The Role of Gender Identification in Social Dominance Orientation: Mediating or Moderating the Effect of Sex?1

Previous research has shown that people's gender identification correlates with their social dominance orientation (SDO). A question is whether gender identification mediates or moderates the effect of biological sex on SDO. We examined the correlations of sex and gender identification with SDO using the Bem Sex Role Inventory in Study 1 and a gender diagnostic measure in Study 2. Both studies showed that gender identification was significantly associated with SDO. In Study 1, gender identification partially mediated the effect of sex on SDO; and in Study 2, this mediation was complete. There were no indications that gender identification moderated the effect of sex on SDO. The results are discussed against the background of the gender invariance hypothesis of SDO.     

Invariance of a two-factor model of Social Dominance Orientation across gender

This research examined the measurement and structural invariance of the 16-item Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale across gender. The Social Dominance Theory (SDT) invariance hypothesis proposes that men are higher than women in SDO. Tests of this hypothesis have compared summary scores with t-tests, but there is no psychometric work of measurement invariance across gender, which makes interpretation of t-test comparisons problematic. Some research suggests the scale captures two distinct factors: support for group-based dominance (GBD) and general opposition to equality (OEQ). However, gender differences in GBD and OEQ have mixed findings. Results replicated the two-factor structure. Multiple-group CFA indicated that loadings, intercepts, factor variances, and factor covariance are equivalent across gender. Males demonstrated higher latent means of GBD and OEQ, supporting the SDT invariance hypothesis.     

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.     

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.     

社会支配倾向研究的回顾与展望

社会支配倾向指个体对基于群体产生的等级制度及社会存在不平等现象的偏好程度。高社会支配倾向者认为高能力者应比低能力者获得更多的社会权利与社会资源;低社会支配倾向者认为社会应该按需分配,不存在等级差异。社会支配倾向会对社会阶层、偏见、政治态度、公平等现象的作用产生影响,是这些现象的重要影响因素。今后需要立足于社会支配倾向的本质与社会应用开展整合性研究。     

EVIDENCE THAT GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION RESULT FROM GENDERED SELF-STEREOTYPING AND GROUP-INTERESTED RESPONSES TO PATRIARCHY

Numerous studies have found that, compared to women, men express higher levels of social dominance orientation (SDO), an individual difference variable reflecting support for unequal, hierarchical relationships between groups. Recent research suggests that the often-observed gender difference in SDO results from processes related to gender group identity. We hypothesized that two aspects of gender group identity could account for men's higher SDO relative to women's: responses to patriarchy that reflect the interests of the gender ingroup (as measured by hostile and benevolent sexism) and self-stereotyping in gendered terms. We found the gender difference in SDO was fully mediated by gender differences in feminine self-stereotyping, hostile sexism, and benevolent sexism. The discussion addresses implications for social dominance theory's treatment of gender and the complexity of social-contextual forces that produce gender differences in SDO.     

Gender Differences in Social Dominance Orientation: The Role of Cognitive Complexity

The present research examined the invariance hypothesis, which predicts lower levels of social dominance orientation (SDO) for women compared to men even when accounting for other factors. Previous research shows that gender linked variables mediate the gender difference in SDO. In two studies using undergraduates in the northeastern U.S., we tested mediation by cognitive complexity, a variable linked to social status but not to gender. Study 1 (n?=?117) found that women had higher levels of attributional complexity, but not need for cognition. Study 2 (n?=?206) further found that attributional complexity mediated the relationship between gender and SDO, suggesting that higher cognitive complexity due to low social status may be involved in gender differences in SDO.     

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.     

Cross-sectional and longitudinal differences in social dominance orientation and right wing authoritarianism as a function of political power and societal change

Changes in social dominance orientation (SDO) and right wing authoritarianism (RWA) over time were examined using cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of three waves of survey data before and after the 2004 Presidential election in Taiwan. A functionalist perspective (or group socialization model) predicts that: (i) supporters of a dominant political group that has held power for over 50 years should be higher in SDO and RWA than their opposition; and (ii) a formerly subordinate group should increase in SDO and RWA following electoral victory, whereas the dominant group should decrease following defeat. The first hypothesis was supported, whereas support for the second was mixed; the low-powered group increased in SDO and RWA following victory, but the high-powered group was unchanged. It appears easier to acquire the mindset associated with power than to lose it. Longitudinal path modelling showed that SDO became less connected to identity and political party support after an election that consolidated societal and regime change; the role of RWA shifted even more dramatically, from being connected to one political party and social identity pre-election to an opposing one post-election. Longitudinal path models slightly favoured a group socialization account over personality or social identity accounts in modelling correlations between SDO, RWA, political party support, and social identities over time.     

