Social Dominance Orientation

A Proposed Measure of Social Dominance Orientation in Children

by Megan Kennedy-Woodard

Social Dominance Orientation (Sidanius, Pratto, Stallworth, Bertrem & Malle, 1994) identifies an individual’s... more Social Dominance Orientation (Sidanius, Pratto, Stallworth, Bertrem & Malle, 1994) identifies an individual’s degree of preference to the adherence or rejection of structured hierarchy within a society. SDO-C is a proposed adaptation of this measure, designed by the present study to test SDO in children. 52 children participated in the study, aged 9-11 years (M=10.81, SD=0.63). Results revealed a number of statistically significant correlations in support of the SDO-C measure. Two Factors of SDO were identified, as well as the total of the two. These were found to correlate significantly with a number of hypothesised factors including gender, cognitive empathy, pro-social behaviour and distributive justice. The efficacy of SDO-C is discussed, alongside the importance of early identification of SDO, including implications of prejudice, discrimination and pro-social programmes.

Key words: social dominance theory, social dominance orientation, social identity theory, empathy, distributive justice, social identity development theory.

The David and Goliath principle: Cultural, ideological and attitudinal underpinnings of the normative protection of low status groups from criticism.

by Robbie Sutton

Jeffries, C., Hornsey, M. J., Sutton, R. M., Douglas, K. M., & Bain, P. (in press). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Two studies documented the “David and Goliath” rule – the tendency for people to perceive criticism of “David” groups... more Two studies documented the “David and Goliath” rule – the tendency for people to perceive criticism of “David” groups (groups with low power and status) as less normatively permissible than criticism of “Goliath” groups (groups with high power and status). We confirmed the existence of the David and Goliath rule across five national samples (Study 1). However the rule was endorsed more strongly in Western than in Chinese cultures, an effect mediated by cultural differences in power distance. Study 2 identified the psychological underpinnings of this rule in an Australian sample. Lower social dominance orientation (SDO) was associated with greater endorsement of the rule, an effect mediated through the differential attribution of stereotypes. Specifically, those low in SDO were more likely to attribute traits of warmth and incompetence to David versus Goliath groups, a pattern of stereotypes that was related to the protection of David groups from criticism.

Good times, bad times: How personal disadvantage moderates the relationship between social dominance and efforts to win

by Philip Cozzolino

Social Dominance Orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes

by Nour Kteily

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is one of the most powerful predictors of intergroup attitudes and behavior.... more Social dominance orientation (SDO) is one of the most powerful predictors of intergroup attitudes and behavior. Although SDO works well as a unitary construct, some analyses suggest it might consist of two complementary dimensions—SDO-Dominance (SDO-D), or the preference for some groups to dominate others, and SDO-Egalitarianism (SDO-E), a preference for nonegalitarian intergroup relations. Using seven samples from the United States and Israel, the authors confirm factor-analytic evidence and show predictive validity for both dimensions. In the United States, SDO-D was theorized and found to be more related to old-fashioned racism, zero-sum competition, and aggressive intergroup phenomena than SDO-E; SDO-E better predicted more subtle legitimizing ideologies, conservatism, and opposition to redistributive social policies. In a contentious hierarchical intergroup context (the Israeli–Palestinian context), SDO-D better predicted both conservatism and aggressive intergroup attitudes. Fundamentally, these analyses begin to establish the existence of complementary psychological orientations underlying the preference for group-based dominance and inequality.

Whistle Blowing, Religiosity, Spirituality and Integrity: Understanding the Impact of Social Dominance Orientation and Environmental Context

by Daniel Martin

Journal of Moral Organizational Psychology (Forthcoming)

Individual differences have been shown to impact whistle blowing (Miceli & Near, 1988; Mesmer-Magnus &... more Individual differences have been shown to impact whistle blowing (Miceli & Near, 1988; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005; Brinker, Dozier & Miceli, 1985). This study empirically examines previously unexplored effects on whistle blowing of a specific set of individual differences variables. These variables are religiosity, spirituality, integrity, and preference for social hierarchies. In addition, in that contextual variables can be expected to modify the impact of individual differences, we test the effects of our target independent variables in alternate organizational contexts (both academic and accounting). Analyses found weak positive relationships between whistle blowing and spirituality in an accounting scenario, with no relationship existing between religiosity and likelihood of whistle blowing in academic setting. Stronger positive relationships emerged between integrity and whistle blowing in both scenarios, with preference for maintenance of social hierarchies having a positive relationship with the accounting scenario being established. Considerations for future research and applications are offered.

