University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Working-class advantages: when interdependent cultural norms can decrease threat in interpersonally uncertain interactions

(USC Thesis Other)

Working-class advantages: when interdependent cultural norms can decrease threat in interpersonally uncertain interactions

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

WORKING-CLASS ADVANTAGES: WHEN INTERDEPENDENT CULTURAL NORMS
CAN DECREASE THREAT IN INTERPERSONALLY UNCERTAIN INTERACTIONS
by
Mindy Truong

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION)

August 2021

Copyright 2021 Mindy Truong

ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my family. I will never forget the sacrifices made to ensure
opportunities for future generations. I also dedicate this to my fellow first-generation college
students and first-generation Americans. Having to constantly navigate different cultures and
balance different ways of being can be challenging. Remember that you are strong, you deserve
this, you belong.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am deeply grateful to the amazing people who helped me get to where I am today. This
dissertation is only possible because of the mentorship and support I received at the USC
Marshall School of Business. I am especially thankful to my dissertation chair, Sarah Townsend,
for showing me that academia has a place for someone like me. Thank you for your mentorship
and guidance. There are not enough words to describe how much I appreciate all that you have
taught me. I aspire to become half the researcher you are one day.
I also greatly appreciate the members of my dissertation committee for their insight,
feedback, and support throughout this journey. To Nate Fast, thank you for teaching me how to
be a rigorous thinker and effective researcher. To Leigh Tost, thank you for your inspiring
leadership and continued encouragement. To Eric Anicich, thank you for teaching me how to be
a thoughtful academic and for being so generous with your time. To Sarah Bonner, thank you for
teaching me how to navigate academia and for passing along your lessons learned.
I would also like to thank the Management and Organization faculty and staff who have
formally and informally guided me throughout this journey. I am honored to have learned from
you. I am also privileged to have met and friended the many talented graduate students at the
University of Southern California. I am excited to see all the amazing and inspiring things you
will do and accomplish. I have also been lucky enough to work with members of the Culture,
Diversity, and Psychophysiology Lab led by Sarah Townsend and the Hierarchy, Network, and
Technology Lab led by Nathanael Fast. This research would not have been possible without you.
Of course, I am greatly indebted to my loving family. Dad, I love you always and miss
you every day. I wish you were here to see how far I have come. I hope I am still making you
proud. Ba, con thương ba với nhớ bạ mỗi ngày. Con mong ước bạ ở đây để xem con đã đi được

iv
bao xa. Con hy vọng con làm bạ vui mừng. Yen, thank you for being my biggest cheerleader and
the best aunt a girl could ever ask for. You truly have the most loving and caring spirit I have
ever known. Last, but certainly not least, Frank, thank you for being such an inspiring, hard-
working, and kind human being. You empower me to be the best person I can be. As children of
immigrants, we started from the bottom, but now we are here moving on up. I look forward to
seeing where our journey will lead us.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Defining Social Class .............................................................................................. 6
Social Class Contexts and Divergent Cultural Norms ............................................ 8
People from Working-Class Backgrounds are Disadvantaged in Middle-Class
Contexts ................................................................................................................ 10
Strengths Associated with Working-Class Backgrounds and Interdependence ... 13
The Present Research ............................................................................................ 20
CHAPTER 2: PEOPLE FROM WORKING-CLASS BACKGROUNDS BUFFERED FROM
THREAT WHEN CROSSING THE CLASS DIVIDE ................................................................ 22
Study 1 .................................................................................................................. 27
Study 2 .................................................................................................................. 46
Study 3 .................................................................................................................. 60
General Discussion ............................................................................................... 75
CHAPTER 3: POTENTIAL BENEFIT OF WORKING-CLASS BACKGROUNDS: REDUCED
THREAT IN INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION ................................................. 80
Study 1a ................................................................................................................ 87
Study 1b ................................................................................................................ 94
Study 2 ................................................................................................................ 101
Study 3 ................................................................................................................ 112

vi
General Discussion ............................................................................................. 124
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 128
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 130
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 155
Appendix A: Chapter 2, Studies 1 and 2 Experimental Manipulations .............. 155
Appendix B: Complete List of Chapter 2, Study 1 Items ................................... 163
Appendix C: Complete List of Chapter 2, Study 2 Items ................................... 170
Appendix D: Chapter 2, Study 3 Experimental Manipulations .......................... 173
Appendix E: Complete List of Chapter 2, Study 3 Items ................................... 175
Appendix F: Chapter 3, Study 1a Experimental Manipulations ......................... 179
Appendix G: Chapter 3, Study 1a and 1b Threat Measure ................................. 180
Appendix H: Chapter 3, Study 1b Experimental Manipulations ........................ 181
Appendix I: Chapter 3, Study 2 Experimental Manipulations ............................ 182
Appendix J: Complete List of Chapter 3, Study 2 Items .................................... 183
Appendix K: Chapter 3, Study 3 Experimental Manipulations .......................... 185
Appendix L: Complete List of Chapter 3, Study 3 Items ................................... 186

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Results of ANCOVAs for Dependent Variables (Study 1) ............................................ 35
Table 2. Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Condition within Participant Social Class
Background (Study 1) ........................................................................................... 43
Table 3. Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Social Class Background within Condition (Study
1) ........................................................................................................................... 44
Table 4. Results of ANCOVAs for Dependent Variables (Study 2) ............................................ 51
Table 5. Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Condition within Participant Social Class
Background (Study 2) ........................................................................................... 57
Table 6. Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Participant Social Class Background within
Condition (Study 2)............................................................................................... 58
Table 7. Results of ANCOVAs for Dependent Variables (Study 3) ............................................ 65
Table 8. Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Condition within Participant Social Class
Background (Study 3) ........................................................................................... 72
Table 9. Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Participant Social Class Background within
Condition (Study 3)............................................................................................... 73
Table 10. Results of Repeated Measures ANCOVAs for Dependent Variables (Study 1a) ........ 89
Table 11. Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Participant Social Class Background within
Condition (Study 1a) ............................................................................................. 93
Table 12. Results of Repeated Measures ANCOVAs for Dependent Variables (Study 1b) ........ 97
Table 13. Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Participant Social Class Background within
Condition (Study 1b)........................................................................................... 100
Table 14. Results of Repeated Measures ANCOVAs for Dependent Variables (Study 2) ........ 105

viii
Table 15. Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Participant Social Class Background within
Condition (Study 2)............................................................................................. 110
Table 16. Results of ANCOVAs for Dependent Variables (Study 3) ........................................ 117
Table 17. Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Participant Social Class Background within
Condition (Study 3)............................................................................................. 123

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Threat-Challenge Index Results (Chapter 2, Study 1)................................................... 39
Figure 2. Threat Ratio Results (Chapter 2, Study 2)..................................................................... 55
Figure 3. Threat Ratio Results (Chapter 2, Study 3)..................................................................... 68
Figure 4. Threat Ratio Results (Chapter 3, Study 1a)................................................................... 91
Figure 5. Threat Ratio Results (Chapter 3, Study 1b)................................................................... 99
Figure 6. Threat Ratio Results (Chapter 3, Study 2)................................................................... 107
Figure 7. Threat Ratio Results (Chapter 3, Study 3)................................................................... 120

x
ABSTRACT
People from working-class backgrounds often face unique obstacles that hinder their
experience and performance in gateway institutions (e.g., four-year colleges and universities,
professional, white-collar organizations). One such obstacle is the cultural mismatch between the
interdependent cultural norms promoted in working-class contexts and the largely independent
cultural norms that characterize many gateway institutions. As a result of cultural mismatch,
people from working-class backgrounds tend to experience greater levels of threat and
underperform compared to those from middle-class backgrounds in such contexts. However,
research suggests that people from working-class backgrounds may have better experiences and
performance relative to people from middle-class backgrounds in certain situations. In this
dissertation, I take a “strengths-based perspective” and focus on the strengths that people from
working-class backgrounds might possess, given their engagement in contexts that promote
interdependent cultural norms. In Chapter 1, I provide an overview of research on (1) the role of
social class contexts in shaping people’s cultural norms and understanding of what it means to be
a good person in the world, (2) how cultural mismatch disadvantages people from working-class
backgrounds in gateway institutions, and (3) the potential benefits of interdependent cultural
norms for people from working-class backgrounds in interpersonally uncertain interactions. In
Chapter 2, I investigate the impact of people’s social class backgrounds on their experiences of
threat in cross-class versus same-class interactions. In Chapter 3, I examine social class
differences in people’s experiences of threat in interpersonal conflict resolution. Finally, in
Chapter 4, I discuss promising avenues for future research and the implications of this work.

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Four-year colleges and universities and professional, white-collar organizations are
critical institutions that shape individuals’ life opportunities (e.g., career growth, outcomes) and,
thereby, serve as gateways for social class mobility (Ridgeway & Risk, 2012; Rosenbaum, 2001;
Stephens et al., 2017). However, many of these institutions are not “class neutral.” Rather, they
reflect and reinforce cultural norms that are common in middle-class, but not working-class,
contexts. Specifically, these gateway institutions often operate according to independent cultural
norms which emphasize expressing one’s personal preferences and opinions, influencing the
situation, and displaying autonomy (Stephens, Fryberg, et al., 2012; Stephens et al., 2014). This
means that independent cultural norms are taken-for-granted as the normative or natural way to
think, feel, and behave in many gateway institutions (Markus, 2017; Markus & Conner, 2013;
Stephens, Fryberg, et al., 2012; Stephens et al., 2014). For instance, colleges and universities
expect students to express their personal needs and opinions and reward them with higher grades
for doing so (e.g., Stephens, Fryberg, et al., 2012). In addition, professional, white-collar
workplaces typically reward and assess employees based on individual performance rather than
group-level or team-level performance (Dittmann et al., 2020).
The predominance of independent cultural norms in higher education and professional,
white-collar workplaces narrows the range of behaviors that are valued and rewarded. I argue
that this narrow focus can lead to two particular problems. First, as has been well-documented in
the literature, the predominance of independent cultural norms can have negative consequences
for individuals who come from contexts that do not promote these cultural norms (e.g., Fryberg
et al., 2013; Herrmann & Varnum, 2018; Jensen, 2004; Stephens, Fryberg, et al., 2012; Stephens,
Townsend, et al., 2012). In particular, people from working-class backgrounds are likely to be

2
guided by interdependent cultural norms and not independent cultural norms. Working-class
contexts often reflect and reinforce interdependent cultural norms, which emphasize one’s social
relationships, adjusting to the situation, and resilience (e.g., Snibbe & Markus, 2005; Stephens et
al., 2014). As a result, when these individuals enter gateway institutions, they experience cultural
mismatch, defined as the disconnect between the cultural norms promoted in these contexts and
those promoted in their working-class contexts (Stephens, Fryberg, et al., 2012). Experiences of
cultural mismatch can produce a myriad of negative consequences for people from working-class
backgrounds in gateway institutions, including undermining their feelings of fit, feelings of
belonging, and performance (Stephens, Fryberg, et al., 2012; Stephens, Townsend, et al., 2012).
The second problem that may result from the predominance and prioritization of
independent cultural norms is that many gateway institutions may close themselves off to the
benefits of interdependent cultural norms. That is, these institutions may fail to recognize and
realize the advantages of behaviors and skills consistent with interdependent cultural norms.
These skills are often necessary for team projects, task coordination, cross-group interactions,
and conflict management and include being responsive to the social context, relying on and
supporting others, and integrating different perspectives (e.g., Dittmann et al., 2020; Health &
Staudenmayer, 2000). Indeed, individuals who are from contexts that promote interdependent
cultural norms and those who have interdependent skills have better experiences and
performance in collaborative and interpersonal settings than those who lack it (e.g., Bianchi &
Vohs, 2016; Coleman et al., 2013; Dittman et al., 2020; Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2003).
Therefore, to the extent that gateway institutions promote independent cultural norms and,
thereby, discount interdependent cultural norms, they may limit their ability to effectively
manage situations that require interdependence. For instance, organizational behavioral research

3
indicates that institutions tend to struggle with encouraging collaboration across different groups,
aligning group goals, and resolving conflict (e.g., Jehn et al., 1999; Health & Staudenmayer,
2000; Locke & Latham, 2002; Woolley et al., 2010).
One category of situations that can benefit from interdependent cultural norms is
interpersonally uncertain interactions. These are interactions in which one or both interaction
partners are unable to predict how the other will behave or whether the interaction will be
smooth (vs. unpleasant). In particular, I focus on cross-class interactions (i.e., interaction
between individuals from different social class backgrounds) and interpersonal conflict
resolution interactions (i.e., interaction in which an individual attempts to resolve an
interpersonal conflict) as two types of interpersonally uncertain interactions. Poor experiences in
these types of interpersonally uncertain interactions can be consequential for individual member
functioning as well as organizational functioning (e.g., De Dreu & Gelfrand, 2008; Fehr &
Gelfand, 2010). Broadly, I propose that interdependent cultural norms may help improve
people’s experiences in cross-class interactions and when resolving interpersonal conflict
considering its emphasis on social connectedness and social responsiveness. For example, people
from working-class backgrounds may be more comfortable with or practiced at the behaviors
required for engaging in these interactions than people from middle-class backgrounds (e.g.,
Brienza & Grossmann, 2017; Dietze & Knowles, 2016; Kraus & Keltner, 2009; Snibbe &
Markus, Townsend et al., 2014). Thus, I theorize that people from working-class backgrounds
may have better experiences in interpersonally uncertain interactions than people from middle-
class backgrounds.
In this dissertation, I employ a “strengths-based perspective” and illuminate the potential
benefits of interdependent cultural norms for people from working-class backgrounds in

4
interpersonally uncertain interactions. Specifically, I investigate how people’s social class
backgrounds affect their experiences of threat when in two types of interpersonally uncertain
interactions: cross-class interactions and resolution of interpersonal conflict. Behaviors and
psychological tendencies required by this set of potentially difficult and stressful interpersonal
interactions are well-matched with interdependent cultural norms. Given that interdependent
cultural norms are promoted in working-class contexts, people from working-class backgrounds
are likely to enact behaviors and exhibit psychological tendencies consistent with those norms
(e.g., Brienza & Grossmann, 2017; Snibbe & Markus, 2005; Stephens et al., 2009; Townsend et
al., 2014). Therefore, I predict that relative to people from middle-class backgrounds, people
from working-class backgrounds will experience less threat in cross-class interactions and
interpersonal conflict resolution.
By examining how interdependence can benefit how people experience common
situations in the workplace, my dissertation research carries several theoretical implications.
First, this work contributes to social class and organizational behavioral research on cultural
mismatch. Previous cultural mismatch research has demonstrated how independent contexts can
disadvantage individuals who hold interdependent cultural norms. I build on this research and
suggest that a match at the task level can improve people from working-class backgrounds’
experiences. Second, my work extends on research on how people from working-class
backgrounds exhibit adaptive psychological tendencies for intergroup interactions by
demonstrating this strength in situations beyond the bounds of intergroup settings (i.e.,
interpersonal conflict resolution). Finally, by taking a “strengths-based perspective” and focusing
on the unique strengths that people from working-class backgrounds possess, my work indicates
that there are advantages to being from a working-class background. Research on social class has

5
primarily used a “deficit perspective” which assumes that those from working-class backgrounds
should fare poorly due to their relative lack of resources. Although this work is important as it
demonstrates how social class background matters for critical outcomes and reveals the insidious
obstacles often faced by individuals from working-class backgrounds, overreliance on this
perspective may limit our capability of fully understanding the impact of social class on people’s
experiences.
Overview
In the following sections, I first define social class and explain why I use parental
educational attainment as my primary measure of social class background. I then review the
extant literature on how working-class and middle-class contexts promote different sets of
cultural norms that guide individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. This research
demonstrates how the cultural norms prevalent in people’s social class backgrounds shape their
understandings of what it means to be a good and competent person in the world. Subsequently, I
review work on how gateway institutions like four-year colleges and universities and
professional, white-collar workplaces reflect independent cultural norms that match the
independent norms prevalent in middle-class contexts and mismatch the interdependent norms
prevalent in working-class contexts. This body of work provides a framework for understanding
how people’s social class backgrounds shape their experiences and outcomes in gateway
institutions. I then reason that interdependent cultural norms can benefit people from working-
class backgrounds in specific interactions and I review research that provides initial evidence for
this.

6
Defining Social Class
Social class is multi-faceted and is typically conceptualized using measures of
educational attainment, family income, and occupational prestige (e.g., Ostrove & Long, 2007;
Sirin, 2005; Snibbe & Markus 2005; Stephens, Townsend, et al., 2012). These objective
measures capture people’s access to material (e.g., financial assets, healthcare) and social (e.g.,
network ties) resources. Work on social class has also used measures that capture individuals’
perception of their place in the socioeconomic structure relative to others (e.g., Kraus et al.,
2009; Piff et al., 2010). These measures include MacArthur Scale of Subjective Socioeconomic
Status (Adler et al., 2000) and participants’ social class self-categorization (e.g., the poor, the
working-class, the middle-class, the upper-class).
Following previous research on social class cultures, I examine and define people’s social
class backgrounds using an objective measure of social class: parental educational attainment.
Specifically, I categorize people as being from working-class backgrounds if neither of their
parents holds a four-year college degree. In contrast, I categorize people as being from middle-
class backgrounds if at least one of their parents holds a four-year college degree (Stephens,
Fryberg, et al., 2012).
Although, parental educational attainment is moderately correlated with other indicators
of objective and subjective social class background (e.g., Reardon, 2011; Singh-Manoux et al.,
2003), I use parental educational attainment for several reasons. First, compared to other
common measures of social class (e.g., family income, parental occupational status), parental
educational attainment is the most strongly correlated with the psychological tendencies related
to interdependent and independent cultural norms which are central to my theorizing (e.g.,
Dittmann et al., 2020; Snibbe & Markus, 2005; Stephens, et al., 2014; Townsend, et al., 2013).

7
For instance, college students whose parents do not hold a 4-year college degree are more likely
to indicate having motives that are consistent with an interdependent cultural model (Stephens, et
al., 2014). By contrast, college students whose parents do hold at least a 4-year degree are more
likely to indicate having motives that are consistent with an independent cultural model.
Second, parental educational attainment captures both material and cultural capital. A
four-year college degree affords certain financial resources and imparts values and practices
indicative of higher status (Newcomb, 1943; Snibbe & Markus, 2005). Indeed, people whose
parents have attained 4-year college degrees often have greater access to social resources and
knowledge about the “rules of the game” on how to successfully navigate gateway institutions.
In contrast, people whose parents did not attain 4-year college degrees, or first-generation
college students, often must learn how to navigate higher education on their own with little to no
guidance from their parents (e.g., Petty, 2014).
Third, I use parental educational attainment instead of own educational attainment
because people’s social class origins have a lasting effect on their psychological tendencies (e.g.,
Griskevicius et al., 2013; Kish-Gephart & Campbell, 2015; Phillips et al., 2020). Importantly, the
impact of people’s social class origin on their responses and behaviors is present even after
considering their current social class status (e.g., Herrmann & Varnum, 2018; Martin et al.,
2017). For example, the social class backgrounds of executives and leaders, who presumably
have attained at least a 4-year degree, have a direct effect on their strategic decision-making
(Kish-Gephart & Campbell, 2015) and how they act towards their subordinates (Martin et al.,
2017). Additionally, first-generation college graduates (i.e., people who have attained a college
degree but whose parents did not) experience a lack of fit and belonging in professional white-
collar workplaces well until the peak of their career (Phillips, 2017).

8
Social Class Contexts and Divergent Cultural Norms
People’s social class backgrounds, or the social class contexts in which they grew up,
shape what it means to be a “good” person and what normative behaviors and actions are (i.e.,
models of self; Markus & Conner, 2013; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; 2003). The independent
model of self assumes that a “good” person should be separate from others and act freely based
on personal motives, goals, and preferences (Markus & Kitayama, 2003). In contrast, the
interdependent model of self assumes that a “good” person should be socially connected,
contextually sensitive, and respond to the interests, needs, and preferences of the social context.
Due to differences in the availability of material (e.g., economic capital) and social resources
(e.g., friends, family), working-class and middle-class contexts foster particular ways of being.
Over time, these ways of being lead those from middle-class and working-class backgrounds to
promote different cultural norms (e.g., Fiske & Markus, 2012; Markus & Conner, 2013; Markus
& Kitayama, 1991, 2010).
Working-class contexts often promote interdependent cultural norms, which emphasize
social relationships, adjusting to the social context, and resilience in the face of adversity. People
who grew up in working-class contexts have fewer material resources, face greater
environmental constraints, and have fewer opportunities for choice, control, and influence than
those who grew up in middle-class contexts (Lamont, 2000; Stephens et al., 2014). Therefore, to
be effective in working-class contexts, people must enact behaviors associated with
interdependent cultural norms such as working with others, being responsive, and adjusting
oneself accordingly to the requirements of the situation (Stephens et al., 2017). For example,
working-class families often socialize and encourage their children to be attentive to others’
needs, follow rules and social norms, and show strength in the face of adversity.

9
In contrast, middle-class contexts often promote independent cultural norms, which
emphasize the individual self, development of unique interests, and personal preferences (Snibbe
& Markus, 2005). People who grew up in middle-class contexts tend to have access to more
financial resources, face fewer environmental constraints, and greater more opportunities for
choice, control, and influence than those who grew up in working-class contexts (e.g., Kraus et
al., 2009). Therefore, to be effective in middle-class contexts, people must enact behaviors
consistent with independent cultural norms such as taking charge, expressing thoughts and
feelings, displaying confidence, and standing out (Snibbe & Markus, 2005; Stephens et al.,
2017). For example, middle/upper-class families often socialize and encourage their children to
prioritize their individual needs, pursue their own goals, and influence the world.
Both independent and interdependent cultural norms are valid and functional ways of
being and behaving in the world. However, independent cultural norms are predominant in
gateway institutions because its founders and the majority of its members are likely to be from
middle-class backgrounds and rely on independent cultural norms (Stephens, Fryberg, et al.,
2012; Stephens et al., 2014). For instance, four-year colleges and universities have expectations
that their students will cultivate their independent self and develop the ability to express their
opinions and lead others rather than being able to be a good team player or to be attuned to
others’ needs and opinions (Stephens et al., 2007). Similarly, professional white-collar
organizations also tend to emphasize the importance of developing the independent self that is
separate from others. Take, for example, a Deloitte recruitment video stresses that, “This is a
story about you. Make an impact leading with purpose and innovation. Solve complex issues for
clients and communities. You make an impact that matters. Inspiring leaders. Challenging
thinking. Instigating change. Every day you shape the future because you are encouraged to lead

10
at every level.” While these expectations and beliefs are consistent with independent cultural
norms common in middle-class contexts, they diverge from interdependent cultural norms
common in working-class contexts. As a result, people from working-class backgrounds
experience cultural mismatch and its consequences when they are in key gateway institutions.
People from Working-Class Backgrounds are Disadvantaged in Middle-Class Contexts
People from working-class backgrounds often face a variety of obstacles and challenges
in four-year colleges and universities and professional, white-collar organizations (e.g.,
Pascarella et al., 2004; Townsend & Truong, 2017). Importantly, these obstacles and challenges
undermine individuals from working-class backgrounds’ experiences and performance as they
engage in gateway institutions. For instance, people from working-class backgrounds experience
lower feelings of fit and belonging (e.g., Jury et al., 2019; Ostrove & Long, 2007; Trawalter et
al., 2020), occupy fewer leadership roles (e.g., Ingram & Oh, 2020; Whitely et al., 1991), and
earn lower salaries (e.g., Bartrik & Hershbein, 2016) than those from middle-class backgrounds.
One set of these obstacles stem from economic and structural differences. This includes
differential access to material resources (e.g., Behrenz, 2001; Bertrand et al., 2004; Kraus et al.,
2011; Shah et al., 2012), lower quality education (e.g., Engle, 2007; Engle & Tinto, 2007;
Housel, 2012; Logan et al., 2012), bias and discrimination (e.g., Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990;
Rivera, 2015; Rivera & Tilcsik, 2016; Granfield, 1991), and different types of social networks or
connections (Lamont, 2000; Seibert et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2012; Whitely et al., 1991).
Another set of obstacles that people from working-class backgrounds are likely to face
are psychological obstacles stemming from the mismatch between the cultural norms that are
promoted gateway institutions and those promoted in their working-class contexts. Cultural
mismatches often cause people’s experiences in American institutions of upward social mobility

11
to be uneasy and uncomfortable (e.g., Stephens, Fryberg, et al., 2012; Stephens, Townsend, et
al., 2012) which, in turn, leads to a range of negative consequences including experiences of
threat, underperformance, and lower grades. Indeed, research focusing on students experiences in
college found that compared to those from middle-class backgrounds, students from working-
class backgrounds have lower feelings of fit and belonging (e.g., Ostrove & Long, 2007; Pittman
& Richmond, 2007), experience more stress, and are less comfortable in middle-class contexts
even when controlling for race and academic ability (e.g., Stephens, Fryberg, et al., 2012).
Further, behaviors and outcomes consistent with independent cultural norms (e.g., being
proactive, taking charge, meeting individual goals) are often set as the standard for how people
should act in gateway institutions (Markus, 2017; Markus & Conner, 2013; Stephens, Fryberg, et
al., 2012; Stephens et al., 2014). Consequently, skills associated with interdependent cultural
norms are often undervalued (e.g., Brienza & Grossmann, 2017; Stephens et al., 2017) which can
undermine people from working-class backgrounds’ perceptions of what they have to offer.
Research not directly investigating cultural mismatch also finds similar disparaging
results. Specifically, work on person-organization fit demonstrates that perceptions of low fit
with an institution or organization reduce levels of engagement and performance (e.g., O’Reilly
et al., 1991). Based on previous work examining how social class shapes feelings of fit, there is
evidence that people from working-class backgrounds, compared to those from middle-class
backgrounds, are more likely to indicate feeling a lack of person-organization fit or feel like their
ways of being are not valued by their institution (e.g., Johnson et al., 2011; Ostrove & Long,
2007). As a result of this misfit, those from working-class backgrounds may question whether
their skills adequate for success and disengage (e.g., Lubrano, 2004; Phillips et al., 2020).

12
However, these consequences can be mitigated by including interdependent cultural
values and norms when describing the context’s overarching culture. When interdependent
cultural norms are represented in the context, people from working-class backgrounds’
performance and experiences improve (Stephens, Fryberg, et al., 2012). One study demonstrated
this effect in the context of higher education by providing incoming college students information
about their college’s culture in a welcome letter. One set of students received a typical college
welcome letter that highlighted independent cultural norms such as “Learn by exploring your
personal interests,” “Express your ideas and opinions,” “Take charge in the face of adversity,”
and “Participate in independent research.” The other set of students read a college welcome letter
that highlighted interdependent cultural norms such as “Learn by being part of a community,”
“Connect with fellow students and faculty,” “Show strength in the face of adversity,” and
“Participate in collaborative research.” Receiving information that the college’s culture included
interdependent (vs. independent) cultural norms significantly improved academic performance
(i.e., grade point average) among students from working-class backgrounds.
Unfortunately, when the negative consequences of cultural mismatch are not attenuated,
they can persist even when people from working-class backgrounds persevere in independent
contexts. Consistent with this, research indicates that the negative effects of cultural mismatch
continue even after substantial time in gateway institutions (Phillips, 2017; Phillips et al., 2020).
Specifically, compared to students from middle-class backgrounds, students from working-class
backgrounds endorse more interdependent cultural norms when they enter college and this
endorsement predicts lower feelings of fit and poorer academic performance four years later, at
the end of their time in college. Recent work also suggests that the negative effects of cultural
mismatch may remain even after students from working-class backgrounds graduate from

13
college and are employed in white-collar organizations (e.g., Dittmann et al., 2020; Herrmann &
Varnum, 2017).
Although understanding the obstacles that people from working-class backgrounds are
likely to face in higher education and professional white-collar workplaces is essential to
reducing social class inequality (Duncan, et al., 2017), it is also critical to acknowledge the
unique strengths that these individuals may bring. When social class is examined using only a
“deficit perspective,” the implicit assumption is that people from working-class contexts fare
poorly due to the relative lack of resources (e.g., Ellis et al., 2017; Frankenhuis et al., 2020;
Frankenhuis & Nettle, 2020). A sole focus on this perspective risks overlooking unique skills or
strengths that people from working-class backgrounds may have. I employ a “strengths-based
perspective” and focus on the distinct strengths people from working-class backgrounds may
possess and examine when these strengths are likely to be advantageous.
Strengths Associated with Working-Class Backgrounds and Interdependence
By taking a strengths-based perspective, I focus on the skills and abilities that people
from working-class backgrounds might possess, given their engagement in contexts that embody
and promote interdependent cultural norms. Interdependent cultural norms of social
connectedness and social responsiveness foster behaviors and psychological proclivities that
provide people with a set of strengths that are unique and beneficial. For instance, being able to
connect with others, being responsive to the needs of the situation, and integrating different
perspectives are useful for interdependent tasks (e.g., tasks that involve engaging and working
with others). These interdependent-linked strengths may be advantageous in specific situations
notwithstanding the larger institutions in which they are embedded. In other words, even in
independent gateway institutions, interdependent cultural norms should still be beneficial for

14
localized situations within these contexts like team projects or interpersonal conflict resolution.
Indeed, research has begun to offer initial evidence consistent with the idea that people from
working-class backgrounds have unique strengths that they can bring with them to gateway
institutions (e.g., Brienza & Grossmann, 2017; Chen & Miller, 2012; Côté, 2011; Dittmann et al.,
2020; Kraus et al., 2009).
Emerging intervention research using a difference-education approach suggests that
individuals from working-class backgrounds can succeed in gateway institutions without having
to acculturate or assimilate to middle-class, independent cultural ways of being (e.g., Stephens et
al., 2014; Townsend et al., 2020). Difference-education teaches participants a new way of
understanding social class differences. Specifically, students are taught that their differences or
feelings of being different are contextual, or attributable to the broader context, rather than innate
or essential and that those differences can serve as strengths in college (Stephens et al., 2015;
Townsend et al., 2018). With this new insight about differences, students from working-class
backgrounds report higher levels of empowerment and, as a result, earn significantly higher
grades, compared to students from working-class backgrounds in the control condition. These
results suggest that people’s working-class backgrounds and interdependent cultural norms can
benefit their experiences and outcomes in gateway institutions. When given license or
opportunity to enact their interdependence, the experiences and performance of those from
working-class backgrounds improve.
Recent research also supports the proposition that there are strengths associated with a
working-class background and finds that coming from a working-class background and having
interdependent cultural norms can be beneficial (Dittmann et al., 2020; Martin & Côté, 2019).
For example, Martin and Côté argue that employees from working-class backgrounds, especially

