A critical examination and meta-analysis of the distinction between the dominance and antiegalitarianism facets of social dominance orientation.

Abstract

Social dominance orientation (SDO) holds a central position in social dominance theory. Since the development, validation, and publication of the SDO₇ scale in 2015, which was designed to distinguish between the dominance (SDO-D) and (anti-)egalitarianism (SDO-E) facets of SDO, it has become common in the literature to distinguish between these facets using the SDO₇. This is based on the theoretical proposition that SDO-D and SDO-E meaningfully differ and have different relationships with other constructs. However, the present study critically reviews the original validity evidence provided for the SDO₇'s distinction between SDO-D and SDO-E and notes conceptual and empirical reasons to question this distinction. Because a sizable number of studies have used the SDO₇ since the presentation of that original validity evidence, the present study uses meta-analysis to leverage this burgeoning literature to determine whether there has since been more convincing empirical evidence for the distinction between these facets. The meta-analysis finds that SDO-D and SDO-E have a magnitude of intercorrelation that would often be considered adequate for a reliability coefficient (mean ρ = .83), have extremely similar patterns and magnitudes of relationships with the variables in their nomological network, and have nearly identical means and standard deviations. Although the SDO₇ is a useful, reliable, and valid measure of overall SDO, its use to distinguish between SDO-D and SDO-E is not empirically supported. The present meta-analysis also provides insights into the nomological network of SDO-D, SDO-E, and overall SDO and the distributional characteristics of study participants' SDO scale scores. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).