All else being equal: Are men always higher in social dominance orientation than women?

The belief in the gender invariance of many traits is a view that dominates much of psychology. In social psychology, this position is clearly represented by social dominance theory and the construct of social dominance orientation (SDO) where it is argued that, all else being equal, men will be higher in SDO than women. In other domains, though, these assumptions are being questioned, and researchers are arguing for a gender similarities hypothesis. The argument is that men and women are more similar than different, and where there are effects for gender, these are small. In this investigation, men and women are compared under similar cultural (Study 1), ideological, (Study 2) and status (Study 3) contexts to examine whether, all else being equal, men really are higher in SDO than women. In an additional study (Study 4), a meta‐analysis is conducted aggregating the effect sizes of the previous studies. Results demonstrated either no effect for gender or an interaction between gender and the relevant social context and only a small effect size of gender—findings that disconfirm the ceteris paribus assumption of social dominance theory. In conclusion, the implications of the findings for understanding gender effects in social psychology are discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Does social dominance generate prejudice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions

Social dominance orientation (SDO) has been proposed as an important variable in the explanation of prejudice. We distinguish between three conceptualizations of SDO: SDO as a personality trait (personality model), SDO as a moderator of the effects of situational variables (Person x Situation model), and SDO as a mediator of the effect of social position on prejudice (group socialization model [GSM]). Four studies (N = 1.657) looking at the relations between social positions, SDO, and prejudice in a natural setting and in a laboratory setting provide strong support for the GSM. In contrast to previous correlational findings, there is evidence of a cause (dominant social position), an effect (prejudice increases), and a mediator (SDO). These results suggest new perspectives on the integration of individual and contextual determinants of prejudice.     

Developmental changes in sexual prejudice from early to late adolescence: the effects of gender, race, and ideology on different patterns of change

This study documented significant changes in prejudice toward gay and lesbian individuals among adolescents from the ages of 12 to 18 years. Moreover, in line with developmental theories of prejudice, there was substantial variability in these patterns, partially predicted by the gender and ideological beliefs (reflected by social dominance orientation [SDO]) of individuals. Boys reported higher prejudice at age 12 than girls. SDO also accounted for initial differences in levels of prejudice. Further, although prejudice toward gay men did decrease among girls over time, it did not decrease among boys. Prejudice toward lesbians decreased at similar rates for boys and girls. These different trajectories are explained within the context of gender socialization processes during adolescence. In addition, fluctuations in adolescents' own SDO corresponded with fluctuations in their level of prejudice, over and above those tied to age-related changes. This association was even stronger among those with overall higher SDO tendencies than others. However, SDO, when treated as a stable invariant factor, did not predict different patterns of progressive age-related change in prejudice. These results extend the research on sexual prejudice by examining it within a broader and more dynamic developmental framework, in greater alignment with developmental theories of prejudice.     

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.     

Go With the Flow or Fight the Power? The Interactive Effects of Social Dominance Orientation and Perceived Injustice on Support for the Status Quo

Previous research in social dominance theory has found an asymmetry in the relationship between social dominance orientation (SDO) and various hierarchy-enhancing ideologies, such that the relationship between the two variables is significantly more positive among high-status group members than among low-status group members (Sidanius, Pratto, & Rabinowitz, 1994; Sidanius, Levin, & Pratto, 1996). Perceptions of systemic injustice toward one's ingroup may help to explain this ideological asymmetry. The hypothesis of a three-way interaction among group status, SDO, and perceived injustice was tested by using survey responses from American university students to predict opposition to hierarchy-attenuating policies as well as levels of patriotism. Analyses revealed the presence of a three-way interaction (ps < .05). Ethnic minority students who scored high on SDO did not always maintain conservative policy stances or strong patriotic attachments—it depends on their level of perceived injustice. Implications for social dominance theory and system-justification theory are discussed.     