15
those who have advanced through the social class hierarchy, have a broad range of experiences
in different social class contexts that enable them to connect with people from a variety of
backgrounds (Martin & Côté, 2019). In addition, Dittmann and colleagues demonstrate that
people from working-class backgrounds outperform people from middle-class backgrounds on
tasks that require working with others because they engage in higher levels of information-
sharing and turn-taking (Dittmann et al., 2020). Taken together, this work suggests that people
from working-class backgrounds possess unique strengths as a result of their experiences in, and
sometimes outside of, working-class contexts.
I build on and extend this burgeoning body of research to examine new strengths people
from working-class backgrounds might possess due to their participation in contexts that
promote interdependent cultural norms. I focus on strengths that might stem from two
interdependent cultural norms: social connectedness and social responsiveness. Social
connectedness refers to seeing oneself as inherently connected to others and being aware of the
role that others have in shaping oneself and one’s actions (e.g., Markus & Conner, 2014; Markus
& Kitayama, 1991; Stephens et al., 2017). In contrast, independent cultural norms emphasize
distinctiveness or seeing oneself as separate or autonomous from others. The interdependent
cultural norm of social responsiveness refers to being aware of the requirements or contingencies
of the situation and reframing or shifting oneself accordingly (e.g., Chen, 2012; Stephens et al.,
2009; Townsend et al., 2014). In contrast, independent cultural norms emphasize focusing on
one’s own personal preferences and exerting control in order to influence others and the
situation. Both social connectedness and social responsiveness often encourage awareness of
situational demands, adjusting to the situation, self-discipline, and anticipating the needs of
others (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991; 2010). Accordingly, these norms produce a constellation

16
of behaviors including responsiveness, relying on and supporting others, self-restraint, and
flexibility under constraint (e.g., Chen, 2012; Cross & Madson, 1997; Markus & Kitayama,
2003; Snibbe & Markus, 2005; Stephens et al., 2017).
I theorize that predilections for, and practice at, enacting these behaviors may provide
people from working-class backgrounds with unique strengths relative to people from middle-
class backgrounds. In particular, I suggest that the norms of social connectedness and social
responsiveness will foster strengths and benefits for when they navigate interpersonal
interactions in which there is uncertainty about how they or their counterpart will behave or how
the interaction will proceed. Below, I further define what I mean by interpersonally uncertain
interactions and focus on two classes of these interactions: cross-class interactions and resolution
of interpersonal conflict. Then, I will explain how interdependent cultural norms may be
beneficial in cross-class interactions and interpersonal conflict resolution.
Benefits of Interdependent Cultural Norms for Interpersonally Uncertain Interactions
I define interpersonally uncertain interactions as interactions where people are unable to
predict how their interaction partner will behave or whether the interaction will be smooth (vs.
unpleasant). Interpersonally uncertain interactions often do not have a clear, agreed-upon social
script on which individuals are able to draw for guidance on how to behave (e.g., Campbell et al.,
2005; Trawalter & Brown-Iannuzzi, 2014; Trawalter & Richeson, 2006). This lack of a social
script can lead people to experience these interactions as threatening. People experience
situations as threatening when they perceive that the demands of the situation exceed their own
personal resources (Blascovich & Mendes, 2000; Tomaka et al., 1997). For instance, in addition
to being unsure about their partner’s behavior, individuals in these interactions may also be
unsure about their own behavior or how they should act or respond. As a result of this

17
uncertainty and lack of predictability, interpersonally uncertain interactions are often
experienced as threatening (e.g., Alquist et al., 2018; Stephan et al., 1999). In this dissertation, I
focus on two types of interpersonally uncertain interactions that have the potential to invoke
threat: cross-class interactions and interpersonal conflict resolution.
Cross-Class Interactions
Cross-class interactions, or interactions with someone from a different social class
background, are one type of interpersonally uncertain interaction. Cross-class interactions are a
specific kind of cross-group interactions (i.e., interactions between individuals who are members
of different social identity groups that carry varying levels of status in society). To develop my
theorizing, I draw on work examining cross-group interactions, which has primarily focused on
cross-race interactions, because there is little research examining cross-class interactions.
Compared to same-group interactions, people often find cross-group interactions uncertain
because they lack experience with cross-group interactions (e.g., Trawalter & Brown-Iannuzzi,
2014). In addition, people are often unsure about how to connect with their cross-group
interaction partner, how they will be perceived, and how their responses may be interpreted (e.g.,
Devine et al., 1996; Shapiro et al., 2011; Vorauer, 2006; Vorauer et al., 2000). For instance,
people often worry about being judged based on their group’s stereotypes in cross-group
interactions. Members of the higher status group often have concerns around being seen as
prejudiced (e.g., Plant & Devine, 2003; Richeson & Shelton, 2003; Trawalter et al., 2012) and
members of the lower status group may have concerns about being the targets of prejudice (e.g.,
Eliezer et al., 2011; Shelton et al., 2006). As a result of these concerns, cross-class and other
cross-group interactions are often experienced as threatening (e.g., Blascovich et al., 2001;

18
Mendes et al., 2002; Page-Gould et al., 2010; Trawalter & Brown-Iannuzzi, 2014; Trawalter et
al., 2009).
Despite the potential for threat in cross-class interactions and other cross-group
interactions, several strategies can mitigate people’s experiences of threat. These strategies
include promoting positive engagement, encouraging perspective-taking, having interaction
partners work towards a common goal, and cultivating a common identity among partners (e.g.,
Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Dys-Steenbergen et al., 2016; Slavin & Cooper, 1999; West, 2011).
These strategies are effective because people experience lower levels of threat when they feel a
sense of affiliation (Page-Gould et al., 2010), similarity (West et al., 2014), or familiarity with
their cross-group interaction partner (e.g., Allport, 1954; Mendes et al., 2007). Some individual-
level moderators also help people’s experiences in cross-group interactions. For example, people
who can adjust to the situation are less threatened than those who attempt to exert influence
when interacting with a prejudiced cross-group partner (Townsend et al., 2014).
Importantly, the behaviors and psychological tendencies that help mitigate threat in cross-
group interactions are similar to the types of behaviors that are promoted by interdependent
cultural norms. Given that interdependent cultural norms are common in working-class contexts,
people from working-class backgrounds are likely to enact these behaviors (e.g., Kraus et al.,
2010; Kraus & Keltner, 2009; Stephens et al., 2017). Therefore, I theorize that people from
working-class backgrounds will experience less threat in cross-class interactions than people
from middle-class backgrounds.
Interpersonal Conflict Resolution
The second type of interpersonally uncertain interaction I examine is interactions in
which an individual is attempting to resolve an interpersonal conflict. Interpersonal conflict can

19
derive from many sources, but in general, they occur because of perceived differences in
individuals’ interests, needs, or goals (e.g., Barki & Hartwick, 2004; Ilies et al., 2011; Moeller &
Kwantes, 2015). Research on conflict commonly distinguishes between task conflict and
relationship conflict. Task conflict arises when there are divergent views, ideas, and thoughts on
task or process issues (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Huang, 2009). Examples of these may
include conflict regarding procedures, policies, and opinions. In contrast, relationship conflict
occurs when there is a “negative interpersonal encounter characterized by a contentious
exchange, hostility, or aggression” (Ilies et al., 2011, p. 46). This may include instances of
contentious disagreements, incivility (e.g., rude behavior), or aggressive behaviors (e.g.,
Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Duffy et al., 2002; Ilies et al., 2011).
Interactions in which people attempt to resolve interpersonal conflict, are often uncertain.
Many individuals feel that they lack the capacity to navigate interactions to resolve interpersonal
conflict and find these interactions difficult to manage (Ilies et al., 2011). Moreover, people tend
to be unsure about how they should approach conflict resolution, how they can resolve
differences without harming the social relationship, and how they will be able to reach a
resolution (e.g., Adams, 2016). Given this uncertainty, interactions in which one is attempting to
resolve an interpersonal conflict tend to be experienced as stressful or threatening (e.g., Barki &
Hartwick, 2004; Baumeister et al., 1996; Chung-Yan & Moeller, 2010; De Dreu, 2008; De Dreu
& van Knippenberg, 2005; Halevy et al., 2012; Karasek, 1979; Schieman & Reid, 2008).
Several strategies improve people’s experiences in interpersonal conflict resolution.
These include promoting perspective-taking, cooperation, active listening, and emotion
regulation (e.g., Adams & Inesi, 2016; Finkel et al., 2002; Halperin et al., 2014; McCullough,
2008; Ross, 1977). There are also individual-level traits that serve as strengths when individuals

20
experience or attempt to resolve interpersonal conflict. For example, individuals with high levels
of resilience are buffered from the negative effects of interpersonal conflict (Lanz & Bruk-Lee,
2017). Further, individuals who have an integrative conflict management style (i.e., tendency to
use cooperation to explore both parties’ objectives to reach a mutually satisfying resolution;
Friedman et al., 2000) and those who are less likely to exert personal control over the situation
(Graziano et al., 1996) also experience reduced stress when resolving interpersonal conflicts.
Finally, people are also more at ease and motivated to engage in conflict resolution when they
believe that their relationship with the other person in the conflict is long-term versus short-term
(e.g., Adams, 2016; Finkel et al., 2002; McCullough, 2008). These types of behaviors and
psychological tendencies are well aligned with those fostered by interdependent cultural norms
of social connectedness and social responsiveness. Therefore, I posit that people from working-
class backgrounds should have better experiences of threat (i.e., lower levels of threat) in
interpersonal conflict resolution than those from middle-class backgrounds.
The Present Research
The present research investigates when proclivities for, and practice at, enacting
interdependent cultural norms benefit people from working-class backgrounds. To summarize, I
theorize that relative to people from middle-class backgrounds, people from working-class
backgrounds should have better experiences (i.e., lower levels of threat) in interpersonally
uncertain interactions. To test my theory, I use a range of methodologies including laboratory-
based experiments measuring cardiovascular responses, in-person and online dyadic interactions,
and field data collection with employees and supervisors. In the next two chapters, I present two
series of studies investigating the impact of social class background on people’s experiences of
threat in cross-class interactions and resolution of interpersonal conflict.

21
In Chapter 2, I examine experiences of threat in cross-class interactions. Extant research
on cross-group interaction has demonstrated that people from higher and lower status groups
experience greater threat anticipating or engaging in cross-group interactions compared to same-
group interactions. However, much of what is known on threat in cross-group interactions comes
from research on cross-race interactions. Although race and social class share some similarities
(e.g., they are both meaningful social identities that carry status differences), they also have key
differences (e.g., relative to race, social class is malleable). Therefore, I argue that cross-class
interactions may elicit a different pattern of threat than what has been found in cross-race
interactions. I predict that people from middle-class backgrounds will experience greater threat
in cross-class versus same-class interactions but people from working-class backgrounds will not
experience greater threat.
In Chapter 3, I investigate how people’s social class backgrounds affect their threat in
interpersonal conflict resolution. Although working-class, interdependent cultural norms are
often undervalued in gateway institutions relative to independent cultural norms, they still
provide important benefits for individuals’ experiences and outcomes. Enacting behaviors
fostered by interdependence can be more advantageous than enacting behaviors fostered by
independence in some settings. Drawing on research examining social class cultures, I reason
that one such setting is interpersonal conflict resolution. Behaviors and psychological tendencies
that improve experiences and outcomes in interpersonal conflict resolution mirror those
promoted by interdependent cultural norms which are common in working-class contexts. Thus,
I hypothesize that people from working-class backgrounds will experience lower levels of threat
when resolving interpersonal conflict than people from middle-class backgrounds.

22
CHAPTER 2: PEOPLE FROM WORKING-CLASS BACKGROUNDS BUFFERED
FROM THREAT WHEN CROSSING THE CLASS DIVIDE
The idea that anticipating or engaging in cross-group interactions elicits experiences of
threat is often considered to be a truism of intergroup relations (e.g., Blascovich et al., 2001;
Mendes, Blascovich, et al., 2002; Page-Gould et al., 2008; Plant, 2004). However, much of what
is known about threat in cross-group interactions comes from research focused on race
1
(Davies
et al., 2011). Examining experiences of threat in cross-class interactions may be a critical route
for broadening social psychological theorizing about the experiences of cross-group interactions.
That is, experiences of threat in cross-class interactions may either mirror or diverge from the
patterns observed in cross-race interactions. On the one hand, given that both race and social
class are meaningful social identities and convey status differences (e.g., Bourdieu, 1977; Pitesa
et al., 2017; Thomas & Azmitia, 2014), cross-class interactions may show the same pattern of
threat found in cross-race interactions. That is, people from middle-class and working-class
backgrounds may have similar experiences of increased threat in cross-class (vs. same-class)
interactions. On the other hand, given key differences between race and social class (e.g., social
class is perceived to be malleable; Kraus & Keltner, 2013; and, the two may differentially shape
experiences in potentially threatening interactions; Townsend et al., 2014), cross-class
interactions may show a different pattern found in cross-race interactions. That is, people from
middle-class and working-class backgrounds may have divergent experiences of threat in cross-
class (vs. same-class) interactions.
Do experiences of threat in cross-class interactions diverge from the bidirectional patterns
observed in previous research on cross-race interactions (i.e., both high-status and low-status

1
I refer to cross-race and cross-ethnic interactions as “cross-race interactions.”

23
groups experience threat)? I address this question in the current research by examining whether
the direction of the cross-class interaction matters. In the following sections, I theorize separately
about downward and upward cross-class interactions. I first consider experiences of threat in
downward cross-class interactions: that is, people from middle-class backgrounds interacting
with people from working-class backgrounds. I then discuss experiences of threat in upward
cross-class interactions: that is, people from working-class backgrounds interacting with people
from middle-class backgrounds. Finally, I report two studies in which I examine people’s
experiences of threat when anticipating interacting with a cross-class or same-class partner while
working on a collaborative task. Throughout these studies, I use the term threat to refer to the
perception that situational demands exceed one’s personal resources to cope (Blascovich &
Mendes, 2000).
Anticipating Downward Cross-Class Versus Same-Class Interactions
I theorize that people from middle-class backgrounds will experience greater threat when
anticipating an interaction with someone from a working-class background (i.e., a downward
cross-class interaction) compared to an interaction with someone from a middle-class
background (i.e., a same-class interaction). Given that both race and social class are meaningful
social identities and convey status differences, my theorizing builds on research on cross-race
interactions. This work demonstrates that downward cross-race interactions are more threatening
than same-race interactions (e.g., Mendes et al., 2002; Plant, 2004). Specifically, White people,
who are the higher status racial group in the United States, experience threat when anticipating or
engaging in interactions with members of lower status racial groups (Page-Gould et al., 2008).
There are many possible reasons for this increased threat. For example, researchers have argued
that this increased threat stems from White people’s concern about appearing either prejudiced

24
(e.g., Plant & Devine, 2003; Richeson & Shelton, 2003; Trawalter et al., 2012) or unfairly
privileged (Phillips & Lowery, 2015), or their concern that members of lower status racial groups
challenge their racial group’s high status (Sidanius & Pratto, 1993). Given their higher status
(e.g., Pitesa et al., 2017), people from middle-class backgrounds may have concerns similar to
White people in cross-race interactions when they anticipate or engage in interactions with
people from working-class backgrounds. For example, people from middle-class backgrounds
may experience threat due to concerns about appearing prejudiced or condescending, being
perceived as unfairly privileged, or their group’s high status being challenged by people from
working-class backgrounds.
Although there is no empirical research directly examining people’s experiences of threat
in cross-class and same-class interactions, there is more general work on interacting across social
class divides that is consistent with my theorizing that anticipating downward cross-class
interactions will be more threatening than same-class interactions. One paper, in particular,
informs my theorizing (Côté et al., 2017). While Côté and colleagues did not measure
experiences of threat, they find that people from middle-class backgrounds show less downward
cross-class affiliation compared to same-class affiliation. Two additional studies that inform my
theorizing examine experiences during an interaction with a disadvantaged or advantaged peer,
irrespective of one’s own social class background (Blascovich et al., 2001, Study 3; Mendes et
al., 2002). Thus, although this research did not examine downward cross-class versus same-class
interactions, results demonstrate that interacting with someone from a disadvantaged versus
advantaged background tends to be more threatening for people regardless of their own social
class background.
Anticipating Upward Cross-Class Versus Same-Class Interactions

25
I offer two possibilities for whether people from working-class backgrounds will
experience threat when anticipating an interaction with someone from a middle-class background
(i.e., an upward cross-class interaction) compared to an interaction with someone from a
working-class background (i.e., a same-class interaction). The first possibility is that anticipating
upward cross-class interactions may not be more threatening than same-class interactions. Social
class and race also differ in important ways (e.g., perceived malleability and how they shape
experiences in potentially threatening interactions; Kraus & Keltner, 2013; Townsend et al.,
2014). Therefore, I theorize that experiences anticipating upward cross-class interactions may
diverge from experiences anticipating upward cross-race interactions. In contrast to racial
minorities in cross-race interactions, it is possible that people from working-class backgrounds
experience similar levels of threat anticipating cross-class and same-class interactions because
they are relatively unconcerned about being the target of prejudice. For example, people from
working-class backgrounds may believe that it is unlikely for their interaction partner to be
prejudiced against them either because they believe that social class is malleable (Kraus &
Keltner, 2013; Kraus et al., 2012) or because upward mobility in the U.S. is encouraged (e.g.,
Kraus & Tan, 2015). Additionally, it is possible that people from working-class backgrounds
may acknowledge the possibility that they will be the targets of prejudice in a cross-class
interaction, but that possibility may not be experienced as threatening. For example, Latinas from
working-class backgrounds were found to experience equal levels of threat during interactions
with racially prejudiced versus nonprejudiced White female partners (Townsend et al., 2014).
Thus, downward cross-class, but not upward cross-class, interactions may be threatening.
Interestingly, Côté and colleagues’ (2017) work can be interpreted as consistent with this
possibility. Although their paper demonstrates that cross-class affiliation is generally less

26
common than same-class affiliation, they also find that upward cross-class affiliation is more
common than downward cross-class affiliation.
The second possibility is that anticipating upward cross-class interactions may be more
threatening than anticipating same-class interactions. Given that both race and social class
convey status differences, I again draw on research examining cross-race interactions. This work
demonstrates that racial minorities, who are members of lower status racial groups in the United
States, experience threat when anticipating or engaging in interactions with White people (i.e.,
upward cross-race interactions; e.g., Plant, 2004; Sawyer et al., 2012). Empirical and theoretical
work argues that racial minorities experience this increased threat because they have concerns
about being targets of discrimination and prejudice (e.g., Crocker et al., 1998; Shelton et al.,
2005; Tropp, 2003). Like racial minorities, people from working-class backgrounds have
relatively lower status (e.g., Kraus et al., 2012). Accordingly, they may also have concerns about
being targets of discrimination and prejudice when anticipating or engaging in interactions with
people from middle-class backgrounds. Thus, mirroring experiences in cross-race interactions,
both downward and upward cross-class interactions may be threatening. Côté and colleagues’
(2017) work on cross-class affiliation is also consistent with this possibility. They find that
people from working-class backgrounds show less affiliation with upward cross-class, compared
to same-class, partners.
Current Research
In two studies, undergraduates from diverse social class backgrounds introduced
themselves to a White, same-gender partner (i.e., a confederate) and anticipated a face-to-face
interaction. Following previous work on cross-group interaction research, the experimenter told
participants that they would be working with their partner on a collaborative task (e.g., Côté et

27
al., 2017, Study 3; Mendes et al., 2002; Sawyer et al., 2012). I chose to examine people’s
anticipation of the interactions, rather than the interactions themselves because experiences
during this time of anticipation have the potential to affect the subsequent interaction (e.g.,
Brooks, 2014) and people’s willingness to engage in them (e.g., Schultz et al., 2015). I
manipulated confederates’ social class background using parental educational attainment and
income, which convey one’s access to material resources and cultural knowledge and are
commonly used indicators of social class background (e.g., Duncan, et al., 1972; Krieger et al.,
1997; Sirin, 2005). I use parental educational attainment as the sole indicator of social class
background. However, to match the manipulation of partners’ social class backgrounds, I also
use the composite measure of participants’ social class background. I conducted analyses using
this composite measure of participants’ social class backgrounds on threat and find similar
results across these two measures of social class background. I measured threat using
cardiovascular (Study 1) and self-report (Study 2, pre-registered) responses.
I predicted that participants from middle-class backgrounds would exhibit greater threat
when anticipating cross-class versus same-class interactions. In contrast, I had competing
predictions for participants from working-class backgrounds: I expected that they would either
exhibit similar threat when anticipating cross-class versus same-class interactions or greater
threat levels. After finding support for the former, I preregistered this prediction for Study 2 and
examined potential mediators for the threat experienced by people from middle-class
backgrounds when anticipating downward cross-class interactions.
Study 1
Method
Participants

28
Over three semesters, I recruited 228 first-year college students. To recruit participants
from working-class backgrounds, I recruited students who indicated that neither parent had a 4-
year college degree (n = 117). Likewise, to recruit participants from middle-class backgrounds, I
recruited a similar number of students who indicated that at least one parent had a 4-year college
degree (n = 111). I excluded four participants due to procedural error. I also excluded five
participants who failed the manipulation check by incorrectly recalling their partners’ social class
background (no significant differences by condition, 
2
(1, N = 228) = 0.33, p = .567). To
maintain power, I include 39 participants who left the manipulation check items unanswered.
Excluding these participants does not change the significance or direction of results. The final
sample was 219 participants. A sensitivity power analysis using G*Power (Faul et al., 2007),
specifying an alpha of 0.05 for a two-tailed test, indicated that I had the 80% power to detect an
interaction effect size of ηp
2
= .035.
Procedure
Participants arrived at the laboratory individually for a study on how people respond
physiologically during introductions and tasks. The experimenter told participants that they
would: (a) meet another participant who would be their partner (i.e., a confederate), (b) complete
a task individually, and (c) work with their partner on a collaborative task. I examined
experiences of threat due to anticipating cross-class versus same-class interactions.
Cardiovascular equipment set-up. The experimenter attached cardiovascular sensors to
participants, then left the room and recorded participants’ cardiovascular responses for 5
minutes.
Manipulation and video introductions. Participants then completed an introduction
questionnaire containing questions about parental educational attainment and family income

29
along with several filler items. I used the introduction questionnaire, along with an introduction
video, to manipulate partners’ social class backgrounds. Participants were randomly assigned to
a cross-class or same-class partner who was not actually present. Participants ostensibly
exchanged questionnaires with this partner and learned their social class background. In order to
create strong manipulations that would clearly convey partners’ social class backgrounds, I
manipulated both parental educational attainment and family income. Specifically, participants in
the working-class partner condition read that neither of their partner’s parents had a 4-year
college degree and their family’s income was less than $100,000 (the lowest option provided). In
contrast, participants in the middle-class partner condition read that their partner’s parents both
had 4-year college degrees and their family’s income was greater than $300,000 (the highest
option provided).
Participants then watched a prerecorded 1-minute video of their partner’s introduction,
which reiterated information from the introduction questionnaire. These videos depicted one of
four confederates (2 male and 2 female). Each confederate recorded an introduction video for
each condition (i.e., lower and middle-class partner). To bolster the social class background
manipulation, partners mentioned their parents’ educational attainment in their introduction.
Specifically, they said, “…neither of my parents went to college” (working-class partner
condition) or “…both of my parents went to college” (middle-class partner condition).
Participants then introduced themselves over video to their partners for 1 minute. Experimenters
instructed participants to elaborate on the introduction questionnaire to “give their partner a
better idea of who you are.”
Individual task. Subsequently, experimenters told participants that they would complete
a warm-up task individually before the collaborative task with their partner. To increase

30
engagement, experimenters told participants that performance on the individual task would
impact their overall team score, which determined whether the team would win two $50 gift
cards. Participants completed the individual task for 5 minutes (i.e., 12 Graduate Record
Examination questions). This task also provided an initial motivated performance situation,
which is necessary to examine participants’ cardiovascular responses (see below).
Collaborative task anticipation and post-task questionnaires. Experimenters then
asked participants to wait 5 minutes before the interaction could begin to allow for scoring of the
individual task. During this time, while participants were anticipating the interaction,
experimenters recorded participants’ cardiovascular responses. Participants then completed
measures of affect and a manipulation check.
Measures
Participant social class background. I use parental educational attainment as the
measure of social class background because it has been shown to be predictive of outcomes in
college and collaborative settings (e.g., Dittmann et al., 2020; Snibbe & Markus, 2005; Stephens
et al., 2014). Specifically, I categorize participants who indicated that neither parent had a 4-year
degree as participants from working-class backgrounds and those who indicated that at least one
parent had a 4-year degree as participants from middle-class backgrounds.
I also measured participants’ social class backgrounds using their parents’ educational
attainment and family income to match my manipulation of the partners’ social class
backgrounds which used both parental educational attainment and income. Specifically, I
measured parental educational attainment using six categories: (1) Less than high school, (2)
High school diploma, (3) Some college, (4) Two-year college degree (e.g., Associates), (5) 4-
year college degree (B.A. or B.S.), (6) Professional degree (MD., Ph.D., J.D., M.B.A., etc.).

31
Family income was measured using four categories: (1) Less than $100,000 (2) $100,000-
$200,000 (3) $200,000-$300,000, (4) Over $300,000. I computed participants’ social class
backgrounds by standardizing and then averaging their parents’ educational attainment and
family income, M = 0.02, SD = 0.88. To provide more insight into what it means to be high and
low on this composite, I examined participants at 1 SD above and below the mean of the social
class background composite. Scores at 1 SD above the mean correspond to having at least one
parent who had a 4-year degree and an average family income of at least $200,000 and scores at
1 SD below the mean correspond to having neither parent who had a 4-year degree and an
average family income of less than $100,000. I report analyses using this composite measure of
participants’ social class backgrounds on threat below and find similar results across these two
measures of social class background.
Screening Questionnaire. To assess whether participants met the inclusion criteria, they
completed a screening questionnaire, which contained questions about their medical history and
activities before entering the laboratory. Participants responded to all items using a yes (1) or no
(0) scale. Those who answered “no” to the following three items met the physiological inclusion
criteria and were allowed to participate: “Do you have a pacemaker?” “Do you believe you
might be pregnant?” and “In the past 6 months have you taken medicine that would affect your
cardiovascular system (e.g., beta-blockers)?” Participants also indicated their height and weight,
which I used to calculate their body mass index (BMI, a covariate in my primary analyses). The
questionnaire also contained additional questions, including: whether participants had a heart
murmur, were currently breastfeeding, or, in the last 6 months, whether they had mononucleosis,
malaria, or surgical procedures requiring anesthesia, or were diagnosed with clinical anxiety or
depression.

32
Threat-challenge index. To measure threat, I followed the biopsychosocial model,
which holds that the experience of threat (vs. challenge) reliably leads to specific patterns of
cardiovascular responses during motivated performance situations (e.g., Blascovich & Mendes,
2000). I recorded cardiovascular responses Biopac Systems to non-invasively record
cardiovascular responses and followed guidelines established by the Society for
Psychophysiological Research (e.g., Sherwood et al., 1990). I used impedance cardiography,
electrocardiography, and blood pressure measures to collect cardiac output and total peripheral
resistance. To collect impedance cardiography signals, experimenters applied two pairs of mylar
tapes to participants’ necks and torsos, which were attached to a Biopac Impedance Cardiograph
(Model NICO100C). To collect electrocardiography signals, experimenters applied one electrode
on the right side of participants’ chests underneath the collarbone and applied a second electrode
on the left side of participants’ chests underneath the ribcage. The electrodes were connected to a
Biopac Electrocardiograph amplifier (Model ECG100C). I obtained continuous measures of
blood pressure using a finger cuff placed on participants’ non-dominant hands. The finger cuff
was connected to a Biopac Noninvasive Blood Pressure Amplifier (NIBP100D). I used
psychophysiology analysis software by Mindware Technologies (Lafayette, OH) and
Acqknowledge (Biopac; Goleta, CA) to prepare the cardiovascular responses for data analysis.
I measured participants’ cardiac output (CO), i.e., the amount of blood pumped out of the
heart, and total peripheral resistance (TPR), i.e., the overall vasoconstriction in the periphery of
the body. Higher TPR and lower CO indicate greater threat relative to challenge (Blascovich &
Mendes, 2000). To support the assumption that the 5-minute interaction anticipation period was
a motivated performance situation and adequately engaging for participants, I examined heart
rate (HR) and left ventricle contractility (VC) reactivity. I created reactivity scores by subtracting

33
participants’ HR and VC during the last minute of baseline from their HR and VC during each of
the 5 minutes of the anticipation period. I then created composites across these two sets of five
reactivity scores and conducted one-sample t tests to compare the composites to zero to indicate
task engagement (Mendes et al., 2002; Obrist, 1981). I found that VC reactivity was significantly
greater than zero, tVC (152) = 3.57, p < .001. Although HR reactivity was not significantly
different from zero, tHR (178) = 1.53, p = .128, it was in the right direction (i.e., above zero). I
then followed previous research to calculate the threat-challenge index (e.g., Townsend et al.,
2010). First, I created reactivity scores for CO and TPR for each of the 5 minutes of the
anticipation period. Then, I standardized these scores, subtracted CO from TPR for each minute,
and then averaged across the 5 minutes to create a composite, M = 0.01, SD = 1.56.
Individual task performance. To create a motivated performance situation, which is
necessary to examine participants’ cardiovascular responses, participants completed an
individual task made up of twelve Graduate Record Examination (GRE) questions which
included five verbal and seven math questions. I also measured participants’ performance on this
task as the number of correct responses (Range 0 – 10, M = 3.15, SD = 1.67).
Affect. To measure affect, participants responded to an 11-item PANAS measure
(Watson et al., 1988) on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Although research often fails to
find correspondence between threat as assessed with cardiovascular measures and self-reported
affect (e.g., Mendes et al., 2002; Townsend et al., 2010), I was interested in whether participants’
affect might be influenced by anticipating a cross-class, compared to same-class, interaction.
Following previous research, I measured positive affect (excited, inspired, in control, confident;
 = .615, M = 3.82, SD = 0.94), negative affect (nervous, distressed, worried, overwhelmed;  =

34
.793, M = 2.49, SD = 1.16), and vigilance (alert, attentive, hyper;  = .566, M = 3.97, SD = 1.00;
Townsend et al., 2010).
Manipulation check. To ensure that the manipulation was effective in conveying the
partner’s social class background, participants reported their partner’s parents’ highest
educational attainment (0 = less than a 4-year college degree, 1 = 4-year college degree or
higher).
Results
Analysis Plan
In the primary analyses, I included covariates for race, gender, and body mass index
(BMI; for the cardiovascular data only). I controlled for participants’ race as a way of controlling
for whether the anticipated interaction would be cross-race or same-race. That is, the
confederates in the study were White, so the interaction would be same-race for White
participants but cross-race for non-White participants. I controlled for gender because there are
gender differences in approaches to interpersonal interactions (Ansell et al., 2008; Carli, 1989).
Finally, I controlled for BMI because it is associated with cardiovascular responses (Steptoe &
Wardle, 2005). I conducted a 2  2 ANCOVA: condition (0 = working-class partner, 1 = middle-
class partner) by participants’ social class background (0 = participants from working-class
background, 1 = participants from middle-class backgrounds). The significance and direction of
results on the threat-challenge index and affect are unchanged when these covariates are not
included. The degrees of freedom vary between dependent variables because some participants’
cardiovascular data were unscorable. In Table 1, I provide a summary of the statistical results. I
also report simple effects results in Table 2 and Table 3. For effect sizes, I report ηp
2
for
interaction effects, main effects, and simple effects.

