Differences In Social Dominance Orientation Research Articles

Social Dominance Orientation and exposure to violence as predictors of support for past peace agreements

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to explore individual predictors of support for peace agreements after their implementation. The aim is to test if individual differences in Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) temper the effect of exposure to violence on support for peace agreements. One hundred and eighty participants completed measures surveying their SDO, exposure to violence and voting behavior four years after the peace agreement between the Colombian government and the FARC in 2016. Results show that SDO lowers support for the peace agreement four years after it was signed among those who experienced violence but has a smaller effect on those who did not experience violence. The implications of the interaction between SDO and exposure to violence are discussed.

“Can women be perceived as good as men in sport? Only when doping!”: when social dominance motives shape judgements of women’s doping suspicions in threat situations

ABSTRACT In this work, we examine whether differences in social dominance orientation (SDO) may lead to the creation of a ‘climate of suspicion’ regarding women’s sporting excellence as well as to negative perceptions of sportswomen in general. We suggest that SDO works as a basic ideological belief system aiming to preserve the hegemony of men in a sport. We employed a scenario methodology in which participants (N = 80) read one of the two alleged sports news website excerpts in which women’s performances threatened (or not) the gendered status quo of sport. It was expected that individuals high in SDO, who are particularly resistant to change, would question women’s sportsmanship more strongly than those who value equality (i.e. those relatively low in SDO). Moreover, we anticipated that high-SDO participants would use more negative traits to describe sportswomen when assigned to a threatening condition. Coherent with the above, our results suggest that the field of sport still implicates a significant amount of gender inequality that marginalize women performances.

Replicating and extending Sengupta et al. (2023): Contact predicts no within-person longitudinal outgroup-bias change.

Intergroup contact has long been touted as a premier means to reduce prejudice and forge positive bonds with outgroups. Given its origins in psychological research, it is perhaps of little surprise that contact is expected to induce change within people over time. Yet using random-intercepts crossed-lagged modeling that parses within-person from between-person effects, Sengupta et al. (2023) recently found no evidence of within-person change, only unexplained between-person effects, regarding contact's effects on outgroup solidarity in New Zealand. We conceptually replicated their study, focusing on modern racism and an affect thermometer as the outcomes, in a three-wave study of White British participants (NT1 = 946, NT2 = 667, NT3 = 591) and their attitudes toward foreigners. We replicated the general pattern described by Sengupta and colleagues, confirming between-person effects without within-person effects, suggestive of third-variable explanations. As a novel finding, we discover that differences in social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) can account for the observed between-person effects. Problematically for contact theory, contact effects, at least those relying on self-reported accounts, increasingly appear to reflect differences between people (person factors) rather than being context-driven (situation factors)-such that those lower (vs. higher) in SDO and RWA are more favorable toward outgroups, rather than intergroup contact bringing about positive outcomes itself. Implications for theory development and intervention are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Research on Sex Differences in Social Dominance Orientation and the Invariance Hypothesis: A Systematic Review

Research on Sex Differences in Social Dominance Orientation and the Invariance Hypothesis: A Systematic Review

Critical Service-Learning Supports Social Justice and Civic Engagement Orientations in College Students

Service-learning is a high-impact practice that increases students’ engagement with class material and the community. However, a critical lens is needed to strengthen students’ understanding of and commitment to social justice. This mixed-method study examined the impact of a critical service-learning approach, which integrated critical curricula with thirty hours of service to community organizations, on undergraduate students’ orientations towards social justice and civic engagement. Statistical analyses suggested significant differences in social dominance orientation and orientations to civic engagement over time and across three psychology classes using critical service-learning, critical curriculum, and traditional approaches. Qualitative findings from critical service-learning students’ class reflection assignments support a proposed model for the development of a social justice orientation among college students. Over the course of the semester, students shifted from considering social justice as an unobtainable, abstract concept to identifying strategies and expressing willingness to engage in behaviors that lead to social change. This study highlights the potential for critical service-learning to enhance student learning and meet the community’s needs with an awareness of power dynamics and the systemic nature of oppression.

