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     

自恋与青少年亲社会行为之间的关系

本文以青少年为研究对象,使用相关研究和实验设计探究自恋与亲社会倾向及与现实情境中亲社会行为的关系。研究1表明,对男性而言,自恋与公开的亲社会倾向之间存在正相关,与匿名的亲社会倾向之间不存在相关;而女性的自恋与公开、匿名的亲社会倾向之间均不存在显著相关。研究2通过行为实验证实,在公开的情境下,男性青少年中高自恋者比低自恋者做出更多的亲社会行为;而在非公开的情境下,高低自恋者的亲社会行为没有差异。研究结果揭示,男性青少年自恋者将亲社会行为作为自我调节的策略之一。     

金融危机背景下家庭社会地位对大三学生择业动机的影响：社会支配倾向的中介作用

以504名来自5所高校三年级大学本科生为被试,采用问卷法收集数据,探讨了家庭社会地位对大学生择业动机的影响。结果表明：（1）家庭社会地位对大学生内部择业动机具有显著的预测作用,家庭社会地位越高,内部择业动机越强;（2）社会支配倾向对家庭社会地位与内部择业动机之间的关系起中介作用,家庭社会地位通过社会支配倾向对内部择业动机产生间接影响;（3）未发现家庭社会地位、社会支配倾向与外部择业动机之间的显著相关。     

大学生在社会困境中的公平决策:社会价值取向的影响

通过两项研究考查大学生在社会困境中的行为决策及公平感体验,检验社会价值取向的影响作用,有效被试分别为85名和84名。结果表明:(1)亲社会者比亲自我者更倾向做公平决策;信息对称比不对称条件更促进被试做公平决策;女生比男生更倾向做公平决策。(2)性别在社会价值取向与信息对称性对公平决策的影响中起调节作用,社会价值取向显著影响男生的公平决策,信息对称性显著影响女生的公平决策。(3)社会价值取向显著影响个体对不公平的容忍度,亲社会者更不容忍不公平行为。(4)对于利己的不公平行为,被试都倾向接受,亲社会者并不比亲自我者体验到更强的内疚情绪;对于不利己的不公平行为,被试都倾向拒绝,且产生较强的不公平感及气愤情绪。     

我会在谁面前舍弃利益?——博弈对象的能力与社会距离对名利博弈倾向的影响

通过构造虚拟的捐献情境及贸易情境,结合博弈任务,以大学生为被试探讨了名利博弈对象的能力和社会距离对名利博弈中博弈者的博弈行为倾向的影响。结果表明,在捐献情境下,被试在高能力的名利博弈对象面前比在低能力的名利博弈对象面前更倾向于做出接近自己半数报酬的捐献行为,牺牲利益以获取好名声。在贸易情境下存在名利博弈对象的能力与社会距离的交互作用,被试仅在面对低能力的名利博弈对象时会考虑社会距离因素,在社会距离近的名利博弈对象面前比在社会距离远的名利博弈对象面前提出更低的售价,牺牲自己的利益以获得好名声。研究结果初步证实名利博弈对象能力与社会距离对名利博弈具有重要影响以及个体在名利博弈中具有策略性。     

达者何以兼济天下：高阶层再分配偏向的心理机制及谦卑的作用

一些欧美研究发现高阶层者与低阶层者相比再分配偏向更低, 但是这一结论尚缺少跨文化一致性的证据, 而且对于这一现象的心理机制和干预策略的探讨也相对不足。基于此, 本研究通过3个子研究分别来关注我国民众再分配偏向的阶层差异及其心理机制, 并探讨可能的干预策略。结果发现：(1)与西方社会的情形相似, 在中国社会高阶层者的再分配偏向也显著低于低阶层者; (2)社会阶层对再分配偏向的影响, 部分是通过贫富差距归因倾向起作用的：与低阶层者相比, 高阶层者更倾向于将贫富差距归因于能力、努力、志向或抱负等个体内部因素, 进而再分配偏向更低; (3)通过启动高阶层者谦卑的心态, 能够降低其贫富差距内归因倾向, 进而提升其再分配偏向。此结果验证了社会阶层不平等维持模型的重要观点, 同时也为推动社会再分配、促进发展成果共享等提供了一定的社会治理启示。     