35
Table 1.
Results of ANCOVAs for Dependent Variables (Study 1)
Dependent Variables
Predictor df F p ηp
2

Threat-challenge index
Gender 1 0.38 .537 .003
Race 1 1.00 .319 .008
BMI 1 0.04 .841 <.001
Condition 1 2.50 .116 .020
Participant Social Class Background 1 1.60 .208 .013
Condition  Social Class Background 1 4.20 .042 .033
Performance
Gender 1 4.17 .043 .019
Race 1 2.36 .126 .011
Test Score 1 61.76 <.001 .225
Condition 1 0.10 .750 <.001
Participant Social Class Background 1 0.09 .762 <.001
Condition  Social Class Background 1 4.72 .031 .022
Positive affect
Gender 1 4.93 .027 .023
Race 1 0.19 .667 .001
Condition 1 0.59 .445 .003
Participant Social Class Background 1 0.22 .638 .001
Condition  Social Class Background 1 3.17 .076 .015
Negative affect
Gender 1 0.26 .614 .001
Race 1 1.08 .299 .005
Condition 1 0.18 .669 .001
Participant Social Class Background 1 2.48 .117 .011
Condition  Social Class Background 1 1.43 .233 .007
Vigilance
Gender 1 0.46 .498 .002
Race 1 0.53 .468 .002
Condition 1 0.38 .541 .002
Participant Social Class Background 1 0.47 .495 .002
Condition  Social Class Background 1 3.02 .084 .014

36
Note. BMI = body mass index. For the threat-challenge index: Condition (0 = working-class
partner, 1 = middle-class partner) by participants’ social class background (0 = participants from
working-class backgrounds, 1 = participants from middle-class backgrounds) interaction
controlling for BMI, gender (0 = female, 1 = male), and race (0 = non-White, 1 = White). For
remaining variables: Condition (0 = working-class partner, 1 = middle-class partner) by
participants’ social class background (0 = participants from working-class backgrounds, 1 =
participants from middle-class backgrounds) interaction controlling for gender (0 = female, 1 =
male), and race (0 = non-White, 1 = White).

Manipulation Check
The manipulation was successful: 98% of participants in the working-class partner
condition and 97% of participants in the middle-class partner condition correctly indicated their
partner’s parental educational attainment. As mentioned above, there were no significant
differences by condition, 
2
(1, N = 228) = 0.33, p = .567.
Threat-Challenge Index
Due to loss of cardiovascular data, the sample for threat-challenge index is only N = 127,
despite recruiting participants who indicated that neither parent had a 4-year college degree over
three semesters and stopping data collection only after this pool of participants was exhausted.
With this smaller sample size, I conducted additional sensitivity analyses, which indicated that I
had 80% power to detect an interaction effect size of ηp
2
= .058. I did not find a significant main
effect of condition, F (125) = 2.50, ηp
2
= .020, p = .116, nor of participants’ social class
background, F (125) = 1.60, ηp
2
= .013, p = .208. However, the condition by social class
background interaction was significant, F (1, 124) = 4.20, ηp
2
= .033, p = .033. Consistent with

37
my predictions, participants from middle-class backgrounds exhibited greater threat when
anticipating an interaction with a partner from a working-class background (i.e., a downward
cross-class interaction; M = 0.73, SD = 1.32) than a partner from a middle-class background (i.e.,
a same-class interaction); M = -0.26, SD = 1.64), F (124) = 6.54, 95% CI [0.22, 1.73], ηp
2
= .050,
p = .012. In contrast, but also consistent with my predictions, participants from working-class
backgrounds exhibited similar levels of threat across conditions, F (124) = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.87,
0.62], ηp
2
= .001, p = .742.
In addition, participants from middle-class backgrounds (M = 0.73, SD = 1.32) exhibited
greater threat than participants from working-class backgrounds (M = -0.24, SD = 1.59) when
anticipating an interaction with a partner from a working-class background, F (124) = 5.30, 95%
CI [-1.66, -0.13], ηp
2
= .041, p = .023. However, participants from middle-class backgrounds (M
= -0.26, SD = 1.64) and participants from working-class backgrounds (M = -0.08, SD = 1.43)
exhibited similar levels of threat when anticipating an interaction with a partner from a middle-
class background, F (124) = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.95], ηp
2
= .002, p = .582.
Finally, I also examined experiences of threat using composite measure of parental
educational attainment and family income to indicate participants’ social class backgrounds and
found similar results. I conducted moderated regression analysis. On Step 1, I entered the
covariates: race (0 = non-White, 1 = White), gender (0 = female, 1 = male), and BMI (mean-
centered). I then entered condition (0 = working-class partner, 1 = middle-class partner) and
participants’ social class background (mean-centered) on Step 2, and their interaction on Step 3.
The moderated regression analysis revealed no significant main effect of condition, t (120) = -
1.44, b = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.15], p = .154, but a significant main effect of participants’
social class background such that participants from middle-class backgrounds (those 1 SD above

38
the mean of the social class background composite) exhibited greater threat than participants
from working-class backgrounds (those 1 SD below the mean of the social class background
composite), t (120) = 2.09, b = 0.53, 95% CI [0.03, 1.02], p = .038. Importantly, the condition by
social class background interaction was significant, F (1, 119) = 5.29, b = -0.76, 95% CI [-1.40, -
0.11], ∆R² = .041, p = .023 (see Fig. 1). Consistent with my prediction, participants from middle-
class backgrounds experienced greater threat when anticipating an interaction with a partner
from a working-class background (i.e., a downward cross-class interaction) than when
anticipating an interaction with a partner from a middle-class background (i.e., a same-class
interaction), b = -1.11, 95% CI [-1.92, -0.32], ∆R² = .060, p = .007. However, participants from
working-class backgrounds exhibited similar levels of threat across conditions, b = 0.19, 95% CI
[-0.59, 0.96], ∆R² = .002, p = .635.

39
Figure 1.
Threat-Challenge Index Results (Chapter 2, Study 1)

Note. Threat-challenge index during anticipation period as a function of condition (0 = working-
class partner, 1 = middle-class partner) and participant social class background (0 = participants
from working-class backgrounds, 1 = participants from middle-class backgrounds) interaction on
the threat-challenge index, controlling for gender (0 = female, 1 = male), race (0 = non-White, 1
= White), and body mass index (mean-centered). Larger values indicate greater threat relative to
challenge for the threat-challenge index. ** p < .01.

Individual Task Performance
I conducted exploratory analyses on participants’ performance on the individual task. I
did not find a significant main effect of condition, F (214) = 0.10, ηp
2
< .001, p = .750, or a
significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (214) = 0.09, ηp
2
= < .001, p =
.762. I found a significant condition by social class background interaction, F (213) = 4.72, ηp
2
=
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Working-Class Background Middle-Class Background
Threat-Challenge Index
Participants' Social Class Background
Working-Class Partner Middle-Class Partner
F = 0.11
F = 6.54**

40
.022, p = .031. Specifically, participants from middle-class backgrounds performed marginally
better when anticipating interacting with a partner from a working-class background (M = 3.78,
SD = 1.98) than when anticipating interacting with a partner from a middle-class background (M
= 3.20, SD = 1.47), F (213) = 2.99, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.03], ηp
2
= .014, p = .085. However,
participants from working-class backgrounds performed similarly across conditions, F (213) =
1.77, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.17], ηp
2
= .008, p = .185.
In addition, participants from middle-class backgrounds (M = 3.78, SD = 1.98) performed
marginally better than participants from working-class backgrounds (M = 2.76, SD = 1.50) when
anticipating interacting with a partner from a working-class background, F (213) = 3.02, 95% CI
[-1.03, 0.07], ηp
2
= .014, p = .084. However, participants from middle-class backgrounds (M =
3.20, SD = 1.47) and participants from working-class backgrounds (M = 2.94, SD = 1.65)
performed similarly on the individual task when anticipating interacting with a partner from a
middle-class background, F (213) = 1.57, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.92], ηp
2
= .007, p = .212.
Positive Affect
I did not find a significant main effect of condition, F (215) = 0.59, ηp
2
= .003, p = .445,
nor a significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (215) = 0.64, ηp
2
= .001,
p = .638. However, I found a marginally significant interaction, F (214) = 3.17, ηp
2
= .015, p =
.076. Specifically, participants from middle-class backgrounds reported similar levels of positive
affect across conditions, F (214) = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.23], ηp
2
= .002, p = .484. However,
among participants from working-class backgrounds, those anticipating interacting with a partner
from a middle-class background (M = 3.68, SD = 0.90) reported marginally more positive affect
than those anticipating an interaction with a partner from a working-class background (M = 4.00,
SD = 0.88), F (214) = 3.38, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.66], ηp
2
= .016, p = .068.

41
In addition, participants from middle-class backgrounds and participants from working-
class backgrounds reported similar levels of positive affect when anticipating interacting with a
partner from a working-class background, F (214) = 2.60, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.62], ηp
2
= .012, p =
.108, and when anticipating interacting with a partner from a middle-class background, F (214) =
0.83, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.19], ηp
2
= .004, p = .364.
Negative Affect
I did not find any significant effects for participants’ negative affect: main effect of
condition, F (215) = 0.18, ηp
2
< .001, p = .669, main effect of participants’ social class
background, F (215) = 2.48, ηp
2
= .011, p = .117, or interaction, F (214) = 1.43, ηp
2
= .007, p =
.233.
Vigilance
I did not find a significant main effect of condition, F (215) = 0.38, ηp
2
= .002, p = .541,
nor a significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (215) = 0.47, ηp
2
= .002,
p = .495. However, I found a marginally significant interaction, F (214) = 3.02, ηp
2
= .014, p =
.084. Specifically, participants from middle-class backgrounds reported similar levels of
vigilance across conditions, F (214) = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.55], ηp
2
= .003, p = .288. among
participants from working-class backgrounds, those anticipating interacting with a partner from a
middle-class background (M = 3.74, SD = 1.30) reported marginally more vigilance than those
anticipating an interaction with a partner from a working-class background (M = 4.05, SD =
0.86), F (214) = 2.87, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.70], ηp
2
= .013, p = .091.
Additionally, participants from middle-class backgrounds (M = 3.92, SD = 0.98) and
participants from working-class backgrounds (M = 4.05, SD = 0.86) reported similar levels of
vigilance when anticipating interacting with a partner from a working-class background, F (214)

42
= 0.56, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.53], ηp
2
= .002, p = .454. However, participants from middle-class
backgrounds (M = 4.08, SD = 0.89) reported marginally more vigilance than participants from
working-class backgrounds (M = 3.74, SD = 1.30) when anticipating interacting with a partner
from a middle-class background, F (214) = 2.84, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.06], ηp
2
= .013, p = .093.

43
Table 2.
Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Condition within Participant Social Class Background (Study 1)
Note. Study 1 results of simple effects analyses. Participants from middle-class backgrounds are those with at least one parent with a
4-year college degree. Participants from working-class backgrounds are those with no parents with a 4-year college degree. CO =
cardiac output, TPR = total peripheral resistance.

Participants from Working-Class
Backgrounds
Participants from Middle-Class
Backgrounds
Dependent Variable SE F p 95% CI SE F p 95% CI
Threat-challenge index 0.38 0.11 .742 [-0.87, 0.62] 0.38 6.54 .012 [0.22, 1.73]
CO 0.09 0.03 .868 [-0.19, 0.16] 0.09 4.81 .030 [-0.39, -0.02]
TPR 69.38 0.02 .885 [-127.26, 147.40] 70.05 2.65 .106 [-24.60, 252.71]
Individual task performance 0.27 1.77 .185 [-0.89, 0.17] 0.28 2.99 .085 [-0.07, 1.03]
Positive affect 0.12 3.38 .068 [-0.02, 0.66] 0.13 0.49 .484 [-0.48, 0.23]
Negative affect 0.22 0.31 .581 [-0.31, 0.55] 0.23 1.27 .262 [-0.70, 0.19]
Vigilance 0.13 2.87 .091 [-0.05, 0.70] 0.14 0.61 .437 [-0.24, 0.55]

44
Table 3.
Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Social Class Background within Condition (Study 1)
Note. CO = cardiac output, TPR = total peripheral resistance.

Partner from Working-Class
Background Condition
Partner from Middle-Class
Backgrounds Condition
Dependent Variable SE F p 95% CI SE F p 95% CI
Threat-challenge index 0.39 5.30 .023 [-1.66, -0.13] 0.37 0.31 .582 [-0.53, 0.95]
CO 0.09 5.34 .022 [0.03, 0.40] 0.09 0.10 .752 [-0.14, 0.20]
TPR 71.25 1.68 .198 [-233.23, 48.80] 68.81 0.03 .864 [-124.42, 147.97]
Individual task performance 0.28 3.02 .084 [-1.03, 0.07] 0.29 1.57 .212 [-0.21, 0.92]
Positive affect 0.17 2.60 .108 [-0.06, 0.62] 0.18 0.83 .364 [-0.51, 0.19]
Negative affect 0.22 3.95 .048 [0.00, 0.87] 0.23 0.07 .787 [-0.38, 0.51]
Vigilance 0.15 0.56 .454 [-0.24, 0.53] 0.33 2.84 .093 [-0.73, 0.06]

45
Discussion
Consistent with my theorizing, participants from middle-class backgrounds exhibited
greater threat when anticipating interacting with a partner from a lower versus middle-class
background. In contrast, participants from working-class backgrounds showed similar levels of
threat across conditions. The results are robust when using the parental educational attainment
measure of social class background or the composite measure of social class background. These
findings are consistent with the second of the suggested possibilities and advance our
understanding of how experiences of threat in cross-class and cross-race interactions may differ.
For individual task performance, I found that people from middle-class backgrounds
performed better than people from working-class backgrounds in the partner from a working-
class background condition, but not in the partner from a middle-class background condition. For
negative affect, I found a main effect of social class background where middle-class background
was associated with lower negative affect. Although these results do not mirror the threat results,
the social class performance difference is consistent with previous work (e.g., Duncan &
Murnane, 2014) and the lack of correspondence between self-reported affect and cardiovascular
measures is relatively common (Mendes et al., 2002; Townsend et al., 2010).
In Study 2, I sought to build on my threat findings that used a cardiovascular measure of
threat and provide convergent evidence for these results by using a different measure: a self-
report measure of threat that instructs participants to think about what it would be like to work
with their partner. Additionally, I aimed to understand why anticipating downward cross-class
interactions is more threatening than same-class interactions. Considering that people from
middle-class backgrounds have high status in cross-class interactions, like White Americans in
cross-race interactions, I focus on potential mediators that have been examined in research on

46
cross-race interactions. Specifically, I examined two potential mediators: “status concerns” and
“concerns about appearing overprivileged.” First, people from middle-class backgrounds may
have status concerns that their high status is not secure because their partner, who is a member of
a low-status group, may challenge their own higher status (e.g., Sidanius & Pratto, 1993).
Second, people from middle-class backgrounds may also have concerns about appearing
overprivileged—that is they may worry that their partners will perceive them as being
overprivileged because they have higher status than their partner from a working-class
background.
Study 2
Method
Participants
I recruited 307 first-year college students over two semesters. As in Study 1, I recruited
participants based on parental educational attainment. Specifically, to recruit participants from
working-class backgrounds, I recruited students who indicated that neither parent had a 4-year
college degree (n = 159). To recruit participants from middle-class backgrounds, I recruited a
similar number of students who indicated that at least one parent had a 4-year college degree (n =
148). I excluded two participants who participated in Study 1 and two due to procedural errors.
In addition, I excluded 13 who failed the manipulation check by incorrectly recalling their
partners’ social class background (no significant differences by condition, 
2
(1, N = 307) = 0.74,
p = .389). To maintain greater power, I included three participants who left manipulation check
items unanswered. Excluding these participants does not change the significance or direction of
the results. The final sample was 290 participants. I conducted the same sensitivity power
analyses as in Study 1, which indicated that I had 80% power to detect an interaction effect size

47
of ηp
2
= .025. I pre-registered this study on Open Science Foundation
(https://osf.io/9f2ws/?view_only=5b8ee52cf69446e7856fee062086a3f5).
Procedure
The procedure was largely identical to Study 1 with three exceptions: participants were
not connected to cardiovascular recording equipment because I measured threat through self-
report, introductions were conducted via audio, not video, and participants were given 8 minutes
instead of 5 minutes to complete the individual task.
Manipulation and Audio Introductions. Participants filled out the introduction
questionnaire and saw their partner’s social class background as in Study 1 (condition was
randomly assigned). Then, participants listened to their partner’s prerecorded 1-minute
introduction, which used the same script as Study 1. Afterward, participants gave their own 1-
minute audio introduction.
Individual Task. As in Study 1, experimenters told participants that performance on the
individual task would impact their overall team score, which would determine whether the team
would win two $50 gift cards. Subsequently, participants completed the individual task for 8
minutes. I gave participants 8 minutes instead of 5 minutes, as I did in Study 1, in an attempt to
increase variance in performance.
2

Collaborative Task Anticipation. Following the task, participants reported their demand
and resource appraisals with respect to working with their partners on the anticipated
collaborative task (e.g., Mendes et al., 2007). Finally, to gain insight into why people from
middle-class backgrounds might experience greater threat when they anticipate a cross-class

2
Study 1 analyses without covariates revealed a marginal interaction on individual task performance. Therefore, in
Study 2, I preregistered hypotheses for this dependent variable.

48
versus same-class interaction, participants reported their status concerns and concerns about
appearing overprivileged (e.g., Pettit & Lount, Jr., 2010).
Measures
Participant Social Class Background. I measured participants’ social class backgrounds
using parental educational attainment as in Study 1. Similar to Study 1, I categorized participants
who indicated that neither parent had a 4-year degree as participants from working-class
backgrounds and those who indicated that at least one parent had a 4-year degree as participants
from middle-class backgrounds.
As in Study 1, I also measured participants’ social class background using parental
educational attainment and family income. I report analyses using this composite measure of
participants’ social class backgrounds on my threat measure below and again, find similar results
across these two measures of social class background.
Manipulation Check. Participants completed the same manipulation check as Study 1.
Threat. To measure threat regarding the upcoming interaction, participants answered
questions “regarding your expectations of what it will be like to interact with your partner as you
two work on the collaborative task.” Then, participants reported their demand and resource
appraisals of “the upcoming task of working together with [their] partner.” Specifically,
participants completed 10 items adapted from Mendes and colleagues (2007) on a scale of 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Five items assessed demand appraisals (e.g., “This task
is threatening”),  = .746, M = 3.56, SD = 1.08. Five items assessed resource appraisals (e.g.,
“This task is a positive challenge”),  = .750, M = 4.48, SD = 0.98. Following Mendes and
colleagues (2007), I created a threat ratio by dividing demand appraisals by resource appraisals.
Larger values on this ratio indicate greater threat, M = 0.84, SD = 0.35.

49
Individual Task Performance. To examine performance effects, participants completed
the same individual task consisting of the twelve GRE questions from Study 1. I measured
performance on the individual task as the number of correct responses (Range 0 – 8, M = 2.82,
SD = 1.68). To maintain power, I included 5 participants who had 5 minutes instead of 8 minutes
to complete the individual task. Excluding these participants does not change the significance or
direction of results.
Status Concerns. To examine status concerns, participants responded to the following
item: “How important is it to you that you maintain your current status at USC?” using a scale of
1 (not at all) to 7 (very much so), M = 5.15, SD = 1.77.
Concerns About Appearing Overprivileged. To measure concerns about appearing
overprivileged, participants responded to the following item: “I worry that my partner may think
that I am over-privileged” on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), M = 2.44,
SD = 1.74.
Results
Analysis plan
For all dependent variables, I conducted 2 (condition: 0 = working-class partner, 1 =
middle-class partner)  2 (participants’ social class background: 0 = participants from working-
class background, 1 = participants from middle-class backgrounds) ANCOVA as described in
Study 1. I included my standard covariates (i.e., race and gender) for all analyses and included
self-reported SAT or ACT scores for analyses of individual task performance. Following the
College Board Concordance Guide (2018), I converted ACT scores into SAT scores. I assigned
these scores to participants who only reported their ACT scores and assigned participants their
best score if they reported both. As mentioned in the preregistration, I included this covariate to

50
control for individual ability.
3
In Table 4, I provide a summary of the statistical results. I also
report simple effect results in Table 5 and Table 6. Similar to Study 1, in addition to using
parental educational attainment, I report the results of analyses using the social class background
composite as the measure of participants’ social class. I report the results of these analyses on the
threat measure below. As in Study 1, I find similar results across the two measures of social class
background.

3
The degrees of freedom were lower on the individual task performance analyses because 53 participants did not
report their SAT or ACT scores.

51
Table 4.
Results of ANCOVAs for Dependent Variables (Study 2)
Dependent Variables
Predictor df F p ηp
2

Threat ratio
Gender 1 6.23 .013 .021
Race 1 2.19 .140 .007
Condition 1 2.42 .121 .008
Participant Social Class Background 1 1.62 .205 .005
Condition  Social Class Background 1 2.98 .086 .010
Resource appraisal
Gender 1 5.33 .022 .018
Race 1 3.12 .078 .010
Condition 1 0.60 .439 .002
Participant Social Class Background 1 2.19 .140 .007
Condition  Social Class Background 1 0.84 .361 .003
Demand appraisal
Gender 1 3.05 .082 .010
Race 1 0.86 .353 .003
Condition 1 1.69 .195 .006
Participant Social Class Background 1 0.13 .715 <.001
Condition  Social Class Background 1 0.48 .490 .002
Individual task performance
Gender 1 1.31 .254 .005
Race 1 0.09 .767 <.001
Test Score 1 38.94 <.001 .141
Condition 1 0.65 .423 .003
Participant Social Class Background 1 0.31 .578 .001
Condition  Social Class Background 1 0.83 .363 .003
Status concerns
Gender 1 1.07 .302 .004
Race 1 1.35 .247 .005
Condition 1 1.26 .262 .004
Participant Social Class Background 1 0.81 .369 .003
Condition  Social Class Background 1 0.23 .632 .001
Concerns about appearing overprivileged
Gender 1 1.34 .248 .005

52
Race 1 5.15 .024 .018
Condition 1 21.98 <.001 .071
Participant Social Class Background 1 35.18 <.001 .110
Condition  Social Class Background 1 1.81 .180 .006
Note. Condition (0 = working-class partner, 1 = middle-class partner) by participants’ social
class background (0 = participants from working-class backgrounds, 1 = participants from
middle-class backgrounds) interaction controlling for gender (0 = female, 1 = male), and race (0
= non-White, 1 = White).

Manipulation Check
The manipulation was successful: 97% of participants in the working-class partner
condition and 95% of participants in the middle-class partner condition correctly indicated their
partner’s parental educational attainment. As mentioned above, there were no significant
differences by condition, 
2
(1, N = 307) = .743, p = .389.
Threat During Collaborative Task Anticipation
I did not find a significant main effect of condition, F (296) = 2.42, ηp
2
= .008, p = .121,
nor a significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (296) = 1.62, ηp
2
= .005,
p = .205. However, I did find a marginally significant interaction, F (1, 295) = 2.98, ηp
2
= .010, p
= .086 (see Figure 2). Further analysis of the simple effects revealed that participants from
middle-class backgrounds reported greater threat when anticipating an interaction with a partner
from a working-class background (M = 0.93, SD = 0.46) than a partner from a middle-class
background (M = 0.81, SD = 0.30), F (295) = 5.22, 95% CI [0.02, 0.24], ηp
2
= .017, p = .023. In
contrast, but also consistent with my prediction, participants from working-class backgrounds
reported similar levels of threat across conditions, F (295) = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.10], ηp
2
<
.001, p = .902.

53
In addition, participants from middle-class backgrounds (M = 0.93, SD = 0.46) reported
greater threat than participants from working-class backgrounds (M = 0.82, SD = 0.28) when
anticipating interacting with a partner from a working-class background, F (295) = 4.49, 95% CI
[-0.23, -0.01], ηp
2
= .015, p = .035. However, participants from middle-class backgrounds (M =
0.81, SD = 0.30) and participants from working-class backgrounds (M = 0.82, SD = 0.35)
reported similar levels of threat when anticipating interacting with a partner from a middle-class
background, F (295) = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.13], ηp
2
< .001, p = .754.
Similar to Study 1, I also examined experiences of threat using the composite measure of
parental educational attainment and family income to indicate participants’ social class
backgrounds and found similar results. I conducted moderated regression analysis. On Step 1, I
entered the covariates: race (0 = non-White, 1 = White) and gender (0 = female, 1 = male). I then
entered condition (0 = working-class partner, 1 = middle-class partner) and participants’ social
class background (mean-centered) on Step 2, and their interaction on Step 3. The moderated
regression analysis revealed no significant main effect of condition, t (283) = -1.52, b = -0.06,
95% CI [-0.14, 0.02], p = .130, but a significant main effect of participants’ social class
background such that participants from middle-class backgrounds reported greater threat than
participants from working-class backgrounds, t (283) = 2.14, b = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.14], p =
.033. Importantly, I found a significant condition by social class background interaction, F (1,
282) = 6.01, b = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, -0.02], ∆R² = .020, p = .015 (see Fig. 2). Although I
recruited participants for a full academic year and achieved a larger sample size than Study 1,
this interaction effect is still underpowered due to the smaller effect size than Study 1. However,
based on the sensitivity power analysis for the simple slopes, which were the more exact tests of
my hypotheses, Study 2 was only slightly underpowered. I find that, consistent with Study 1 and

54
my predictions, participants from middle-class backgrounds reported greater threat when
anticipating interacting with a partner from a working-class background compared to partner
from a middle-class background, b = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.27, -0.05], ∆R² = .026, p = .005. In
contrast, but also consistent with my predictions, participants from working-class backgrounds
reported similar levels of threat across both conditions, b = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.15], ∆R² =
.001, p = .505.

55
Figure 2.
Threat Ratio Results (Chapter 2, Study 2)

Note. Reported threat regarding the anticipated interaction as a function of condition (0 =
working-class partner, 1 = middle-class partner) and participant social class background (0 =
participants from working-class backgrounds, 1 = participants from middle-class backgrounds)
controlling for gender (0 = female, 1 = male) and race (0 = non-White, 1 = White). Larger values
indicate greater threat. ** p < .01.

Individual Task Performance
I did not find a significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (239) =
0.65, ηp
2
= .003, p = .423. I did not find a significant main effect of condition, F (239) = 0.31, ηp
2

= .001, p = .578, or an interaction, F (1, 238) = 0.83, ηp
2
= .003, p = .363.
Status Concerns
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
Working-Class Background Middle-Class Background
Threat
Participants' Social Class Background
Working-Class Partner Middle-Class Partner
F = 5.22**
F = 0.02

56
I did not find a significant main effect of condition, F (296) = 1.26, ηp
2
= .004, p = .262,
nor a significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (296) = 0.81, ηp
2
= .003,
p = .369. In addition, I did not find a significant interaction, F (1, 295) = 0.23, ηp
2
= .001, p =
.632.
Concerns About Appearing Overprivileged
I found a significant main effect of condition such that participants anticipating an
interaction with a partner from a working-class background reported greater concerns about
appearing overprivileged than those anticipating an interaction with a partner from a middle-
class background, F (287) = 21.98, ηp
2
= .071, p < .001. I also found a significant main effect of
participants’ social class background such that participants from middle-class backgrounds
reported greater concerns about appearing overprivileged than participants from working-class
backgrounds, F (287) = 35.18, ηp
2
= .110, p < .001. However, I did not find an interaction, F (1,
286) = 1.81, ηp
2
= .006, p = .180.

57
Table 5.
Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Condition within Participant Social Class Background (Study 2)
Note. Study 2 results of simple effects analyses. Participants from middle-class backgrounds are those with at least one parent with a
4-year college degree. Participants from working-class backgrounds are those with no parents with a 4-year college degree.

Participants from Working-Class
Backgrounds
Participants from Middle-Class
Backgrounds
Dependent Variable SE F p 95% CI SE F p 95% CI
Threat ratio 0.06 0.02 .902 [-0.12, 0.10] 0.06 5.22 .023 [0.02, 0.24]
Resource appraisal 0.15 0.01 .919 [-0.29, 0.32] 0.16 1.39 .240 [-0.50, 0.13]
Demand appraisal 0.17 0.19 .664 [-0.26, 0.41] 0.18 1.93 .166 [-0.10, 0.59]
Individual task performance 0.29 0.01 .940 [-0.55, 0.59] 0.28 1.55 .214 [-0.88, 0.20]
Status concerns 0.29 1.32 .252 [-0.89, 0.24] 0.29 0.20 .653 [-0.71, 0.45]
Concerns about appearing
overprivileged
0.18 5.59 .019 [0.10, 1.14] 0.19 18.19 <.001 [0.60, 1.63]

58
Table 6.
Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Participant Social Class Background within Condition (Study 2)

Partner from Working-Class
Background Condition
Partner from Middle-Class
Background Condition
Dependent Variable SE F p 95% CI SE F p 95% CI
Threat ratio 0.06 4.49 .035 [-0.23, -0.01] 0.06 0.20 .754 [-0.09, 0.13]
Resource appraisal 0.16 2.89 .090 [-0.04, 0.58] 0.16 0.16 .686 [-0.25, 0.37]
Demand appraisal 0.18 0.56 .455 [-0.47, 0.21] 0.18 0.05 .820 [-0.31, 0.39]
Individual task performance 0.29 0.06 .814 [-0.50, 0.63] 0.29 1.07 .301 [-0.86, 0.27]
Status concerns 0.29 0.95 .330 [-0.86, 0.29] 0.29 0.09 .764 [-0.66, 0.49]
Concerns about appearing
overprivileged
0.26 26.74 <.001 [-1.87, -0.84] 0.26 10.59 .001 [-1.38, -0.34]

59
Discussion
Consistent with my predictions and Study 1, participants from middle-class backgrounds
reported greater threat anticipating a cross-class, compared to a same-class, interaction, and
participants from working-class backgrounds reported similar threat levels anticipating these two
interactions. As in Study 1, I find this pattern of results across both measures of social class
background (i.e., the composite measure of social class background and the parental educational
attainment measure). Although Study 2 was still underpowered to detect the interaction effect,
the following factors support the robustness of my findings: the high-impact study design and the
consistency with Study 1. Additionally, my pre-registered directional predictions were supported
(i.e., the simple effects using parental educational attainment as the measure of social class
background). I found no significant effects predicting individual task performance nor status
concerns. I found greater concern about appearing overprivileged among participants from
higher, versus lower, social class backgrounds and among participants anticipating interacting
with someone from a lower, versus higher, social class background. However, similar to the
other potential mediator, status concerns, I found no interactive effects predicting concerns about
appearing overprivileged.
In Study 3, I sought to replicate this finding in an online setting and again, aimed to
understand why anticipating downward cross-class interactions is more threatening than same-
class interactions. Specifically, I examined two potential mediators: “concerns about appearing
privileged” and “experience with partner.” I used a different measure of concerns about
appearing privileged. In Study 2, I used one item that captured how the participant thought they
would be perceived by the partner regarding privilege and in Study 3, I used five items that
captured how the participant thought they, themselves were privileged. I also included

60
experience with someone like the interaction partner because people from middle-class
backgrounds may have less experience in cross-class interactions relative to people from
working-class backgrounds.
Study 3
Method
Participants
I recruited 345 college students over one full semester. As in Study 1, I recruited
participants based on parental educational attainment. Specifically, to recruit participants from
working-class backgrounds, I recruited students who indicated that neither parent had a 4-year
college degree (n = 126). To recruit participants from middle-class backgrounds, I recruited
students who indicated that at least one parent had a 4-year college degree (n = 219). I excluded
twenty-eight participants who indicated they wanted to withdraw their data. In addition, I
excluded eight participants due to procedural errors and thirty-two participants who were
suspicious that their partner was not an actual participant. The final sample was 280 participants.
I pre-registered this study on Open Science Foundation
(https://osf.io/dets6/?view_only=1e60655660b7476e8e8eee8b842968e9).
Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned either a partner from a middle-class background
condition or a partner from a working-class background condition to interact and work with
using ChatPlat software (Brooks & Schweitzer, 2011). ChatPlat is an online chat platform that
allows participants to chat with another partner (or confederate) via instant message. At the start
of the online study, participants were paired up with another participant (i.e., a confederate
matched for gender). The chat administrator, who was also the confederate, instructed the

61
participants to indicate their first name and the date in the chat. After, participants proceeded to
the online survey.
Manipulation and Introductions. Participants filled out the introduction questionnaire
and then saw their partner’s responses to the introduction questionnaire which included the
partner’s social class background as in Study 1 (condition was randomly assigned). Then,
participants typed in their introduction essays. Afterward, participants were presented with their
partner’s introduction essay and had 1 minute to read their partner’s introduction.
Individual Task. As in Study 1, participants learned that performance on the individual
task would impact their overall team score, which would determine whether the team would win
two $50 gift cards. Subsequently, participants completed the individual task for 2 minutes. I
included the individual task in order to keep the procedure as consistent between the other two
studies as possible.
Collaborative Task Anticipation and Potential Mediators. Following the individual
task, participants reported their demand and resource appraisals with respect to working with
their partner on the anticipated collaborative task as in Study 2 (e.g., Mendes et al., 2007).
To gain insight into why people from middle-class backgrounds might experience greater
threat when they anticipate a cross-class versus same-class interaction, participants reported their
concerns about appearing privileged and how much experience they have interacting with
someone like their partner.
Collaborative Task. For the collaborative task, participants were paired up with the
confederate on ChatPlat and instructed to take turns linking adjacent letters to form words.
Participants were given 3 minutes to work with their partner on the collaborative task and were
instructed to take the first turn.

