Jim Sidanius

Social Dominance Orientation: A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes

Social dominance orientation (SDO), ones degree of preference for inequality among social groups, is introduced. On the basis of social dominance theory, it is shown that (a) men are more social dominance-oriented than women, (b) high-SDO people seek hierarchy-enhancing professional roles and low-SDO people seek hierarchy-attenuating roles, (c) SDO was related to beliefs in a lag number of social and political ideologies that support group-based hierarchy (e.g., meritocracy and racism) and to support for policies that have implications for intergroup relations (e.g., war, civil rights, and social programs), including new policies. SDO was distinguished from interpersonal dominance, conservatism, and authoritarianism

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.

Social Dominance Orientation and the Political Psychology of Gender: A Case of Invariance?

Social dominance theory assumes transsituational and transcultural differences between men and women in social dominance orientation (SDO), with men showing higher levels of SDO than women. SDO is a general individual-difference variable expressing preference for superordinate in-group status, hierarchical relationships between social groups, and a view of group relations as inherently 0-sum. Data from a random sample of 1,897 respondents from Los Angeles County confirmed the notion that men have significantly higher social dominance scores than women and that these differences were consistent across cultural, demographic, and situational factors such as age, social class, religion, educational level, political ideology, ethnicity, racism, region of national origin, and gender-role relevant opinion. The theoretical implications are discussed.

The Effects of Ingroup and Outgroup Friendships on Ethnic Attitudes in College: A Longitudinal Study

Data for this longitudinal study were collected from over 2000 White, Asian, Latino, and African American college students. Results indicated that students who exhibited more ingroup bias and intergroup anxiety at the end of their first year of college had fewer outgroup friends and more ingroup friends during their second and third years of college, controlling for pre-college friendships and other background variables. In addition, beyond these effects of prior ethnic attitudes and orientations on friendship choices, those with more outgroup friendships and fewer ingroup friendships during their second and third years of college showed less ingroup bias and intergroup anxiety at the end of college, controlling for the prior attitudes, pre-college friendships, and background variables. Results are discussed in terms of the contact hypothesis.

Perceiving personal discrimination: The role of group status and legitimizing ideology

It was hypothesized that relative group status and endorsement of ideologies that legitimize group status differences moderate attributions to discrimination in intergroup encounters. According to the status-legitimacy hypothesis, the more members of low-status groups endorse the ideology of individual mobility, the less likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from higher status group members to discrimination. In contrast, the more members of high-status groups endorse individual mobility, the more likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from lower status group members to discrimination. Results from 3 studies using 2 different methodologies provide support for this hypothesis among members of different high-status (European Americans and men) and low-status (African Americans, Latino Americans, and women) groups.

Social Dominance Orientation Revisiting the Structure and Function of a Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes

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.

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.

Social dominance orientation, anti-egalitarianism and the political psychology of gender : an extension and cross-cultural replication

This study explored differences in levels of anti-egalitarianism and social dominance orientation among groups with different social status, and examined the degree to which these differences in anti-egalitarianism varied across a number of situational and contextual factors. Consistent with both the cultural deterministic (CD) and social dominance (SD) paradigms, when defining social status as socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or ‘race’, differences in anti-egalitarianism between members of high- and low-status groups were found to be contingent upon a range of contextual and situational factors, such as the degree to which the two groups varied in social status. However, consistent with the SD perspective and the invariance hypothesis, the data also showed that males were more anti-egalitarian than females, and that this male/female difference in social and group dominance orientation tended to be largely invariant across cultural, situational, and contextual boundaries. Copyright

In-Group Identification, Social Dominance Orientation, and Differential Intergroup Social Allocation

Abstract Three varieties of differential intergroup social allocation were examined in a sample of American students as a function of degree of in-group legitimacy, self-esteem, sex, and social dominance orientation within a standard minimal-groups experimental paradigm. The results are consistent with both social identity theory and much previous research in this area: The greater the in-group identification, the greater the allocation of social value in favor of the in-group. The results are also consistent with the expectations of social dominance theory and show that, even after the effects of gender, self-esteem, and in-group identification were considered, the greater the social dominance orientation, the greater the allocation of social value in favor of the in-group. For two of the three indexes of social value, there was a statistically significant interaction between in-group identification and social dominance orientation. Subjects showing strong acceptance of their in-group classification and ...

Ethnic Enclaves and the Dynamics of Social Identity on the College Campus: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The effects of membership in ethnic organizations and fraternities and sororities on intergroup attitudes were examined using a 5-wave panel study at a major, multiethnic university. The results showed that these effects were similar for both minority and White students. Membership in ethnic student organizations for minorities and Greek organizations for Whites was anteceded by the degree of ones ethnic identity, and the effects of membership in these groups were similar, although not identical, for both White and minority students. These effects included an increased sense of ethnic victimization and a decreased sense of common identity and social inclusiveness. Consistent with social identity theory, at least a portion of these effects were mediated by social identity among both White and minority students.