SOCIAL CLASS PERCEPTION AND SOCIAL STATUS AMONG SWEDISH YOUTH

Social class perception (identification) was studied as a function of ‘objective’ status (socioeconomic level) and class (occupational class) using a sample of Swedish high school students. Confirming the two minor hypotheses, the results disclosed that class perception was affected by both the ‘objective’ class and status of the subject: the manual occupational class, and those with low socioeconomic status, had in general a higher proportion of working-class identification than the nonmanual class, and those with low socioeconomic status, respectively. However, the major hypothesis, an interaction hypothesis stating that manuals are not affected by status in their class perceptions, was not confirmed. The results are discussed in the context of social psychological theory and earlier empirical research.     

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.     

COMPARISONS OF SOCIO-POLITICAL ATTITUDES BETWEEN TWO DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES

Three-hundred and twenty-seven Australian and 192 Swedish psychology students were compared with respect to four aspects of socio-politico attitudes: (a) differences in average levels for items and dimensions, (b) differences in degrees of consensus for specific issues (items), (c) differences in the structures of socio-politico attitudes and (d) differences in the profiles of attitudes across relevant items and dimensions. Analyses of variance showed that, in general, Swedes were significantly less conservative than Australians. The largest difference between the two samples were found for the dimension of punitiveness where Swedes were found to be much less punitive than Australians. The results also disclosed that there was greater ideological consensus and consistency among Swedes than among Australians. In line with earlier cross-cultural research, the results also disclosed a relatively high level of ideological profile and structural similarity among the two western nations.     

Perceiving personal discrimination: the role of group status and legitimizing ideology

It was hypothesized that relative group status and endorsement of ideologies that legitimize group status differences moderate attributions to discrimination in intergroup encounters. According to the status-legitimacy hypothesis, the more members of low-status groups endorse the ideology of individual mobility, the less likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from higher status group members to discrimination. In contrast, the more members of high-status groups endorse individual mobility, the more likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from lower status group members to discrimination. Results from 3 studies using 2 different methodologies provide support for this hypothesis among members of different high-status (European Americans and men) and low-status (African Americans, Latino Americans, and women) groups.     

Racism, ideology, and affirmative action revisited: the antecedents and consequences of "principled objections" to affirmative action

In 2 studies, the antecedents and consequences of "principled objections" to affirmative action (specific, "race-neutral" reasons for opposing the policy) among Whites were examined. In Study 1. data from a probability sample of Los Angeles adults indicated the following: (a) that principled-objection endorsement was driven not merely by race-neutral values but also by dominance-related concerns like racism; (b) that principled objections mediated the effects of group dominance; and (c) that education strengthened-rather than attenuated-the relationship between dominance-related concerns and principled objections. whereas it left the relationship between race-neutral values and the latter essentially unchanged. In Study 2, the education findings were conceptually replicated in a panel study of undergraduates: The completion of additional years of college boosted the correlation between racism and principled objections, whereas it had no effect on the predictive power of conservatism. These results provide support for a general group-dominance approach, which suggests that factors like racism continue to shape White opposition to race-targeted policies.     

The gendered nature of family structure and group-based anti-egalitarianism: a cross-national analysis

Using 4 samples of adolescents from 3 nations (Australia, Sweden, and the United States), the authors explored whether the gendered nature of the family socialization environment affected young people's level of group-based social egalitarianism. It was hypothesized that the greater the father's influence in the family, the greater the children's level of group-based social anti-egalitarianism. The results were consistent with the authors' expectations. Children from father-headed households had the highest level of group-based social anti-egalitarianism; children from mother-headed households had the lowest level of group-based anti-egalitarianism; and children from dual-parent households were in between. Similarly, children from homes in which the father had the greatest decision-making power tended to exhibit the highest levels of anti-egalitarianism, whereas children from homes in which the mother had the greatest decision-making power displayed the lowest levels of social anti-egalitarianism. Family structure did not interact with either the nationality or gender of the child.     

Social Dominance and Social Identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup Favoritism or Outgroup Derogation?

American and Israeli university students completed questionnaires in their native languages assessing ingroup identification, social dominance orientation (SDO), and ingroup and outgroup affect. The interrelationships among the variables were examined for high- and low-status groups in three intergroup contexts: whites and Latinos in the United States, Ashkenazim and Mizrachim in Israel, and Jews and Arabs in Israel. Theoretical predictions of social identity theory and social dominance theory were tested. Results indicated that for all high- and low-status groups, stronger ingroup identification was associated with more positive ingroup affect, and for nearly all groups, higher SDO was associated with more negative affect toward the low-status group. In addition, SDO was positively associated with ingroup identification for all high-status groups, and negatively associated with ingroup identification for almost all low-status groups. Explanations for cross-cultural differences in the factors driving group affect are suggested, and theoretical refinements are proposed that accommodate them.     

The Mistreatment of My People: Victimization by Proxy and Behavioral Intentions to Commit Violence Among Muslims in Denmark

Islamist extremism is often explained by the suffering endured by Muslims in Islamic countries as a result of Western‐led wars. However, many terrorist attacks have been carried out by European Muslims with no personal experiences of war. Across two studies among Danish Muslims, we tested if what we call “victimization‐by‐proxy processes” motivate behavioral intentions to commit acts of violence. We used Muslim identification, perceived injustice of Western foreign policies, and group‐based anger to predict violent and nonviolent behavioral intentions. More importantly, we compared path models of Danish Muslims from conflict zones with those without direct personal experience of Western‐led occupation. We found similar effects among the participants in each category, that is, vicarious psychological responses mimicked those of personally experienced adversity. In fact, participants born in Western Europe were, on average, more strongly identified with Muslims, more likely to perceive Western foreign policy as more unjust, reported greater group‐based anger, and were more inclined to help Muslims both by nonviolent and violent means.     

Living under threat: Mutual threat perception drives anti‐Muslim and anti‐Western hostility in the age of terrorism

This research demonstrates a common psychology of outgroup hostility driven by perceived intergroup threat among three groups and seven cultural contexts: non‐Muslim Westerners, Muslims in Western societies, and Muslims in the Middle East. In Study 1, symbolic, but not realistic and terroristic threats, predicted non‐Muslim Norwegians' intentions to join anti‐Islamic movements. In Study 2, symbolic and realistic, but not terroristic threat, predicted non‐Muslim Americans' willingness to persecute Muslims. In Studies 3 and 4, symbolic threat predicted support and behavioral intentions against the West among Swedish and Turkish Muslims. Finally, in Study 5, a comparison demonstrated that symbolic and realistic threats had the same effects on violent intentions among non‐Muslim and Muslim Danes, and Muslims in Afghanistan. Meta‐analysis showed that symbolic threat was most strongly associated with intergroup hostility. Across studies, participants with high religious group identification experienced higher levels of threat. Implications for intergroup research and prejudice reduction are discussed.     

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.