62
Post-Task Evaluation. After completing the task, participants indicated their demand
and resource appraisals with respect to working with their partner on the collaborative task.
Participants also indicated the extent to which they and their partner have a shared identity after
graduation.
Measures
Participant Social Class Background. I measured participants’ social class backgrounds
using parental educational attainment as in Studies 1 and 2. Similar to Studies 1 and 2, I
categorized participants who indicated that neither parent had a 4-year degree as participants
from working-class backgrounds and those who indicated that at least one parent had a 4-year
degree as participants from middle-class backgrounds.
Manipulation Check. Participants completed the same manipulation check as Study 1.
Individual Task Performance. To examine performance effects, participants completed
six items instead of the full twelve items from the individual task in Studies 1 and 2. I measured
performance on the individual task as the number of correct responses (Range 0 – 5, M = 1.17,
SD = 1.09).
Threat. Similar to Study 2, to measure threat regarding the upcoming interaction,
participants completed 10 items adapted from Mendes and colleagues (2007) on a scale of 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Five items assessed demand appraisals (e.g., “This task
is threatening”),  = .811, M = 3.42, SD = 1.17. Five items assessed resource appraisals (e.g.,
“This task is a positive challenge”),  = .824, M = 4.94, SD = 0.94. I created a threat ratio by
dividing demand appraisals by resource appraisals where larger values on this ratio indicate
greater threat, M = 0.74, SD = 0.34.

63
Concerns About Appearing Privileged. To measure concerns about appearing
overprivileged, participants responded to 5 items using a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree),  = .824, M = 3.16, SD = 1.42. The items were: “I am privileged,” “I am
spoiled,” “I have had unearned advantages,” “I have not had to overcome any real challenges,”
and “My life has been easy.”
Experience With Partner. To examine experience with someone like their interaction
partner, participants responded to 5 items using a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree),  = .824, M = 5.15, SD = 1.77. The items were: “I have a lot of experience interacting
with people like my partner,” “My partner reminds me of some of my friends,” “My partner is
someone who is unique,” and “My partner is different from most of the people I typically
interact with.”
Performance on Collaborative Task. I measured performance on the collaborative task
as the number of responses the participant entered in the chat (Range 0 – 14), M = 4.42, SD =
2.74).
Post-Task Threat. To measure threat regarding the collaborative interaction that
participants had with their partner, they completed the same 10 items adapted from Mendes and
colleagues (2007) on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), M = 0.66, SD = 0.59.
Future Shared Identity. To examine perceptions of a shared identity with their partner
in the future, participants responded to the 9 items using a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree),  = .727, M = 4.36, SD = 0.75. An example item is: “After graduating college, I
would consider my partner and I to be members of the same group.”
Results
Analysis Plan

64
For all dependent variables, I conducted 2  2 ANCOVA as described in Studies 1 and 2.
I included my standard covariates (i.e., race and gender) for all analyses. In addition to these
standard covariates, I also included year in school because the confederate was a freshman
undergraduate student and unlike the previous two studies, participants were not primarily
freshman undergraduates. In Table 7, I provide a summary of the statistical results. I also report
simple effect results in Table 8 and Table 9.

65
Table 7.
Results of ANCOVAs for Dependent Variables (Study 3)
Dependent Variables
df F p ηp
2

Threat ratio
Gender 1 0.68 .409 .002
Race 1 0.13 .724 <.001
Year in School 1 0.46 .499 .002
Condition 1 8.28 .004 .029
Participant Social Class Background 1 1.49 .223 .005
Condition  Social Class Background 1 5.16 .024 .019
Resource appraisal
Gender 1 0.36 .551 .001
Race 1 1.17 .281 .004
Year in School 1 0.01 .906 <.001
Condition 1 1.46 .229 .005
Participant Social Class Background 1 1.98 .161 .007
Condition  Social Class Background 1 1.88 .171 .007
Demand appraisal
Gender 1 0.05 .827 <.001
Race 1 0.03 .868 <.001
Year in School 1 0.28 .601 .001
Condition 1 7.38 .007 .026
Participant Social Class Background 1 2.68 .103 .010
Condition  Social Class Background 1 3.18 .076 .012
Individual task
Gender 1 2.40 .123 .009
Race 1 11.63 .001 .041
Year in School 1 1.37 .243 .005
Condition 1 0.22 .640 .001
Participant Social Class Background 1 16.14 <.001 .056
Condition  Social Class Background 1 1.42 .235 .005
Concerns about appearing privileged
Gender 1 0.95 .330 .003
Race 1 0.01 .943 <.001
Year in School 1 2.70 .102 .010
Condition 1 0.87 .352 .003
Participant Social Class Background 1 39.13 <.001 .125

66
Condition  Social Class Background 1 11.38 .001 .040
Experience with partner
Gender 1 6.38 .012 .023
Race 1 1.52 .219 .006
Year in School 1 0.26 .611 .001
Condition 1 0.39 .533 .001
Participant Social Class Background 1 0.56 .454 .002
Condition  Social Class Background 1 10.33 .001 .036
Performance on collaborative task
Gender 1 1.02 .313 .004
Race 1 1.42 .235 .005
Year in School 1 0.20 .653 .001
Condition 1 0.01 .926 <.001
Participant Social Class Background 1 0.47 .492 .002
Condition  Social Class Background 1 0.30 .587 .001
Post-task threat
Gender 1 1.78 .184 .007
Race 1 3.57 .060 .013
Year in School 1 1.32 .252 .005
Condition 1 1.04 .309 .004
Participant Social Class Background 1 0.34 .563 .001
Condition  Social Class Background 1 0.00 .950 <.001
Future shared identity
Gender 1 11.36 .001 .040
Race 1 1.87 .172 .007
Year in School 1 3.11 .079 .011
Condition 1 11.20 .001 .040
Participant Social Class Background 1 4.48 .035 .016
Condition  Social Class Background 1 0.11 .738 <.001
Note. Condition (0 = working-class partner, 1 = middle-class partner) by participants’ social
class background (0 = participants from working-class backgrounds, 1 = participants from
middle-class backgrounds) interaction controlling for gender (0 = female, 1 = male), race (0 =
non-White, 1 = White), and year in school.

Manipulation Check
The manipulation was successful: 100% of participants in the working-class partner
condition and 100% of participants in the middle-class partner condition correctly indicated their
partner’s parental educational attainment. There were no significant differences by condition.
Individual Task Performance
I did not find a significant main effect of condition, F (274) = 0.22, ηp
2
< .001, p = .540. I
did find a significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (274) = 16.14, ηp
2
=
.056, p < .001. I did not find a significant interaction, F (1, 273) = 1.42, ηp
2
= .005, p = .235.
Threat During Collaborative Task Anticipation
There was a significant main effect of condition, F (274) = 8.28, ηp
2
= .029, p = .004, but
not a significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (274) = 1.49, ηp
2
= .005,
p = .223. There was a significant interaction, F (1, 232) = 5.16, ηp
2
= .019, p = .024 (see Figure
3). However, further analysis of the simple effects revealed that participants from middle-class
backgrounds reported similar threat when anticipating an interaction with a partner from a
working-class background (M = 0.74, SD = 0.33) and a partner from a middle-class background
(M = 0.77, SD = 0.30), F (273) = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.07], ηp
2
< .001, p = .606. In contrast,
participants from working-class backgrounds reported greater threat when anticipating an
interaction with a partner from a middle-class background (M = 0.81, SD = 0.24) than a partner
from a working-class background (M = 0.59, SD = 0.47), F (273) = 10.32, 95% CI [-0.35, -0.09],
ηp
2
= .036, p = .001.
In addition, participants from middle-class backgrounds reported greater threat than
participants from working-class backgrounds when anticipating interacting with a partner from a
working-class background, F (273) = 6.07, 95% CI [-0.27, -0.03], ηp
2
= .022, p = .014. However,

68
participants from middle-class backgrounds and participants from working-class backgrounds
reported similar levels of threat when anticipating interacting with a partner from a middle-class
background, F (273) = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.16], ηp
2
= .002, p = .466.

Figure 3.
Threat Ratio Results (Chapter 2, Study 3)

Note. Reported threat regarding the anticipated interaction as a function of condition (0 =
working-class partner, 1 = middle-class partner) and participant social class background (0 =
participants from working-class backgrounds, 1 = participants from middle-class backgrounds)
controlling for gender (0 = female, 1 = male) and race (0 = non-White, 1 = White). Larger values
indicate greater threat. *** p < .001.

0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
Working-Class Background Middle-Class Background
Threat
Participants' Social Class Background
Working-Class Partner Middle-Class Partner
F = 0.27 F = 10.32***

69
Concerns About Appearing Privileged
There was no significant main effect of condition, F (274) = 0.87, ηp
2
= .003, p = .352.
There was a significant main effect of participants’ social class background such that participants
from middle-class backgrounds reported greater concerns about appearing overprivileged than
participants from working-class backgrounds, F (274) = 39.13, ηp
2
= .125, p < .001. There was a
significant interaction, F (1, 273) = 11.38, ηp
2
= .040, p = .001. Specifically, participants from
middle-class backgrounds reported greater concerns of being seen as privileged when
anticipating an interaction with a partner from a working-class background (M = 3.88, SD =
1.38) than a partner from a middle-class background (M = 3.17, SD = 1.36), F (273) = 12.92,
95% CI [3.60, 4.13], ηp
2
= .045, p < .001. In contrast, participants from working-class
backgrounds reported greater concerns of being seen as privileged across both conditions, F
(273) = 2.30, 95% CI [1.93, 2.66], ηp
2
= .008, p = .131.
In addition, participants from middle-class backgrounds (M = 3.88, SD = 1.38) reported
greater concerns of being seen as privileged than participants from working-class backgrounds
(M = 2.27, SD = 1.05) when anticipating interacting with a partner from a working-class
background, F (273) = 46.38, 95% CI [-2.03, -1.12], ηp
2
= .145, p < .001. Participants from
middle-class backgrounds (M = 3.17, SD = 1.36) also reported greater concerns of being seen as
privileged than participants from working-class backgrounds (M = 2.69, SD = 1.24) when
anticipating interacting with a partner from a middle-class background, F (273) = 7.33, 95% CI
[-0.93, -0.03], ηp
2
= .016, p = .038.
Experience with Partner
I did not find a significant main effect of condition, F (274) = 0.39, ηp
2
= .001, p = .533,
nor a significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (274) = 0.56, ηp
2
= .002,

70
p = .454. I did find a significant interaction, F (1, 273) = 10.33, ηp
2
= .036, p = .001. Specifically,
participants from middle-class backgrounds reported less previous experience with someone like
their partner when anticipating an interaction with a partner from a working-class background (M
= 4.25, SD = 0.75) than a partner from a middle-class background (M = 4.50, SD = 0.77), F (273)
= 4.66, 95% CI [4.07, 4.40], ηp
2
= .017, p = .032. Participants from working-class backgrounds
reported more previous experience with someone like their partner when anticipating an
interaction with a partner from a working-class background (M = 4.60, SD = 0.68) than a partner
from a middle-class background (M = 4.22, SD = 1.01), F (273) = 5.71, 95% CI [4.40, 4.85], ηp
2

= .002, p = .018.
In addition, participants from middle-class backgrounds (M = 4.25, SD = 0.75) reported
less previous experience with someone like their partner than participants from working-class
backgrounds (M = 4.60, SD = 0.67) when anticipating interacting with a partner from a working-
class background, F (273) = 7.78, 95% CI [0.12, 0.67], ηp
2
= .028, p = .006. In contrast,
participants from middle-class backgrounds (M = 4.50, SD = 0.77) reported marginally more
previous experience with someone like their partner than participants from working-class
backgrounds (M = 4.22, SD = 1.01) when anticipating interacting with a partner from a middle-
class background, F (273) = 2.99, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.03], ηp
2
= .011, p = .085.
Performance on Collaborative Task
I did not find a significant main effect of condition, F (271) = 0.01, ηp
2
< .001, p = .926, a
significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (271) = 0.47, ηp
2
= .002, p =
.492, nor a significant interaction, F (270) = 0.30, ηp
2
= .001, p = .587.
Post-Task Threat
I did not find a significant main effect of condition, F (272) = 1.04, ηp
2
= .004, p = .309, a

71
significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (272) = 0.34, ηp
2
= .001, p =
.563, nor a significant interaction, F (271) = 0.00, ηp
2
< .001, p = .950.
Future Shared Identity
I found a significant main effect of condition, such that participants in the partner from a
working-class background condition reported feeling greater future shared identity with their
partners than those in the partner from a middle-class background condition, F (273) = 11.20, ηp
2

= .040, p = .001. I also found a significant main effect of participants’ social class background,
such participants from middle-class backgrounds reported feeling greater future shared identity
with their partners than those from working-class backgrounds, F (273) = 4.48, ηp
2
= .016, p =
.035. However, I did not find a significant interaction, F (1, 272) = 0.11, ηp
2
< .001, p = .738.

72
Table 8.
Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Condition within Participant Social Class Background (Study 3)
Note. Study 3 results of simple effects analyses. Participants from middle-class backgrounds are those with at least one parent with a
4-year college degree. Participants from working-class backgrounds are those with no parents with a 4-year college degree.

Participants from Working-Class
Backgrounds
Participants from Middle-Class
Backgrounds
Dependent Variable SE F p 95% CI SE F p 95% CI
Threat ratio 0.07 10.32 .001 [-0.35, -0.09] 0.05 0.27 .606 [-0.13, 0.07]
Resource appraisal 0.19 2.59 .109 [-0.68, 0.67] 0.14 0.02 .895 [-0.20, 0.26]
Demand appraisal 0.22 7.89 .005 [-1.06, -0.19] 0.17 0.63 .430 [-0.46, 0.20]
Individual task 0.21 0.20 .655 [-0.51, 0.32] 0.16 1.92 .167 [-0.09, 0.53]
Concerns about appearing
privileged
0.26 2.30 .131 [-0.91, 0.12] 0.19 12.92 <.001 [0.32, 1.08]
Experience with partner 0.16 5.71 .018 [0.67, 0.69] 0.12 4.66 .032 [-0.49, -0.02]
Performance on collaborative
task
0.56 0.08 .779 [-1.25, 0.94] 0.42 0.28 .596 [-0.60, 1.04]
Post-task threat 0.12 0.46 .499 [-0.31, 0.15] 0.09 0.64 .425 [-0.25, 0.10]
Future shared identity 0.14 3.56 .060 [-0.01, 0.55] 0.11 9.48 .002 [-0.54, -0.12]

73
Table 9.
Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Participant Social Class Background within Condition (Study 3)

Partner from Working-Class
Background Condition
Partner from Middle-Class
Background Condition
Dependent Variable SE F p 95% CI SE F p 95% CI
Threat ratio 0.06 6.07 .014 [-0.27, -0.03] 0.06 0.53 .466 [-0.07, 0.16]
Resource appraisal 0.17 3.85 .051 [0.00, 0.66] 0.17 0.00 .971 [-0.32, 0.33]
Demand appraisal 0.20 5.83 .016 [-0.86, -0.09] 0.20 0.01 .929 [-0.37, 0.41]
Individual task 0.19 13.61 <.001 [-1.05, -0.32] 0.19 4.09 .044 [-0.74, -0.01]
Concerns about appearing
privileged
0.23 46.38 <.001 [-2.03, -1.12] 0.23 4.33 .038 [-0.93, -0.03]
Experience with partner 0.14 7.78 .006 [0.12, 0.67] 0.14 2.99 .085 [-0.52, 0.03]
Performance on collaborative
task
0.49 0.76 .383 [-1.40, 0.54] 0.49 0.01 .915 [-1.02, 0.92]
Post-task threat 0.11 0.21 .649 [-0.25, 0.16] 0.11 0.14 .713 [-0.24, 0.17]
Future shared identity 0.13 3.03 .083 [-0.47, 0.03] 0.13 1.62 .205 [-0.09, 0.41]

74
Discussion
Inconsistent with my predictions and Studies 1 and 2, I found that participants from
working-class backgrounds reported greater threat anticipating a cross-class, compared to a
same-class, interaction, and participants from middle-class backgrounds reported similar threat
levels anticipating these two interactions. One potential reason for the divergence in results is the
difference in study modality (i.e., Studies 1 and 2 were run in-person in a lab setting and Study 3
was conducted online). The online or virtual interactions may have made participants’ status
differences more salient than in the face-to-face interactions where both partners are in the same
setting (i.e., on-campus). Specifically, our college student participants may have completed the
study from home, potentially their parents’ or guardians’ home. This setting may have made
salient participants’ different statuses in society based on their family’s social class whereas the
setting of the previous two studies may have made salient participants’ similar current status
based on their position as college students enrolled at the same university. I speculate that the
salience of the partner from a middle-class background’s higher social status may have affected
the threat people anticipated experiencing. Consistent with this, I found that regardless of their
own social class background, participants in the partner from a middle-class background
condition reported overall greater levels of threat in Study 3 compared to Studies 1 and 2.
Additionally, there was a main effect of condition on participants’ perceptions of a future shared
identity, such that participants, regardless of their own social class background, reported less
future shared identity when in the partner from a middle-class background condition than the
partner from a working-class background condition.
In future research, I will continue to explore when and why cross-class interactions are
more threatening than same-class interactions. Specifically, I will examine how online, virtual

75
settings compared to in-person, in-lab settings affect people’s threat in cross-class versus same-
class interactions.
General Discussion
In three time-intensive and high-impact studies, using cardiovascular and self-report
measures, I found some evidence that experiences of threat when anticipating cross-class,
compared to same-class, interactions are not bidirectional (i.e., high-status and low-status groups
do not both experience threat). In Studies 1 and 2, which were conducted in-person in a
laboratory setting, I found that people from middle-class backgrounds experienced greater threat
when anticipating interacting with someone from a lower, versus similar, social class
background. Across these two studies, this finding emerged when using both and the parental
educational attainment measure and the composite measure of social class background. This
experience of greater threat suggests one possible reason why people from middle-class
backgrounds may avoid cross-class interactions. In turn, this avoidance may limit the frequency
of these interactions and the important benefits they can produce (e.g., Carey et al., 2020;
Lessard & Juvonen, 2019). This finding mirrors research showing that members of higher status
racial groups experience greater threat in cross-race versus same-race interactions (e.g.,
Trawalter et al., 2009) and suggests that members of many high-status groups may experience
downward cross-group interactions as threatening.
In contrast, people from working-class backgrounds experienced similar levels of threat
when anticipating interacting with someone from a higher versus similar social class background
in Studies 1 and 2. Again, I found this result in both studies and when using both measures of
social class background. This finding differs from research showing that members of lower status

76
racial groups experience greater threat in cross-race versus same-race interactions (e.g., Page-
Gould et al., 2008; Stephan & Stephan, 1985).
The findings from Study 3, which was conducted in an online setting, were inconsistent
with the findings from Studies 1 and 2. Specifically, in Study 3, I found that people from middle-
class backgrounds experienced similar threat when anticipating interacting with someone from a
lower, versus similar, social class background. In contrast, people from working-class
backgrounds experienced greater levels of threat when anticipating interacting with someone
from a higher versus similar social class background. This suggests that in-person and online
interactions affect people’s experiences of threat differently in cross-class versus same-class
interactions. Although I did not find consistent results in all three of the studies, these results
imply that even though race and social class both confer status and are meaningful social
identities, crossing social class status divides can impact experiences of threat in ways that are
distinct from race.
In the present research, I am the first to directly examine experiences of threat when
anticipating cross-class interactions and make several contributions. First, I contribute to
intergroup relations research by demonstrating that, despite similar status differences, findings
from one type of cross-group interaction may not generalize to another type (Allen & Uskul,
2019; Apfelbaum et al., 2016). Second, by showing that people experience threat prior to cross-
class interactions, this work temporally extends interactions to include the anticipation of them.
Given that cross-group interactions can improve intergroup relations, developing strategies to
reduce this experience of threat during anticipation may play an important role in increasing
cross-class interactions (e.g., Page-Gould et al., 2008). For example, teaching people to
reappraise their physiological arousal as positive or adaptive, which benefits performance under

77
stereotype-threat (e.g., Jamieson et al., 2012), may reduce experiences of threat when
anticipating a cross-class interaction. Finally, I contribute to the literature on the psychology of
social class and reveal that being from working-class backgrounds may buffer people from threat
when crossing the class divide. That is, these findings suggest that people from working-class
backgrounds may be relatively resilient in potentially threatening interpersonal contexts (e.g.,
Townsend et al., 2014).
Limitations and Future Directions
This work also leaves important questions for future research. For instance: why are
people from working-class backgrounds not more threatened when anticipating cross-class
versus same-class interactions? As discussed, given the perceived malleability of social class
(Kraus & Keltner, 2013), it is possible that people from working-class backgrounds may not
believe that they are likely to be targets of prejudice. Additionally, I also theorize that because
people from working-class backgrounds may be more resilient in potentially stressful
interactions (e.g., Townsend et al., 2014), it is possible that they may simply not be threatened by
the notion that they will be targets of prejudice. Another possibility is that people from working-
class backgrounds, particularly college students, have frequent experience with cross-class
interactions. While this is likely, students who are racial minorities are also likely to have
significant cross-race experience, but still show greater threat in cross-race versus same-race
interactions (Plant, 2004; Trawalter et al., 2009). Future work is needed to disentangle these
possibilities.
Additionally, my participants were undergraduates who anticipated interacting with
another student while working on a collaborative task (i.e., a task that requires working with
others towards a shared goal). Collaborative and competitive tasks require different behaviors

78
and are experienced differently (e.g., Dittmann et al., 2020; Kraus & Mendes, 2014).
Importantly, these tasks are not class-neutral. For instance, new research suggests that, compared
to people from middle-class backgrounds, people from working-class backgrounds may be more
practiced at and feel more comfortable when working with others toward a shared goal
(Dittmann et al., 2020). Future research should examine how the level of collaboration versus
competition required by the interaction might affect experiences of threat. Future work might
also fruitfully examine cross-class interactions among non-student samples and in dyads in
which a power difference exists (e.g., supervisor-employee interactions). Finally, my studies
examined experiences of threat when people are anticipating face-to-face cross-class interactions
and not when people are engaging in them. Although I expect that experiences of threat during
anticipation and participation will be highly correlated (Bijleveld et al., 2012), future research
should extend this work to examine these experiences when people are participating in face-to-
face cross-class interactions.
Conclusion
Social class plays an important role in people’s lives (e.g., Bourdieu, 1977; Stephens et
al., 2007) and confers status differences among groups (e.g., Pitesa et al., 2017). Across two
studies, I find that whether an anticipated cross-class interaction is directed up or down the social
class status hierarchy shapes people’s experiences of threat. People from middle-class
backgrounds experience greater threat in cross-class, compared to same-class, interactions.
However, people from working-class backgrounds experience similar levels of threat in cross-
class and same-class interactions. These results suggest that experiences of threat in cross-class
interactions are distinct from cross-race interactions and emphasize the necessity of examining
various social groups in order to fully understand cross-group interactions. Additionally, despite

79
their lower status, people from working-class backgrounds may be undaunted by the prospect of
cross-group interactions and undeterred as they reach across the class divide.

80
CHAPTER 3: POTENTIAL BENEFIT OF WORKING-CLASS BACKGROUNDS:
REDUCED THREAT IN INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION
As they pursue upward mobility, people from working-class backgrounds must
participate in gateway institutions (e.g., four-year colleges and universities, professional white-
collar workplaces). However, in doing so, they face a series of material and psychological
obstacles (e.g., Hall et al., 2014; Pitesa & Pillutla, 2019; Pitesa et al., 2017; Rheinschmidt &
Mendoza-Denton, 2014; Stephens et al., 2014; Tibbetts et al., 2016). One critical source of
disadvantage is cultural mismatch, which is the disconnect between the cultural norms that are
prominent in many gateway institutions and those promoted in working-class contexts (i.e., the
contexts in which people from working-class backgrounds were raised; e.g., Stephens, Fryberg,
et al., 2012; Stephens et al., 2019; Stephens, Townsend, et al., 2012). Specifically, gateway
institutions tend to operate according to independent cultural norms, however, people from
working-class backgrounds are likely to rely on interdependent cultural norms (e.g., Bernstein,
1974; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Stephens, et al., 2014). As a result of this cultural mismatch,
people from working-class backgrounds often experience greater threat and underperform in
gateway institutions relative to those from middle-class backgrounds (e.g., Phillips et al., 2020;
Stephens, Fryberg, et al., 2012).
Independent cultural norms are not inherently better than interdependent cultural norms,
rather they are just predominant in gateway contexts. However, there are other settings or
situations where the demands or requirements are better matched with enacting interdependent
cultural norms than independent cultural norms. That is, although the behaviors and
psychological tendencies associated with independent cultural norms may seem more valuable,
those associated with interdependent cultural norms may be more valuable in specific situations

81
including working with others and interacting with a cross-race partner (e.g., Dittmann et al.,
2020; Townsend et al., 2012). When working with others, behaviors associated with
interdependent cultural norms like coordinating with others, integrating different perspectives,
and sharing relevant information are beneficial (e.g., Hildreth & Anderson, 2016). Thus, these
situations are well-matched with the cultural norms of people from working-class backgrounds.
Indeed, people from working-class backgrounds outperform people from middle-class
backgrounds on tasks that require working with others (Dittmann et al., 2020). Additionally,
Townsend and colleagues (2014) demonstrated that people from working-class backgrounds,
relative to those from middle-class backgrounds, have better experiences in situations where it is
more adaptive to adjust to the situation than to exert influence. Specifically, the authors show
that people from working-class backgrounds experience less threat interacting with a prejudiced
partner than people from middle-class backgrounds (Townsend et al. 2014).
In the current paper, I examine how people’s social class backgrounds affect their
experiences when attempting to resolve interpersonal conflict. In particular, I focus on their
experiences of threat. I theorize that embodying interdependent cultural norms should be helpful
for people’s experiences during interpersonal conflict resolution. The types of behaviors and
psychological tendencies that are beneficial in these situations mirror the types of behaviors and
psychological tendencies that are encouraged by interdependent cultural norms. Research on
social class differences in cultural norms shows that people from working-class backgrounds
grew up in contexts in which these interdependent norms are prevalent. Drawing on this work, I
hypothesize that people from working-class backgrounds will experience less threat during
interpersonal conflict resolution than people from middle-class backgrounds.

82
Social Class Contexts are Cultural Contexts
People’s social class backgrounds, or the social class contexts in which they grew up,
shape what it means to be a “good” person and what normative behaviors and actions are (i.e.,
models of self; Markus & Conner, 2013; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; 2003). Due to differences in
the availability of material and social resources, social class contexts foster particular ways of
being and require different actions to be effective. Middle-class contexts tend to have fewer
environmental constraints and allow individuals more opportunities for choice and control than
working-class contexts (e.g., Kraus et al., 2009). These contexts often promote independent
cultural norms, which emphasize the importance of the individual, influencing the social context,
and standing out from the group (Snibbe & Markus, 2005). In contrast, working-class contexts
tend to have greater environmental constraints and individuals must rely more heavily on others
than those who grew up in middle-class contexts (e.g., Lamont, 2000). These contexts often
promote interdependent cultural norms, which emphasize social relationships, adjusting to the
social context, and resilience.
Although gateway institutions primarily reward and recognize behaviors reflective of
independent cultural norms, both independent and interdependent cultural norms foster adaptive
and important behaviors. Independent cultural norms promote behaviors that are aligned with
actions useful for situations that involve working independently, autonomy, and self-direction
(e.g., Grossmann & Varnum, 2011; Stephens, Fryberg, et al., 2012). Interdependent cultural
norms foster behaviors that match well with the types of behaviors required for situations that
involve working with others, social responsiveness, and being aware of situational constraints
(e.g., Brienza & Grossmann, 2017; Dittmann et al., 2020; Townsend et al., 2012).

