When and how norm violators gain influence: Dominance,prestige, and the social dynamics of (counter)normative behavior

The capacity to influence other people is key to success across domains of life, from personal to professional relationships, from the school yard to the retirement home, and from marketing to politics. Traditional approaches hold that people can gain influence in social collectives by behaving in line with prevailing norms. However, mounting evidence indicates that defying norms can enhance one's power, status, and influence. Here, I take stock of this literature and propose a new perspective that can explain seemingly inconsistent links between norm violation and influence. After discussing various social mechanisms that keep norm violators in check (negative emotions, gossip, social exclusion, formal punishment), I review evidence that violating norms can enhance the capacity for influence. I then integrate insights from the dominance/prestige framework of social rank with research on social responses to norm violations to develop a new model that illuminates when and how norm violators gain influence. I discuss implications for understanding the dynamic negotiation of leadership and influence and the maintenance versus decline of normative systems.     

Vicariously Learned Helplessness: The Role of Perceived Dominance and Prestige of a Model

Prior research has examined the relationship between various model characteristics (e.g., age, competence, similarity) and the likelihood that the observers will experience vicariously learned helplessness. However, no research in this area has investigated dominance as a relevant model characteristic. This study explored whether the vicarious acquisition of learned helplessness could be mediated by the perceived dominance of a model. Participants observed a model attempting to solve anagrams. Across participant groups, the model displayed either dominant or nondominant characteristics and was either successful or unsuccessful at solving the anagrams. The characteristics displayed by the model significantly affected observers’ ratings of his dominance and prestige. After viewing the model, participants attempted to solve 40 anagrams. When the dominant model was successful, observers solved significantly more anagrams than when he was unsuccessful. This effect was not found when the model was nondominant.     

社会支配倾向研究述评

社会支配倾向是社会支配理论中的一个概念,它反映了个体期望内群体优于和支配外群体的程度。高社会支配倾向者偏好加大不同群体间的阶层差异,并期望优势群体更多地支配劣势群体;低社会支配倾向者偏好缩小不同群体间的阶层差异以增加社会平等,并期望优势群体更少地支配劣势群体。因此,社会支配倾向会影响社会不平等的程度,并可以被用来解释偏见的形成。性别和群体地位等情境因素会对社会支配倾向产生影响,而且社会支配倾向与个体间的支配也是有关系的     

有效的领导者及其权力的行使

本文在大量关于领导与权力的研究基础上 ,深入阐述了领导者的权力的本质及其基础 ,并区分了领导者的职权与个人权力 ,认为一味地依靠职权作为领导的基础只能产生各种消极的组织行为 ,而有效的领导者往往依靠个人权力来影响职工 ,激励职工。最后 ,本文也讨论形成个人权力的途径以及个人权力行使方法和注意的问题。     

Social Dominance Theory: Its Agenda and Method

The theory has been misconstrued in four primary ways, which are often expressed as the claims of psychological reductionism, conceptual redundancy, biological reductionism, and hierarchy justification. This paper addresses these claims and suggests how social dominance theory builds on and moves beyond social identity theory and system justification theory.     

Social Dominance and the Cultural Politics of Immigration

We argue that conflict over immigration largely concerns who bears the burden of cultural transaction costs, which we define as the costs associated with overcoming cultural barriers (e.g., language) to social exchange. Our framework suggests that the ability of native‐born citizens to push cultural transaction costs onto immigrant out‐groups serves as an important expression of social dominance. In two novel studies, we demonstrate that social dominance motives condition emotional responses to encountering cultural transaction costs, shape engagement in cultural accommodation behavior toward immigrants, and affect immigration attitudes and policy preferences.     

Social Dominance Orientation, Authoritarianism, and Support for Intergroup Violence Between the Middle East and America

Social dominance theory has generally posited that terror and intergroup violence can be explained in terms of social dominance struggles. Social dominance theorists have described terror mostly as a tool for maintaining intergroup hierarchies in society (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Although implications of the theory suggest that terror may also be used by lower status groups as a tool for the resistance of domination by higher status groups, this prediction heretofore has not been empirically demonstrated. Data from two samples, one in the United States and one in Lebanon, were collected regarding attitudes toward terrorism and intergroup violence. The results show that the American sample demonstrates the typical patterns of social dominance such that those who are higher in social dominance orientation tend to support greater violence toward the Middle East. However, the Lebanese sample shows the opposite pattern, such that those who are lower in social dominance orientation tend to support violence toward the West. These results suggest that (1) support for terrorism among Middle East citizens is a project of counterdominance, and, more broadly, that (2) the relationship between social dominance orientation and support for violence depends on the dynamics of the conflict and the status of the perpetrators.     

