Thoughts about group-based privileges or disadvantages were expected to have different consequences for personal and group well-being, depending on whether the individual is a member of a high- or low-status group. To test this hypothesis, women and men were randomly assigned to consider the ways that their gender group membership has resulted in either beneficial or detrimental outcomes in their lives. For men, thinking about their gender group's privileges resulted in lower scores on the group-related well-being measures compared to women, and thinking about their group's disadvantages resulted in higher personal self-esteem scores in men compared to women. It is suggested that among high-status group members, thinking about privilege can evoke guilt and taint one's group image, whereas thinking about disadvantage can augment personal internal attributions for the positive outcomes received. Discussion focuses on the implications that the operation of two types of mechanisms--group-based emotions and the undermining or augmenting of attributions--has for the responses of high- and low-status group members when their groups are portrayed as exerting either negative or positive effects on their lives.