Social Dominance Orientation and the Ideological Legitimization of Social Policy1

Much of politics is involved with the distribution of resources and the regulation of intergroup relations. Social dominance theory posits that social ideologies provide social justification for policies that have unequal effects on different social groups. In the present studies, we examine the mediating role that ideologies have in transforming people's general orientation toward group inequality into policy support. Using data from 5 samples, we offer evidence that social dominance orientation orients people to support discriminatory ideologies, which in turn influence support for policies. Support for the theoretical model was shown in studies of both long-standing social policy attitudes, such as toward social welfare and military programs, and of unfolding political events, including Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court, the Persian Gulf War, and reinstitution of the death penalty in California.     

Don't tread on me: masculine honor ideology in the U.S. and militant responses to terrorism

Using both college students and a national sample of adults, the authors report evidence linking the ideology of masculine honor in the U.S. with militant responses to terrorism. In Study 1, individuals' honor ideology endorsement predicted, among other outcomes, open-ended hostile responses to a fictitious attack on the Statue of Liberty and support for the use of extreme counterterrorism measures (e.g., severe interrogations), controlling for right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and other covariates. In Study 2, the authors used a regional classification to distinguish honor state respondents from nonhonor state respondents, as has traditionally been done in the literature, and showed that students attending a southwestern university desired the death of the terrorists responsible for 9/11 more than did their northern counterparts. These studies are the first to show that masculine honor ideology in the U.S. has implications for the intergroup phenomenon of people's responses to terrorism.     

An investigation of an Expanded Encapsulate Model of Social Identity in Collective Action (EMSICA) including perception of threat and intergroup contact to understand support for Islamist terrorism in Indonesia

Although there have been many empirical studies of terrorism within the psychology literature, relatively few studies have theorized terrorism from the perspective of collective action theory. The present study aimed to understand factors that predict support for Islamist terrorism by using the Encapsulate Model of Social Identity in Collective Action (EMSICA) perspective. To extend previous studies, we added perception of threat and intergroup contact to the model. A correlational study using 66 terrorism detainees in Indonesia as participants found solid support for our expanded EMSICA. The models extending EMSICA with perception of threat and quantity of contact as predictors had improved fit indices and explained more variance in the dependent variable support for Islamist terrorism, as compared to the standard model. Social identity had a significant direct effect on support for Islamist terrorism and mediated the effect of intergroup contact, perception of threat, perceived injustice, and group efficacy on support for Islamist terrorism.     

Group domination and inequality in context: evidence for the unstable meanings of social dominance and authoritarianism

Both social dominance orientation (SDO) and right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) are assumed to be general and relatively stable psychological orientations that individuals ‘carry with them’ from context to context, influencing responses to salient forms of intergroup inequality and domination. In two experimental studies we tested the relative stability of SDO (Studies 1 and 2) and RWA (Study 1). That is, we examined whether people who score relatively high on SDO/RWA in one context tend to support intergroup hierarchy and domination in other contexts. To do so, we manipulated the salience of different intergroup relationships before measuring SDO and RWA, and then observed the associations among these constructs and attitudes toward specific intergroup relationships and legitimizing ideologies (support for war, conservatism, heterosexism, and religious fundamentalism). Contrary to the assumption of relative stability, the extent to which SDO and RWA were related to these specific attitudes and ideologies varied markedly depending on the experimental context. These results highlight the contextual basis and meaning of individuals' expressed support for group‐based dominance. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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     

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.     

Contrasting Theoretical Approaches to Intergroup Relations

The current forum is designed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of social identity, social dominance, and system justification as theoretical approaches to the study of intergroup relations. Each of these approaches tries to account for variation in the development of ingroup cohesion and outgroup antipathy among individual group members, across groups, and in different societies—three levels at which theorists have commonly sought explanations for variability in intergroup attitudes and behavior. Social dominance theory is the most ambitious of the theories but does not succeed in explaining intergroup relations equally well at all three levels. However, it has excelled in highlighting individual differences in the need and desire to dominate members of lower-status groups and in exploring the interaction between individuals and institutions. Social identity theory is primarily concerned with the attributes of groups that foster the development of ingroup bias and examines the conditions under which this occurs. It is more fully developed in this respect than the other approaches but ignores variation at the individual level and, to a lesser degree, the societal level. System justification theory considers a mix of individual- and societal-level factors, focusing on the role of support for the status quo in producing acceptance of status inequalities among members of low-status groups, even when it is against their own interest to do so. The theory highlights an important problem—the quiescence of low-status groups—but more work is needed to flesh out the theory and its central concepts.     