83
Situations in which an individual is attempting to resolve an interpersonal conflict may be
a category of interactions that are well-matched with the types of behaviors and psychological
tendencies reflective of interdependent cultural norms. In the next section, I will review research
about the experience of interpersonal conflict and discuss the two common types of interpersonal
conflict. Then, I will review work examining the types of behaviors and psychological
tendencies that are associated with improved experiences and outcomes in interpersonal conflict
resolution. This work provides support for my theorizing that the behaviors and psychological
tendencies associated with positive experiences in interpersonal conflict resolution are similar to
those commonly displayed and enacted by people from working-class backgrounds.
The Experience of Interpersonal Conflict
Interpersonal conflict is common in contexts in which interactions are essential to
organizing members towards a collective goal (e.g., contexts like professional, white-collar
organizations; March & Simon, 1958). Consistent with this, 85% of employees reported
experiencing some conflict at work and 29% reported that they frequently experience conflict
(CPP, 2008). Interpersonal conflict can derive from many sources, but in general, they occur
because of perceived differences in individuals’ interests, needs, or goals (e.g., Barki &
Hartwick, 2004; Chung-Yan & Moeller, 2010; Ilies et al., 2011; Moeller & Kwantes, 2015).
I focus on two of the most frequent types of conflict: task conflict and relationship
conflict (Jehn, 1997). Task conflict arises when there are divergent views, ideas, and thoughts on
task or process issues (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Huang, 2009). Examples of these
include conflict regarding procedures, policies, and opinions. Task conflict is theorized to
enhance team performance under certain conditions by increasing opportunities for participation,
expression of different ideas, and process clarification (e.g., Amason, 1996; Carnevale & Probst,

84
1998; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; De Dreu & West, 2001; McShane & Von Glinow, 2000). In
contrast, relationship conflict occurs when there is a “negative interpersonal encounter
characterized by a contentious exchange, hostility, or aggression” (Ilies et al., 2011, p. 46). This
may include instances of contentious disagreements, incivility (e.g., rude behavior), or
aggressive behaviors (e.g., Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Duffy et al., 2002; Ilies et al., 2011).
Relationship conflict is seen as generally harmful for individuals and teams (Amason, 1996) and
is associated with higher turnover intentions (e.g., Sguera et al., 2016), increased burnout (De
Dreu et al., 2004; Penney & Spector, 2005), and reduced team performance (e.g., Shaw et al.,
2011).
Regardless of the type of interpersonal conflict, people often find resolving interpersonal
conflict threatening (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Ren & Gray, 2009; Schumann, 2019).
That is, they perceive that the demands of the situation (e.g., interpersonal conflict resolution)
exceed their own personal resources (Blascovich & Mendes, 2000; Tomaka et al., 1997).
Moreover, experiencing interpersonal conflict is associated with adverse consequences (e.g.,
Chung-Yan & Moeller, 2010; Spector & Jex, 1998). In fact, interpersonal conflict is often
regarded as one of the most prominent sources of stress for employees (Spector & Bruk-Lee,
2008) and is linked to poor physical health (e.g., headache, trouble sleeping; Cortina, Magley,
Williams & Langhout, 2001; Spector & Jex,1998) and mental health (e.g., depression, anxiety;
Dijkstra et al., 2005; Frone, 2000; Spector and Jex, 1998).
Interdependent Behaviors and Psychological Tendencies Benefit Conflict Resolution
The resolution of interpersonal conflict is complex, and many behaviors and
psychological tendencies can be beneficial. First, there are several behaviors associated with
improved experiences and outcomes in interpersonal conflict resolution including

85
responsiveness, active listening, and integrating different perspectives (e.g., Adams & Inesi,
2016; Finkel, et al., 2002; Halperin, et al., 2014; McCullough, 2008). Further, individuals who
use an integrative conflict management style (i.e., cooperatively explore both parties’ objectives
in order to reach a mutually satisfying resolution; Friedman et al., 2000; Rahim, 2000) and those
who are less likely to exert personal control over the situation (Graziano et al., 1996) also
experience reduced stress when resolving interpersonal conflict. Second, there are also
psychological tendencies that are associated with improved experiences and outcomes in
interpersonal conflict resolution. Individuals with high levels of resilience are buffered from the
negative effects of interpersonal conflict (Lanz & Bruk-Lee, 2017). Additionally, due to
increased concerns about harming the relationship (e.g., Halevy et al., 2012; Nifadkar & Bauer,
2016; Simons & Peterson, 2000), individuals who feel secure about their relationship (e.g.,
Campbell et al., 2005; Simpson et al., 1996) and those who believe that the relationship is long-
term versus short-term (e.g., Adams, 2016; Finkel et al., 2002; McCullough, 2008) tend to fare
better during interpersonal conflict resolution.
Taken together, this work suggests that people who socially engage are likely to
experience relatively low levels of threat during interpersonal conflict resolution. These
behaviors and psychological tendencies are aligned with interdependent cultural norms. As
reviewed above, interdependent cultural norms emphasize connecting with others, being
responsive, and adjusting to the situation (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991; 2010). Therefore,
exhibiting the behaviors and psychological tendencies beneficial in interpersonal conflict
resolution are consistent with living up to these norms.
Given that interdependent cultural norms are common in working-class contexts, people
from working-class backgrounds are relatively comfortable with and likely to enact behaviors

86
and exhibit psychological tendencies consistent with those norms (e.g., Brienza & Grossmann,
2017; Snibbe & Markus, 2005; Stephens et al., 2009; Townsend et al., 2014). For instance,
compared to those from middle-class backgrounds, people from working-class backgrounds are
more likely to socially engage with their partner, empathize with their partner, consider
situational constraints, and integrate their partner’s perspectives (e.g., Brienza & Grossmann,
2017; Côté, 2011; Dietze & Knowles, 2016; Kraus & Keltner, 2009). Further, people from
working-class backgrounds often possess high levels of resilience (e.g., Chen & Miller, 2012).
Finally, individuals from working-class backgrounds tend to see relationships as relatively secure
and enduring (Carey, 2021). Together these findings support my theorizing that people from
working-class backgrounds should have better experiences (i.e., lower levels of threat) in
interpersonal conflict resolution than those from middle-class backgrounds.
Current Research
In the current research, I test my prediction that participants from working-class
backgrounds (vs. middle-class backgrounds) will exhibit lower levels of threat in interpersonal
conflict resolution in four studies. In Study 1a, I examine participants’ experiences of threat
when anticipating conflict resolution in a group setting. I compare undergraduate participants
from working-class and middle-class backgrounds’ reported threat when they anticipate
resolving interpersonal conflict within their teams. In Study 1b, I investigate experiences of
threat when anticipating resolving interpersonal conflict involving workplace incivility. Here, I
compare employees from working-class and middle-class backgrounds’ reported threat when
they anticipate resolving interpersonal conflict with a coworker who acted rude and
unprofessional towards them. In Study 2, I test my hypothesis in the context of resolving task
conflict in a team setting where there were diplomatic disagreements around task process.

87
Finally, in Study 3, I examine social class differences in threat when anticipating resolving task
conflict (i.e., polite and professional disagreement) versus relationship conflict (i.e., rude and
unprofessional disagreement).
Study 1a
Method
Participants
I recruited 343 undergraduate students at a West Coast university to participate in an
online study. Students were compensated with course credit for their participation.
Procedure
Participants were presented with two vignettes (order counterbalanced): one about an
interpersonal conflict interaction and one about a stressful performance situation.
In the interpersonal conflict interaction vignette, participants read: Imagine that you are
on a team with other students for a class project. You notice that there is growing conflict and
tension between some of the members, which has slowed down the project's progress. You decide
to set up a meeting in hopes of resolving this conflict. What are your perceptions about how easy
or difficult this meeting will be for you?
In the stressful performance situation vignette, participants read: Imagine that you are on
a team with other students for a class project. The day of your team project presentation, two of
the five members are not able to come. The group decides how to split up the absent members’
portions of the presentation. You all spend the next few minutes preparing. What are your
perceptions about how easy or difficult it will be for your team to deliver a high-quality
presentation?

88
After each of the two vignettes, participants reported their resources and demands to how
well they thought they would be able to address the situation.
Measures
Social Class Background. I use parental educational attainment as the measure of social
class background because it has been shown to be strongly associated with interdependent and
independent cultural norms and its associated psychological tendencies (e.g., Dittmann et al.,
2020; Snibbe & Markus, 2005; Stephens et al., 2014). Specifically, I categorize participants who
indicated that neither parent had a 4-year degree as participants from working-class backgrounds
and those who indicated that at least one parent had a 4-year degree as participants from middle-
class backgrounds.
Threat. To measure threat, participants reported their demand and resource appraisals on
4 items adapted from Mendes et al. (2007). Two items assessed demand appraisals (e.g., “This
task is threatening”). Two items assessed resource appraisals (e.g., “This task is a positive
challenge”). Participants responded using a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Following Mendes and colleagues (2007), I created a threat ratio by dividing demand appraisals
by resource appraisals. Larger values on this ratio indicate greater threat, M = 0.99, SD = 0.73.
Results
Analysis Plan
I conducted 2 (participant social class background: working-class vs. middle-class
background) by 2 (condition: interpersonal conflict vs. stressful performance situation) repeated
measures ANCOVA analyses controlling for gender (0 = female, 1 = male), race (0 = non-White,
1 = White), and year in school as covariates. In Table 10, I provide a summary of the statistical
results. I also report simple effect results in Table 11.

89
Table 10.
Results of Repeated Measures ANCOVAs for Dependent Variables (Study 1a)
Dependent Variables
df F p ηp
2

Threat ratio
Gender 1 4.30 .039 .013
Race 1 0.58 .449 .002
Year in School 1 5.65 .018 .016
Social Class Background 1 0.60 .439 .002
Condition 1 0.55 .457 .002
Condition  Social Class Background 1 2.78 .096 .008
Resource appraisal
Gender 1 4.07 .044 .012
Race 1 0.20 .659 .001
Year in School 1 4.09 .044 .012
Social Class Background 1 0.56 .455 .002
Condition 1 3.46 .064 .010
Condition  Social Class Background 1 3.26 .072 .010
Demand appraisal
Gender 1 5.66 .018 .016
Race 1 0.01 .907 <.001
Year in School 1 0.05 .816 <.001
Social Class Background 1 3.90 .049 .011
Condition 1 2.54 .112 .007
Condition  Social Class Background 1 3.48 .063 .010
Note. Condition (0 = interpersonal conflict, 1 = stressful performance) by participants’ social
class background (0 = working-class background, 1 = middle-class background) interaction
controlling for gender (0 = female, 1 = male), race (0 = non-White, 1 = White), and year in
school.

Threat
There was no significant main effect of condition, F (1, 338) = 0.55, ηp
2
= .002, p = .457,

90
and no significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (1, 338) = 0.60, ηp
2
=
.002, p = .439. Importantly, there was a marginally significant interaction of condition
(interpersonal conflict vs. stressful performance situation) by participants’ social class
background (working-class vs. middle-class), F (1, 338) = 2.78, ηp
2
= .008, p = .096 (see Figure
4). Specifically, consistent with my predictions, participants from working-class backgrounds
reported feeling lower threat in stressful interpersonal situations than participants from middle-
class backgrounds, F (1, 338) = 3.84, p = .051, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.00]. In contrast, participants
from working-class and middle-class backgrounds reported similar levels of threat in stressful
performance situations, F (1, 338) = 0.12, p = .735, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.26].

91
Figure 4.
Threat Ratio Results (Chapter 3, Study 1a)

Note. Reported threat regarding the anticipated interaction as a function of condition (0 =
interpersonal conflict, 1 = stressful performance) and participant social class background (0 =
participants from working-class backgrounds, 1 = participants from middle-class backgrounds)
controlling for gender (0 = female, 1 = male), race (0 = non-White, 1 = White), and year in
school. Larger values indicate greater threat.
†
p < .10.

Discussion
Consistent with my predictions, participants from working-class backgrounds reported
less threat when anticipating an interpersonal conflict resolution than participants from middle-
class backgrounds. In contrast, participants from working-class and middle-class backgrounds
reported similar threat levels in a stressful performance situation. This finding indicates that
interdependent cultural norms are helpful for improving people from working-class
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
Interpersonal Conflict Stressful Performance
Threat
Condition
Working-Class Background Middle-Class Background
F = 0.12
F = 3.84
†

92
backgrounds’ experiences when resolving conflict between two team members in a group
setting. In Study 1b, I extend this finding to a different setting using participants who are
working adults. Specifically, I examine employees’ experiences of threat when they anticipate
resolving an interpersonal conflict involving workplace incivility.

93
9i
Table 11.
Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Participant Social Class Background within Condition (Study 1a)

Task Conflict Condition Stressful Performance Condition
Dependent Variable SE F p ηp
2
SE F p ηp
2

Threat ratio 0.08 3.84 .051 .011 0.11 0.12 .735 <.001
Resource appraisal 0.10 2.55 .111 .007 0.11 0.09 .761 <.001
Demand appraisal 0.13 7.24 .007 .021 0.13 0.62 .434 .002

94
Study 1b
Method
Participants
Participants were employees of various organizations asked to complete an online survey.
I recruited these participants by asking undergraduate students at a West Coast university to
provide email addresses of one target working adult, the target’s supervisor, and the target’s co-
worker to participate in an online study. Students were compensated with course credit for their
participation. There was a total of 535 employees who participated (46% female, Mage = 44.4
years). Eighty-eight participants did not respond to all the measures. Thus, our final sample size
was 447 participants. Participants were employees or managers in various U.S. industries, such
as finance, education, and manufacturing.
Procedure
Participants were presented with two vignettes (order counterbalanced). One vignette
described an interaction with interpersonal conflict (i.e., interpersonal conflict condition). The
other vignette described a stressful performance situation (i.e., stressful performance condition).
In the interaction with interpersonal conflict vignette, participants read: Imagine that you
recently encountered a coworker who behaved in a way that you believe is rude and
unprofessional. You decide to talk to this coworker to share your perspective, address this issue,
and hopefully move forward in a positive direction. What are your perceptions about how easy
or difficult this conversation will be for you?
In the stressful performance situation vignette, participants read: Imagine that you have
been working on an important presentation all week and will be delivering this presentation in
just one day. You then learn that much of the data upon which you based your analysis and

95
recommendations were incorrect. As a result, you have to redo a week’s worth of work in a day.
What are your perceptions about how easy or difficult it will be for you to deliver a high-quality
presentation to your client?
After each of the two vignettes, participants reported their resources and demands to how
well they thought they would be able to address the situation.
Measures
Social Class Background. Similar to previous studies, I use parental educational
attainment as the measure of social class background. Specifically, I categorize participants who
indicated that neither parent had a 4-year degree as participants from working-class backgrounds
(n = 209) and those who indicated that at least one parent had a 4-year degree as participants
from middle-class backgrounds (n = 261).
Threat. I measured threat by having participants report their demand and resource
appraisals on 10 items adapted from Mendes et al. (2007). Five items assessed demand appraisals
(e.g., “This task is threatening”). Five items assessed resource appraisals (e.g., “This task is a
positive challenge”). Participants responded using a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). I created a threat ratio by dividing demand appraisals by resource appraisals. Larger
values on this ratio indicate greater threat, M = 0.71, SD = 0.33.
Results
Analysis Plan
I conducted 2 (participant social class background: working-class vs. middle-class
background) by 2 (condition: interpersonal conflict vs. stressful performance situation) repeated
measures ANCOVA controlling for gender (0 = female, 1 = male), race (0 = non-White, 1 =

96
White), age, and employee type (0 = employee, 1 = supervisor) as covariates. In Table 12, I
provide a summary of the statistical results. I also report simple effects results in Table 13.

97
Table 12.
Results of Repeated Measures ANCOVAs for Dependent Variables (Study 1b)
Dependent Variables
df F p ηp
2

Threat ratio
Gender 1 0.02 .904 .000
Race 1 0.37 .542 .001
Age 1 1.94 .164 .004
Employee Type 1 3.40 .066 .007
Social Class Background 1 1.15 .284 .003
Condition 1 38.27 <.001 .078
Condition  Social Class Background 1 4.77 .029 .010
Resource appraisal
Gender 1 0.08 .776 <.001
Race 1 0.00 .995 <.001
Age 1 3.48 .063 .008
Employee Type 1 1.40 .237 .003
Social Class Background 1 0.41 .522 .001
Condition 1 4.08 .044 .009
Condition  Social Class Background 1 6.85 .009 .015
Demand reappraisal
Gender 1 0.02 .886 <.001
Race 1 0.43 .513 .001
Age 1 0.02 .888 <.001
Employee Type 1 2.90 .089 .006
Social Class Background 1 5.55 .019 .012
Condition 1 54.08 <.001 .107
Condition  Social Class Background 1 1.403 .237 .003
Note. Condition (0 = interpersonal conflict, 1 = stressful performance) by participants’ social
class background (0 = working-class background, 1 = middle-class background) interaction
controlling for gender (0 = female, 1 = male), race (0 = non-White, 1 = White), age, and
employee type (0 = employee, 1 = supervisor).

98
Threat
There was a significant main effect of condition, F (1, 453) = 38.27, ηp
2
= .078, p < .001,
such that participants reported greater threat in the interpersonal conflict condition than the
stressful performance condition. There was no significant main effect of participants’ social class
background, F (1, 453) = 1.15, ηp
2
= .003, p = .284. Consistent with my predictions, I found a
significant interaction of condition (interpersonal conflict vs. stressful performance situation) by
participants’ social class background (working-class vs. middle-class), F (1, 452) = 4.77, ηp
2
=
.010, p = .029 (see Figure 5). Specifically, participants from working-class backgrounds reported
feeling lower threat in stressful interpersonal situations than participants from middle-class
backgrounds, F (1, 452) = 4.48, p = .035, 95% CI [-0.13, -0.01]. In contrast, participants from
working-class and middle-class backgrounds reported similar levels of threat in stressful
performance situations, F (1, 452) = 0.27, p = .601, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.07].

99
Figure 5.
Threat Ratio Results (Chapter 3, Study 1b)

Note. Reported threat regarding the anticipated interaction as a function of condition (0 =
interpersonal conflict, 1 = stressful performance) and participant social class background (0 =
participants from working-class backgrounds, 1 = participants from middle-class backgrounds)
controlling for gender (0 = female, 1 = male), race (0 = non-White, 1 = White), age, and
employee type (0 = employee, 1 = supervisor). Larger values indicate greater threat. * p < .05.

0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
Interpersonal Conflict Stressful Performance
Threat
Condition
Working-Class Background Middle-Class Background
F = 0.27
F = 4.48*

100

Table 13.
Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Participant Social Class Background within Condition (Study 1b)
Interpersonal Conflict Condition Stressful Performance Condition
Dependent Variable SE F p ηp
2
SE F p ηp
2

Threat ratio 0.03 4.48 .035 .010 0.03 0.27 .601 .001
Resource appraisal 0.09 0.88 .350 .002 0.09 4.19 .041 .009
Demand appraisal 0.13 5.53 .019 .012 0.10 2.03 .155 .004

101
Discussion
Consistent with my predictions and Study 1a, participants from working-class
backgrounds reported less threat when anticipating interpersonal conflict resolution than
participants from middle-class backgrounds. In contrast, participants from working-class and
middle-class backgrounds reported similar levels of threat in a stressful performance situation.
Together, findings from Studies 1a and 1b suggests that participants from working-class
backgrounds’ interdependent cultural norms help improve their experiences when resolving
interpersonal conflict stemming from disagreement between two individuals and incivility.
However, one limitation of these studies is that the interpersonal conflict scenarios have elements
of task and relationship conflict, and it is unclear whether the different types of conflict matter
for the threat effect. It is possible that interdependent cultural norms offer greater benefits for one
type of conflict resolution situation than another type. Therefore, in Study 2, I examine whether
these results replicate when the interpersonal conflict reflects primarily task conflict.
Study 2
Method
Participants
I recruited 359 undergraduate students at a West Coast university to participate in an
online study. Students were compensated with course credit for their participation.
Procedure
Participants were presented with two vignettes (order counterbalanced): one about a task
conflict interaction (i.e., task conflict condition) and one about a stressful time management
situation (i.e., stressful time management condition).

102
In the task conflict interaction condition, participants read: Imagine that for one of your
Marshall classes, you are assigned a semester-long group project with four other undergraduate
students. This project accounts for most of your grade. The main objective of the project is to
profile company leaders and examine different leadership styles and strategies. Your group has a
meeting to discuss the topic and which companies to examine. During this meeting, there is a big
disagreement over whether your group project should examine established leaders in large,
Fortune 500 companies or entrepreneurial leaders in small, start-up companies. This quickly
turns into conflict over different ideas about what should be done to earn a high grade on the
project. What are your perceptions about how easy or difficult managing this conflict will be for
you?
In the stressful time management situation condition, participants read: Imagine that it is
the second to last week of the semester. You know that during finals week you have three papers
due and two final exams. So, you want to be sure to start preparing early and not procrastinate.
In addition to working on the papers, you also start studying for the exams. In reviewing the
paper requirements and the course materials for the exams, you learn that they are more
extensive than you expected. You realize that you’re not sure how you can get everything done in
time and still get good grades. You will have to determine which paper(s) or exam to prioritize.
What are your perceptions about how easy or difficult it will be for you to prioritize the time you
spend on different exams and papers?
Again, after each of the two vignettes, participants reported their resources and demands
when addressing the situation. After, participants reported the likelihood that they would act, the
importance of figuring out a solution, and their physical and behavioral reactions to the situation.
Measures

103
Social Class Background. Similar to Studies 1a and 1b, I use parental educational
attainment as the measure of social class background and categorize participants who indicated
that neither parent had a 4-year degree as participants from working-class backgrounds and those
who indicated that at least one parent had a 4-year degree as participants from middle-class
backgrounds.
Threat. Similar to previous studies, I measured threat by having participants report their
demand and resource appraisals on 10 items adapted from Mendes et al. (2007), using a scale of
1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Then, I created a threat ratio by dividing demand
appraisals by resource appraisals. Larger values on this ratio indicate greater threat, M = 0.99, SD
= 0.73.
Likelihood to Act. To measure how likely participants would act in the situation, they
responded to 1 item using the scale of 1 (not at all likely) to 7 (very likely), M = 5.00, SD = 1.55
(Task Conflict Condition), M = 5.32, SD = 1.70 (Stressful Time Management Condition). In the
task conflict condition, the item was: “How likely are you to take action in this situation (e.g.,
schedule another time for the team to discuss further, seek advice from the TA, or another
action)?” In the stressful time management condition, the item was: “How likely are you to take
action in this situation (e.g., create a study plan, seek advice from the TA, or another action)?”
Importance of Solution. To measure how important participants thought it was to find a
solution, they responded to 1 item using the scale of 1 (not at all important) to 7 (very
important), M = 5.83 SD = 1.25 (Task Conflict Condition), M = 6.16, SD = 1.10 (Stressful Time
Management Condition). The item was: “How important is it to you to figure out a solution in
this situation?”

104
Physiological Reactions. To measure participants’ physiological reactions, I used 3
items from Halevy et al. (2012). Specifically, I instructed them to indicate the extent to which the
situation would cause them to “lose sleep,” “cry,” and “lose your appetite” using the scale of 1
(not at all) to 7 (very much),  = .861, M = 1.55, SD = 0.81 (Task Conflict Condition),  = .669,
M = 2.85, SD = 1.13 (Stressful Time Management Condition).
Behavioral Reactions. To measure participants’ behavioral reactions, I used 2 items
from Halevy et al. (2012). Specifically, I instructed them to indicate the extent to which the
situation would cause them to “eat comfort foods” and “eat sweets” using the scale of 1 (not at
all) to 7 (very much), r = .749, M = 1.57, SD = 0.87 (Task Conflict Condition), r = .857, M =
2.70, SD = 1.06 (Stressful Time Management Condition).
Results
Analysis Plan
I conducted 2 (participant social class background: working-class vs. middle-class
background) by 2 (condition: task conflict vs. stressful time management) repeated measures
ANCOVA controlling for gender (0 = female, 1 = male), race (0 = non-White, 1 = White), and
year in school as covariates. In Table 14, I provide a summary of the statistical results. I also
report simple effects results in Table 15.

105
Table 14.
Results of Repeated Measures ANCOVAs for Dependent Variables (Study 2)
Dependent Variables
df F p ηp
2

Threat ratio
Gender 1 0.00 .976 <.001
Race 1 7.19 .008 .020
Year in School 1 0.03 .873 <.001
Social Class Background 1 0.14 .713 <.001
Condition 1 9.16 .003 .025
Condition  Social Class Background 1 0.07 .795 <.001
Resource appraisal
Gender 1 1.94 .165 .005
Race 1 2.27 .133 .006
Year in School 1 0.45 .501 .001
Social Class Background 1 3.07 .080 .009
Condition 1 2.78 .096 .008
Condition  Social Class Background 1 0.06 .807 <.001
Demand appraisal
Gender 1 0.06 .800 <.001
Race 1 8.38 .004 .023
Year in School 1 1.04 .310 .003
Social Class Background 1 0.41 .525 .001
Condition 1 7.93 .005 .022
Condition  Social Class Background 1 0.05 .825 <.001
Likelihood to act
Gender 1 15.93 <.001 .043
Race 1 1.45 .229 .004
Year in School 1 3.30 .070 .009
Social Class Background 1 0.80 .373 .002
Condition 1 1.55 .214 .004
Condition  Social Class Background 1 0.15 .702 <.001
Importance of solution
Gender 1 5.83 .016 .016
Race 1 0.00 .968 <.001
Year in School 1 6.74 .010 .019

106
Social Class Background 1 1.13 .289 .003
Condition 1 0.00 .985 <.001
Condition  Social Class Background 1 1.78 .183 .005
Physiological reactions
Gender 1 37.26 <.001 .095
Race 1 4.11 .043 .011
Year in School 1 2.87 .091 .008
Social Class Background 1 2.32 .129 .006
Condition 1 143.79 <.001 .289
Condition  Social Class Background 1 1.01 .315 .003
Behavioral reactions
Gender 1 13.40 <.001 .036
Race 1 8.02 .005 .022
Year in School 1 0.10 .750 <.001
Social Class Background 1 0.48 .488 .001
Condition 1 40.20 <.001 .102
Condition  Social Class Background 1 2.98 .085 .008
Note. Condition (0 = task conflict, 1 = stressful time management) by participants’ social class
background (0 = participants from working-class backgrounds, 1 = participants from middle-
class backgrounds) interaction controlling for gender (0 = female, 1 = male), race (0 = non-
White, 1 = White), and year in school.

107
Threat
There was a significant main effect of condition, F (1, 354) = 9.16, ηp
2
= .025, p = .003,
such that the participants indicated lower levels of threat in the task conflict condition than the
stressful time management condition. There was no significant main effect of participants’ social
class background, F (1, 354) = 0.14, ηp
2
< .001, p = .713, and no significant interaction of
condition (task conflict vs. stressful time management) by participants’ social class background
(working-class vs. middle-class), F (1, 354) = 0.07, ηp
2
< .001, p = .795 (see Figure 6). Further,
there was no significant social class background difference in the task conflict condition, F (1,
354) = 0.27, ηp
2
= .001, p = .602, nor in the stressful management condition, F (1, 354) = 0.01,
ηp
2
< .001, p = .911.

Figure 6.
Threat Ratio Results (Chapter 3, Study 1b)

Note. Reported threat regarding the anticipated interaction as a function of condition (0 =
interpersonal conflict, 1 = stressful performance) and participant social class background (0 =
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
Task Conflict Stressful Time Management
Threat
Condition
Working-Class Background Middle-Class Background
F = 0.01
F = 0.27

108
participants from working-class backgrounds, 1 = participants from middle-class backgrounds)
controlling for gender (0 = female, 1 = male), race (0 = non-White, 1 = White), and year in
school. Larger values indicate greater threat.

Likelihood to Act
There was no significant main effect of condition, F (1, 354) = 1.55, ηp
2
= .004, p = .214,
no significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (1, 354) = 0.80, ηp
2
= .002,
p = .373, and no significant interaction of condition by participants’ social class background, F
(1, 354) = 0.15, ηp
2
< .001, p = .702.
Importance of Solution
There was no significant main effect of condition, F (1, 354) = 0.00, ηp
2
< .001, p = .985,
no significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (1, 354) = 1.13, ηp
2
= .003,
p = .289, and no significant interaction of condition by participants’ social class background, F
(1, 354) = 1.78, ηp
2
= .005, p = .183.
Physiological Reactions
There was a significant main effect of condition, F (1, 354) = 143.79, ηp
2
= .289, p <
.001, such that the participants indicated anticipating having less physiological reactions in the
task conflict condition than the stressful time management condition. There was no significant
main effect of participants’ social class background, F (1, 354) = 2.32, ηp
2
= .006, p = .129, and
no significant interaction of condition by participants’ social class background, F (1, 354) = 1.01,
ηp
2
= .003, p = .315.
Behavioral Reactions

109
There was a significant main effect of condition, F (1, 354) = 40.20, ηp
2
= .102, p < .001,
such that the participants indicated lower levels of anticipated behavioral reactions of eating
comfort foods in the task conflict condition than the stressful time management condition. There
was no significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (1, 354) = 0.481, ηp
2
=
.001, p = .488. However, there was a marginally significant interaction of condition by
participants’ social class background, F (1, 354) = 2.98, ηp
2
= .008, p = .085. Specifically,
participants from working-class backgrounds (M = 1.79, SD = 1.06) reported marginally greater
levels of anticipated behavioral reactions of eating comfort foods than participants from middle-
class backgrounds (M = 1.61, SD = 0.96) in the task conflict condition, F (1, 354) = 2.90, ηp
2
=
.008, p = .089. Participants from working-class and middle-class backgrounds reported similar
levels of anticipated behavioral reactions in the stressful management condition, F (1, 354) =
0.09, ηp
2
< .001, p = .761.

