Psychology research abstracts
SDO & gender
SDO + RWA
SDO vs RWA
RWA, SDO,
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
SDO
SDO: Social dominance orientation is a personality variable that is measured on the SDO Scale, which measures an individual's attitudes toward social hierarchy. SDO is conceptualised as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination and domination. High Social Dominance Orientation is strongly correlated with conservative political views, and opposition to programs and policies that aim to promote equality.
Altemeyer's research suggests that high SDO scorers are personally competitive and are also somewhat Machiavellian (manipulative and amoral). High-SDO individuals tend to gravitate toward hierarchy-enhancing jobs and institutions, such as law enforcement, that are themselves hierarchically structured vis-a-vis individuals within them.
Males tend to have higher SDO scores than females, and are also observed to be more socially hierarchical.
Refs:
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L.M., & Malle, B.F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763.
Sibley et al.: "Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism: Additive and Interactive Effects" in Political Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 5, 2006.
Sidanius, Jim and Pratto, Felicia (2001). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Altemeyer's research suggests that high SDO scorers are personally competitive and are also somewhat Machiavellian (manipulative and amoral). High-SDO individuals tend to gravitate toward hierarchy-enhancing jobs and institutions, such as law enforcement, that are themselves hierarchically structured vis-a-vis individuals within them.
Males tend to have higher SDO scores than females, and are also observed to be more socially hierarchical.
Refs:
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L.M., & Malle, B.F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763.
Sibley et al.: "Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism: Additive and Interactive Effects" in Political Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 5, 2006.
Sidanius, Jim and Pratto, Felicia (2001). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SDO & gender
Social dominance orientation and gender: the moderating role of gender identity.
Br J Soc Psychol. 2003 Jun;42(Pt 2):187-98.
Wilson MS, Liu JH.
The aim of this research was to investigate the claim that gender differences in levels of social dominance orientation (SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), a personality variable measuring a general predisposition towards anti-egalitarianism, are essentially invariant (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Previous findings have indicated that (regardless of covariate) males display higher levels of SDO than females. Two studies were conducted to test the expectation (derived from social identity theory) that the gender-SDO relationship would be moderated by strength of gender group identification. Both samples (150 non-students and 163 students) completed the full SDO(6) measure, and measures of gender group identification. Consistent with predictions, strength of gender identification was found to moderate the gender-SDO relationship, such that increasing group identification was associated with increasing SDO scores for males, and decreasing SDO for females. This result raises questions concerning the theoretical basis of social dominance theory, and whether gender group membership should be accorded a different status from other 'arbitrary-set' group memberships.
School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Marc.Wilson@vuw.ac.nz
Comment in:
Br J Soc Psychol. 2003 Jun;42(Pt 2):199-206; discussion 215-23.
Br J Soc Psychol. 2003 Jun;42(Pt 2):207-13; discussion 215-23.
Why are men more likely to support group-based dominance than women? The mediating role of gender identification.
Br J Soc Psychol. 2004 Jun;43(Pt 2):287-97.
Dambrun M, Duarte S, Guimond S.
Arguing from a sociobiological perspective, Sidanius and Pratto (1999) have shown that the male/female difference in social dominance orientation (SDO) is largely invariant across cultural, situational and contextual boundaries. The main objective of this study was to test the validity of Social Dominance Theory (SDT) by contrasting it with a model derived from Social Identity Theory (SIT). More specifically, while SIT predicts that gender identification mediates the effect of gender on SDO, SDT predicts the reverse. According to SDT, the degree to which men and women endorse status legitimizing ideology should determine to what extent they identify with their gender group. Using structural equation modelling, the results provide strong support for the SIT model and no support for SDT predictions. Implications of these results for social dominance theory and its sociobiologically based invariance hypothesis are discussed.
Université Blaise Pascal, France dambrun@srvpsy.univ-bpclermont.fr
.
Br J Soc Psychol. 2003 Jun;42(Pt 2):187-98.
Wilson MS, Liu JH.
The aim of this research was to investigate the claim that gender differences in levels of social dominance orientation (SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), a personality variable measuring a general predisposition towards anti-egalitarianism, are essentially invariant (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Previous findings have indicated that (regardless of covariate) males display higher levels of SDO than females. Two studies were conducted to test the expectation (derived from social identity theory) that the gender-SDO relationship would be moderated by strength of gender group identification. Both samples (150 non-students and 163 students) completed the full SDO(6) measure, and measures of gender group identification. Consistent with predictions, strength of gender identification was found to moderate the gender-SDO relationship, such that increasing group identification was associated with increasing SDO scores for males, and decreasing SDO for females. This result raises questions concerning the theoretical basis of social dominance theory, and whether gender group membership should be accorded a different status from other 'arbitrary-set' group memberships.