THE DEFENSIVE NATURE OF BENEFIT FINDING DURING ONGOING TERRORISM: AN EXAMINATION OF A NATIONAL SAMPLE OF ISRAELI JEWS

A study examining the effects of terrorism on a national sample of 1,136 Jewish adults was conducted in Israel via telephone surveys, during the Second Intifada. The relationship between reports of positive changes occurring subsequent to terrorism exposure (i.e., Benefit finding), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom severity, and negative outgroup attitudes toward Palestinian citizens of Israel (PCI) was examined. Benefit finding was related to greater PTSD symptom severity. Further, Benefit finding was related to greater threat perception of PCI and ethnic exclusionism of PCI. Findings were consistent with hypotheses derived from theories of outgroup bias and support the anxiety buffering role of social affiliation posited by terror management theory. This study suggests that benefit finding may be a defensive coping strategy when expressed under the conditions of ongoing terrorism and external threat.     

Ideologies of Diversity and Inequality: Predicting Collective Action in Groups Varying in Ethnicity and Immigrant Status

Ideological positions regarding social diversity and status inequality are examined as predictors of people's willingness to engage in collective action. Using social dominance theory and social identity theory, we hypothesized that the relationships between ideology, ethnic identification, and orientation toward collective action will vary depending on the position of one's group. Comparisons were made between four U.S. groups: White natives, White immigrants, Black/Latino natives, and Black/Latino immigrants. Groups differed in their endorsement of social diversity and social inequality, as well as in their orientation toward collective action and their ethnic group identification. For all groups, ethnic identity mediated the link between ideology and collective action, but the valence and magnitude of paths differed as a function of ethnicity and immigrant status. Social diversity was more critical for U.S. immigrants (White and Black/Latino); social inequality accounted for more variance in native-born U.S. groups (although in opposite directions for the two groups).     

Janus‐faced nature of colorblindness: Social dominance orientation moderates the relationship between colorblindness and outgroup attitudes

Colorblindness is a popular diversity ideology promoted as a means to intergroup harmony in ethnically diverse nations. While some research suggests that colorblindness reduces intergroup bias, other work suggests that colorblindness may increase it. The present research utilizes a national sample of European New Zealanders to examine whether the relationship between colorblind endorsement and outgroup attitudes is moderated by perceivers' individual differences in social dominance orientation (SDO). Data revealed that for participants low in SDO, colorblind beliefs predicted more negative attitudes toward ethnic minorities. However, for those high in SDO, colorblind beliefs predicted more positive attitudes toward ethnic minorities. Taken together, these findings suggest that colorblindness is not all good or bad for intergroup relations—instead, its effects may depend on perceivers' own egalitarian sentiments.     

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.     

New measures of political attitudes in Northern Ireland: a social identity perspective

Twenty‐eight measures of political attitudes were validated on a sample of 388 undergraduate students from Northern Ireland. Confirmatory factor analysis showed the scales to be unidimensional, discriminantly valid, with generally excellent reliabilities. The pattern of intergroup differentiation between Catholics and Protestants conformed to Social Identity Theory, with maximum differentiation on important issues, Catholics adopting a social change ideology and Protestants defending the status quo. Catholics and Protestants resolved their respective group associations with violence by condemning both it and terrorism, and also reported interdenominational friendships. The utility of these new measures of political attitudes in terms of measuring changes due to political initiatives, cross‐community reconciliation programmes and in assessing changes in attitudes as a result of integrated or segregated denominational schooling within the Province is outlined. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

低地位群体的外群体偏好

内群体偏好是群际关系中较为普遍现象。但是, 近来研究发现, 在低地位群体中存在着外群体偏好现象。社会认同理论、社会优势理论和系统公正理论从不同角度对这一现象进行了解释。社会认同理论关注情境因素的作用, 它描述了在何种情境下, 外群体偏好可能会出现。社会优势理论认为, 低地位群体成员的社会优势取向水平会决定其究竟是反抗现状还是接受现状。系统公正理论提出, 系统公正动机会使低地位群体成员支持与其内群体利益相违背的现存等级系统。每个理论各有优劣之处, 将各理论进行整合是值得考虑的研究方向。本文提出, 在解释低地位群体的外群体偏好现象时, 社会认同与社会优势取向之间可能会存在交互作用。     

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。     

Entitativity and prejudice: Examining their relationship and the moderating effect of attitude certainty

Previous research suggests that perceived entitativity, which represents the degree to which groups are perceived to possess unity, coherence, and organization, predicts intergroup stereotyping and bias. The present research yielded complementary evidence that prejudice (toward Muslims in Study 1 and toward South Asians in Study 2) can also predict groups’ perceived entitativity. In particular, Study 1 found that the relationships of two predictors, intergroup contact and social dominance orientation, with perceived entitativity were mediated by prejudice. Study 2 demonstrated, as predicted, that this set of relationships occurred primarily for intergroup attitudes of relatively high certainty. Neither study found support for models in which entitativity mediated the relationships of the predictors with prejudice. Conceptual and analytical factors that may account for evidence of the potential bi-directionality of the bias-entitativity relationship are considered.     

