This research investigated the basis upon which undergraduates construct notions of social honor and the role higher educational institutions play in the consolidation of status group cultures in Mexico. The topics I analyzed included the criteria college students use to evaluate the worthiness of their peers and friends and the meaning they attach to studying at certain higher educational institutions. This study drew primarily on 65 in-depth interviews and four focus group sessions with 15 students enrolled at socioeconomically stratified private and public higher educational institutions in a large city. I also relied on an institutional analysis of the higher educational institutions where I did my research to complement the analysis. The findings of this research show that there are institutional similarities in relation to the moral criteria undergraduates use to evaluate the worthiness of their friends and peers. However, there are important institutional differences showing that Mexico’s system of higher education attracts and trains at least four status groups. The status groups cultures associated with educational credentials show that there are significant cultural and socioeconomic distinctions within the high cost private sector. In particular, there is a clash between an old pedigree status group for which social connections are of outmost importance and a new emerging upper-middle class that competes through the rigorous academic training its undergraduates receive. The other two status groups are composed of lay and large public universities that attract middle-class students and demand-absorption institutions that train students who did not gain admission to public universities or who want to avoid the negative stereotypes associated with public universities. Undergraduates from these two last groups occupy the bottom of the occupational and prestige hierarchy. This research also shows that most of the internal hierarchies undergraduates use to rank their peers do not transcend the walls of a specific college. However, the testimonies of high class students revealed that members from this social stratum determine the worthiness of others based on residential location. This dissertation also shows that socioeconomic and cultural boundaries provide some of the most important sources of symbolic divisions among college students in Mexico. / text

The primary objectives of the current research were to (1) test the effectiveness of conspicuous consumption as a status-enhancement tactic and (2) examine access to material resources as an interpersonal benefit that incentivizes status striving behavior. The studies that follow investigated the status striving motivations of both men and women; however, this research endeavor was primarily designed to address the paucity of research on female status. In Study 1, a nation-wide sample of participants perceived target women to be higher status when they were depicted conspicuously consuming than when not. Several individual difference variables that predict conspicuous consumption were also identified, many of which related to the attainment of high status. In Studies 2 and 3, conspicuous consumption was shown to increase perceptions of status in face-to-face interactions, further supporting the status signaling function of conspicuous consumption. Study 3 utilized a Dictator Game methodology to test the prediction that participants would share more of a monetary allotment with confederates who were conspicuously consuming than with those who were not. Results indicated that conspicuous consumption did not increase generosity except in male participants who shared more of a monetary allotment with conspicuous consumers, particularly those of the same sex. This sex-specific result is discussed in light of the possibility that conspicuous consumption signals a type of status that is particularly relevant to men (i.e., economic status). In conclusion, I consider the different pathways by which high status individuals receive increased access to resources. / text

Jag har i denna vetenskapliga essä försökt diversifiera, det allmängiltiga uttrycket “alla ska vara med”. Min gestaltning, som inleder denna essä, beskriver situationer där barn ställs utanför leken. Ibland försöker vi pedagoger, i demokratisk anda och välvilja, förändra leken och inkludera dem som barnen exkluderat. Det finns en ständig kamp om makten, från oss vuxna men även mellan barnen. De frågeställningar jag vill svara på är: Vad avgör om barn inkluderas i leken? Hur diskuteras barns kamratkulturer? Hur kan mitt uppdrag som lärare i fritidshem formuleras utifrån ett relationellt perspektiv? Mitt syfte med denna vetenskapliga essä är att lyfta fram att det ofta saknas en levande diskussion kring barnens relationella arbete samt deras tillträdesstrategier trots att dessa ständigt leder till komplexa situationer. Vuxna och barn har ofta olika blick för det som faktiskt sker i dessa sammansatta mellanmänskliga möten. Ett hermeneutiskt synsätt genomsyrar diskussionen såväl som ett relationellt perspektiv. Jag söker tolka gestaltningen genom följande perspektiv: kamratkulturer, inträdesstrategier, hierarkier, inkludering samt exkludering. Jag söker en förståelse för de mellanmänskliga möten som framträder i gestaltningen, mellan individ och omgivningen i fritidshemmet. Jag har breddat min förståelse genom att diskutera forskning samt genom essäformens processkrivande där jag i en pendlande rörelse skriver fram mina fördjupade reflektioner. Min slutsats blir att dessa mänskliga dilemman är komplicerade. Det är tydligt att tolkningsutrymmet är situerat och varierar beroende på vem som äger blicken. Det krävs att vi pedagoger är engagerade och stöttar barnen genom vår närvaro i leken. Samtidigt kräver detta en varsamhet och aktiv reflektion över det faktum att vi vuxna, ofta snabbt och oreflekterat, utifrån en högre hierarkisk position tar oss tolkningsföreträde och dömer barn i dessa mellanmänskliga sociala sammanhang. / In this essay, I discuss the expression "everyone should be included". Portrayed experiences starts this essay and describes situations where children are excluded from the play. Sometimes we as pedagogues, in democratic spirit and goodwill, try to change the play and include the excluded. There is a constant struggle for agency partly from us as adults but also between the children. Research illustrates that children need support in their relationship work. The question is whether they get the support they need when it also appears that there is no professional language for talking about children's relational work. My questions are: What determines if children are included in the play? How is children's participation in peer cultures discussed? I will also reflect on my role as a teacher at the after-school center and how it can be formulated from a relational perspective. My purpose is to highlight the discussion about the children's relationship work and their access strategies because they often lead to complex situations. I have a hermeneutical approach in which I discuss previous research in relation to my portrayed experiences, and by the following perspectives: participation in peer cultures, access strategies, status hierarchies, inclusion and exclusion in play. My conclusion is that these interpersonal dilemmas are complicated. It is clear that the interpretation varies depending on individual and contextual factors. It is necessary that we as pedagogues are committed and support the children through our presence in the play. At the same time, this requires a caution and active reflection on the fact that we as adults from a higher hierarchical position interpret and judge children in these interpersonal social contexts.

<p>Although liberal attitudes toward homosexuality have been increasing in recent years, sexual minority youth continue to face bullying and isolation at school. Gay-straight alliances (GSAs) have recently emerged as a solution to this problem. While research demonstrates positive effects of GSAs, little is known about the specific processes through which GSAs work to improve the school climate. We must also consider that GSAs operate in high schools which function as their own bounded social worlds with unique sets of rules and social hierarchies. These hierarchies influence both gay and straight youth’s experiences, including who gets bullied, and who carries out the bullying. Using qualitative research methods, including semi-structured interviews with 50 students from 6 Windsor high schools, including 21 lesbian, gay, bisexual, bi-curious, pansexual and queer (LGBPQ) youth, this study explores these issues. I begin by examining how status hierarchies in high schools vary based on the size of the school and average parental income. In doing so, I argue that status hierarchies should be re-conceptualized from being thought of as simply vertical to accommodate multiple sources of status and varying competition. I then delve into an examination of how status and bullying are interconnected. Here, I find that for both gay and straight students, social networks work to prevent isolation as well as bullying. Bullying in high schools also takes on a situational nature, as bullying episodes often predominate in certain areas and in front of certain status group audiences. Finally, I explore how social networks intersect with gay-straight alliances in various social hierarchies, and how GSAs work as social networks that have a protective ability against bullying. I find that GSAs can work to improve school climate and challenge existing hierarchies, but this is tempered by the hierarchies in place. Implications for anti-bullying strategies are also discussed.</p> / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)