Zwei Formen des modernen Antisemitismus? Eine Skala zur Messung primären und sekundären Antisemitismus

by Roland Imhoff

in German language // published in conflict and communication online

Based on the distinction between primary and secondary antisemitism reported in the literature, a scale was... more Based on the distinction between primary and secondary antisemitism reported in the literature, a scale was constructed to measure these two concepts. A sample of N=70 students filled out the scale together with a number of potential predictors (right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, glorification of the nation, motivation to control prejudiced responses). The total scale proved to be both consistent and stable over time and the hypothesized two-factor-structure was supported. The correlations with further constructs speak to the validity of the scale. In a second study (N=341) the results were replicated and structural models of the scale were tested with confirmatory factor analyses. Despite empirical support for a two-fold structure of the scale primary and secondary anti-Semitism were very highly intercorrelated und thus potentially only different forms of one underlying common concept.

Zwei Formen des modernen Antisemitismus? Eine Skala zur Messung primären und sekundären Antisemitismus

by Roland Imhoff

in German language // published in conflict and communication online

Based on the distinction between primary and secondary antisemitism reported in the literature, a scale was... more Based on the distinction between primary and secondary antisemitism reported in the literature, a scale was constructed to measure these two concepts. A sample of N=70 students filled out the scale together with a number of potential predictors (right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, glorification of the nation, motivation to control prejudiced responses). The total scale proved to be both consistent and stable over time and the hypothesized two-factor-structure was supported. The correlations with further constructs speak to the validity of the scale. In a second study (N=341) the results were replicated and structural models of the scale were tested with confirmatory factor analyses. Despite empirical support for a two-fold structure of the scale primary and secondary anti-Semitism were very highly intercorrelated und thus potentially only different forms of one underlying common concept.

The political psychology of reproductive strategies

by Peter Hegarty

This paper argues that several reproductive strategies that parental investment theory suggests are adaptive for men... more This paper argues that several reproductive strategies that parental investment theory suggests are adaptive for men and for women are in fact most adaptive for individuals able and willing to use power in dominance relationships. The authors tested whether people's support for social dominance mediates their willingness to use these reproductive strategies, using 4 samples of heterosexual, unmarried college students. It was hypothesized that the strategies of multiple simultaneous mating, resistance to caring for children as one's own, and sexual jealousy would be appealing especially to men who approve of social dominance, and that finding a high-status, high-earning mate would appeal especially to women who approve of social dominance. Results generally supported the hypothesis that within each gender, those individuals who most approve of social inequality report being most likely to use reproductive strategies that are predicated on power inequalities.

Hierarchy in the mind: The predictive power of Social Dominance Orientation across social contexts and domains

by Nour Kteily

The question of whether social dominance orientation represents a generalized orientation towards group-based... more The question of whether social dominance orientation represents a generalized orientation towards group-based hierarchies continues to arouse heated debate. Some researchers maintain that rather than indexing support for hierarchy across a variety of situations and social contexts, social dominance orientation scores simply reflect individuals’ attitudes towards whatever specific context individuals had in mind while completing the scale. We systematically examine the generality of SDO by investigating its pattern of relationships with a very wide range of variables across a variety of disparate contexts, exploring inequality both as an ideal and as manifested in specific policies towards particular groups. We also experimentally test an important question raised by Sibley and Liu (2010) about whether administration of modified instructions to think only of “groups in general” is required to ensure SDO's generality. Evidence that SDO functions as a generalized orientation only when administered with instructions to think of groups in general would be cause for much concern among the many researchers who have used the unmodified scale to index such an orientation. As expected, our results are clear in suggesting (a) that SDO represents a generalized orientation towards group-based hierarchy, and (b) that this property is not dependent on specific instructions to participants to think only of groups in general. Theoretical and practical implications for the status of SDO are discussed.

Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (2004). Social identity, system justification, and social dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et al., and Sidanius et al. Political Psychology, 25, 823-844.

by Mark Rubin

The articles by Reicher (2004), Jost, Banaji, and Nosek (2004), and Sidanius, Pratto, van Laar, and Levin (2004)... more The articles by Reicher (2004), Jost, Banaji, and Nosek (2004), and Sidanius, Pratto, van Laar, and Levin (2004) discuss the strengths and weaknesses of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994), and social dominance theory (Sidanius, 1993). The latter two theories grew out of a critique of social identity theory, but this critique relates more to deficiencies in social identity research than to deficiencies in the theory itself. More balanced and comprehensive social identity research is required in order to allow a fair assessment of the theory's limitations. In addition, Reicher (2004) and Huddy (2004) are correct that only social identity theory offers the potential for explaining social change and social stability.