110
Table 15.
Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Participant Social Class Background within Condition (Study 2)

Task Conflict Condition Stressful Time Management Condition
Dependent Variable SE F p ηp
2
SE F p ηp
2

Threat ratio 0.03 0.27 .602 .001 0.04 0.01 .911 <.001
Resource appraisal 0.10 2.13 .146 .006 0.11 2.33 .128 .007
Demand appraisal 0.13 0.17 .681 <.001 0.13 0.40 .525 .001
Likelihood to act 0.17 0.97 .325 .003 0.18 0.23 .635 .001
Importance of solution 0.09 0.03 .866 <.001 0.10 2.95 .087 .008
Physiological reactions 0.09 0.67 .412 .002 0.10 2.87 .091 .008
Behavioral reactions 0.11 2.90 .089 .008 0.13 0.09 .761 <.001

111
Discussion
Participants from working-class and middle-class backgrounds reported similar levels of
threat in both the task conflict condition and the stressful time management condition. In
addition, participants reported greater threat in the stressful time management condition than in
the task conflict condition overall. This finding suggests that interdependent cultural norms may
not be particularly helpful for improving people from working-class backgrounds’ experiences of
threat in task conflict resolution. I found no significant effects predicting likelihood to act nor
perceived importance of finding a solution. I found greater anticipated physiological and
behavioral reactions in the stressful time management condition than in the task conflict
condition for all participants regardless of social class background. Finally, I found that
participants from working-class backgrounds reported anticipating greater behavioral reactions
than participants from middle-class backgrounds in the task conflict condition. Although this was
a marginally significant effect, it may suggest that people from working-class backgrounds
exhibit stronger behavioral reactions than people from middle-class backgrounds in task conflict
despite similar levels of threat.
One limitation of this study is that the task conflict described in the scenario had
relatively low levels of conflict and occurred at the group level. It is possible that the behaviors
associated with interdependent cultural norms are more aligned for resolving interpersonal
conflict that is characterized as moderate or high intensity and occurring at a dyadic level. It is
also possible that although resolving task and relationship conflict generally requires similar
behaviors (e.g., Canary, 2003), the behaviors necessary for resolving relationship conflict may be
particularly well-matched with interdependent cultural norms. One reason for this is that relative
to relationship conflict, task conflict involves some independence as it requires focusing on and

112
asserting one’s personal preferences or opinions regarding the task (e.g., De Dreu & West, 2001;
Jehn, 1995). Thus, the social class background difference in experiences of threat may be
stronger when resolving relationship conflict compared to task conflict.
In Study 3, I compare experiences of threat when anticipating resolving task conflict
versus relationship conflict that is characterized by moderate levels of interpersonal conflict.
Specifically, in the task conflict condition, participants read a hypothetical scenario about how
they and another team member have a disagreement regarding the task. In the relationship
conflict condition, participants read about how they and another team member have a
disagreement that is contentious and personal.
Study 3
Method
Participants
I recruited 734 participants from Prime Panels. I excluded 214 participants who failed the
manipulation check (significant differences by condition, 
2
(1, N = 742) = 37.09, p < .001). The
final sample was 528 participants.
Procedure
Participants first read that they were assigned the role of an employee at a fictitious
organization who is a member of a team tasked with exploring the implications of a possible new
organizational policy. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: task
conflict condition, relationship conflict condition, or presentation condition.
In the task conflict condition, participants read: During the meeting, you openly disagree
with another team member’s opinion about the policy. The other team member, Alex, tries to
convince you and the other team members that there are more cons than pros to the new social

113
media policy. You try to convince Alex and the other team members that there are more actually
more pros than cons. During the discussion, you and Alex remain professional and polite. After
the meeting concludes, you decide to talk to Alex to address the conflict over whether to adopt
the policy and hopefully move forward in a positive direction.
In the relationship conflict condition, participants read: During the meeting, you and
another team member named Alex openly disagree and harshly criticize one another. Alex
accuses you of being careless and not considering all aspects of the situation. You accuse Alex of
being oblivious and closed-minded. At times during the contentious discussion, both you and
Alex are unprofessional and spend more time being rude to each other than actually addressing
the issues. After the meeting concludes, you decide to talk to Alex to address the personality
conflict and hopefully move forward in a positive direction.
In the presentation condition, participants read: During the meeting, you learn that you
will need to prepare a presentation about the implications of adopting the new social media
policy. The presentation will need to summarize the information and research you have collected
about the new social media policy. You will deliver your presentation to the other team
members. After the meeting concludes, you begin work on your presentation and hope that it will
be helpful in moving the team forward in a positive direction.
After reading the scenario, participants reported their threat and manipulation check.
They also indicated their anticipated burnout, impact on work, turnover intentions, likelihood to
engage in counterproductive work behavior, and perceptions regarding the scenario.
Measures
Social Class Background. Similar to previous studies, I use parental educational
attainment as the measure of social class background and categorize participants who indicated

114
that neither parent had a 4-year degree as participants from working-class backgrounds (n = 347)
and those who indicated that at least one parent had a 4-year degree as participants from middle-
class backgrounds (n = 171).
Manipulation Check. To ensure that the manipulation was effective, participants were
asked to indicate which of the following best described the scenario. Participants saw the
following three choices: “It was about professional and polite disagreement over the new social
media policy,” “It was about unprofessional and rude disagreement over the new social media
policy,” and “It was about giving a presentation about the possible implications of adopting the
new social media policy.”
Threat. Similar to previous studies, threat was measured using 10 items adapted from
Mendes et al. (2007). Again, I created a threat ratio by dividing demand appraisals by resource
appraisals. Larger values on this ratio indicate greater threat, M = 0.96, SD = 0.57.
Burnout. To measure how much participants would anticipate feeling burned out as the
employee in the vignette, they responded to 6 items adapted from Maslach & Jackson (1981)
using the scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree),  = .920, M = 3.77, SD = 1.54. An
example item is: “[I would feel] emotionally drained.”
Impact on Work. To measure how much participants anticipate the situation to
negatively impact their work, they responded to 2 items adapted from Geurts et al. (2005) using
the scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), r = .625, M = 3.35, SD = 1.68. The items
were: “[This situation would probably cause me to] be distracted when completing work tasks
for the rest of the workday” and “[This situation would probably cause me to] not feel like
coming into work the next day.”

115
Turnover Intention. To measure how much participants would anticipate quitting their
job after their experience in the vignette, they responded to 1 item adapted from Begley &
Czajka (1993) using the scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), M = 2.42, SD = 1.71.
The item was, “[This situation would probably cause me to] consider quitting my job at CloutCo,
if I could find another job quickly.”
Counterproductive Work Behavior. To measure how much participants would exhibit
counterproductive work behaviors after their experience in the vignette, they responded to 3
items adapted from Spector et al. (2010) using the scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree),  = .857, M = 2.80, SD = 1.56. An example item is, “[This situation would probably
cause me to] comment on the little things that bother me at work.”
Perceived Ability to Succeed on Task. To measure participants’ perceived ability to
succeed on the task described in the scenario, they responded to 1 question using the scale of 1
(not at all likely) to 7 (very much likely), M = 5.10, SD = 1.50. In the task conflict and
relationship conflict condition, the question was: “How likely are you to be able to resolve the
conflict between you and Alex?“ In the presentation condition, the item was: “How likely are
you to be able to give an informative presentation in front of your team?“
Task Importance. To measure how important or serious participants thought the task
was, they responded to 1 item using the scale of 1 (not at all [serious/important]) to 7 (very
[serious/important]), M = 4.69, SD = 1.82. In the task conflict and relationship conflict
conditions, the item was: “How serious do you think the conflict between you and Alex is?“ In
the presentation condition, the item was: “How important do you think the task of delivering a
high-quality presentation is?“

116
Task Typicality. To measure how typical participants think the situation described in the
scenario is, they responded to 1 item using the scale of 1 (not at all common) to 7 (very
common), M = 5.01, SD = 1.47. In the task conflict and relationship conflict conditions, the item
was: “How common do you think the conflict between you and Alex is at most workplaces?“ In
the presentation condition, the item was: “How common do you think your task of delivering a
presentation is at most workplaces?”
Results
Analysis Plan
I conducted 2 (participant social class background: working-class vs. middle-class) by 3
(condition: task conflict vs. relationship conflict vs. presentation) ANCOVA controlling for
gender (0 = female, 1 = male), race (0 = non-White, 1 = White), age, and white-collar experience
as covariates. In Table 16, I provide a summary of the statistical results. I also report simple
effects results in Table 17.

117
Table 16.
Results of ANCOVAs for Dependent Variables (Study 3)
Dependent Variables
df F p ηp
2

Threat ratio
Gender 1 0.68 .411 .001
Race 1 2.20 .139 .004
Age 1 0.00 .981 <.001
White-Collar Experience 1 18.74 <.001 .036
Condition 2 4.19 .016 .016
Social Class Background 1 1.97 .161 .004
Condition  Social Class Background 2 0.44 .641 .002
Resource appraisal
Gender 1 0.36 .551 .001
Race 1 1.17 .281 .004
Age 1 0.01 .906 <.001
White-Collar Experience 1 1.46 .229 .005
Condition 2 1.98 .161 .007
Social Class Background 1 1.88 .171 .007
Condition  Social Class Background 2 0.36 .551 .001
Demand appraisal
Gender 1 0.05 .827 <.001
Race 1 0.03 .868 <.001
Age 1 0.28 .601 .001
White-Collar Experience 1 7.38 .007 .026
Condition 2 2.68 .103 .010
Social Class Background 1 3.18 .076 .012
Condition  Social Class Background 2 0.05 .827 <.001
Burnout
Gender 1 8.00 .005 .016
Race 1 2.84 .093 .006
Age 1 8.51 .004 .016
White-Collar Experience 1 5.41 .020 .011
Condition 2 13.72 <.001 .051
Social Class Background 1 0.97 .324 .002
Condition  Social Class Background 2 0.10 .903 <.001

118
Impact on work
Gender 1 1.03 .311 .002
Race 1 0.10 .752 <.001
Age 1 21.65 <.001 .041
White-Collar Experience 1 5.97 .015 .012
Condition 2 6.23 .002 .024
Social Class Background 1 0.69 .408 .001
Condition  Social Class Background 2 0.23 .796 .001
Turnover intention
Gender 1 0.00 .954 <.001
Race 1 0.42 .516 .001
Age 1 32.11 <.001 .060
White-Collar Experience 1 0.49 .484 .001
Condition 2 3.31 .037 .013
Social Class Background 1 0.38 .536 .001
Condition  Social Class Background 2 1.16 .315 .005
Counterproductive work behaviors
Gender 1 1.23 .267 .002
Race 1 4.58 .033 .009
Age 1 57.05 <.001 .101
White-Collar Experience 1 0.02 .887 <.001
Condition 2 3.83 .022 .015
Social Class Background 1 0.00 .961 <.001
Condition  Social Class Background 2 0.33 .720 .001
Perceived ability to succeed on task
Gender 1 1.50 .221 .003
Race 1 2.97 .085 .006
Age 1 0.47 .493 .001
White-Collar Experience 1 37.40 <.001 .069
Condition 2 2.68 .070 .010
Social Class Background 1 0.97 .324 .002
Condition  Social Class Background 2 1.16 .313 .005
Task importance
Gender 1 3.90 .049 .008
Race 1 1.86 .174 .004
Age 1 0.48 .487 .001
White-Collar Experience 1 3.67 .056 .007
Condition 2 126.39 <.001 .333

119
Social Class Background 1 1.07 .302 .002
Condition  Social Class Background 2 2.08 .126 .008
Task typicality
Gender 1 0.07 .793 <.001
Race 1 3.12 .078 .006
Age 1 3.78 .052 .007
White-Collar Experience 1 5.50 .019 .011
Condition 2 0.28 .758 .001
Social Class Background 1 0.21 .648 <.001
Condition  Social Class Background 2 0.07 .937 <.001
Note. Condition (0 = task conflict, 1 = relationship conflict, 2 = presentation) by participants’
social class background (0 = participants from working-class backgrounds, 1 = participants from
middle-class backgrounds) interaction controlling for gender (0 = female, 1 = male), race (0 =
non-White, 1 = White), age, and white-collar experience.

Manipulation Check
The analysis on the manipulation check revealed that the manipulation was not effective,
particularly for the task conflict and relationship conflict conditions. Specifically, 65% of
participants in the task conflict condition, 63% of participants in the relationship conflict
condition, and 86% of participants in the presentation condition correctly indicated what their
scenario described. As mentioned above, there were significant differences by condition, 
2
(1, N
= 742) = 37.09, p < .001. Despite the significant difference, I conducted the analyses excluding
participants who failed the manipulation check. The pattern and direction of results remain
unchanged when including these participants.
Threat
There was a significant main effect of condition, F (508) = 4.19, ηp
2
= .016, p = .016, but
no significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (508) = 1.97, ηp
2
= .004, p =

120
.161, nor a significant interaction of condition (task conflict vs. relationship conflict vs.
presentation) by participants’ social class background (working-class vs. middle-class), F (1,
507) = 0.44, ηp
2
= .002, p = .641 (see Figure 7).

Figure 7.
Threat Ratio Results (Chapter 3, Study 3)

Note. Reported threat regarding the anticipated interaction as a function of condition (0 = task
conflict, 1 = relationship conflict, 2 = presentation) and participant social class background (0 =
participants from working-class backgrounds, 1 = participants from middle-class backgrounds)
controlling for gender (0 = female, 1 = male), race (0 = non-White, 1 = White), age, and white-
collar experience. Larger values indicate greater threat.

0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
Task Conflict Relationship Conflict Presentation
Threat
Condition
Working-Class Background Middle-Class Background
F = 0.74
F = 2.13
F = 0.03

121
Burnout
There was a significant main effect of condition, F (508) = 13.72, ηp
2
= .051, p < .001,
but no significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (508) = 0.97, ηp
2
= .002,
p = .324, nor a significant interaction of condition by participants’ social class background, F (1,
507) = 0.10, ηp
2
< .001, p = .903.
Impact on Work
There was a significant main effect of condition, F (508) = 6.23, ηp
2
= .024, p = .002, but
no significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (508) = 0.69, ηp
2
= .001, p =
.408, nor a significant interaction of condition by participants’ social class background, F (1,
507) = 0.23, ηp
2
= .001, p = .796.
Turnover Intention
There was a significant main effect of condition, F (508) = 3.31, ηp
2
= .013, p = .037, but
no significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (508) = 0.38, ηp
2
= .001, p =
.536, nor a significant interaction of condition by participants’ social class background, F (1,
507) = 1.16, ηp
2
= .005, p = .315.
Counterproductive Work Behavior
There was a significant main effect of condition, F (508) = 3.83, ηp
2
= .015, p = .022, but
no significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (508) = 0.00, ηp
2
< .001, p =
.961, nor a significant interaction of condition by participants’ social class background, F (1,
507) = 0.33, ηp
2
= .001, p = .720.
Perceived Ability to Succeed on Task
There was a marginally significant main effect of condition, F (508) = 2.68, ηp
2
= .010, p
= .070, but no significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (508) = 0.97, ηp
2

122
= .002, p = .324, nor a significant interaction of condition by participants’ social class
background, F (1, 507) = 1.16, ηp
2
= .005, p = .313.
Task Importance
There was a marginally significant main effect of condition, F (508) = 126.39, ηp
2
= .333,
p < .001, but no significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (508) = 1.07,
ηp
2
= .002, p = .302, nor a significant interaction of condition by participants’ social class
background, F (1, 507) = 2.08, ηp
2
= .008, p = .126.
Task Typicality
There was no significant main effect of condition, F (508) = 0.28, ηp
2
= .001, p = .758, no
significant main effect of participants’ social class background, F (508) = 0.21, ηp
2
< .001, p =
.648, nor a significant interaction of condition by participants’ social class background, F (1,
507) = 0.07, ηp
2
< .001, p = .937.

123
Table 17.
Summary of Simple Effects: Effect of Participant Social Class Background within Condition (Study 3)
Task Conflict Condition Relationship Conflict Condition Presentation Condition
Dependent Variable SE F p ηp
2
SE F p ηp
2
SE F p ηp
2

Threat ratio 0.01 2.13 .145 .004 0.39 0.74 .391 .001 0.87 0.03 .867 <.001
Resource appraisal 0.20 0.01 .933 <.001 0.21 0.71 .401 .001 0.20 0.99 .320 .002
Demand appraisal 0.20 0.03 .872 <.001 0.21 0.00 .959 <.001 0.20 0.06 .807 <.001
Burnout 0.24 0.06 .800 <.001 0.25 0.39 .531 .001 0.23 0.78 .378 .002
Impact on work 0.26 0.39 .534 .001 0.27 0.00 .973 <.001 0.26 0.83 .362 .002
Turnover intention 0.27 0.00 .975 <.001 0.28 2.33 .128 .005 0.26 0.26 .610 .001
Counterproductive work
behaviors
0.24 0.46 .497 .001 0.25 0.07 .792 <.001 0.23 0.11 .745 <.001
Perceived ability to
succeed on task
0.24 0.40 .528 .001 0.24 0.24 .625 <.001 0.23 2.80 .095 .005
Task importance 0.24 0.50 .479 .001 0.25 4.38 .037 .009 0.23 0.16 .686 <.001
Task typicality 0.24 0.23 .634 <.001 0.25 0.11 .738 <.001 0.24 0.00 .996 <.001

124
Discussion
Study 3 did not provide evidence to support that the type of interpersonal conflict
resolution mattered when people from working-class backgrounds experience lower levels of
threat than people from middle-class backgrounds. Although the direction of the results is
consistent with my prediction, the effect is not significant. Specifically, the direction of results
indicates that participants from working-class backgrounds anticipated lower levels of threat than
those from middle-class backgrounds in the task conflict condition and relationship conflict
condition but not in the presentation condition.
A limitation of this study is the high rate of failed manipulation checks. This suggests that
the manipulations, particularly the manipulations used for the task conflict condition and
relationship conflict condition were ineffective. Additionally, I speculate that the manipulations
used for the two conflict conditions were not distinctive enough from one another. Consistent
with my speculation, the highest rates of failed manipulation checks occurred in the task conflict
and relationship conflict conditions. In future research, I will continue to explore the conditions
in which individuals’ social class backgrounds affect their experiences of threat in interpersonal
conflict resolution.
General Discussion
Across four studies, I find some initial evidence for my theorizing that social class
background moderates people’s experiences of threat when attempting to resolve interpersonal
conflict. Specifically, people from working-class backgrounds experience less threat than people
from middle-class backgrounds when they anticipate resolving disagreement between team
members (Study 1a) and resolving conflict related to incivility (Study 1b). These findings
suggest that interpersonal conflict resolution interactions are one likely setting where people

125
from working-class backgrounds fare better than those from middle-class backgrounds.
However, I did not find support for my theorizing in Studies 3 and 4. Although the direction of
results in Study 4 is consistent with my theorizing, the effect is not significant.
The present research is the first to directly examine experiences of threat when
anticipating resolving interpersonal conflict. This work contributes to the conflict literature by
demonstrating that just anticipating having to navigate conflict resolution can elicit threat.
Although research has demonstrated that people have different conflict management styles (e.g.,
Rahim, 2002), not much is known about what factors might prevent these styles from being
employed. It is possible that the extent to which people feel threatened when anticipating
resolving conflict could inhibit them from employing their preferred conflict management style.
Second, I contribute to research on social class by indicating that working-class, interdependent
cultural norms may have value in situations outside of working-class contexts.
Limitations and Future Directions
These studies are not without limitations. One limitation is the lack of consistent findings
across the four studies. This suggests that there may be potential boundary conditions. A possible
boundary of the proposed effect is that interdependent cultural norms benefit experiences in
interpersonal conflict resolution when there is a potential threat to social harmony not due to
personal culpability. For example, the vignettes used in the interpersonal conflict condition for
Study 1a and 1b implied some level of threat to social harmony absent participants’ personal
culpability. In contrast, the vignette used in the task conflict condition for Study 2 did not imply
threat to social harmony, and the vignettes used in the task and relationship conflict conditions
for Study 3 implied threat to social harmony present participants’ personal culpability. In future

126
work, I will continue examining how social class background affects experiences of threat in
different types of interpersonal conflict resolution.
Another limitation of the current work is that participants in these studies reported their
threat in hypothetical scenarios. It is possible that I captured their imagined and anticipated
experiences of threat rather than their actual experiences of threat. Further, the hypothetical
scenarios described one isolated instance of conflict with low to moderate levels of conflict
intensity. Given that perceptions of intensity affect people’s approaches to conflict resolution
(Burnard et al., 2020), it is possible that the effect may differ when the interpersonal conflict is
ongoing or when it has higher levels of intensity. Future work should examine the potential
moderating effects of conflict duration and intensity.
These studies also leave important questions for future research. For instance: Why might
people from working-class backgrounds experience less threat in interpersonal conflict resolution
than people from middle-class backgrounds? I theorize that people from working-class
backgrounds have relatively better experiences in relationship conflict resolution because the
behaviors required in these interactions are well-matched with behaviors associated with
interdependent cultural norms promoted in working-class contexts. However, I do not examine
the process through which interdependent cultural norms are helpful for people from working-
class backgrounds’ threat. Another possible mediator is that people from working-class
backgrounds adjust themselves in relationship conflict resolution by positively reappraising their
experience as taking care to respond to the needs of the social relationship. Indeed, reappraising
negative aspects of one’s experience is shown to effectively improve individuals’ experiences
and performance on the task (e.g., Brooks, 2014; Jamieson et al., 2012; Jamieson et al., 2016).
An additional possible mediator is that people from working-class backgrounds may feel like

127
they can effectively work with their partner to reach a satisfactory resolution by virtue of their
interdependence. Feeling confident in one’s ability and perceiving that one has the relevant skills
for a specific task are both associated with improved experiences (e.g., Fischer & Budescu, 2005;
Kramer & Block, 2014). In future work, I plan to investigate the mediating process through
which interdependent cultural norms are beneficial for experiences of threat when resolving
interpersonal conflict.
Conclusion
Interdependent cultural norms common in working-class contexts have important benefits
for individuals’ experiences. In particular, the behaviors associated with these cultural norms are
well aligned with the situational requirements of tasks that involve working with others, social
responsiveness, and being aware of situational constraints. Indeed, the present research provides
some initial evidence for a benefit of interdependent cultural norms for people from working-
class backgrounds: reduced threat in interpersonal conflict resolution. Yet these norms and its
associated behaviors are often undervalued in critical gateway institutions, such as four-year
colleges and universities and professional white-collar workplaces (Stephens, Fryberg, et al.,
2012). These institutions often promote independent cultural norms common in middle-class
contexts and center independence as the cultural ideal. As a result, the strengths of people from
working-class backgrounds who are likely to behave according to interdependent cultural norms
are often overlooked (Dittmann et al., 2020). By using a strengths-based approach, this work
aims to contribute a fuller understanding of how social class and social class backgrounds shape
people’s experiences.

128
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
In this dissertation, I employ a “strengths-based perspective” and focus on the strengths
that people from working-class backgrounds might possess, given their engagement in contexts
that promote interdependent cultural norms. Drawing from work on how social class contexts
promote different sets of cultural norms, I theorize that people from working-class backgrounds
have better experiences in interpersonally uncertain interactions than people from middle-class
backgrounds. I test my theory in two series of studies examining threat in cross-class interactions
and interpersonal conflict resolution. Overall, I find some initial evidence for my theorizing.
However, the results are not fully conclusive and additional work is needed to better understand
the effects and potential boundary conditions.
In developing my theoretical perspective, I identify at least two additional areas of future
research. One promising avenue for future work is to investigate how a cultural mismatch versus
match at the institutional level impacts the extent to which a cultural match at the task level
benefits individuals’ experiences and performance. Take, for example, an employee from a
working-class background who is in an organization that promotes independent cultural norms
but occupies a position that requires collaboration and social responsiveness. Here, there is a
mismatch between the independent cultural norms promoted in the institution and the
employee’s working-class, interdependent cultural norms. However, as a result of the
employee’s position, there is a match between the day-to-day tasks and their working-class,
interdependent cultural norms. Future work should examine how the interaction between norms
at varying levels of a context affects individuals’ experiences.
Another fruitful area for research is to examine how participation in multiple socio-
cultural contexts that promote interdependent cultural norms can affect people’s experiences in

129
interpersonally uncertain interactions. Although I focused on people from working-class
backgrounds, there are also other social groups that tend to promote interdependent cultural
norms relative to independent cultural norms (e.g., women, members of historically marginalized
racial or ethnic groups). Even though these different social groups may share some
commonalities in the interdependent cultural norms they promote, there may also be important
differences (e.g., Markus & Conner, 2013). For instance, compared to interdependent cultural
norms common in working-class contexts, those common among women tend to place less
emphasis on resilience and persistence (e.g., Cross & Madson, 1997; Stephens & Townsend,
2013). Future research should examine whether improved experiences in interpersonally
uncertain interactions extend to different social groups and how intersectional identities (e.g.,
gender, race, ethnicity) interact with social class backgrounds in shaping individuals’
experiences.
This research carries important implications regarding organizational efforts for diversity
and inclusion. Interdependent cultural norms are common among many social groups and
communities in American society, yet the skills and abilities that these cultural norms foster tend
to be overlooked and undervalued in gateway institutions. One consequence of this is that
institutions often fail to successfully create a diverse and inclusive environment for all their
members. To effectively promote diversity and inclusion, gateway institutions need to recognize
the contributions of interdependent cultural norms and ensure that skills reflective of these
cultural norms are valued and rewarded. By illuminating the benefits of interdependent cultural
norms, this research can help institutions to more readily recognize and reward interdependent-
linked skills and help individuals who are guided by interdependent cultural norms to feel
empowered when enacting their interdependence.

130
REFERENCES
Adams, G. S. (2016). Asymmetries between victims' and transgressors' perspectives following
interpersonal transgressions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(12), 722-
735.
Adams, G. S., & Inesi, M. E. (2016). Impediments to forgiveness: Victim and transgressor
attributions of intent and guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(6),
866.
Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and
objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data
in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586.
Allen, C. K., & Uskul, A. K. (2019). Preference for dating out-group members: Not the same for
all out-groups and cultural backgrounds. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 68, 55-66.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
Alquist, J. L., Baumeister, R. F., McGregor, I., Core, T. J., Benjamin, I., & Tice, D. M. (2018).
Personal conflict impairs performance on an unrelated self-control task: Lingering costs
of uncertainty and conflict. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 157-160.
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on
strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of
Management Journal, 39(1), 123-148.
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452-471.

131
Ansell, E. B., Kurtz, J. E., & Markey, P. M. (2008). Gender differences in interpersonal
complementarity within roommate dyads. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 34(4), 502-512.
Apfelbaum, E. P., Stephens, N. M., & Reagans, R. E. (2016). Beyond one-size-fits-all: Tailoring
diversity approaches to the representation of social groups. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 111(4), 547.
Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom. Longman.
Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2004). Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal
conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(3), 216-244.
Bartik, T. J., & Hershbein, B. J. (2016). College grads earn less if they grew up poor. W.E.
Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. http://research.upjohn.org/reports/219
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence
and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103(1), 5.
Begley, T. M., & Czajka, J. M. (1993). Panel analysis of the moderating effects of commitment
on job satisfaction, intent to quit, and health following organizational change. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78(4), 552.
Behrenz, L. (2001). Who gets the job and why? An explorative study of employers’ recruitment
behavior. Journal of Applied Economic, 4(2): 255-278.
Bernstein, B. (1974). Class codes and control. Theoretical studies towards a sociology of
language (2
nd
ed.). Schocken Books.
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha
and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic
Review, 94(4), 991-1013.

132
Bianchi, E. C., & Vohs, K. D. (2016). Social class and social worlds: Income predicts the
frequency and nature of social contact. Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 7(5), 479-486.
Bijleveld, E., Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2012). The cortisol response to anticipated
intergroup interactions predicts self-reported prejudice. PloS One. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033681.
Blascovich, J., & Mendes, W. B. (2000). Challenge and threat appraisals: The role of affective
cues. In J. P. Forgas (Eds.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition
(pp. 59-82). Cambridge University Press.
Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., & Kowai-Bell, N. (2001). Perceiver
threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 253.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey
(Eds.), Power and ideology in education. Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Sage.
Brienza, J. P., & Grossmann, I. (2017). Social class and wise reasoning about interpersonal
conflicts across regions, persons and situations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 284, 20171870.
Brooks, A. W. (2014). Get excited: Reappraising pre-performance anxiety as
excitement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1144.
Brooks, A. W., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2011). Can Nervous Nelly negotiate? How anxiety causes
negotiators to make low first offers, exit early, and earn less profit. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(1), 43-54.

133
Burnard, M., Bruk‐Lee, V., Snihur, A., & Allen, J. (2020). Is all conflict the same? The role of
perceived intensity in understanding its effects. Stress and Health.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and
support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 88(3), 510.
Carey, R. M. (2021). The Ties That Bind: Patterns of Relationality in Lower U.S. Social Class
Contexts and Implications for Self and Behavior [Manuscript in preparation].
Management & Organizations Department, Northwestern University Kellogg School of
Management.
Carey, R. M., Stephens, N. M., Townsend, S. S. M., & Hamedani, M. G. (2020). Cross-race and
cross-class interactions in higher education settings [Manuscript in preparation].
Management & Organizations Department, Northwestern University Kellogg School of
Management.
Carli, L. L. (1989). Gender differences in interaction style and influence. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 56(4), 565.
Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. M. (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem
solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1300.
Chen, E. (2012). Protective factors for health among low-socioeconomic-status
individuals. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), 189-193.
Chen, E., & Miller, G. E. (2012). “Shift-and-persist” strategies: Why low socioeconomic status
isn’t always bad for health. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(2), 135-158.
Chung‐Yan, G. A., & Moeller, C. (2010). The psychosocial costs of conflict management
styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21(4), 382-399.

134
Concordance. (2018, July 10). https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/educators/higher-
ed/scoring/concordance
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the
workplace: incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64.
Côté, S. (2011). How social class shapes thoughts and actions in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 31, 43-71.
Côté, S., Kraus, M. W., Carpenter, N. C., Piff, P. K., Beermann, U., & Keltner, D. (2017). Social
affiliation in same-class and cross-class interactions. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 146(2), 269-285.
CPP. (2008, July). Workplace conflict and how businesses can harness it to thrive: CPP Global
Human Capital Report.
https://www.cpp.com/pdfs/CPP_Global_Human_Capital_Report_Workplace_Conflict.pd
f
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological
Bulletin, 122(1), 5-37.
Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Cross-group
friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 15(4), 332-351.
De Dreu, C. K. (2008). The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic)
thought. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial,
Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29(1), 5-18.
De Dreu, C. K., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). The psychology of conflict and conflict management in
organizations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

135
De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance,
and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4),
741.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The
importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
1191–1201.
De Dreu, C. K., Van Dierendonck, D., & Dijkstra, M. T. (2004). Conflict at work and individual
well‐being. International Journal of Conflict Management.
Devine, P. G., Evett, S. R., & Vasquez-Suson, K. A. (1996). Exploring the interpersonal
dynamics of intergroup contact. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of
motivation and cognition, Vol. 3. The interpersonal context (pp. 423–464). The Guilford
Press.
Dietze, P., & Knowles, E. D. (2016). Social class and the motivational relevance of other human
beings: Evidence from visual attention. Psychological Science, 27(11), 1517-1527.
Dijkstra, M. T., van Dierendonck, D., & Evers, A. (2005). Responding to conflict at work and
individual well-being: The mediating role of flight behaviour and feelings of
helplessness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(2), 119-135.
Dittmann, A. G., Stephens, N. M., & Townsend, S. S. M. (2020). When people from working-
class contexts outperform people from middle-class contexts. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the
workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331-351.

136
Duncan, O. D., Featherman, D. L., & Duncan, B. (1972). Socio-economic background and
achievement. Seminar Press.
Duncan, G. J., Magnuson, K., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2017). Moving beyond correlations in
assessing the consequences of poverty. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 413-434.
Duncan, G.J., & Murnane, R.J. (2014). Growing Income Inequality Threatens American
Education. Phi Delta Kappan, 95, 8-14.
Dys-Steenbergen, O., Wright, S. C., & Aron, A. (2016). Self-expansion motivation improves
cross-group interactions and enhances self-growth. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 19(1), 60-71.
Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-
faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological
Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591.
Engle, J. (2007). Postsecondary access and success for first-generation college
students. American Academic, 3(1), 25-48.
Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-
generation students. Washington, D.C. Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in
Higher Education.
Eliezer, D., Townsend, S. S., Sawyer, P. J., Major, B., & Mendes, W. B. (2011). System-
justifying beliefs moderate the relationship between perceived discrimination and resting
blood pressure. Social Cognition, 29(3), 303-321.
Ellis, B. J., Bianchi, J., Griskevicius, V., & Frankenhuis, W. E. (2017). Beyond risk and
protective factors: An adaptation-based approach to resilience. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 12(4), 561-587.

