Group-based Inequality Research Articles

Ideology and the maintenance of group inequality

This article discusses the role that ideology plays in justifying and perpetuating group-based inequality. We begin by defining and describing status ideologies and their characteristics. We then review research illustrating how endorsing or rejecting status-legitimizing ideologies influences group stereotyping, group differences in perceived entitlement, and perceptions of discrimination. We next discuss how people respond to threats to their status ideology, affectively, cognitively, physiologically, and behaviorally. We close by considering the role of ideology in how high status groups respond to changes in the status hierarchy.

Dimensions of social dominance and their associations with environmentalism

Individual differences in the preference for group-based hierarchy and inequality, as indexed by social dominance orientation (SDO), have been shown to predict environment-relevant variables. To date the literature examining the SDO–environmentalism link has used the traditional unidimensional conceptualisation of SDO. This article reports three studies using the new measurement and conceptualisation of SDO that involves the SDO7 scale and the sub-dimensions of intergroup dominance (SDO-D) and intergroup anti-egalitarianism (SDO-E). SDO-D entails support for group-based dominance achieved via overt oppression and aggressive intergroup behaviour, and SDO-E entails support for group-based inequality subtly achieved via unequal distribution of resources. Our results show anti-egalitarianism to be the main SDO sub-dimension related to environmentalism. While SDO-D is either a weaker or non-significant predictor, individuals with high levels of SDO-E were less willing to make personal sacrifices for the environment, value environmental protection and endorse climate change beliefs. Interestingly, neither facet of SDO predicted change in environmentalism over a five-month period; but climate change denial predicted change in SDO-E while pro-environmental attitudes predicted change in SDO-D over time.

Privilege as Privileging: Making the Dynamic and Complex Nature of Privilege and Marginalization Accessible

ABSTRACTPrivilege is one of the central constructs social work educators reference to increase self-awareness and concern about inequality, but it is often oversimplified. This article argues how the concept of privilege can be made more credible to learners by anchoring it to everyday business-as-usual decision making, stereotyping, and various ideologies. Using a modified definition of privilege as privileging, and elaborating the definition of opportunity, the article describes the connections between opportunity distribution decisions, content of stereotypes, and belief systems, showing how educators can help students connect privileging at the individual and interpersonal levels to group-based inequality and sociocultural phenomena. The article also shows how using the privileging concept map can help students identify subtler contemporary examples of privileging and marginalization.

“She Might be Afraid of Commitment”: Perceptions of Women Who Retain Their Surname After Marriage

The tradition of the wife adopting her husband’s surname continues to be widely endorsed within the U.S. and many other nations. The current research focuses on perceptions of heterosexual women who violate this tradition. Specifically, we examined how women who retain their surname are evaluated with respect to their marriage commitment and personality attributes. We also tested for sources of individual variation in these evaluations. Three studies were carried out with a total of 1201 undergraduates (912 women and 289 men) at two U.S. universities. Participants in Study 1 rated a woman who retained her surname as lower in marriage commitment than a woman who adopted her husband’s surname. They also allocated her a high proportion of agentic traits. Studies 2 and 3 demonstrated that both women and men high in social dominance orientation (SDO) were especially likely to rate a woman who retained her surname as lower in marriage commitment. Collectively, findings indicate that women who violate the marital surname tradition may encounter negative stereotypes about their marriage commitment and that these stereotypes may be particularly likely to originate from people with a preference for group-based inequality. Implications center on links between marriage traditions and broader patterns of gender inequality.

The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ scale.

A new conceptualization and measurement of social dominance orientation-individual differences in the preference for group based hierarchy and inequality-is introduced. In contrast to previous measures of social dominance orientation that were designed to be unidimensional, the new measure (SDO7) embeds theoretically grounded subdimensions of SDO-SDO-Dominance (SDO-D) and SDO-Egalitarianism (SDO-E). SDO-D constitutes a preference for systems of group-based dominance in which high status groups forcefully oppress lower status groups. SDO-E constitutes a preference for systems of group-based inequality that are maintained by an interrelated network of subtle hierarchy-enhancing ideologies and social policies. Confirmatory factor and criterion validity analyses confirmed that SDO-D and SDO-E are theoretically distinct and dissociate in terms of the intergroup outcomes they best predict. For the first time, distinct personality and individual difference bases of SDO-D and SDO-E are outlined. We clarify the construct validity of SDO by strictly assessing a preference for dominance hierarchies in general, removing a possible confound relating to support for hierarchy benefitting the ingroup. Consistent with this, results show that among members of a disadvantaged ethnic minority group (African Americans), endorsement of SDO7 is inversely related to ingroup identity. We further demonstrate these effects using nationally representative samples of U.S. Blacks and Whites, documenting the generalizability of these findings. Finally, we introduce and validate a brief 4-item measure of each dimension. This article importantly extends our theoretical understanding of one of the most generative constructs in social psychology, and introduces powerful new tools for its measurement.