School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Marc.Wilson@vuw.ac.nz
Comment in:
Br J Soc Psychol. 2003 Jun;42(Pt 2):199-206; discussion 215-23.
Br J Soc Psychol. 2003 Jun;42(Pt 2):207-13; discussion 215-23.
Why are men more likely to support group-based dominance than women? The mediating role of gender identification.
Br J Soc Psychol. 2004 Jun;43(Pt 2):287-97.
Dambrun M, Duarte S, Guimond S.
Arguing from a sociobiological perspective, Sidanius and Pratto (1999) have shown that the male/female difference in social dominance orientation (SDO) is largely invariant across cultural, situational and contextual boundaries. The main objective of this study was to test the validity of Social Dominance Theory (SDT) by contrasting it with a model derived from Social Identity Theory (SIT). More specifically, while SIT predicts that gender identification mediates the effect of gender on SDO, SDT predicts the reverse. According to SDT, the degree to which men and women endorse status legitimizing ideology should determine to what extent they identify with their gender group. Using structural equation modelling, the results provide strong support for the SIT model and no support for SDT predictions. Implications of these results for social dominance theory and its sociobiologically based invariance hypothesis are discussed.
Université Blaise Pascal, France dambrun@srvpsy.univ-bpclermont.fr
.
SDO vs RWA
The motivational bases of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation: relations to values and attitudes in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2005 Oct;31(10):1425-34.
Cohrs JC, Moschner B, Maes J, Kielmann S.
Research suggests that different motivational dynamics underlie right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). These differences may be framed in the theory of basic human values. RWA may trace back to conservation versus openness-to-change values, and SDO to self-enhancement versus self-transcendence values. Based on a large-scale German survey, associations of RWA and SDO with personal values and attitudes in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, were analyzed. Results indicated that RWA related more strongly than SDO to conservation values and threat-related attitudes toward Islam as an expression of the motivational goals of social control and security, whereas RWA and SDO related equally to self-enhancement versus self-transcendence values and concern for negative consequences of military action as an expression of the motivational goal of altruistic concern. Thus, the motivational bases of RWA and SDO appear to be only partly different.
Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Social Psychology Section, Germany. crcohrs@phil.uni-erlangen.de
Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2006 May;32(5):684-96.
Duckitt J.
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.
Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand. j.duckitt@auckland.ac.nz
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2005 Oct;31(10):1425-34.
Cohrs JC, Moschner B, Maes J, Kielmann S.
Research suggests that different motivational dynamics underlie right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). These differences may be framed in the theory of basic human values. RWA may trace back to conservation versus openness-to-change values, and SDO to self-enhancement versus self-transcendence values. Based on a large-scale German survey, associations of RWA and SDO with personal values and attitudes in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, were analyzed. Results indicated that RWA related more strongly than SDO to conservation values and threat-related attitudes toward Islam as an expression of the motivational goals of social control and security, whereas RWA and SDO related equally to self-enhancement versus self-transcendence values and concern for negative consequences of military action as an expression of the motivational goal of altruistic concern. Thus, the motivational bases of RWA and SDO appear to be only partly different.
Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Social Psychology Section, Germany. crcohrs@phil.uni-erlangen.de
Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2006 May;32(5):684-96.
Duckitt J.
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.
Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand. j.duckitt@auckland.ac.nz
SDO + RWA
SDO + RWA
Highly dominating, highly authoritarian personalities.
J Soc Psychol. 2004 Aug;144(4):421-47.
The author considered the small part of the population whose members score highly on both the Social Dominance Orientation scale and the Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale. Studies of these High SDO-High RWAs, culled from samples of nearly 4000 Canadian university students and over 2600 of their parents and reported in the present article, reveal that these dominating authoritarians are among the most prejudiced persons in society. Furthermore, they seem to combine the worst elements of each kind of personality, being power-hungry, unsupportive of equality, manipulative, and amoral, as social dominators are in general, while also being religiously ethnocentric and dogmatic, as right-wing authoritarians tend to be. The author suggested that, although they are small in number, such persons can have considerable impact on society because they are well-positioned to become the leaders of prejudiced right-wing political movements.
Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. altemey@cc.umanitoba.ca
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