137
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). When apologies work: How matching apology components to
victims’ self-construals facilitates forgiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 113(1), 37-50.
Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in
close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness?. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82(6), 956.
Fischer, I., & Budescu, D. V. (2005). When do those who know more also know more about how
much they know? The development of confidence and performance in categorical
decision tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(1), 39-53.
Fiske, S. T., & Markus, H. R. (2012). Facing social class: How societal rank influences
interaction. Russell Sage Foundation.
Frankenhuis, W. E., Young, E. S., & Ellis, B. J. (2020). The hidden talents approach: Theoretical
and methodological challenges. Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
Frankenhuis, W. E., & Nettle, D. (2020). The strengths of people in poverty. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 29(1), 16-21.
Friedman, R.A., Tidd, S.T., Currall, S.C. & Tsai, J.C. (2000). What goes around comes around:
the impact of personal conflict style on work conflict and stress. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 11(1), 32-55.

138
Fritsche, I., Jonas, E., & Kessler, T. (2011). Collective reactions to threat: Implications for
intergroup conflict and for solving societal crises. Social Issues and Policy Review, 5(1),
101-136.
Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: testing a model
among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 246.
Fryberg, S. A., Troop-Gordon, W., D'Arrisso, A., Flores, H., Ponizovskiy, V., Ranney, J. D.,
Mandour, T., Tootoosis, C., Robinson, S., Russo, N., & Burack, J. A. (2013). Cultural
mismatch and the education of Aboriginal youths: The interplay of cultural identities and
teacher ratings. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 72.
Geurts, S. A., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A., Dikkers, J. S., Van Hooff, M. L., & Kinnunen, U.
M. (2005). Work-home interaction from a work psychological perspective: Development
and validation of a new questionnaire, the SWING. Work & Stress, 19(4), 319-339.
Granfield, R. (1991). Making it by faking it: Working-class students in an elite academic
environment. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 20(3), 331-351.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict
and reacting to it: the case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70(4), 820.
Griskevicius, V., Ackerman, J. A., Cantú, S. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., Simpson, J. A.,
Thompson, M.E., & Tybur, J. M. (2013). When the economy falters do people spend or
save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on childhood environment. Psychological
Science, 24, 197–205.
Grossmann, I., & Varnum, M. E. (2011). Social class, culture, and cognition. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 2(1), 81-89.

139
Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Exhausting or exhilarating? Conflict as
threat to interests, relationships and identities. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 48(2), 530-537.
Hall, C. C., Zhao, J., & Shafir, E. (2014). Self-affirmation among the poor: Cognitive and
behavioral implications. Psychological Science, 25, 619–625.
Halperin, E., Cohen-Chen, S., & Goldenberg, A. (2014). Indirect emotion regulation in
intractable conflicts: A new approach to conflict resolution. European Review of Social
Psychology, 25(1), 1-31.
Heath, C., & Staudenmayer, N. (2000). Coordination neglect: How lay theories of organizing
complicate coordination in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 153-
191.
Herrmann, S. D., & Varnum, M. E. (2018). Integrated social class identities improve academic
performance, well-being, and workplace satisfaction. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 49(4), 635-663.
Hildreth, J. A. D., & Anderson, C. (2016). Failure at the top: How power undermines
collaborative performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(2), 261.
Housel, T. H., & Harvey, V. L. (2010). The invisibility factor: Administrators and faculty reach
out to first-generation college students. Brown Walker Press.
Huang, C. C. (2009). Knowledge sharing and group cohesiveness on performance: An empirical
study of technology R&D teams in Taiwan. Technovation, 29(11), 786-797.
Ilies, R., Johnson, M. D., Judge, T. A., & Keeney, J. (2011). A within‐individual study of
interpersonal conflict as a work stressor: Dispositional and situational
moderators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(1), 44-64.

140
Ingram, P., & Oh, J. J. (2020). Mapping the Class Ceiling: The Social Class Disadvantage for
Attaining Management Positions. Academy of Management Discoveries.
Jamieson, J. P., Nock, M.K., & Mendes, W.B. (2012). Mind over matter: reappraising arousal
improves cardiovascular and cognitive responses to stress. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. General, 141(3), 417-22.
Jamieson, J. P., Peters, B. J., Greenwood, E. J., & Altose, A. J. (2016). Reappraising stress
arousal improves performance and reduces evaluation anxiety in classroom exam
situations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(6), 579-587.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational
groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 530-557.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A
field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44, 741–763.
Jensen, B. (2004). Across the great divide: Crossing classes and clashing cultures. In M. Zweig
(Ed.), What’s class got to do with it? American society in the twenty-first century (pp.
168–183). Cornell University Press.
Johnson, S. E., Richeson, J. A., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). Middle class and marginal?
Socioeconomic status, stigma, and self-regulation at an elite university. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 838–852.

141
Jury, M., Aelenei, C., Chen, C., Darnon, C., & Elliot, A. J. (2019). Examining the role of
perceived prestige in the link between students’ subjective socioeconomic status and
sense of belonging. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(3), 356-370.
Karasek Jr, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for
job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285-308.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., & Campbell, J. T. (2015). You don’t forget your roots: The influence of CEO
social class background on strategic risk taking. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6),
1614-1636.
Kraus, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2013). Social class rank, essentialism, and punitive
judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(2), 247-261.
Kraus, M. W., & Mendes, W. B. (2014). Sartorial symbols of social class elicit class-consistent
behavioral and physiological responses: A dyadic approach. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 143(6), 2330–2340.
Kraus, M. W., & Tan, J. J. (2015). Americans overestimate social class mobility. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 101-111.
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social
explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 992.
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Keltner, D. (2012).
Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the
poor. Psychological Review, 119(3), 546–572.
Kramer, T., & Block, L. G. (2014). Like Mike: Ability contagion through touched objects
increases confidence and improves performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 124(2), 215-228.

142
Krieger, N., Williams, D. R., & Moss, N. E. (1997). Measuring Social Class in US Public Health
Research: Concepts, Methodologies, and Guidelines. Annual Review of Public
Health, 18(1), 341–378.
Lamont, M. (2000). The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and the Boundaries of Race, Class,
and Immigration. Harvard University Press.
Lanz, J. J., & Bruk‐Lee, V. (2017). Resilience as a moderator of the indirect effects of conflict
and workload on job outcomes among nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(12),
2973-2986.
Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families and white
families. American Sociological Review, 67(5), 747-776.
Lessard, L. M., & Juvonen, J. (2019). Cross-class friendship and academic achievement in
middle school. Developmental Psychology.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705.
Logan, J. R., Minca, E., & Adar, S. (2012). The geography of inequality: Why separate means
unequal in American public schools. Sociology of Education, 85(3), 287-301.
Lubrano, A. (2004). Limbo: Blue collar roots, white collar dreams. John Wiley & Sons.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Wiley.
Markus, H.R. (2017). American = Independent?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12,
855-866.
Markus, H. R., & Conner, A. L. (2013). Clash!: 8 Cultural Conflicts That Make Us Who We Are.
Penguin.

143
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2003). Culture, self, and the reality of the social. Psychological
Inquiry, 14, 277-283.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420-430.
Martin, S. R., & Côté, S. (2019). Social class transitioners: Their cultural abilities and
organizational importance. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 618-642.
Martin, S. R., Innis, B. D., & Ward, R. G. (2017). Social class, leaders and leadership: a critical
review and suggestions for development. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 49-54.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 2(2), 99-113.
McCullough, M. (2008). Beyond revenge: The evolution of the forgiveness instinct. John Wiley
& Sons.
McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. (2000). Organizational behavior. McGraw-Hill.
Mendes, W. B., Blascovich, J., Lickel, B., & Hunter, S. (2002). Challenge and threat during
social interactions with white and black men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
26(7), 939-952.
Mendes, W. B., Gray, H. M., Mendoza-Denton, R., Major, B., & Epel, E. S. (2007). Why
egalitarianism might be good for your health: Physiological thriving during stressful
intergroup encounters. Psychological Science, 18(11), 991–998

144
Mendoza-Denton, R., Page-Gould, E., & Pietrzak, J. (2006). Mechanisms for Coping with
Status-based Rejection Expectations. In S. Levin & C. Van Laar (Eds.), Stigma and
group inequality: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 151-169). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
Moeller, C., & Kwantes, C. T. (2015). Too much of a good thing? Emotional intelligence and
interpersonal conflict behaviors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 155(4), 314-324.
Newcomb, T. M. (1943). Personality and Social Change: Attitude Formation in a Student
Community. Dryden Press.
Nifadkar, S. S., & Bauer, T. N. (2016). Breach of belongingness: Newcomer relationship
conflict, information, and task-related outcomes during organizational
socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 1–13.
Obrist, P. A. (1981). Cardiovascular psychophysiology. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Ostrove, J. M., & Long, S. M. (2007). Social class and belonging: Implications for college
adjustment. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 363-389.
O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A
profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of
Management Journal, 34(3), 487-516.
Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., Alegre, J. M., & Siy, J. O. (2010). Understanding the
impact of cross-group friendship on interactions with novel outgroup members. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(5), 775.
Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). With a little help from my cross-
group friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group
friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1080–1094.

145
Pascarella, E., Pierson, C., Wolniak, G., & Terenzini, P. (2004). First-generation college
students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. Journal of Higher
Education, 75(3), 249-284.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work
behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26, 777–796
Pettit, N. C., & Lount, R. B., Jr. (2010). Looking down and ramping up: The impact of status
differences on effort in intergroup contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
46, 9-20.
Petty, T. (2014). Motivating first-generation students to academic success and college
completion. College Student Journal, 48(1), 133-140.
Phillips, L.T. (2017). Entering Privilege: Experiences of the Upwardly Mobile vs. Upwardly
Stabile at Work [Conference presentation]. Academy of Management Annual Meeting,
Atlanta, GA, United States.
Phillips, L. T., Stephens, N. M., Townsend, S. S., & Goudeau, S. (2020). Access is not enough:
Cultural mismatch persists to limit first-generation students’ opportunities for
achievement throughout college. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(5),
1112-1131.
Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving
more: the influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 99(5), 771.

146
Pitesa, M., & Pillutla, M. M. (2019). Socioeconomic mobility and talent utilization of workers
from poorer backgrounds: The overlooked importance of within-organization
dynamics. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 737-769.
Pitesa, M., Thau, S., & Pillutla, M. M. (2017). Workplace trust as a mechanism of employee
(dis) advantage: The case of employee socioeconomic status. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 37, 83-101.
Pittman, L. D., & Richmond, A. (2007). Academic and psychological functioning in late
adolescence: The importance of school belonging. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 75(4), 270-290.
Plant, E. A. (2004). Responses to interracial interactions over time. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 30(11), 1458-1471.
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (2003). The Antecedents and Implications of Interracial
Anxiety. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 790–801.
Rahim, A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 13(3), 206-35.
Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor:
New evidence and possible explanations. In G. J. Duncan & R.J. Murnane
(Eds.), Whither opportunity?: Rising inequality, schools, and children's life chances (pp.
91-116). Russell Sage Foundation.
Ren, H., & Gray, B. (2009). Repairing relationship conflict: How violation types and culture
influence the effectiveness of restoration rituals. Academy of Management Review, 34(1),
105-126.

147
Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Mendoza-Denton, R. (2014). Social class and academic achievement in
college: The interplay of rejection sensitivity and entity beliefs. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 107(1), 101.
Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2003). When Prejudice Does Not Pay: Effects of Interracial
Contact on Executive Function. Psychological Science, 14(3), 287–290.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Fisk, S. R. (2012). Class rules, status dynamics, and “gateway” interactions.
In S. T. Fiske & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class: How societal rank influences
interaction (pp. 131–151). Russell Sage Foundation.
Rivera, L. A. (2016). Pedigree: How elite students get elite jobs. Princeton University Press.
Rivera, L. A., & Tilcsik, A. (2016). Class advantage, commitment penalty: The gendered effect
of social class signals in an elite labor market. American Sociological Review, 81(6),
1097-1131.
Rosenbaum, J. E. (2001). Beyond college for all. Russell Sage Foundation.
Sawyer, P., Major, B., Casad, B. J., Townsend, S. S. M., & Mendes, W. B. (2012).
Discrimination and the stress response: Psychological and physiological consequences of
anticipating prejudice in interracial interaction. American Journal of Public Health, 102,
1020-1026.
Schieman, S., & Reid, S. (2008). Job authority and interpersonal conflict in the workplace. Work
and Occupations, 35(3), 296–326.
Schultz, J. R., Gaither, S. E., Urry, H. L., & Maddox, K. B. (2015). Reframing anxiety to
encourage interracial interactions. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(4),
392–400.

148
Schumann, K. (2018). The psychology of offering an apology: Understanding the barriers to
apologizing and how to overcome them. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 27(2), 74-78.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success.
Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219–237.
Sguera, F., Bagozzi, R. P., Huy, Q. N., Boss, R. W., & Boss, D. S. (2016). Curtailing the harmful
effects of workplace incivility: The role of structural demands and organization-provided
resources. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 95, 115-127.
Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2012). Some consequences of having too
little. Science, 338(6107), 682-685.
Shapiro, J. R., Baldwin, M., Williams, A. M., & Trawalter, S. (2011). The company you keep:
Fear of rejection in intergroup interaction. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 47(1), 221-227.
Shaw, J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shih, H.A., & Susanto, E. (2011). A contingency
model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 391–400
Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., & Salvatore, J. (2005). Expecting To Be the Target of Prejudice:
Implications for Interethnic Interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
31(9), 1189–1202.
Sherwood, A., Allen, M.T., Fahrenberg, J., Kelsey, R.M., Lovallo, W.R., & Doornen, L.J.P.
(1990). Methodological Guidelines for Impedance Cardiography. Psychophysiology, 27,
1-23.

149
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1993). The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of social
dominance. In P. M. Sniderman, P. E. Tetlock, & E. G. Carmines (Eds.), Prejudice,
politics, and the American dilemma (pp. 173–211). Stanford University Press.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top
management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(1), 102.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An
attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5), 899–914.
Singh-Manoux, A., Adler, N. E., & Marmot, M. G. (2003). Subjective social status: its
determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the Whitehall II
study. Social Science & Medicine, 56(6), 1321-1333.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of
research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453.
Slavin, R. E., & Cooper, R. (1999). Improving intergroup relations: Lessons learned from
cooperative learning programs. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 647-663.
Smith, E. B., Menon, T., & Thompson, L. (2012). Status differences in the cognitive activation
of social networks. Organization Science, 23(1), 67–82.
Snibbe, A. C., & Markus, H. R. (2005). You can't always get what you want: Educational
attainment, agency, and choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4),
703–720.
Spector, P. E. and Bruk-Lee, V. (2008). Conflict, health, and wellbeing. in C. De Dreu & M.
Gelfand (Eds). The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp.
267-88). Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

150
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors
and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale,
Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356–367.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–
175.
Stephan, W. G., Stephan, C. W., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1999). Anxiety in intergroup relations: A
comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and integrated threat
theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4), 613-628.
Stephens, N. M., Dittmann, A. G., & Townsend, S. S. M. (2017). Social class and models of
competence: How gateway institutions disadvantage working-class Americans and how
to intervene. Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (pp. 512-
528).
Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012).
Unseen disadvantage: How American universities' focus on independence undermines the
academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 102(6), 1178.
Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Destin, M. (2014). Closing the social-class achievement
gap: A difference-education intervention improves first-generation students’ academic
performance and all students’ college transition. Psychological Science, 25(4), 943–953.
Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., Markus, H. R., Bergsieker, H. B., & Eloul, L. (2009). Why
did they “choose” to stay? Perspectives of Hurricane Katrina observers and
survivors. Psychological Science, 20(7), 878-886.

151
Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Townsend, S. S. M. (2007). Choice as an act of meaning: The
case of social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 814.
Stephens, N. M., Townsend, S. S. M., & Dittmann, A. G. (2019). Social-class disparities in
higher education and professional workplaces: The role of cultural mismatch. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 28(1), 67-73.
Stephens, N. M., Townsend, S. S. M., Markus, H. R., & Phillips, L. T. (2012). A cultural
mismatch: Independent cultural norms produce greater increases in cortisol and more
negative emotions among first-generation college students. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 48(6), 1389-1393.
Steptoe, A., & Wardle, J. (2005). Positive affect and biological function in everyday
life. Neurobiology of Aging, 26(1), 108-112.
Thomas, V., & Azmitia, M. (2014). Does class matter? The centrality and meaning of social
class identity in emerging adulthood. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and
Research, 14(3), 195-213.
Tibbetts, Y., Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Boston, J. S., Priniski, S. J., & Hyde, J. S.
(2016). Affirming independence: Exploring mechanisms underlying a values affirmation
intervention for first-generation students. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 110(5), 635.
Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kibler, J., & Ernst, J. M. (1997). Cognitive and physiological
antecedents of threat and challenge appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73(1), 63.

152
Townsend, S. S. M., Eliezer, D., Major, B., & Mendes, W. B. (2014). Influencing the world
versus adjusting to constraints: Social class moderates responses to discrimination. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 5(2), 226–234.
Townsend, S. S. M., Major, B., Sawyer, P. J., & Mendes, W. B. (2010). Can the absence of
prejudice be more threatening than its presence? It depends on one’s worldview. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 933-947.
Townsend, S. S. M., Stephens, N. M., & Hamedani, M. (2021). Difference-education improves
first-generation students’ grades throughout college and increases comfort with social
group difference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1-9.
Townsend, S. S. M., Stephens, N. M., Smallets, S., & Hamedani, M. G. (2019). Empowerment
through difference: An online difference-education intervention closes the social class
achievement gap. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(7), 1068-1083.
Townsend, S. S. M., & Truong, M. (2017). Cultural models of self and social class disparities at
organizational gateways and pathways. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 93-98.
Trawalter, S., Adam, E. K., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & Richeson, J. A. (2012). Concerns about
appearing prejudiced get under the skin: Stress responses to interracial contact in the
moment and across time. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 682-693.
Trawalter, S., & Brown-Iannuzzi, J.L. (2014). Leadership in a diverse world: Stress and coping
in response to interracial contact. Virginia Policy Review.
Trawalter, S., Hoffman, K., & Palmer, L. (2020). Out of place: Socioeconomic status, use of
public space, and belonging in higher education. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 120(1), 131-144.

153
Trawalter, S., & Richeson, J. A. (2006). Regulatory focus and executive function after interracial
interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(3), 406-412.
Trawalter, S., Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2009). Predicting behavior during interracial
interactions: A stress and coping approach. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 13(4), 243-268.
Tropp, L. R. (2003). The psychological impact of prejudice: Implications for intergroup
contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(2), 131–149.
Vorauer, J. D. (2006). An information search model of evaluative concerns in intergroup
interaction. Psychological Review, 113(4), 862.
Vorauer, J. D., Hunter, A. J., Main, K. J., & Roy, S. A. (2000). Meta-stereotype activation:
evidence from indirect measures for specific evaluative concerns experienced by
members of dominant groups in intergroup interaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78(4), 690.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.
West, T. V. (2011). Interpersonal perception in cross-group interactions: Challenges and
potential solutions. European Review of Social Psychology, 22(1), 364-401.
West, T. V., Magee, J. C., Gordon, S. H., & Gullett, L. (2014). A little similarity goes a long
way: the effects of peripheral but self-revealing similarities on improving and sustaining
interracial relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(1), 81.

154
Whitely, W., Dougherty, T. W., & Dreher, G. F. (1991). Relationship of career mentoring and
socioeconomic origin to managers' and professionals' early career progress. Academy of
Management Journal, 34(2), 331-350.
Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for
a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330, 686–
688.
Young, E. S., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Waters, T. E., & Mittal, C. (2018). Can an
unpredictable childhood environment enhance working memory? Testing the sensitized-
specialization hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(6), 891.

155
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Chapter 2, Studies 1 and 2 Experimental Manipulations
(Male) Partner From Middle-Class Background Condition:

Introduction Questionnaire:
First Name: Eric
Age: 18
Gender: Female Male
Year in College: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
College Major: Undeclared
Mother’s Education (circle one):
Less than high school
High school diploma
Some college
2-year degree (e.g., Associates)
4-year degree (B.A. or B.S.)
Professional degree (M.D., Ph.D., J.D., M.BA., etc.)
Father’s Education (circle one):
Less than high school
High School Diploma
Some college
2-year degree (e.g., Associates)
4-year degree (B.A. or B.S.)
Professional degree (M.D., Ph.D., J.D., M.BA., etc.)
Household income (circle one):
Less than $100,000
$100,000-$200,000
$200,000-$300,000
Over $300,000

Study Habits and Workstyle Portion of Introduction Questionnaire (used for all conditions):

156
The following items ask you about your study habits and work style. Please read each item
carefully and respond in an honest, open manner. Your answers on this questionnaire will be
used to help your partner get to know you better.

Study Habits

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Agree
1. I find it easy to study for all of
my classes, regardless of how much
I like them.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. I prefer to study in groups rather
than alone.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. I use all of the available
classroom materials when studying
for tests, including lecture notes,
homework, textbooks, and office
hours.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. I am able to cram information the
night before an exam and still
perform well.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. I need to listen to music of have
the TV on behind me to study; I
can’t do it in pure silence.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Work Style

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Agree
1. I avoid conflict at all times, even
if it might push my partner(s) and I
to create a better idea.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

157
2. When working on a project, I
make a schedule and I stick to it.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. I often find it difficult to
motivate myself to get to work and
sometimes wait until the very last
minute to complete tasks.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. I usually assume a leadership
position during group projects.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. I like to reward myself with
things like time off or a dessert
when I have completed a big
project milestone.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Speech Script for Video (Study 1)/Audio (Study 2):
Okay, hi (waves), my name is Eric… I’m an 18-year-old freshman here at USC and I’m
currently undeclared, but I’m experimenting with a few different subjects to try and figure out
what I want to major in. I’m obviously a boy, haha. Uhmm… both my parents when to college,
actually, my dad went to USC, so I’m excited to be here!

(page flip) In terms of my study habits, I guess the thing I find most important is staying on top
of my classes. I hate feeling like I’m unprepared. Sometimes, if I really like a class, I’ll start
studying a few weeks before an exam. But, a lot of the time I need the pressure of an upcoming
deadline to motivate me. I definitely get less done when I study with others, so if I really need to
buckle down, I’ll try to study alone.

(page flip) And in terms of my working style, I generally try to avoid conflict. Not to say I would
avoid conflict at all costs. Like, if something was going to completely jeopardize a project, I
would definitely bring attention to it. I really like to make schedules and checklists, I think it’s
fun to check things off, but I often have a hard time sticking to a strict schedule…

(Male) Partner From Working-Class Background Condition:

Introduction Questionnaire:
First Name: Eric
Age: 18

158
Gender: Female Male
Year in College: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
College Major: Undeclared
Mother’s Education (circle one):
Less than high school
High school diploma
Some college
2-year degree (e.g., Associates)
4-year degree (B.A. or B.S.)
Professional degree (M.D., Ph.D., J.D., M.BA., etc.)
Father’s Education (circle one):
Less than high school
High School Diploma
Some college
2-year degree (e.g., Associates)
4-year degree (B.A. or B.S.)
Professional degree (M.D., Ph.D., J.D., M.BA., etc.)
Household income (circle one):
Less than $100,000
$100,000-$200,000
$200,000-$300,000
Over $300,000

Study Habits and Workstyle Portion of Introduction Questionnaire (see above for specific
items):
The following items ask you about your study habits and work style. Please read each item
carefully and respond in an honest, open manner. Your answers on this questionnaire will be
used to help your partner get to know you better.

Speech Script for Video (Study 1)/Audio (Study 2):
Okay, hi (waves), my name is Eric… I’m an 18-year-old freshman here at USC and I’m
currently undeclared, but I’m experimenting with a few different subjects to try and figure out
what I want to major in. I’m obviously a boy, haha. Uhmm… actually, neither of my parents
went to college, so I’m excited to be here!

159
(page flip) In terms of my study habits, I guess the thing I find most important is staying on top
of my classes. I hate feeling like I’m unprepared. Sometimes, if I really like a class, I’ll start
studying a few weeks before an exam. But, a lot of the time I need the pressure of an upcoming
deadline to motivate me. I definitely get less done when I study with others, so if I really need to
buckle down, I’ll try to study alone.

(page flip) And in terms of my working style, I generally try to avoid conflict. Not to say I would
avoid conflict at all costs. Like, if something was going to completely jeopardize a project, I
would definitely bring attention to it. I really like to make schedules and checklists, I think it’s
fun to check things off, but I often have a hard time sticking to a strict schedule…

(Female) Partner From Middle-Class Background Condition:

Introduction Questionnaire:
First Name: Erica
Age: 18
Gender: Female Male
Year in College: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
College Major: Undeclared
Mother’s Education (circle one):
Less than high school
High school diploma
Some college
2-year degree (e.g., Associates)
4-year degree (B.A. or B.S.)
Professional degree (M.D., Ph.D., J.D., M.BA., etc.)
Father’s Education (circle one):
Less than high school
High School Diploma
Some college
2-year degree (e.g., Associates)
4-year degree (B.A. or B.S.)
Professional degree (M.D., Ph.D., J.D., M.BA., etc.)
Household income (circle one):
Less than $100,000
$100,000-$200,000

160
$200,000-$300,000
Over $300,000

Study Habits and Workstyle Portion of Introduction Questionnaire (see above for specific
items):

The following items ask you about your study habits and work style. Please read each item
carefully and respond in an honest, open manner. Your answers on this questionnaire will be
used to help your partner get to know you better.

Speech Script for Video (Study 1)/Audio (Study 2):
Okay, hi (waves), my name is Erica… I’m an 18-year-old freshman here at USC and I’m
currently undeclared, but I’m experimenting with a few different subjects to try and figure out
what I want to major in. I’m obviously a girl, haha. Uhmm… both my parents when to college,
actually, my dad went to USC, so I’m excited to be here!

(page flip) In terms of my study habits, I guess the thing I find most important is staying on top
of my classes. I hate feeling like I’m unprepared. Sometimes, if I really like a class, I’ll start
studying a few weeks before an exam. But, a lot of the time I need the pressure of an upcoming
deadline to motivate me. I definitely get less done when I study with others, so if I really need to
buckle down, I’ll try to study alone.

(page flip) And in terms of my working style, I generally try to avoid conflict. Not to say I would
avoid conflict at all costs. Like, if something was going to completely jeopardize a project, I
would definitely bring attention to it. I really like to make schedules and checklists, I think it’s
fun to check things off, but I often have a hard time sticking to a strict schedule…

(Female) Partner From Working-Class Background Condition:

Introduction Questionnaire:
First Name: Erica
Age: 18
Gender: Female Male
Year in College: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
College Major: Undeclared
Mother’s Education (circle one):
Less than high school
High school diploma

161
Some college
2-year degree (e.g., Associates)
4-year degree (B.A. or B.S.)
Professional degree (M.D., Ph.D., J.D., M.BA., etc.)
Father’s Education (circle one):
Less than high school
High School Diploma
Some college
2-year degree (e.g., Associates)
4-year degree (B.A. or B.S.)
Professional degree (M.D., Ph.D., J.D., M.BA., etc.)
Household income (circle one):
Less than $100,000
$100,000-$200,000
$200,000-$300,000
Over $300,000

Study Habits and Workstyle Portion of Introduction Questionnaire (see above for specific
items):
The following items ask you about your study habits and work style. Please read each item
carefully and respond in an honest, open manner. Your answers on this questionnaire will be
used to help your partner get to know you better.

Speech Script for Video (Study 1)/Audio (Study 2):
Okay, hi (waves), my name is Erica… I’m an 18-year-old freshman here at USC and I’m
currently undeclared, but I’m experimenting with a few different subjects to try and figure out
what I want to major in. I’m obviously a girl, haha. Uhmm… actually, neither of my parents
went to college, so I’m excited to be here!

(page flip) In terms of my study habits, I guess the thing I find most important is staying on top
of my classes. I hate feeling like I’m unprepared. Sometimes, if I really like a class, I’ll start
studying a few weeks before an exam. But, a lot of the time I need the pressure of an upcoming
deadline to motivate me. I definitely get less done when I study with others, so if I really need to
buckle down, I’ll try to study alone.

(page flip) And in terms of my working style, I generally try to avoid conflict. Not to say I would
avoid conflict at all costs. Like, if something was going to completely jeopardize a project, I

162
would definitely bring attention to it. I really like to make schedules and checklists, I think it’s
fun to check things off, but I often have a hard time sticking to a strict schedule…

163
Appendix B: Complete List of Chapter 2, Study 1 Items
Physiological Prescreening Questions:
Please answer “Yes” or “No” to the following questions. Please remember that all of your
responses are confidential. You are not required to provide an answer and may choose to skip
any question.

1) Have you ever had a heart murmur?
2) Do you have a pacemaker?
3) Do you believe you might be pregnant?
4) Are you currently breastfeeding?
5) In the past 6 months have you:
a. Taken medication that would affect your cardiovascular system (e.g., beta-
blockers)?
b. Had mononucleosis (“mono”)?
c. Had malaria?
d. Had surgical procedures that required anesthesia?
e. Been diagnosed with clinical anxiety?
f. Been diagnosed with clinical depression?

Please answer the following questions by filling in the blank:

6) Please indicate your height in feet and inches ________
7) Please indicate your weight in pounds __________

Introduction Questionnaire:
First Name: ___________________________________
Age: ___________
Gender: Female Male
Year in College: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
College Major: ______________________________
Mother’s Education (circle one):
Less than high school
High school diploma
Some college
2-year degree (e.g., Associates)
4-year degree (B.A. or B.S.)
Professional degree (M.D., Ph.D., J.D., M.BA., etc.)
Father’s Education (circle one):
Less than high school

164
High School Diploma
Some college
2-year degree (e.g., Associates)
4-year degree (B.A. or B.S.)
Professional degree (M.D., Ph.D., J.D., M.BA., etc.)
Household income (circle one):
Less than $100,000
$100,000-$200,000
$200,000-$300,000
Over $300,000

Study Habits and Workstyle Portion of Introduction Questionnaire:
The following items ask you about your study habits and work style. Please read each item
carefully and respond in an honest, open manner. Your answers on this questionnaire will be
used to help your partner get to know you better.

Study Habits

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Agree
1. I find it easy to study for all of
my classes, regardless of how much
I like them.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. I prefer to study in groups rather
than alone.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. I use all of the available
classroom materials when studying
for tests, including lecture notes,
homework, textbooks, and office
hours.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. I am able to cram information the
night before an exam and still
perform well.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

165
5. I need to listen to music of have
the TV on behind me to study; I
can’t do it in pure silence.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Work Style

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Agree
1. I avoid conflict at all times, even
if it might push my partner(s) and I
to create a better idea.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. When working on a project, I
make a schedule and I stick to it.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. I often find it difficult to
motivate myself to get to work and
sometimes wait until the very last
minute to complete tasks.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. I usually assume a leadership
position during group projects.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. I like to reward myself with
things like time off or a dessert
when I have completed a big
project milestone.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Individual Performance Task:
The purpose of this test is to warm up your brain for the following task you will complete with
your partner. This test will also factor into your eligibility for the $50 Amazon gift cards.