Predicting Support for Arabs' Autonomy from Social Dominance: The Role of Identity Complexity and Dehumanization

The present study extends previous research on the influence of social dominance orientation (SDO) in international affairs by investigating the role of sociocognitive processes such as social identity complexity (SIC) and intergroup dehumanization in explaining the relationship between SDO and support for Arabs' autonomy. An Italian heterogeneous sample (N = 123), in terms of gender, age, political orientation, religiosity, and income level, was considered. We expected that those low on SDO would be more likely to support Arabs' autonomy, would have higher SIC, and would be less likely to dehumanize Arabs. We also expected that SIC and dehumanization would sequentially mediate the relationship between SDO and support for Arabs' autonomy. Results revealed that Italians low on SDO have higher SIC (i.e., a more inclusive social identity) which endorses lower dehumanization of Arabs. This in turn explained the influence of SDO on support for Arabs' autonomy. These findings integrate the literature about SDO and SIC and enhance the understanding of the sociocognitive processes underlying people's support for international egalitarian movements.     

Dimensions of Social Dominance Orientation: The Roles of Legitimizing Myths and National Identification

Using a representative sample of Dutch natives, the current study examined the distinction between two dimensions of social dominance orientation [SDO‐Dominance (SDO‐D) and SDO‐Egalitarianism (SDO‐E)] and their relation with prejudice towards immigrant groups. Results showed that an empirical distinction between the two dimensions could be made. Furthermore, the relation between SDO and prejudice was fully mediated by hierarchy‐enhancing (ethnic citizenship, assimilation) and hierarchy‐attenuating myths (civic citizenship, multiculturalism), but in different ways for both SDO dimensions. Moreover, there were distinct paths between the SDO dimensions and ethnic prejudice for higher and lower identifiers. For higher identifiers, the relation between SDO‐D and prejudice was fully mediated by the endorsement of hierarchy‐enhancing myths. For lower identifiers, there was an association between SDO‐E and prejudice that was predominantly mediated by the endorsement of hierarchy‐attenuating myths. Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology     

The Ideological Foundations of Economic Protectionism: Authoritarianism,Social Dominance Orientation,and the Moderating Role of Political Involvement

Even though economic globalization and foreign trade are major topics in the political discourse of most societies and negative attitudes toward international trade are prevalent, there is a lack of research investigating the ideological roots of protectionist preferences from a psychological perspective. In the present research, we examined the implications of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) for trade attitudes. Using data from two nationally representative samples from the United States (Study 1) and Germany (Study 2), we found that RWA predicted protectionist attitudes above and beyond economic self-interest. Furthermore, we found that the relationship between RWA and opposition to international trade was moderated by political involvement. The association of SDO with protectionist attitudes was inconsistent across the two studies and was not moderated by political involvement. Taken together, these results emphasize the importance of basic ideological orientations and the psychological dispositions they reflect in explaining public attitudes toward international trade.     

Social Dominance Orientation and John Henryism at the Intersection of Race and Class

Three studies were conducted to explore the relationship between social dominance orientation (SDO) and John Henryism (JH). Each study was framed using an intersectionality perspective which predicted that specific combinations of social identities would impact endorsement of SDO and JH in unique ways. We hypothesized that upper‐class non‐Whites would be higher in SDO and lower in JH than any other class/race identity combination. As predicted, a Class × Race interaction emerged for both SDO and JH in Study 1 (N = 387), with upper‐class non‐Whites displaying the highest levels of SDO and the lowest levels of JH. Study 2 (N = 340) replicated these findings and also explored the impact of context‐level class on SDO and JH. Using a qualitative method, in Study 3 (N = 23) we found that upper‐class non‐Whites described their social class positions in ways highly consistent with SDO, whereas middle/working‐class non‐Whites described their experiences in ways consistent with JH.     

The Challenge of Being a Challenger: Social Dominance Orientation Shapes the Impact of “Challenger vs. Leader” Comparisons

The current research investigates when and how comparative advertising effectiveness is shaped by social dominance orientation (SDO), that is, the degree to which one desires to maintain the status quo in social hierarchies. We examine these issues with regard to “challenger vs. leader” comparisons that seek to change the relative standing of competitors in a product category by documenting the superiority of challenger brands over market leaders. Findings demonstrate that the resistance to change characterizing high (vs. low) SDO individuals makes them respond (1) less favorably to “challenger vs. leader” comparisons that seek to alter the existing category hierarchy and (2) more favorably to “leader vs. challenger” comparisons that preserve this status quo in the category hierarchy. The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed, as are avenues for future research.     