Social dominance orientation predicts civil and military intelligence analysts’ utilitarian responses to ethics-of-intelligence dilemmas

What is the real ethical framework of an intelligence analyst? We addressed this question by presenting a group of civil and military intelligence analysts (N = 41), and a control group of non-professionals (N = 41), with a set of dilemmas depicting intelligence agents facing the decision whether to violate a deontological rule where that would benefit their work (ethics-of-intelligence dilemmas). Participants judged how much violating the rule was acceptable. Next, we measured participants’ individual differences in social dominance orientation (using the Social Dominance Orientation scale which measures the proclivity to endorse intergroup hierarchy and anti-egalitarianism), their deontological and utilitarian response tendencies (using classical moral dilemmas), and how much they value rule conformity, traditions, and safety and stability in the society (using the Value Survey). A multiple regression analysis revealed that, among all the factors, only social dominance significantly helped explain variability in intelligence analysts’ but not non-professionals’ resolutions of the ethics-of-intelligence dilemmas. Specifically, social dominance positively predicted the tendency to judge violating the deontological rule acceptable, possibly suggesting that analysts who show a stronger proclivity to desire their country or company to prevail over others are also more lenient toward deontological violations if these result in a greater good for the state or the company. For the first time in the open literature, we elucidated some key aspects of the real ethics of intelligence.

Why Are Men More Likely to Endorse Myths About Child Sexual Abuse Than Women? Evidence From Disposition and Situation-Based Approaches

Research on attitudes toward Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) consistently shows that men are more likely to endorse myths about CSA events, victims and perpetrators, compared to women. Here we present two studies that examine why these gender differences occur. Study one (N = 439) followed a dispositional approach to test the mediating role of empathy, social dominance orientation (SDO) and propensity for moral disengagement in the association between gender and the endorsement of CSA myths. Male participants showed higher levels of SDO and propensity for moral disengagement, and lower empathy, which in turn were associated with greater CSA myths acceptance. Study two (N = 360) followed a situational approach to test these processes using a specific case of CSA. Male participants showed higher levels of SDO and lower empathy, which in turn were associated with lower scores of perceived assault seriousness, victim credibility, perpetrator culpability, and greater victim culpability. Overall, the results suggest that men and women may appraise CSA differently, which can be partly explained by differences in SDO, propensity to morally disengage, and empathy. Furthermore, different cognitive mechanisms may be activated with regard to general appraisals of CSA compared to specific cases of CSA.

Genetic and environmental contribution to social dominance orientation and its overlap with HEXACO personality traits

Social dominance orientation (SDO), i.e. the preference toward egalitarian or hierarchically arranged relations within a society may be studied from social/contextual, but also dispositional perspective. The aim of the present study was to explore genetic and environmental contribution to the individual differences in SDO, and its overlap with HEXACO personality traits, both at phenotypic and latent genetic and environmental levels. The sample consisted of 830 Croatian twins aged 19 to 28 years who filled-in the self-report measures. Data analyses indicated the heritability of SDO was over 40%, with no evidence for the common environmental influences. SDO phenotypic variance substantially overlapped with Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, and Openness domains. Numerous significant correlations were found at the facet level, with the highest phenotypic overlap for the “interstitial” altruism facet. However, incremental predictive power of personality (over age and sex) was moderate: 13% and 19% of the phenotypic SDO variance was predicted by HEXACO traits at the domains and facet levels, respectively. Multivariate behavioural genetic analysis indicated that 19% and 3% of the genetic and unique environmental variance of SDO overlapped with the genetic and unique environmental variance of personality, respectively. Substantial genetic correlations of SDO with Honesty-Humility and Openness domains were found, while marginal unique environmental correlation was found for Openness domain only. The etiological overlap between SDO and personality represents an argument in favour of taking dispositional along with social/contextual perspective in explaining social behaviour.

We, Them, and It: Dictator Game Offers Depend on Hierarchical Social Status, Artificial Intelligence, and Social Dominance.

We investigated the influence of social status on behavior in a modified dictator game (DG). Since the DG contains an inherent dominance gradient, we examined the relationship between dictator decisions and recipient status, which was operationalized by three social identities and an artificial intelligence (AI). Additionally, we examined the predictive value of social dominance orientation (SDO) on the behavior of dictators toward the different social and non-social hierarchical recipients. A multilevel model analysis showed that recipients with the same status as the dictator benefited the most and the artificial intelligence the least. Furthermore, SDO, regardless of social status, predicted behavior toward recipients in such a way that higher dominance was associated with lower dictator offers. In summary, participants treated other persons of higher and lower status equally, those of equal status better and, above all, an algorithm worst. The large proportion of female participants and the limited variance of SDO should be taken into account with regard to the results of individual differences in SDO.