The team that has the best overall performance will win the 2 gift cards. Your overall team
performance will be a composite of (1) your individual on this test, (2) your partner’s
performance on this test, and (3) your team performance on the dyadic task.

You will have 5 minutes to complete the test.

166

Please, do not start until we tell you to begin.

1. When a certain number is divided by 7, the remainder is 0. If the remainder is not 0
when the number is divided by 14, then the remainder must be.
A. 1
B. 2
C. 4
D. 6
E. 7

2. Chris gave Jane x cards. He gave Betty one card more than he gave Jane and he gave
Paul two cards fewer than he gave Betty. In terms of x, how many cards did Chris
give Betty, Jane, and Paul altogether?
A. 3x + 1
B. 3x
C. 3x – 1
D. x – 1
E.
3
x

3. Usually the first to spot data that were inconsistent with other findings, in this
particular experiment she let a number of _____ results slip by.
A. inaccurate
B. verifiable
C. redundant
D. salient
E. anomalous

4. Liberty is not easy, but far better to be an _____ fox, hungry and threatened on its
hill, than a _____ canary, safe and secure in its cage.
A. unfriendly . . fragile
B. aging . . young
C. angry . . content
D. imperious . . lethargic
E. unfettered . . well-fed

5. Mario bought equal numbers of 2-cent and 3-cent stamps. If the total cost of the
stamps was $1.00, what was the total number of stamps bought?
A. 25
B. 34
C. 40
D. 46
E. 50

167
6. A widow received 1/3 of her husband’s estate, and each of her three sons received
1/3 of the balance. If the widow and one of her sons received a total of $60,000 from
the estate, what was the amount of the estate?
A. $90,000
B. $96,000
C. $108,000
D. $135,000
E. $180,000

7. In a certain apartment building exactly 1/3 of the apartments have two bedrooms
and exactly 1/7 of the two-bedroom apartments are front apartments. Which of the
following could be the total number of apartments in the building?
A. 42
B. 50
C. 51
D. 56
E. 57

8. didactic : instruct ::
A. pedantic : contend
B. comic : amuse
C. theatrical : applaud
D. imperative : obey
E. rhetorical : recite

9. digressive : statement ::
A. connotative : definition
B. slanderous : slur
C. tangential : presupposition
D. biased : opinion
E. circuitous : route

10. The rectangular floor of a warehouse is 300 feet wide and 350 feet long. If the width
remains fixed, how many additional feet would have to be added to the length to
increase the floor area by 20%?
A. 42
B. 50
C. 65
D. 70
E. 84

11. If a person can save $380 is 5 weeks, in how many weeks, at this same rate, can the
person save 2.6 times this amount?
A. 13
B. 12.5
C. 11

168
D. 10.6
E. 8

12. The first World War began in a context of jargon and verbal delicacy and continued
in a cloud of _____ as _____ as language and literature, skillfully used, could make
it.
A. circumlocution . . literal
B. cliché . . lucid
C. euphemism . . impenetrable
D. particularity . . deliberate
E. subjectivity . . enthralling

Demographics:
What is your race/ethnicity? (circle one)
1. Black/African American
2. Latino/Hispanic
3. Asian/Asian American
4. White/Caucasian
5. Native American
6. Other (please specify) ___________________

Were you born in the United States? (circle one): Yes No

Is English your first language? (circle one): Yes No

If English is not your first language, what is? (fill in the blank): _________________

What is the highest level of education completed by your father? (circle one):
1. Some high school or less
2. High school diploma
3. Some college (1 year to less than 4 years)
4. Two-year college degree (A.A.)
5. Four-year college degree (B.A. or B.S.)
6. MA/PhD, MD, MBA, Law Degree
7. N/A

What is the highest level of education completed by your mother? (circle one):
1. Some high school or less
2. High school diploma
3. Some college (1 year to less than 4 years)
4. Two-year college degree (A.A.)
5. Four-year college degree (B.A. or B.S.)
6. MA/PhD, MD, MBA, Law Degree
7. N/A

What is your parent’s annual household income? (circle one):

169
1. Less than $25,000 7. $150,001 - $175,000
2. $25,001 - $50,000 8. $175,001 - $200,000
3. $50,001 - $75,000 9. $200,001 - $250,000
4. $75,001 - $100,000 10. $250,001 - $300,000
5. $100,001 - $125,000 11. Greater than $300,001
6. $125,001 - $150,000

Manipulation Check:
Memory Questionnaire

Partner’s Year in College: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Partner’s Race/Ethnicity (circle one):
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino
Asian/Asian American
White/Caucasian
Native American

Partner’s Mother’s Education (circle one):
Less than 4-year college degree
4-year college degree or higher

Partner’s Father’s Education (circle one):
Less than 4-year college degree
4-year college degree or higher

170
Appendix C: Complete List of Chapter 2, Study 2 Items
Warm-Up Task:
1) A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does
the ball cost? cents
2) If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to
make 100 widgets? minutes
3) In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days
for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the

Introduction Questionnaire:
First Name: ___________________________________
Age: ___________
Gender: Female Male
Year in College: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
College Major: ______________________________
Mother’s Education (circle one):
Less than high school
High school diploma
Some college
2-year degree (e.g., Associates)
4-year degree (B.A. or B.S.)
Professional degree (M.D., Ph.D., J.D., M.BA., etc.)
Father’s Education (circle one):
Less than high school
High School Diploma
Some college
2-year degree (e.g., Associates)
4-year degree (B.A. or B.S.)
Professional degree (M.D., Ph.D., J.D., M.BA., etc.)
Household income (circle one):
Less than $100,000
$100,000-$200,000
$200,000-$300,000
Over $300,000

171
Study Habits and Work Style Portion of Introduction Questionnaire (see above for specific
items):
The following items ask you about your study habits and work style. Please read each item
carefully and respond in an honest, open manner. Your answers on this questionnaire will be
used to help your partner get to know you better.

Threat Ratio Self-Report:
1. This task is demanding.
2. This task is stressful.
3. This task is distressing.
4. This task is threatening.
5. I am uncertain how I will perform.
6. This task requires a lot of effort.
7. I have the abilities to perform well.
8. I have the expectations to perform well.
9. Performing well is important to me.
10. This task is a positive challenge.
11. I am the type of person who does well on these tasks.

Perceived status of self:
1. Below is a ladder representing where people stand at USC. At the top of the ladder are
people who are the best off - those who have the most respect, the best academic standing
and the best career prospects. At the bottom are the people who are the worst off - those
who have the least respect, have the worst academic standing and the worst career
prospects. The higher up on the ladder, the closer you are to the people at the very top.
The lower you are on the ladder, the closer you are to the people at the very bottom.
Select the number that corresponds to the rung of the ladder where you stand relative to
other USC students.

Status Concerns:
1. How important would it be to you that you maintain your current status?

Concerns about Appearing Overprivileged:
1. [I worry that my partner may think that I am] over-privileged.

Demographics:
1. What is your race/ethnicity? (Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, Asian/Asian
American, White/Caucasian, Native American, Other (text entry))
2. Were you born in the United States? (yes/no)
3. Is English your first language? (yes/no)
4. If English is not your first language, what is? (text entry)
5. What is your cumulative high school GPA?
6. What was your score on SAT/ACT?
7. What is your parent’s annual household income?

172
8. How would you describe your family’s social class? (Poor, Working Class, Middle Class,
Upper Middle Class, Upper Class)

173
Appendix D: Chapter 2, Study 3 Experimental Manipulations
(Male) Partner From Middle-Class Background Condition:

Introduction Questionnaire:
First Name: Eric
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Year in College: Freshman
College Major: undeclared
Mother’s Education: 4-year degree (B.A. or B.S.)
Father’s Education: Professional degree (M.D., Ph.D., J.D., M.BA., etc.)
Household Income: Over $300,000

Short Essay Introduction:
Hey, I’m Eric. I’m 18 and a freshman. I’m undeclared and still figuring out my major. i’m male.
Both my parents are college grads and my dad went to USC so I’m excited to be here.

For study habits, I just try to stay on top of my classes because I hate feeling unprepared. I’ll
SOMETIMES start studying a few weeks before a test, but I usually need the pressure of a
deadline to motivate me to study.. I usually study alone becuase I get more done that way. For
working style, I try to avoid conflict unless it jeopardizes a project. I also make schedules and
checklists for projects but I do have a hard time trying to stick to a schedule.

(Male) Partner From Working-Class Background Condition:

Introduction Questionnaire:
First Name: Eric
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Year in College: Freshman
College Major: undeclared
Mother’s Education: High School Diploma
Father’s Education: High School Diploma
Household Income: under $100,000

Short Essay Introduction:
Hey, I’m Eric. I’m 18 and a freshman. I’m undeclared and still figuring out my major. i’m male.
Neither of my parents went to college so I’m excited to be here.

For study habits, I just try to stay on top of my classes because I hate feeling unprepared. I’ll
SOMETIMES start studying a few weeks before a test, but I usually need the pressure of a
deadline to motivate me to study.. I usually study alone becuase I get more done that way. For
working style, I try to avoid conflict unless it jeopardizes a project. I also make schedules and
checklists for projects but I do have a hard time trying to stick to a schedule.

174
(Female or Other/Non-Binary) Partner From Middle-Class Background Condition:

Introduction Questionnaire:
First Name: Erica
Age: 18
Gender: Female
Year in College: Freshman
College Major: undeclared
Mother’s Education: 4-year degree (B.A. or B.S.)
Father’s Education: Professional degree (M.D., Ph.D., J.D., M.BA., etc.)
Household Income: Over $300,000

Short Essay Introduction:
Hey, I’m Erica. I’m 18 and a freshman. I’m undeclared and still figuring out my major. i’m
female. Both my parents are college grads and my dad went to USC so I’m excited to be here.

For study habits, I just try to stay on top of my classes because I hate feeling unprepared. I’ll
SOMETIMES start studying a few weeks before a test, but I usually need the pressure of a
deadline to motivate me to study.. I usually study alone becuase I get more done that way. For
working style, I try to avoid conflict unless it jeopardizes a project. I also make schedules and
checklists for projects but I do have a hard time trying to stick to a schedule.

(Female or Other/Non-Binary) Partner From Working-Class Background Condition:

Introduction Questionnaire:
First Name: Erica
Age: 18
Gender: Female
Year in College: Freshman
College Major: undeclared
Mother’s Education: High School Diploma
Father’s Education: High School Diploma
Household Income: under $100,000

Short Essay Introduction:
Hey, I’m Erica. I’m 18 and a freshman. I’m undeclared and still figuring out my major. i’m
female. Neither of my parents went to college so I’m excited to be here.

For study habits, I just try to stay on top of my classes because I hate feeling unprepared. I’ll
SOMETIMES start studying a few weeks before a test, but I usually need the pressure of a
deadline to motivate me to study.. I usually study alone becuase I get more done that way. For
working style, I try to avoid conflict unless it jeopardizes a project. I also make schedules and
checklists for projects but I do have a hard time trying to stick to a schedule.

175
Appendix E: Complete List of Chapter 2, Study 3 Items
Introduction Questionnaire – Similar to Studies 1 and 2 (see above for specific items).

Individual Task:
1. When a certain number is divided by 7, the remainder is 0. If the remainder is not 0 when
the number is divided by 14, then the remainder must be.
F. 1
G. 2
H. 4
I. 6
J. 7

2. Chris gave Jane x cards. He gave Betty one card more than he gave Jane and he gave
Paul two cards fewer than he gave Betty. In terms of x, how many cards did Chris give
Betty, Jane, and Paul altogether?
F. 3x + 1
G. 3x
H. 3x – 1
I. x – 1
J.
3
x

3. Usually the first to spot data that were inconsistent with other findings, in this particular
experiment she let a number of _____ results slip by.
F. inaccurate
G. verifiable
H. redundant
I. salient
J. anomalous

4. Liberty is not easy, but far better to be an _____ fox, hungry and threatened on its hill,
than a _____ canary, safe and secure in its cage.
F. unfriendly . . fragile
G. aging . . young
H. angry . . content
I. imperious . . lethargic
J. unfettered . . well-fed

5. Mario bought equal numbers of 2-cent and 3-cent stamps. If the total cost of the stamps
was $1.00, what was the total number of stamps bought?
F. 25
G. 34
H. 40
I. 46
J. 50

176

6. didactic : instruct ::
F. pedantic : contend
G. comic : amuse
H. theatrical : applaud
I. imperative : obey
J. rhetorical : recite

Threat Ratio Self-Report Measure:
When the items below mention the “task” we mean specifically the task of working with your
partner.

1. This task is demanding.
2. This task is stressful.
3. This task is threatening.
4. I am uncertain how I will perform.
5. This task requires a lot of effort.
6. I have the abilities to perform well.
7. I have the expectations to perform well.
8. Performing well is important to me.
9. This task is a positive challenge.
10. I am the type of person who does well on these tasks.

Collaborative Task:
Your goal is to generate as many words as you can in 3 minutes by linking adjacent letters to
form words. The letters you use must be touching vertically, horizontally, or diagonally. Words
must be at least three letters long. You and your partner will take turns.

Concerns about appearing privileged:
1. I am privileged.
E E O N T N O E
E A G T O A L H
M E D V E Qu N I
K V B I A C E A
A N P N P N E N
I H Y L O P D N
D H R S P R H T
E S I E G D C N

177
2. I am spoiled.
3. I have had unearned advantages.
4. I have not had to overcome any real challenges.
5. My life has been easy.

Typicality of partner:
Based on what you know about your partner so far, please tell us your thoughts the upcoming
interaction.
1. “I have a lot of experience interacting with people like my partner.”
2. “My partner reminds me of some of my friends.”
3. “My partner is someone who is unique.”
4. “My partner is different from most of the people I typically interact with.”

Manipulation check:
We want to ensure that you were paying attention to your partner's introduction. Please select
what is true about your partner. If you do not remember, simply leave the item blank.

Partner’s Major:
a) Undeclared
b) Business Administration
c) Psychology
d) Accounting
e) Communication
f) Did not mention

Partner’s Year in College:
a) Freshman
b) Sophomore
c) Junior
d) Senior
e) Did not mention

Partner’s Mother's Education:
a) Less than 4-year college degree
b) 4-year college degree or higher
c) Did not mention

Partner’s Father's Education:
a) Less than 4-year college degree
b) 4-year college degree or higher
c) Did not mention

Future Shared Identity:
1. Our paths in the future are not that different.
2. After graduating college, I would consider my partner and I to be members of the same
group.

178
3. I think I will be able to feel connected to my partner in the future.
4. I think I will be able to identify with my partner in the future.
5. My partner and I are more similar than we are different.
6. In the future, I think my partner and I will live pretty different lives.
7. I think my day-to-day life in 10 years will be similar to my partner’s.
8. After graduating, my partner and I will both be members of the Trojan Family.

Debrief Questions:
1. What do you think is the purpose of our study? Has anything confused you about the
study?
2. Were you suspicious about anything we told you? Did you ever wonder if there were
some things that we weren't telling you?

Demographics:
1. What is your race/ethnicity? (Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, Asian/Asian
American, White/Caucasian, Native American, Other (text entry))
2. Were you born in the United States? (yes/no)
3. Is English your first language? (yes/no)
4. If English is not your first language, what is? (text entry)
5. What is your cumulative high school GPA?
6. What was your score on SAT/ACT?
7. What is your parent’s annual household income?
8. How would you describe your family’s social class? (Poor, Working Class, Middle Class,
Upper Middle Class, Upper Class)

179
Appendix F: Chapter 3, Study 1a Experimental Manipulations
Interpersonal Conflict Condition: Imagine that you are on a team with other students for a
class project. You notice that there is growing conflict and tension between some of the
members, which has slowed down the project's progress. You decide to set up a meeting in hopes
of resolving this conflict. What are your perceptions about how easy or difficult this meeting will
be for you?

Stressful Performance Condition: Imagine that you are on a team with other students for a
class project. The day of your team project presentation, two of the five members are not able to
come. The group decides how to split up the absent members’ portions of the presentation. You
all spend the next few minutes preparing. What are your perceptions about how easy of difficult
it will be for your team to deliver a high-quality presentation?

180
Appendix G: Chapter 3, Study 1a and 1b Threat Measure
Threat Ratio Self-Report (Used in Study 1a):
1. This task is stressful.
2. This task is threatening.
3. This task is a positive challenge.
4. I am the type of person who does well on these tasks.

Threat Ratio Self-Report (Used in Study 1b):
11. This task is demanding.
12. This task is stressful.
13. This task is threatening.
14. I am uncertain how I will perform.
15. This task requires a lot of effort.
16. I have the abilities to perform well.
17. I have the expectations to perform well.
18. Performing well is important to me.
19. This task is a positive challenge.
20. I am the type of person who does well on these tasks.

181
Appendix H: Chapter 3, Study 1b Experimental Manipulations
Interpersonal Conflict Condition: Imagine that you recently encountered a coworker who
behaved in a way that you believe is rude and unprofessional. You decide to talk to this coworker
to share your perspective, address this issue, and hopefully move forward in a positive direction.
What are your perceptions about how easy or difficult this conversation will be for you?

Stressful Performance Condition: Imagine that you have been working on an important
presentation all week and will be delivering this presentation in just one day. You then learn that
much of the data upon which you based your analysis and recommendations were incorrect. As a
result, you have to redo a week’s worth of work in a day. What are your perceptions about how
easy or difficult it will be for you to deliver a high-quality presentation to your client?

182
Appendix I: Chapter 3, Study 2 Experimental Manipulations
Task Conflict Condition: Imagine that for one of your Marshall classes, you are assigned a
semester-long group project with four other undergraduate students. This project accounts for
most of your grade. The main objective of the project is to profile company leaders and examine
different leadership styles and strategies. Your group has a meeting to discuss the topic and
which companies to examine. During this meeting, there is a big disagreement over whether your
group project should examine established leaders in large, Fortune 500 companies or
entrepreneurial leaders in small, start-up companies. This quickly turns into conflict over
different ideas about what should be done to earn a high grade on the project.

Stressful Time Management Condition: Imagine that it is the second to last week of the
semester. You know that during finals week you have three papers due and two final exams. So,
you want to be sure to start preparing early and not procrastinate. In addition to working on the
papers, you also start studying for the exams. In reviewing the paper requirements and the course
materials for the exams, you learn that they are more extensive than you expected. You realize
that you’re not sure how you can get everything done in time and still get good grades. You will
have to determine which paper(s) or exam to prioritize.

183
Appendix J: Complete List of Chapter 3, Study 2 Items

Threat Ratio (Used in Task Conflict Condition):
1. Managing the conflict will be demanding
2. Managing the conflict will be stressful
3. Managing the conflict will be threatening
4. I am uncertain how I will manage the conflict
5. Managing the conflict will require a lot of effort
6. I have the abilities to manage the conflict well
7. I have the expectation of managing the conflict well
8. Managing the conflict well is important to me
9. Managing the conflict will be a positive challenge
10. I am the type of person who manages these conflicts well

Threat Ratio (Used in Stressful Time Management Condition):
1. Prioritizing my time will be demanding
2. Prioritizing my time will be stressful
3. Prioritizing my time will be threatening
4. I am uncertain how well I will prioritize my time
5. Prioritizing my time will require a lot of effort
6. I have the abilities to prioritize my time well
7. I have the expectation of prioritizing my time well
8. Prioritizing my time well is important to me
9. Prioritizing my time will be a positive challenge
10. I am the type of person who prioritizes my time well

Likelihood to Take Action (Used in Task Conflict Condition):
How likely are you to take action in this situation (e.g., schedule another time for the team to
discuss further, seek advice from the TA, or another action)?

Likelihood to Take Action (Used in Stressful Time Management Condition):
How likely are you to take action in this situation (e.g., create a study plan, seek advice from the
TA, or another action)?

Importance of Resolution:
How important is it to you to figure out a solution in this situation?

Physical and behavioral reactions:
To what extent do you think it would cause you to...
1. lose sleep
2. cry
3. lose your appetite
4. eat comfort foods
5. eat sweets

184
Demographics:
1. Age (text entry)
2. What is your race/ethnicity? (Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, Asian/Asian
American, White/Caucasian, Native American, Other (text entry))
3. What is your year in school (1
st
, 2
nd
, 3
rd
, 4
th
, 5
th
or more)
4. Were you born in the United States? (yes/no)
5. Is English your first language? (yes/no)
6. If English is not your first language, what is? (text entry)
7. What is your cumulative high school GPA?
8. What was your score on SAT/ACT?
9. What is the highest level of education completed by your father/guardian? (Some high
school or less; High school diploma; Some college (1 yr. to less than 4 yrs.); Two-year
college degree (A.A.); Four-year college degree (B.A. or B.S.); Ma/PhD, MD, MBA,
Law Degree; N/A)
10. What is the highest level of education completed by your mother/guardian? (Some high
school or less; High school diploma; Some college (1 yr. to less than 4 yrs.); Two-year
college degree (A.A.); Four-year college degree (B.A. or B.S.); Ma/PhD, MD, MBA,
Law Degree; N/A)
11. What is your parent’s annual household income?
12. How would you describe your family’s social class? (Poor, Working Class, Middle Class,
Upper Middle Class, Upper Class)

185
Appendix K: Chapter 3, Study 3 Experimental Manipulations
Introduction For All Manipulations:
You are assigned the role of an employee at CloutCo. CloutCo is an organization that is
considering adopting a new social media policy. This policy will limit use of social media during
company time. You are a member of a team at CloutCo that is tasked with exploring the positive
and negative implications of adopting the policy. Proponents of the new policy believe that it
will lead to more productivity, fewer security and privacy issues, and less inappropriate online
behavior. In contrast, opponents of the new policy believe that it will lead to more employee
burnout, lower job satisfaction, and lower engagement. You and the other team members meet to
discuss this new policy.

Task Conflict Condition: During the meeting, you openly disagree with another team member’s
opinion about the policy. The other team member, Alex, tries to convince you and the other team
members that there are more cons than pros to the new social media policy. You try to convince
Alex and the other team members that there are more actually more pros than cons. During the
discussion, you and Alex remain professional and polite.

After the meeting concludes, you decide to talk to Alex to address the conflict over whether to
adopt the policy and hopefully move forward in a positive direction. How easy or difficult will
this conversation be for you?

Relationship Conflict Condition: During the meeting, you and another team member named
Alex openly disagree and harshly criticize one another. Alex accuses you of being careless and
not considering all aspects of the situation. You accuse Alex of being oblivious and closed-
minded. At times during the contentious discussion, both you and Alex are unprofessional and
spend more time being rude to each other than actually addressing the issues.

After the meeting concludes, you decide to talk to Alex to address the personality conflict and
hopefully move forward in a positive direction. How easy or difficult will this conversation be
for you?

Presentation Condition: During the meeting, you learn that you will need to prepare a
presentation about the implications of adopting the new social media policy. The presentation
will need to summarize the information and research you have collected about the new social
media policy. You will deliver your presentation to the other team members.

After the meeting concludes, you begin work on your presentation and hope that it will be
helpful in moving the team forward in a positive direction. How easy or difficult will it be for
you to deliver a high-quality presentation to the team?

186
Appendix L: Complete List of Chapter 3, Study 3 Items
Resource and Demand Items (Used in Task and Relationship Conflict Condition):
1. The conversation with Alex will be demanding
2. The conversation with Alex will be stressful
3. The conversation with Alex will be threatening
4. I am uncertain how I will handle the conversation with Alex
5. The conversation with Alex will require a lot of effort
6. I have the abilities to handle the conversation with Alex well
7. I expect that I will handle the conversation with Alex well
8. Handling the conversation with Alex well is important to me
9. The conversation with Alex will be a positive challenge
10. I am the type of person who does well in these conversations

Resource and Demand Items (Used in Presentation Condition):
1. Giving the presentation will be demanding
2. Giving the presentation will be stressful
3. Giving the presentation will be threatening
4. I am uncertain how I will perform on the presentation
5. Giving the presentation will require a lot of effort
6. I have the abilities to perform well on the presentation
7. I expect that I will perform well on the presentation
8. Performing well on the presentation is important to me
9. Giving the presentation will be a positive challenge
10. I am the type of person who does well on these presentations

Manipulation Check:
Recall the scenario you just read about. What was the scenario about? Select the BEST answer.
1. It was about professional and polite disagreement over the new social media policy.
2. It was about unprofessional and rude disagreement over the new social media policy.
3. It was about giving a presentation about the possible implications of adopting the new
social media policy.

Burnout:
This situation would probably cause me to…
1. lose some of my enthusiasm for the workday.
2. be unhappy for most of the workday.
3. be distracted when completing work tasks for the rest of the workday.
4. be irritable the rest of the workday.
5. not fully enjoy being at work the rest of the workday.
6. have difficulty concentrating on my work for the rest of the workday.
7. not feel like coming into work the next day.

Impact on Work:
This situation would probably cause me to…
1. be distracted when completing work tasks for the rest of the workday.

187
2. not feel like coming into work the next day.

Turnover Intentions:
This situation would probably cause me to…
1. consider quitting my job at CloutCo, if I could find another job quickly.

Counterproductive Work Behavior:
This situation would probably cause me to…
1. leave work earlier than I’m supposed to.
2. try and ignore people at work for the rest of the day.
3. comment on the little things that bother me at work.

Perceptions of Conflict Resolution Efficacy (Used in Task and Relationship Conflict
Condition):
1. How likely are you to be able to resolve the conflict between you and Alex?
2. How serious do you think the conflict between you and Alex is?
3. How common do you think the conflict between you and Alex is at most workplaces?

Perceptions of Conflict Resolution Efficacy (Used in Presentation Condition):
1. How likely are you to be able to give an informative presentation in front of your team?
2. How important do you think the task of delivering a high-quality presentation is?
3. How common do you think your task of delivering a presentation is at most workplaces?

White-Collar Experience:
How much experience do you have working at a white-collar company or organization like
CloutCo?

Demographics:
1. Age (text entry)
2. Gender (Male, Female, Other/Nonbinary)
3. Employment Status (Employed, Unemployed, Student, Other (text entry))
4. What is your race/ethnicity? (Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, Asian/Asian
American, White/Caucasian, Native American, Other (text entry))
5. Were you born in the United States? (yes/no)
6. Is English your first language? (yes/no)
7. If English is not your first language, what is? (text entry)
8. What is the highest level of education you completed? (Some high school or less; High
school diploma; Some college (1 yr. to less than 4 yrs.); Two-year college degree (A.A.);
Four-year college degree (B.A. or B.S.); Ma/PhD, MD, MBA, Law Degree; N/A)
9. What is the highest level of education completed by your father/guardian? (Some high
school or less; High school diploma; Some college (1 yr. to less than 4 yrs.); Two-year
college degree (A.A.); Four-year college degree (B.A. or B.S.); Ma/PhD, MD, MBA,
Law Degree; N/A)
10. What is the highest level of education completed by your mother/guardian? (Some high
school or less; High school diploma; Some college (1 yr. to less than 4 yrs.); Two-year

188
college degree (A.A.); Four-year college degree (B.A. or B.S.); Ma/PhD, MD, MBA,
Law Degree; N/A)
11. What is your current household’s total yearly income?
12. How would you describe your family’s social class? (Poor, Working Class, Middle Class,
Upper Middle Class, Upper Class)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract People from working-class backgrounds often face unique obstacles that hinder their experience and performance in gateway institutions (e.g., four-year colleges and universities, professional, white-collar organizations). One such obstacle is the cultural mismatch between the interdependent cultural norms promoted in working-class contexts and the largely independent cultural norms that characterize many gateway institutions. As a result of cultural mismatch, people from working-class backgrounds tend to experience greater levels of threat and underperform compared to those from middle-class backgrounds in such contexts. However, research suggests that people from working-class backgrounds may have better experiences and performance relative to people from middle-class backgrounds in certain situations. In this dissertation, I take a “strengths-based perspective” and focus on the strengths that people from working-class backgrounds might possess, given their engagement in contexts that promote interdependent cultural norms. In Chapter 1, I provide an overview of research on (1) the role of social class contexts in shaping people’s cultural norms and understanding of what it means to be a good person in the world, (2) how cultural mismatch disadvantages people from working-class backgrounds in gateway institutions, and (3) the potential benefits of interdependent cultural norms for people from working-class backgrounds in interpersonally uncertain interactions. In Chapter 2, I investigate the impact of people’s social class backgrounds on their experiences of threat in cross-class versus same-class interactions. In Chapter 3, I examine social class differences in people’s experiences of threat in interpersonal conflict resolution. Finally, in Chapter 4, I discuss promising avenues for future research and the implications of this work.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A costly penny for your thoughts?: Allies cause harm by soliciting disadvantaged group members' voice when confronting prejudice

PDF

Technology, behavior tracking, and the future of work

PDF

Better now than later: the cost of victims' delayed accusations

PDF

The curse of loyalty: interdependent self construal and support for corruption

PDF

Culture's consequences: a situated account

PDF

Forgiveness: elucidating the underlying psychological processes that foster brand forgiveness and interpersonal forgiveness

PDF

The individual- and team-level effects of organizational gender strategies

PDF

Creation and influence of visual verbal communication: antecedents and consequences of photo-text similarity in consumer-generated communication

PDF

Increasing capabilities or decreasing cost: Fairness perceptions of job displacement due to automation and outsourcing

PDF

When transparency fails: investigating the complexities of managing transparency in organizations

PDF

Automated contracts and the lawyers who don't review them: adoption and use of machine learning technology

PDF

The interactive effects of incentive threshold and narcissism on managerial decision-making

PDF

Essays on the firm and stakeholders relationships: evidence from mergers & acquisitions and labor negotiations

PDF

Power, status, and organizational citizenship behavior

PDF

Synthetic biopolymers modulate cell signaling

PDF

Understanding normative influence of neighborhoods: a multilevel approach to promoting Latinas’ cervical cancer prevention behaviors in urban ethnic communities

PDF

The morality of technology

PDF

The effects of a customer's comparative processing with positive and negative information on product choice

PDF

Essays in corporate finance

PDF

Picky customers and expected returns

Asset Metadata

Creator Truong, Mindy (author)

Core Title Working-class advantages: when interdependent cultural norms can decrease threat in interpersonally uncertain interactions

School Marshall School of Business

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Business Administration

Degree Conferral Date 2021-08

Publication Date 07/22/2021

Defense Date 06/10/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag cultural norms,OAI-PMH Harvest,Social class,threat

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Townsend, Sarah S.M. (committee chair), Anicich, Eric M. (committee member), Bonner, Sarah E. (committee member), Fast, Nathanael J. (committee member), Tost, Leigh P. (committee member)

Creator Email mindyt@usc.edu,mindytruong92@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15615959

Unique identifier UC15615959

Legacy Identifier etd-TruongMind-9817

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Truong, Mindy

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu