From its beginning, the 2016 presidential election has been extremely controversial in nature. Both candidates, having controversial pasts to begin with, have managed to cause panic and distress amongst Americans with every debate, rally, and speech. The more outwardly controversial of the two, Donald Trump, earned the win and became the president elect of 2016. Since his election, there have been protests nationwide as many Americans remain shocked that someone so seemingly contentious was able to become the president elect. However, Trump’s election seems to make a great deal of sense when a known group dynamics theory is taken into consideration. The status generalization theory explains how someone who has prestige in a certain field is
…show more content…
A study done by Cornwell and York (2006) explains how status generalization applies to small groups, specifically courtroom juries. “The jury room, in its idealized form, constitutes a protected space where diverse individuals can gather and deliberate as equals. However, sociological research suggests that, in small heterogeneous groups, processes such as status deference and status generalization may allow members of historically-dominant groups to steer discussions” (p. 456). This research suggests that there are many external factors that contribute to one’s status in a new social situation. It is believed by many social psychologists that race, gender, ethnicity, religion and height are all contributing factors to a person’s perceivable abilities in new group settings, such in the courtroom on a jury (Cornwell & York, 2006, p. 456). In the case of courtroom juries, as is the case in many other setting, the elderly white male who is professional in dress is able to take the reigns and control the conversation. The research in this study provides two main explanations for why this may be. One reason states “jury studies conducted 50 years ago found that white, upper-class men dominate jury deliberations, presumably due to their higher status outside of the jury room.” (Cornwell & York, 2006, p. 455). Cornwell and York (2006) also explain that the status of these upper-class men may come from how they are perceived because of the way that they look and present themselves. “upper-class jurors seem to influence deliberations due to generalized expectations of their competence or their possession of skill sets that enhance jury room performance” (p. 455). Although these seemingly professional white men may have no experience in the courtroom, it is perceived by the rest of the
A study done by Cornwell and York (2006) explains how status generalization applies to small groups, specifically courtroom juries. “The jury room, in its idealized form, constitutes a protected space where diverse individuals can gather and deliberate as equals. However, sociological research suggests that, in small heterogeneous groups, processes such as status deference and status generalization may allow members of historically-dominant groups to steer discussions” (p. 456). This research suggests that there are many external factors that contribute to one’s status in a new social situation. It is believed by many social psychologists that race, gender, ethnicity, religion and height are all contributing factors to a person’s perceivable abilities in new group settings, such in the courtroom on a jury (Cornwell & York, 2006, p. 456). In the case of courtroom juries, as is the case in many other setting, the elderly white male who is professional in dress is able to take the reigns and control the conversation. The research in this study provides two main explanations for why this may be. One reason states “jury studies conducted 50 years ago found that white, upper-class men dominate jury deliberations, presumably due to their higher status outside of the jury room.” (Cornwell & York, 2006, p. 455). Cornwell and York (2006) also explain that the status of these upper-class men may come from how they are perceived because of the way that they look and present themselves. “upper-class jurors seem to influence deliberations due to generalized expectations of their competence or their possession of skill sets that enhance jury room performance” (p. 455). Although these seemingly professional white men may have no experience in the courtroom, it is perceived by the rest of the