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.     

How a terror attack affects right‐wing authoritarianism,social dominance orientation,and their relationship to torture attitudes

Self‐reported level of right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA ), the two facets of social dominance orientation (SDO ‐Dominance and SDO ‐Egalitarianism) and pro‐torture attitudes were measured both in the immediate aftermath (terror salience, N = 152) of the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels and when terrorism was not salient (non‐salience, N = 140). Results showed that RWA and pro‐torture attitudes, but not SDO ‐Dominance and SDO ‐Egalitarianism, were significantly higher immediately after. Furthermore, RWA and SDO both predicted pro‐torture attitudes more strongly under terror salience. We argue that the reason why RWA is higher under terror salience is a response to external threat, and that SDO ‐Dominance may be more clearly related to acceptance of torture and other human‐rights violations, across context. Future research on the effects of terror‐related events on sociopolitical and pro‐torture attitudes should focus on person‐situation interactions and also attempt to discriminate between trait and state aspects of authoritarianism.     

Interpersonal politics: the role of terror management and attachment processes in shaping political preferences

Research on terror management theory (TMT) indicates that reminders of death affect political attitudes, but political orientation only sometimes moderates these effects. We propose that secure relationships are associated with values of tolerance and compassion, thus orienting people toward liberalism; insecure attachments are associated with more rigid and absolutist values that orient people toward conservatism. Given that attachment relationships become especially active when security needs are heightened, we predicted that mortality salience would be an important factor in understanding the relationship between attachment processes and political orientation. Supporting these ideas, Study 1 showed that after a mortality-salience manipulation, securely attached participants increased their support for a liberal presidential candidate, and less securely attached participants increased their support for a conservative presidential candidate. In Study 2, a secure-relationship prime following a mortality-salience manipulation engendered a less violent approach to the problem of terrorism than did a neutral-relationship prime. We discuss the interaction of TMT processes and individual differences in attachment in shaping political preferences.     

Free at last? Social dominance, loss aversion, and White and Black Americans' differing assessments of racial progress

White Americans tend to believe that there has been greater progress toward racial equality than do Black Americans. The authors explain this difference by combining insights from prospect theory and social dominance theory. According to prospect theory, changes seem greater when framed as losses rather than gains. Social dominance theory predicts that White Americans tend to view increases in equality as losses, whereas Black Americans view them as gains. In Studies 1 and 2, the authors experimentally tested whether groups judge the same change differently depending on whether it represents a loss or gain. In Studies 3-6, the authors used experimental methods to test whether White participants who frame equality-promoting changes as losses perceive greater progress toward racial equality. The authors discuss theoretical and political implications for progress toward a just society.     

Opposition to Immigration and (Anti-)Environmentalism: An Application and Extension of the Social Dominance-Environmentalism Nexus with 21 Countries in Europe

The social dominance–environmentalism nexus proposes that orientations for inequality and domination are expressed both in human–human and human–nature relations. In two studies, the present work applies and extends this proposition to understand endorsement of environmental values, concern with climate change, support for climate policies, and responsibility for climate action. In study one, using a representative random sample from Portugal (N = 1270, 53.3% female; European Social Survey, ESS8), social dominance orientation showed unique associations with concern with climate change. Moreover, opposition to immigration (as expression of anti-egalitarianism in intergroup relations) showed unique associations with all four measures of environmentalism. In study two, multi-level analyses using representative random samples from 20 other countries in Europe (N = 38830, 51.5% female; ESS8) confirmed the associations between opposition to immigration and environmentalism, controlling for a set of sociodemographic covariates, political orientation, and nesting at the country level. However, there were differences in the strength and direction of these associations based on country levels of societal development (i.e., Human Development Index; HDI). These differences reinforce the notion that context or situational variables may shape the links between diverse expressions of (anti-)egalitarianism and (anti-)environmentalism. Inputs for applied research on hierarchy-affirming tendencies toward others and the natural environment are proposed and discussed.