Understanding how common ingroup identity undermines collective action among disadvantaged-group members

Past research has consistently demonstrated that creating a sense of a common ingroup identity can be beneficial for reducing intergroup tensions and creating intergroup harmony. At the same time, however, creating a strong sense of a common ingroup identity has elements that may undermine disadvantaged-group members' motivation for collective action toward social change. In the present paper, we report two experiments that investigated how, compared to salient separate ethnic/racial identities, increasing the salience of a common US identity among Blacks and Latinos results in lower collective action intentions. These effects were mediated by a reduction in group-based anger and group-efficacy beliefs, and, in Experiment 2, reduced recognition of group-based inequality in society as well. Increasing salience of common ingroup and separate group identities simultaneously (a dual identity), however, did not decrease collective action intentions. These results suggest that not recategorization in itself, but an exclusive focus on common ingroup identity undermines motivation for social change.

The Justification of Social Inequality in Response to Masculinity Threats

Research suggests that threatening men’s masculinity can lead to negative attitudes and aggressive behaviors. The current research expands on these findings by examining the effects of masculinity threats on attitudes about social inequality regarding women and gay men. Across studies, we predicted that men whose masculinity was threatened (compared to non-threatening controls) would be more accepting of social inequities that disadvantage women and gay men. Three hundred forty-four male students at a large northeastern U.S. university were randomly assigned to either (a) take a test about gender knowledge (Study 1 and 2) or (b) proofread either a gender knowledge test or university knowledge test (Study 2). Feedback on the test was altered to either threaten or assure masculinity. Following the test or proofreading task, men indicated their discomfort, anger (Study 2 only), and acceptance of discrimination and group-based inequality in society. In both studies identification with gender was measured as a potential moderator. The results of Study 1 (N = 160) showed that the masculinity manipulation only affected denial of discrimination against gay men, but this effect seemed to be related to the salience of gender rather than threatened masculinity. Study 2 (N = 184) added a gender salience comparison for clarification and replicated the results of Study 1, indicating that masculinity threats and assurances have effects independent of gender salience. In Study 1, men who were threatened and highly identified with their gender accepted more group-based inequality. The practical and social implications of these findings are discussed.

What’s in a Name? Probabilistic Inference of Religious Community from South Asian Names

Fine-grained data on religious communities are often considered sensitive in South Asia and consequently remain inaccessible. Yet without such data, statistical research on communal relations and group-based inequality remains superficial, hampering the development of appropriate policy measures to prevent further social exclusion on the basis of religion. The open-source algorithm introduced in this article provides a workaround by probabilistically exploiting the communal connotations of names; it transforms name lists—which are readily available—into a new source of demographic data. The algorithm proves highly accurate in identifying Muslim population shares in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state, but could be employed more widely across South Asia. It potentially enables more detailed analyses in economics, development studies, and political science as well as better sampling procedures in sociology and anthropology. This article describes the algorithm, evaluates its accuracy, reflects on ethical implications, and introduces a sample data set; the software itself is available in an online supplement to this article.

Faustian bargains for minorities within group-based hierarchies

A dual-audience signaling problem framework provides a deeper understanding of the perpetuation of group-based inequality. We describe a model of underachievement among minority youth that posits a necessary trade-off between academic success and peer social support that creates a dilemma not typically encountered by nonminorities. Preliminary evidence consistent with the approach is discussed. Such strategic agent perspectives complement the psychological approach put forth by Dixon et al., but with minimal ancillary assumptions.

Of Paradigms and Preferences

Brian Rathbun wonders if “the political beliefs of those who study international relations affect their beliefs about international relations and the way they are studied.” In his search for an answer, he turns to a body of literature in social psychology called social dominance theory (SDT) and a psychometric construct called social dominance orientation (SDO). SDT is “a general theory of societal group-based inequality” (Pratto, Sidanius, and Levin 2006;:2 73; for overviews, see also Sidanius and Pratto 1999:31–57; Pratto et al. 2006:273–281). The two SDO scales in use purport to measure “the extent of individuals’ desires for group-based dominance and inequality” (Pratto et al. 2006: 281), on the assumption that individual desires, shared beliefs, and institutional arrangements all reinforce each other in making group-based inequality a pervasive feature of social life whenever there is surplus value to be extracted and distributed. As psychologists, social dominance theorists never tell us whether the groups in question are an institutionalized feature of any given individual's social reality and generally downplay institutional arrangements. Instead they talk a great deal about “psychological and ideological forces that help sustain group dominance” (Pratto et al. 2006:280) and underscore the importance of “legitimizing myths” (defined as “societal, consensually shared social ideologies.”Pratto et al. 2006:275). Rathbun starts with ideology. He wants to know how “political ideology might be associated with one's choice of international relations paradigms.” An ideology is “a configuration of ideas and attitudes” forming a “belief system,” and a paradigm consists of “beliefs about the nature of the world” (all quotations not otherwise identified are from Rathbun's piece). He says that ideologies and paradigms are similar in structure. I fail to see how this might be so, unless we stipulate that paradigms such as we have in the field of International Relations (IR) …

