Social Dominance Orientation, Hierarchy Attenuators and Hierarchy Enhancers: Social Dominance Theory and the Criminal Justice System

This study investigated differences in social dominance orientation between incumbents of different social roles (police officers vs. public defenders) and ethnic groups known to differ in general social status (i.e., whites vs. blacks and Hispanics). Consistent with theoretical expectations: (a) Police were significantly more social-dominance oriented than either jurors or public defenders. (b) Public defenders tended to be less social-dominance oriented than jurors. (c) Euro-Americans were significantly more social dominance oriented than Afro- and Hispanic-Americans, (d) Euro-American police officers had, by far, the highest levels of social dominance orientation. Furthermore, all of the effects above held even when controlling for demographic factors such as gender, social class, age, education, and ethnic group. The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Teenagers,behavioral problems,and preferences for heavy metal and rap music: A case study of a southern middle school

The purpose of this research was to examine the relationship between musical preference, commitment to popular music and behavior problems of teenagers in an optional middle school.

This research tested three hypotheses. 1) Musical preference is related to race, 2) Musical preference can predict behavior problems, and, 3) Commitment to popular music, measured in hours, can predict behavior problems.

Data were gathered from a survey distributed to 80 students, school records, and participant observation. Results indicated that musical preference can predict race but can not predict identification as a behavior problem. Commitment to particular types of popular music did not predict behavior problems.     

Value Differentiation Between Enemies and Allies: Value Projection in National Images

The current study aimed to investigate value projection between Palestinians, Israelis, Americans, and Swiss as a function of their group's stance toward the Israeli‐Palestinian conflict. Drawing on image theory, we assumed that images—operationalized by value projection—would be a function not just of features of the target group, but of the rater group's relationship with the target group. Value projection can be seen as an indicator of (de)humanization as values represent goals and desirable behaviors of a person. We therefore expected higher projection to ally than to enemy groups, whereas we expected no difference in projection to out‐groups with neutral relations. Results show that allies did indeed project Security and Power to a higher degree to each other than to enemies, and enemies showed no, or even negative, projection onto each other. The ally of the enemy (Americans) was projected less negatively by Palestinians than vice versa, pointing to the higher complexity of third‐party images as opposed to the more classical ally and enemy images. As expected, Swiss students showed almost no difference in projection to the different out‐groups. These results confirm that the relationship between groups (e.g., alliance, enmity) rather than a consensual view of particular nations determines images.     

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.     

Beyond contact: intergroup contact in the context of power relations

This work investigated how group-based power affects the motivations and preferences that members of advantaged and disadvantaged groups bring to situations of contact. To measure the preferred content of interactions, desires to address particular topics in intergroup contact were assessed for both experimental groups (Study 1) and real groups (Study 2). As predicted, across both studies, the desire to talk about power was greater among members of disadvantaged than of advantaged groups. This difference was mediated by motivation for change in group-based power. Study 2 further demonstrated that more highly identified members of disadvantaged groups wanted to talk about power more. Members of advantaged groups generally preferred to talk about commonalities between the groups more than about group-based power, and this desire was greater with higher levels of identification. However, perceiving that their group's advantage was illegitimate increased the desire of advantaged group members to address power in intergroup interactions.     

Ethnocentrism and Sexism: How Stereotypes Legitimize Six Types of Power

We review evidence of inequality associated with gender and social categories like ethnicity with respect to six types of power: control of resources, force, legitimacy, obligations, knowledge, and sexuality. Presuming that stereotypes are one means of legitimizing power differentials between groups, we review research on stereotype contents for both ethnicity and gender with respect to the six forms of power. The review reveals a number of rhetorical means by which stereotypes legitimize ethnic dominants and men having particular forms of power, such as disguising the exercise of power by describing it in individualistic rather than relational terms, and also how stereotypes de‐legitimize women and ethnic subordinates from obtaining particular forms of power, such as by stating that what they desire and their virtues preclude exercising power. A new research agenda regarding stereotypes and how they legitimize group power differences is outlined.     

Social dominance and interpersonal power: Asymmetrical relationships within hierarchy‐enhancing and hierarchy‐attenuating work environments

We studied whether high‐social dominant employees sustain hierarchies in different hierarchy‐enhancing and hierarchy‐attenuating organizations endorsing harsh and soft power tactics. We found that social dominance orientation was positively associated with harsh power tactics, and negatively associated with soft power tactics. Employees higher in social dominance orientation endorsed harsh and opposed to soft power tactics as respectively hierarchy‐enhancing and hierarchy‐attenuating legitimizing myths that promote a dominant‐submissive form of intergroup relationships. We also found that supervisors higher in social dominance, due to their dominant position, strongly opposed soft power tactics more than subordinates did. Amongst high‐social dominant employees in the hierarchy‐attenuating (vs. hierarchy‐enhancing) organization, we observed the strongest opposition to soft power tactics, which are the tactics most shared in an organization which tends to attenuate hierarchies.     

Who Gets What and Why: Determinants of Social Allocations

Four experiments were conducted to explore how people allocate social resources between meritorious and needy parties. As predicted, participants with high social dominance orientation (SDO), who prefer hierarchical relationships in society, favored meritorious parties. In contrast, participants with low SDO, who value social equality, favored needy parties. Participants appealed to merit- or need-based ideologies to justify their allocations. Apparently, the notion of fairness denotes merit-based reasoning to people with high SDO, whereas it denotes need-based reasoning for those with low SDO. Among the participants, merit- and need-based ideologies were not simply post hoc rationalizations, but rather mediated the allocation decisions. Implications for the study of ideology and for theories of distributive justice are discussed.     

Muslims’ emotions toward Americans predict support for Hezbollah and Al Qaeda for threat-specific reasons

Using a random sample of 243 Muslims in Lebanon and Syria, we examined whether support for Hezbollah or for Al Qaeda is predicted by functionally-relevant emotional responses to specific threats perceived to be posed by Americans. In line with the sociofunctional approach, perceived resource domination threat from Americans elicited anger, and perceived value contamination threat elicited disgust/contempt toward Americans. Importantly, these intergroup emotions in turn differentially predicted support for Hezbollah and Al Qaeda through desires for the organizations to accomplish different goals to address the threat perceptions. Specifically, anger toward Americans predicted support for Hezbollah through desires for the organization to restore threatened symbolic resources by bringing pride and respect to Arabs. In contrast, disgust/contempt toward Americans predicted support for Al Qaeda through desires for the organization to protect threatened ingroup values by de-contaminating Islam from Western cultural influence. Theoretical explanations and implications for addressing and mitigating hostilities between the groups are discussed.