Social Dominance Orientation and Selfish Behaviors in Chinese Adolescents: the Mediating Role of Psychological Entitlement

Selfish behaviors widely occur in adolescence and can be detrimental to adolescents’ moral development and social well-being. However, little is known about the antecedents of selfish behaviors among adolescents in collectivist samples (e.g., East Asia). As social dominance orientation (SDO) is negatively related to morality and concerns about others, we aim to understand whether and how individual differences in SDO predict people’s intention to engage in selfish behaviors among Chinese adolescents. We hypothesize that people high in SDO would display higher level of psychological entitlement and, in turn, be more likely to engage in selfish behaviors. To examine this hypothesis, we measured SDO, psychological entitlement, and selfish behavioral intentions using hypothetical scenarios among 254 middle school students aged 12–18 years in China. The results demonstrated that, compared to middle school students low in SDO, those high in SDO reported stronger selfish behavioral intentions, and this effect was partially mediated by psychological entitlement. Directions for future research and implications for interventions to curb selfish behaviors among adolescents are discussed.

Social dominance orientation moderates the effectiveness of mindset messages.

In this work, we examine whether differences in social dominance orientation (SDO) moderate the effectiveness of mindsets of intelligence messages. We suggest that SDO is a foundational ideological belief system, on which individuals vary, that maintains the desire to endorse fixed beliefs about the nature of human intelligence. Thus, attempts to change individuals' mindsets should be met with resistance from those who strongly endorse the social dominance ideology - individuals high on SDO. In contrast, individuals low on SDO are less likely to use mindsets of intelligence to justify an ideological belief system, and thus, mindset manipulations should be effective for them. We test these predictions across three experimental studies (NStudy1 =271, NStudy2 =207, NStudy3 =313). Across the studies, we find that individuals who are high, relative to low, on SDO have more fixed beliefs about the nature of intelligence and show smaller effects of manipulations of mindsets. However, when comparing to a control condition, there was no evidence that high-SDO participants resisted the growth message that contradicts their ideology more than the fixed one that supports it; additionally, low-SDO participants showed heightened responsiveness to a fixed message. We discuss implications for theoretical advances in our understanding of mindsets.

On the path to social dominance? Individual differences in sensitivity to intergroup fairness violations in early childhood

According to current literature, individual differences in Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) are assumed to consistently manifest only around young adulthood. Here, we examined, to our knowledge for the first time, whether individual differences in sensitivity to intergroup inequality – a defining characteristic of SDO – have expressions already in early childhood. We expected young children to be less sensitive to moral standards of intergroup fairness to the extent that their parents supported social inequality. Using a sample of 75 preschoolers and their parents, we found that children's sensitivity to intergroup fairness violations varied systematically in line with their parents' SDO levels. Specifically, children of parents low in SDO penalized ingroup members' fairness violations in the intergroup context, whereas children of parents high in SDO showed no such penalization. These findings suggest that individual differences in sensitivity to intergroup equality have expressions significantly earlier than currently acknowledged in the literature.

Group differences in the legitimization of inequality: Questioning the role of social dominance orientation.

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is conceived as an individual's level of support for group-based hierarchy in general that causes support for more specific group hierarchies. According to social dominance theory, group differences in SDO underpin ideological and behavioural group differences related to specific group hierarchies. Using representative 5-year longitudinal panel data from New Zealand (N=3,384), we test whether SDO mediates effects of sex and ethnicity on legitimizing myths (LMs) relating to gender and ethnic hierarchy over time. The SDO mediation hypothesis is supported in the case of hostile sexism. However, it is unsupported in the case of benevolent sexism and LMs relating to ethnic hierarchy, where there was no cross-lagged effect of SDO. Moreover, being in the dominant ethnic group is associated with more legitimization of ethnic hierarchy but less legitimization of gender hierarchy, which is inconsistent with the notion of a general orientation underpinning group differences in legitimation. There was mixed evidence for a reverse path whereby specific LMs mediate group differences in SDO across time. We argue for the need to find alternative ways to theorize ideological consensus and difference between groups.

Janus‐faced nature of colorblindness: Social dominance orientation moderates the relationship between colorblindness and outgroup attitudes

AbstractColorblindness is a popular diversity ideology promoted as a means to intergroup harmony in ethnically diverse nations. While some research suggests that colorblindness reduces intergroup bias, other work suggests that colorblindness may increase it. The present research utilizes a national sample of European New Zealanders to examine whether the relationship between colorblind endorsement and outgroup attitudes is moderated by perceivers' individual differences in social dominance orientation (SDO). Data revealed that for participants low in SDO, colorblind beliefs predicted more negative attitudes toward ethnic minorities. However, for those high in SDO, colorblind beliefs predicted more positive attitudes toward ethnic minorities. Taken together, these findings suggest that colorblindness is not all good or bad for intergroup relations—instead, its effects may depend on perceivers' own egalitarian sentiments.

Vote Choice, Ideology, and Social Dominance Orientation Influence Preferences for Lower Pitched Voices in Political Candidates.