Attitudes to women in society: the role of social dominance orientation and social values

his research assessed the extent to which attitudes to women in society are predicted by the personality trait social dominance orientation (SDO) as well as the values international harmony and equality (INT) and national strength and order (NAT). Respondents were a community sample of adult non‐students (N = 158). Sex differences were observed on INT and attitudes to women. Multiple regression analyses showed sex differences in the extent to which SDO predicts attitudes to women, while no support was found for the view that social attitudes are underpinned by both security and harmony values. The results are discussed with reference to social dominance theory and the nature of the security value domain. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Social dominance orientation and climate change denial: The role of dominance and system justification

Extending previous research, we examined whether the relation between social dominance orientation (SDO) and climate change denial reflects group-based dominance (SDO and nature dominance) or general system justification. Moreover, we examined whether the relation between personality (domineering and empathy) and denial is mediated by group-based dominance variables. The results showed that the group-based dominance variables reduce the effect of system justification on denial to nonsignificant. Also, social dominance and nature dominance explain unique parts of the variance in denial. Moreover, path analyses showed that the relations between empathy and system justification with denial are mediated by both of the group-based dominance variables, while the relation between domineering and denial is mediated only by SDO. Together, these results suggest that denial is driven partly by dominant personality and low empathy, and partly by motivation to justify and promote existing social and human-nature hierarchies. We conclude by suggesting that climate change mitigation efforts could be more successful if framed as being clearly beneficial for everybody and nonthreatening to existing social order.     

Support for rejection and reception policies toward asylum seekers in Italy: The role of conservative ideologies and legitimizing myths

ABSTRACT

Based on Social Dominance Theory (SDT), this study investigates the relationships between ideologically conservative attitudes (social dominance orientation, SDO; right-wing authoritarianism, RWA), legitimizing myths (false belief in asylum seekers as bogus; perception of in-group threats), and citizens’ support for restricted reception and rejection of asylum policies. A sample of 539 people living in Italy filled in an anonymous questionnaire administered using a cross-sectional design. The results support the expectations, showing that people high in SDO and RWA were more likely to hold the belief that asylum seekers are making false claims and to perceive that the latter pose a threat to the in-group, which in turn increased support for both of restrictive policies. Findings suggest that conservative ideologies can positively affect citizens’ support for restrictive asylum seeker policies based on both rejection and restricted reception by supplying ideological justification for not accommodating them in the host society.     

Social Dominance Orientation Relates to Believing Men Should Dominate Sexually, Sexual Self-Efficacy, and Taking Free Female Condoms Among Undergraduate Women and Men

Gendered-based power affects heterosexual relationships, with beliefs in the U.S. prescribing that men dominate women sexually. We draw on social dominance theory to examine whether women??s and men??s level of support for group-based hierarchy (i.e., social dominance orientation; SDO) helps explain gender-based power beliefs and dynamics in heterosexual relationships. We conducted a laboratory study at a Northeastern U.S. university among 357 women and 126 men undergraduates who reported being heterosexual and sexually active, testing three sets of hypotheses. First, as hypothesized, women endorsed SDO and the belief that men should dominate sexually less than men did. Second, as hypothesized, among women and men, SDO was positively correlated with the belief that men should dominate sexually, and negatively correlated with sexual self-efficacy (confidence in sexual situations) and number of female condoms (a woman-controlled source of protection) taken. Third, structural equation modeling, controlling for age, family income, number of sexual partners in the past month, and perceived HIV/AIDS risk, supported the hypothesis that among women and men, the belief that men should dominate sexually mediates SDO??s association with sexual self-efficacy. The hypothesis that the belief that men should dominate sexually mediates SDO??s association with number of female condoms taken was supported for women only. The hypothesis that sexual self-efficacy mediates SDO??s association with number of female condoms taken was not supported. Results suggest SDO influences power beliefs and dynamics in heterosexual relationships. Although female condoms are an important woman-controlled source of protection, power-related beliefs may pose a challenge to their use.     

Values,Right‐Wing Authoritarianism,Social Dominance Orientation,and Ambivalent Attitudes Toward Women

This study related hostile and benevolent attitudes toward women (HS and BS) as measured by the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) to 10 value types from the Schwartz Value Survey, right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA), and social dominance orientation (SDO). Students (N = 170) from an Australian university completed the scales. The results showed gender differences in the importance of power values, HS, BS, RWA, SDO, and in some of the correlations. HS and BS were positively correlated with power and security values, and negatively correlated with universalism and benevolence values after controlling for gender. RWA and SDO were related to distinct value patterns with some overlap, and they partially mediated relations between value importance and HS and BS.     

Social Dominance Orientation,Gender, and Increasing Educational Exposure1

Using a large panel sample of undergraduates, we measured the social dominance orientation (SDO) scores of men and women once a year across a 4½‐year period. Employing repeated‐measures ANOVAs, we found that, even after controlling for the character of students' academic majors (hierarchy enhancing or hierarchy attenuating), males showed significantly higher SDO scores than did females across the entire college career. The data are discussed in terms of the invariance hypothesis within social dominance theory.