jenkins

J. C.

(2017). Fatalism and revolution: Expanding our understanding of fatalism during a unique political opening in Egypt. The Journal of North African Studies, 22, 645–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629387.2017.1316716

37.

Sagioglou

Forstmann

Greitemeyer

(2019). Belief in social mobility mitigates hostility resulting from disadvantaged social standing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 541–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218789073

38.

San Martin

Sinaceur

Madi

Tompson

Maddux

W. W.

Kitayama

(2018). Self-assertive interdependence in Arab culture. Nature Human Behavior, 2, 830–837. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0435-z

39.

Savin-Williams

R. C.

(1979). Dominance hierarchies in groups of early adolescents. Child Development, 50, 923–935. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129316

40.

Sherif

White

B. J.

Harvey

O. J.

(1955). Status in experimentally produced groups. American Journal of Sociology, 60, 370–379. https://doi.org/10.1086/221569

41.

Sidanius

Pratto

(1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043

42.

Tong

Al Awad

(2014). Diversity and wage inequality in the UAE labor market. Journal of Economics and International Business Management, 2, 59–72. http://www.sciencewebpublishing.net/jeibm/archive/2014/3/pdf/Tong%20and%20Al%20Awad.pdf

43.

United Arab Emirates National Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Population estimates 2006–2010. https://fcsa.gov.ae/en-us/Lists/D_StatisticsSubject/Attachments/68/Population%20Estimates%202006%20-%202010.pdf

44.

United Nations ESCWA. (2020). Purchasing power parities and the real size of Arab economies: A comprehensive regional report covering PPP results for the years 2011 to 2019. https://icp.unescwa.org/sdgs/pdf/en/Purchasing%20Power%20Parities%20and%20the%20Real%20Size%20of%20Arab%20Economies.pdf

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.29 MB