Group status, perceptions of threat, and support for social inequality

Members of high-status groups have been shown to favor social inequality, but little research has investigated the boundary conditions of this phenomenon. In the present article we suggest that perceived intergroup threat moderates the relationship between group status and support for social inequality (i.e., social dominance orientation), especially among highly identified group members. In Study 1, Democrats and Republicans rated their party’s relative status and were later exposed to a leading US. Presidential candidate from the opposing party (high threat) or their own party (low threat). In Study 2, university students were made to believe that their school had high or low status and were then presented with threatening or non-threatening information about a rival institution. The results of both studies supported the prediction that status only increases preferences for group-based inequality under conditions of high threat and high ingroup identification.

Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward

This chapter reviews the last 15 years of research inspired by social dominance theory, a general theory of societal group-based inequality. In doing so, we sketch the broad outlines of the theory and discuss some of the controversies surrounding it, such as the “invariance hypothesis” regarding gender differences in social dominance orientation (SDO) and the effect of social context on the expression of SDO. We also discuss the central role of gender in the construction and maintenance of group-based inequality, and review some of the new research inspired by the social dominance perspective. Finally, we identify and discuss some of the most important theoretical questions posed by social dominance theory that are yet to be researched.

Personality and social structural implications of the situational priming of social dominance orientation

Is social dominance orientation (SDO) a stable individual difference measuring a general orientation towards group-based inequality or constructed from the situational priming of attitudes and beliefs about specific groups? Two studies in Taiwan involving 1605 adults (Study 1) and 101 high school students (Study 2) addressed this dispute between social dominance theory (SDT) and self-categorization theory (SCT). In Study 1, questionnaires were used to prime the salience of either gender or arbitrary-set system (demographic group). In accord with SCT, and contrary to SDT’s invariance hypothesis, men were higher on SDO than women only when gender was salient, and Mingnan Taiwanese, the dominant group in the arbitrary-set system, were higher in SDO than Outside province Taiwanese and Hakka Taiwanese only when demographic group was salient. In Study 2, high school students on a field trip to a museum exhibit that primed race had significantly higher SDO scores compared to their pretest scores on a questionnaire priming demographic group. Test–retest reliability was 0.48, modest for a 1-week interval. SDO acted more like an ideological orientation than as a personality variable, with limited cross-situational consistency.

Attitudes toward group-based inequality: social dominance or social identity?

In five studies we explored how the context in which people think about the social structure and the implications of the social structure for one's in-group affect attitudes toward inequality. In Studies 1 and 2 we found that social dominance orientation (SDO) scores reflect attitudes toward specific types of inequality that are salient in context. Consistent with social identity theory, in Studies 3 to 5 we found that SDO scores reflected the interests of specific group identities. Indeed, when we compared existing privileged and disadvantaged groups, and when we manipulated in-group status, we found that participants held more positive attitudes toward inequality when the in-group was privileged, compared to when the in-group was disadvantaged. Across all of our studies, results were consistent with the contention that attitudes toward inequality are group-specific and depend on the social-structural position of salient in-groups. We discuss the implications of our findings for social dominance theory.

Will the real social dominance theory please stand up?

In our research, we (Schmitt, Branscombe, & Kappen) questioned the assumption that social dominance orientation (SDO) scores reflect a general orientation toward group‐based inequality. After considering the objections raised by Sidanius and Pratto, we conclude that our data pose problems for SDO's explanatory potential and social dominance theory's invariance hypothesis. We concur with Turner and Reynolds' contentions that social dominance theory is hindered by internal theoretical inconsistencies, and that attitudes toward intergroup inequality are better understood in terms of social identity processes.

Social Dominance Orientation and the Legitimization of Inequality Across Cultures

The authors tested three hypotheses from social dominance theory in four cultures: (a) that individual differences in social dominance orientation (SDO), or the preference for group-based inequality, can be reliably measured in societies that are group-based hegemonies; (b) that SDO correlates positively with attitudes supporting hegemonic groups and correlates negatively with attitudes supporting oppressed groups; and (c) that men are higher on SDO than women. For the most part, the results confirmed the hypotheses. SDO scales were internally reliable and were administered in English, Chinese, and Hebrew. SDO scores correlated with sexism, measured in culturally appropriate ways, in every culture, and with ethnic prejudice and other attitudes concerning the local hegemony except in China. Men were higher on SDO than women in most samples. Findings are discussed in terms of ideological and psychological facilitators of group dominance.