焦虑对社会决策行为的影响

焦虑是在人类日常生活中常见的一种负性情绪。探讨焦虑情绪在个人生活和工作中扮演的角色, 是生理学界和心理学界的一项重要课题。过往研究显示焦虑水平的提高会对社会能力和社交技巧造成显著的影响。在社会决策领域中, 这种影响的具体表现是高焦虑者比低焦虑者更倾向于采取回避风险的策略。但是, 过往研究主要关心包含经济因素的社会决策, 而对其他类型的社会行为的探索存在不足。以下问题值得未来研究者们关注：在个体层面上, 高焦虑者是否会更容易受到外界信息的影响, 表现出更强的从众行为和权威依从倾向, 与他人进行社会比较或社会竞争的动机是否会被削弱？在群体层面上, 高焦虑者是否更容易表现出人际信任, 以及是否会表现出更强的服从集体倾向？考察这些问题将会为针对焦虑情绪的认知研究和临床研究起到促进作用。     

大学生手机互联网依赖对疏离感的影响：社会支持系统的作用

为探讨大学生手机依赖、现实社会支持、网络社会支持及疏离感的关系。采用大学生手机成瘾倾向量表、青少年疏离感量表、大学生网络社会支持量表和青少年社会支持量表对442 名大学生进行测量。结果发现：（1）不同手机依赖水平与疏离感差异显著,高手机依赖者的疏离感均显著高于低手机依赖者;（2）手机依赖对疏离感有显著正向预测作用,网络社会支持和现实社会支持对疏离感有显著负向预测作用;（3）现实社会支持在手机依赖与疏离感间具有中介效应和调节效应,手机依赖既直接对疏离感产生影响,又通过现实社会支持对疏离感产生影响,中介效应占总效应的比例为17.8%;（4）现实社会支持和网络社会支持在手机依赖与疏离感间均具有调节效应,可以缓冲手机依赖对疏离感的影响。     

大学生心理控制感对心理健康水平影响的研究

本研究采用《心理卫生症状自评量表SCL-90》和《内控性、有势力他人和机遇量表》对300名大学生进行测试,探讨大学生心理健康与心理控制感的关系。结果表明：大学生在SCL-90中至少有一个因子得分大于或等于3分的占学生人数的25．33％,在性别和年级之间心理控制感和心理健康均不存在显著差异,大学生心理健康水平低于全国正常成人常模;父母的文化和职业等社会因素对心理健康和心理控制感水平会产生一定的影响;与心理内控倾向者相比,心理倾向于外在控制的人正性情感少,负性情感多,精神症状多,总体心理健康水平低。     

小学生对情绪社会调节作用的理解

考察了小学二、四、六年级学生对情绪社会调节作用理解的特点.结果表明:小学生认为愤怒、悲伤和恐惧情绪标志着表达者不同的人际地位,会诱发接受者不同的情绪和后继行为:愤怒情绪标志着表达者的支配地位,会诱发出接受者的恐惧情绪和道歉认错行为;悲伤和恐惧标志着表达者的非支配地位,会诱发出接受者的悲伤情绪和目标恢复行为,恐惧情绪有时还会诱发接受者的高兴情绪.在对愤怒、悲伤和恐惧情绪反映表达者的社会目标的理解上,没有差异,都反映了表达者期待接受者采取目标恢复的社会行为.高年级学生在区分不同情绪表达的支配性以及诱发接受者的情绪上,存在着差别;低年级学生对接受者的后继行为的理解存在着差异.     

Editorial: Animal Metaphors

Social dominance theory (SDT) suggests that prejudice legitimizes and maintains the existing social hierarchy. Consistent with an SDT explanation, it was predicted that (a) perceptions of threat to the existing social hierarchy and (b) social dominance orientation (SDO) would be related to stronger beliefs in stereotypes and "legitimizing myths." In addition, this analysis tests SDT's predicted interaction between perceptions of threat and SDO. It was predicted that for high SDO individuals the relation between perceptions of intergroup threat and the endorsement of legitimizing myths would be stronger than for low SDO individuals. These predictions were examined using a national probability General Social Survey archival data set. The results were consistent with our predictions and suggest that social dominance theory compliments and augments other threat theories of prejudice.     

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.     

Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups

A dual-process model of individual differences in prejudice proneness proposes that Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) will influence prejudice against particular outgroups through different motivational mechanisms. RWA should cause negative attitudes toward groups seen as threatening social control, order, cohesion, and stability, such as deviant groups, and negativity toward these groups should be mediated through perceived threat from them. SDO should cause negative attitudes toward groups that activate competitiveness over relative dominance and superiority, such as socially subordinate groups low in power and status, and negativity toward these groups should be mediated through competitiveness toward them. Findings from four student samples that assessed attitudes toward seven social groups selected as likely to vary systematically in social threat and social subordination supported these predictions. The findings have implications for reconciling intergroup and individual difference explanations of prejudice and for interventions to reduce prejudice.     