The combination of social and personal contexts affects dominance hierarchy development in shore crabs (Carcinus maenas)

by Andrew Jackson

Many animals that live in groups maintain competitive relationships, yet avoid continual fighting, by forming... more Many animals that live in groups maintain competitive relationships, yet avoid continual fighting, by forming dominance hierarchies. We compare predictions of stochastic, individual-based models with empirical experimental evidence using shore crabs to test competing hypotheses regarding hierarchy development. The models test (1) what information individuals use when deciding to fight or retreat, (2) how past experience affects current resource-holding potential, and (3) how individuals deal with changes to the social environment. First, we conclude that crabs assess only their own state and not their opponent’s when deciding to fight or retreat. Second, willingness to enter, and performance in, aggressive contests are influenced by previous contest outcomes. Winning increases the likelihood of both fighting and winning future interactions, while losing has the opposite effect. Third, when groups with established dominance hierarchies dissolve and new groups form, individuals reassess their ranks, showing no memory of previous rank or group affiliation. With every change in group composition, individuals fight for their new ranks. This iterative process carries over as groups dissolve and form, which has important implications for the relationship between ability and hierarchy rank. We conclude that dominance hierarchies emerge through an interaction of individual and social factors, and discuss these findings in terms of an underlying mechanism. Overall, our results are consistent with crabs using a cumulative assessment strategy iterated across changes in group composition, in which aggression is constrained by an absolute threshold in energy spent and damage received while fighting.

Social Dominance Orientation, Ambivalent Sexism, and Abortion: Explaining Pro-Choice and Pro-Life Attitudes

by Danny Osborne

Abortion continues to be one of the most hotly debated issues in American politics. Despite its prominence in the... more Abortion continues to be one of the most hotly debated issues in American politics. Despite its prominence in the public discourse, little social psychological work has been done to understand the ideological bases of individuals’ attitudes toward abortion. The current chapter seeks to address this oversight by using social dominance theory (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999) and the theory of ambivalent sexism (Glick and Fiske, 1996) to explain attitudes toward abortion. Specifically, we argue that individuals with a preference for group-based hierarchy – a variable referred to as social dominance orientation (SDO) – use beliefs about gender roles in order to justify their attitudes toward abortion. We tested this hypothesis by having 242 participants complete the SDO scale (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, and Malle, 1994) and the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick and Fiske, 1996) – a measure that divides gender role attitudes into two components: 1) hostile sexism (HS) and 2) benevolent sexism (BS). After controlling for religiosity and previous abortion experience, multiple regression analyses indicated that SDO was significantly associated with attitudes toward both elective abortion (e.g., the woman wants an abortion, regardless of the reason) and traumatic abortion (e.g., the woman is pregnant as a result of rape or incest). The relationships between SDO and attitudes toward the two types of abortion were, however, mediated by the ASI. Specifically, HS and BS mediated the relationship between SDO and opposition to elective abortion, while only BS mediated the relationship between SDO and opposition to traumatic abortion. The implications of these findings are discussed within the context of intergroup relations.

Assimilation, Multiculturalism, and Colorblindness: Mediated and Moderated Relationships between Social Dominance Orientation and Prejudice

by Nour Kteily

Using correlational and experimental data, we examined the degree to which personal and perceived normative support... more Using correlational and experimental data, we examined the degree to which personal and perceived normative support for the acculturation ideologies of assimilation, multiculturalism, and colorblindness mediated and moderated the relationship between social dominance orientation (SDO) and prejudice among 299 White students at three American colleges. Correlational results indicated that personal support for the acculturation ideologies mediated the SDO-prejudice relationship. Personal support for assimilation (a hierarchy-enhancing ideology) positively related to SDO; multiculturalism and colorblindness (hierarchy-attenuating ideologies) negatively related to SDO. An experimental manipulation varied whether assimilation, multiculturalism, or colorblindness was considered normative in the United States. In addition to a control, a fifth condition primed the Obama presidency. SDO related most strongly to prejudice toward American immigrants and ethnic minorities when assimilation norms and the Obama presidency were primed. Efforts to reduce the associations between SDO and prejudice are discussed in terms of highlighting hierarchy-attenuating national norms of multiculturalism and colorblindness.