Perceived Group Status Differences and the Effects of Gender, Ethnicity, and Religion on Social Dominance Orientation

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a measure of general desire for group-based dominance. According to social dominance theory, the higher the status of one's group, the higher one's level of SDO should be. This study examined the extent to which between-group differences in SDO increase as the size of the perceived status gap between the groups increases. Data were collected in Israel, Northern Ireland, and the United States. In agreement with expectations, differences in SDO between arbitrary-set groups (e.g., ethnic and religious groups) were found to be greater when the status gap between the groups was perceived to be larger. In contrast, gender differences in SDO did not vary as a function of the size of the perceived status gap between men and women: Men had higher levels of SDO than women even when the gender status gap was perceived to be very small. These findings highlight the effects of perceived group status on SDO and the degree to which these effects vary depending on whether the salient group distinction is based on gender, ethnicity, or religion.     

The Structure and Sources of Right‐wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation

Right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) are widely used constructs in research on social and political attitudes. This study examined their hierarchical and correlative structure (across sexes, generations and rater perspectives), as well as how genetic and environmental factors may contribute to individual differences in them (using different rater perspectives and nuclear twin family data). We found a substantive common aspect (beyond shared artificial variance arising from socially desirable responding) underlying both RWA and SDO: aggression against subordinate groups. We discussed how this aspect could help to explain the commonly reported correlation between the two concepts in Western countries. Estimates of genetic and environmental components in RWA and SDO based on self‐reports were quite comparable with those based on peer reports. When controlling for error variance and taking assortative mating into account, individual differences in RWA were primarily due to genetic contributions including genotype–environment correlation, whereas variance in SDO was largely attributable to environmental sources shared and not shared by twins. The findings are discussed in terms of the utility of RWA and SDO as basic constructs to describe individual differences in social attitudes and with respect to the different patterns of genetic and environmental influences that underlie them. Copyright © 2016 European Association of Personality Psychology     

Social aggression and power relations among preschool children

Social agonism and dominance relations were assessed in two preschool groups. An average of 30 hours of observational data was obtained for each group during free-play over a six-week period. A Social Agonism Inventory describing specific initiation and response behaviors during episodes of social conflict was used to code agonistic activity. Dyadic interactions were examined to determine whether the resolution of agonistic interactions conformed to a linear model of social dominance. Although there were group differences in the relative frequency of different forms of conflict, systematic comparison of agonistic wins and losses re vealed similarly rigid and linear dominance structures at both preschools. The relation of aggression and dominance was empirically examined by comparing the initiation and receipt of agonism by high vs low dominance status children. Higher dominance status children engaged in more agonistic interactions, but a majority of these interactions were directed toward other high-ranking group members.     

Social Identity, System Justification, and Social Dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et al., and Sidanius et al.

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 Relationship between Social Dominance Orientation and Gender: The Mediating Role of Social Values

Invariance hypothesis posits that, across cultures and contexts, men are higher in SDO than women. Social Dominance Theory (SDT) suggests that this difference is biologically determined and resulting from the differences in reproductive strategies between sexes. In this study we tested the hypothesis that values can explain gender–SDO differences. SDT suggests that SDO mediates gender differences in values. The contrasting hypothesis suggests that gender–SDO differences are mediated by values. Using SEM with a sample of Italian University students (N = 162, 80 men), the results provided strong support for the hypothesis of a mediation effect of values. Indeed, when controlling for values, gender difference in SDO disappear. Very similar findings were obtained for both GBD and OEQ. Results are discussed.     

Mechanisms of Corporate Social Responsibility: The Moderating Role of Transformational Leadership

Literature reviews have repeatedly emphasized the need to further investigate relationships between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and micro-organizational variables. The present research attempts to address this call by examining the direct and indirect relationship between individual perceptions of CSR and employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Multiphasic data from 207 workplace supervisor–subordinate dyads recruited from an online panel were analyzed to show that organizational identification mediated the relationship between CSR and OCBs. Furthermore, supervisor transformational leadership style moderated the mediation, such that the indirect effect of the organizational identification on the relationship between CSR and OCBs became nonsignificant under low transformational leadership. Based on these results, we make suggestions for using embeddedness programs to improve perceptions of CSR.     

Authoritarianism,Social Dominance,and Other Roots of Generalized Prejudice

The search for the personological roots of generalized prejudice (or ethnocentrism) began with the authoritarian personality, but in recent years, the twin constructs of right‐wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation have been widely treated as the dual processes that lead to generalized prejudice. However, studies conducted for this article show that other constructs, notably empathy and principled moral reasoning, contribute important additional variance. Whereas authoritarianism and social dominance positively predict generalized prejudice, empathy and principled moral reasoning are related negatively to it. For the final study, a structural model of these relationships was tested. To fully understand individual differences in the propensity for generalized prejudice, it is necessary to move beyond the dual processes union of authoritarianism and social dominance.