Social dominance orientation: Cause or ‘mere effect’?: Evidence for SDO as a causal predictor of prejudice and discrimination against ethnic and racial outgroups

The question of whether SDO is a cause or mere effect of intergroup attitudes and behaviors has been the subject of heated debate. Much of the research brought to bear on the question, however, has used cross-sectional data that is not best-suited for making causal inferences. Using data from a panel study that tracked UCLA undergraduates over several years, we find support for the notion that SDO is a cause, rather than ‘mere reflection’ of prejudice and discrimination against outgroups. Specifically, using cross-lagged analyses among White students, we show that SDO measured in 1996 has significant marginal utility for predicting prejudice against a series of ethnic outgroups, as well as self-reported ingroup friendship preference, four years later, controlling for their 1996 levels. Conversely, outgroup affect and ingroup friendship preference measured in 1996 fail to predict SDO levels in 2000 once 1996 SDO levels are taken into account. Implications of these analyses for the debate on the interpretation of SDO as a relatively stable orientation towards group-based hierarchy in society are discussed.     

The personality bases of ideology: a one-year longitudinal study

The cross-lagged effects of the Big-Five personality dimensions on Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) were examined over 1 year (N = 112). Consistent with the Dual Process Cognitive-Motivational Model, SDO and RWA exhibited markedly different personality bases. Low Agreeableness and unexpectedly high Extraversion predicted change in the motivational goal for group-based dominance and superiority (SDO), whereas Openness to Experience predicted change in the motivational goal for social cohesion and collective security (RWA). Neuroticism and Conscientiousness did not predict change in SDO or RWA over time. These findings extend previous cross-sectional (correlational) research and indicate that key dimensions of personality (primarily Agreeableness and Openness to Experience) are an important temporal antecedent of the group-based motivational goals underlying individual differences in prejudice.     

Right‐wing authoritarianism,social dominance orientation and prejudice against threatening and competitive ethnic groups

This research rests on the assumption that individual differences approaches to prejudice benefit from an integration of intergroup factors. Following Duckitt (2001), we assumed that two prominent individual differences variables, right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), would differentially predict majority members' levels of ethnic prejudice depending on specific factors of the intergroup context: RWA as an index of motivational concerns about social cohesion, stability and security should drive prejudice against outgroups perceived as socially threatening, and SDO as an index of concerns about ingroup superiority and dominance should predict prejudice against outgroups perceived as potential competitors for power‐status. Across two studies (Ns = 82, 176), using between‐participants and within‐participants experimental designs, the effects of RWA on prejudice were particularly powerful when the outgroup was manipulated to be socially threatening, but the effects of SDO on prejudice appeared not to increase when the outgroup was manipulated to be competitive. In Study 2, presenting the outgroup as having low status also increased the effect of RWA, but not the effect of SDO. These results support the differential prediction assumption for RWA, but not for SDO. Implications for the conceptualisation of RWA and SDO are discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Learning and Unlearning the Myths We Are Taught: Gender and Social Dominance Orientation

Within social dominance theory (SDT) the invariance hypothesis predicts that men will be higher in social dominance orientation (SDO) even after accounting for cultural or social factors. We tested this hypothesis by measuring the relationship between sex and SDO while controlling for the effects of gender socialization. Our first two studies demonstrated that the sex difference in SDO is mediated by gender socialization and that masculinity and femininity are differentially related to two different forms of SDO. Study 3 extended these results by showing that SDO decreases as a function of feminist identity acquisition. These results suggest that the status hierarchy based on gender has properties of arbitrary classifications such as race, and they call into question the classification of gender as invariant within SDT.     

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 Personality Bases of Ideology: A One-Year Longitudinal Study

ABSTRACT

The cross-lagged effects of the Big-Five personality dimensions on Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) were examined over 1 year (N = 112). Consistent with the Dual Process Cognitive-Motivational Model, SDO and RWA exhibited markedly different personality bases. Low Agreeableness and unexpectedly high Extraversion predicted change in the motivational goal for group-based dominance and superiority (SDO), whereas Openness to Experience predicted change in the motivational goal for social cohesion and collective security (RWA). Neuroticism and Conscientiousness did not predict change in SDO or RWA over time. These findings extend previous cross-sectional (correlational) research and indicate that key dimensions of personality (primarily Agreeableness and Openness to Experience) are an important temporal antecedent of the group-based motivational goals underlying individual differences in prejudice.