Humans are equipped with a psychological system of followership that evolved to regulate choices of leaders based partly on would-be leaders' physiological features. One such feature is voice pitch, which is determined by the physiology of the throat. Recent studies find that political candidates in modern elections with lower-pitched voices are generally more successful. As lower-pitched voices are perceived as stronger and more dominant, these findings have been taken to indicate a general preference for dispositional abilities in leaders to protect and prevail in conflicts. Here we extend upon these findings by demonstrating that conservatives and Republicans tend to view the world as much more competitive and threatening than liberals and Democrats. We utilize two existing data sources to show that political candidates with lower-pitched voices are preferred more among conservative Republicans than among liberal Democrats. In a third study we show that preferences for lower-pitched candidate voices stem from individual differences in Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). Importantly, across all three studies subjects' party affiliation, ideology, and SDO only predict preferences for male candidate voices. We conclude with a discussion of the results in relation to followership psychology and general debates on the rationality of the public with respect to elections.

How racial/ethnic bullying affects rejection sensitivity: the role of social dominance orientation.

The authors built upon models of workplace bullying to examine how racial/ethnic bullying can lead to racial/ethnic minorities' sensitivity to future discrimination via its effects on race/ethnic-related stress. With a sample of racial/ethnic minorities, they found support for this process. Individual differences in social dominance orientation (SDO) also attenuated the mediation: The indirect effect of race/ethnic-related stress was weaker for minorities who endorse hierarchy legitimizing ideologies (high in SDO) compared to minorities low in SDO. Practical implications for the management of minority employees' experiences of discrimination are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

Individual differences in relational motives interact with the political context to produce terrorism and terrorism-support.

The psychology of suicide terrorism involves more than simply the psychology of suicide. Individual differences in social dominance orientation (SDO) interact with the socio-structural, political context to produce support for group-based dominance among members of both dominant and subordinate groups. This may help explain why, in one specific context, some people commit and endorse terrorism, whereas others do not.

Social dominance orientation connects prejudicial human–human and human–animal relations

Recent theorizing suggests that biases toward human outgroups may be related to biases toward (non-human) animals, and that individual differences in desire for group dominance and inequality may underlie associations between these biases. The present investigation directly tests these assumptions. As expected, the results of the current study (N=191) demonstrate that endorsing speciesist attitudes is significantly and positively associated with negative attitudes toward ethnic outgroups. Importantly, individual differences in social dominance orientation accounted for the association between speciesist and ethnic outgroup attitudes; that is, these variables are associated due to their common association with social dominance orientation that underpins these biases. We conclude that social dominance orientation represents a critical individual difference variable underlying ideological belief systems and attitudes pertaining to both human–human intergroup and human–animal relations.

Individual Differences in Social Dominance Orientation Predict Support for the Use of Cognitive Ability Tests

This study investigates the personality processes involved in the debate surrounding the use of cognitive ability tests in college admissions. In Study 1, 108 undergraduates (Mage = 18.88 years, 60 women, 80 Whites) completed measures of social dominance orientation (SDO), testing self-efficacy, and attitudes regarding the use of cognitive ability tests in college admissions; SAT/ACT scores were collected from the registrar. Sixty-seven undergraduates (Mage = 19.06 years, 39 women, 49 Whites) completed the same measures in Study 2, along with measures of endorsement of commonly presented arguments about test use. In Study 3, 321 American adults (Mage = 35.58 years, 180 women, 251 Whites) completed the same measures used in Study 2; half were provided with facts about race and validity issues surrounding cognitive ability tests. Individual differences in SDO significantly predicted support for the use of cognitive ability tests in all samples, after controlling for SAT/ACT scores and test self-efficacy and also among participants who read facts about cognitive ability tests. Moreover, arguments for and against test use mediated this effect. The present study sheds new light on an old debate by demonstrating that individual differences in beliefs about hierarchy play a key role in attitudes toward cognitive ability test use.

Status boundary enforcement and the categorization of black–white biracials

Individuals who qualify equally for membership in more than one racial group are not judged as belonging equally to both of their parent groups, but instead are seen as belonging more to their lower status parent group. Why? The present paper begins to establish the role of individual differences and social context in hypodescent, the process of assigning multiracials the status of their relatively disadvantaged parent group. Specifically, in two experiments, we found that individual differences in social dominance orientation—a preference for group-based hierarchy and inequality—interacts with perceptions of socioeconomic threat to influence the use of hypodescent in categorizing half-Black, half-White biracial targets. Importantly, this paper begins to establish hypodescent as a “hierarchy-enhancing” social categorization.