Social Dominance Orientation and Social Dominance Theory

2020 ◽  
pp. 5028-5036
Author(s):  
Stephen T. La Macchia ◽  
Helena R. M. Radke
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Social Dominance Theory

When and How Subordinate Performance Leads to Abusive Supervision: A Social Dominance Perspective

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (7) ◽  
pp. 2801-2826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdul Karim Khan ◽  
Sherry Moss ◽  
Samina Quratulain ◽  
Imran Hameed
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Model ◽  
Indirect Effect ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Abusive Supervision ◽  
Perceived Threat ◽  
Social Dominance Theory ◽  
Subordinate Performance ◽  
High Performers ◽  
Using Data

While we would typically expect poor performers to elicit abusive responses from their supervisors, we theorize that high performers may also be victims of abusive supervision. Specifically, we draw on social dominance theory to hypothesize and demonstrate that subordinate performance can have a positive, indirect effect on abusive supervision through the mediator of perceived threat to hierarchy. And this positive indirect effect prevails when the supervisor’s social dominance orientation is high. We found support for our theoretical model using data collected from supervisor–subordinate dyads.

A Comparison of Social Dominance Theory and System Justification: The Role of Social Status in 19 Nations

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (7) ◽  
pp. 1060-1076 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salvador Vargas-Salfate ◽  
Dario Paez ◽  
James H. Liu ◽  
Felicia Pratto ◽  
Homero Gil de Zúñiga
Keyword(s):  
Social Status ◽  
Low Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
National Level ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
System Justification ◽  
Conflict Theory ◽  
High Status ◽  
Social Dominance Theory

This study tests specific competing hypotheses from social dominance theory/realistic conflict theory (RCT) versus system justification theory about the role of social status. In particular, it examines whether system justification belief and effects are stronger among people with low socioeconomic status, and in less socially developed and unequal nations than among better-off people and countries. A cross-national survey was carried out in 19 nations from the Americas, Western and Eastern Europe, Asia, and Oceania using representative online samples ( N = 14,936, 50.15% women, Mage = 41.61 years). At the individual level, system justification beliefs, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, national identification, sociopolitical conservatism, sex, age, and social status were measured. At the national level, the human development index and the Gini index were used. Multilevel analyses performed indicated that results fit better with the social dominance/RCT approach, as system justification was higher in high-status and developed nations; further, associations between legitimizing ideologies and system justification were stronger among high-status people.

Social Dominance Orientation and Opinions about What is America's Most Serious Social Problem

2005 ◽  
Vol 97 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-127
Author(s):  
Wendy J. Harrod
Keyword(s):  
Correspondence Analysis ◽  
Social Problem ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Problems ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Social Dominance Theory ◽  
Scale Scores ◽  
Item Scale ◽  
Country Today

This study tested whether a measure of Social Dominance Orientation was associated with opinions about America's most serious social problem. 150 undergraduates enrolled in social problems classes responded to the 14-item scale and to an open-ended question, “In your opinion, what is the most serious social problem in our country today?”. Analysis shows that mean scale scores differed significantly across social problem responses. Correspondence analysis, plotting association between scale scores and social problem responses, was interpreted as support for social dominance theory. Higher scale scores were associated with problems of crime and negative values and lower scores with problems of education and racism.

Not All Entrepreneurs are Viewed Equally: A Social Dominance Theory Perspective on Access to Capital

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angelica S. Gutierrez ◽  
Jason Francis D’Mello
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Organizational Behavior ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Investment Decisions ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Dark Side ◽  
Social Dominance Theory ◽  
Entrepreneurship Theory

AbstractDrawing on social dominance theory, the present research examines how the characteristics of a potential investor – namely, social dominance orientation (SDO) (i.e. the degree to which individuals seek to maintain inequality between groups) interacts with the characteristics of the entrepreneur (i.e. race) to influence capital decision-making. Study 1 found that as a function of individuals’ SDO, individuals supported a policy that would increase funding access to White but not minority entrepreneurs. Study 2 found that as a function of SDO, individuals were willing to invest in White but not minority-owned firms. The perceived threat of the entrepreneur’s success to the extant racial hierarchy explained differences in investment decisions. The present research in the field of entrepreneurship is the first to apply Social Dominance Theory and Social Dominance Orientation (Sidanius, J., and F. Pratto. 1999. Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.), which have received much attention in social psychology and organizational behavior, to funding access and investment decisions. In doing so, these studies answer the call by (Klotz, A. C., and D. O. Neubaum. 2016. “Research on the Dark Side of Personality Traits in Entrepreneurship: Observations from an Organizational Behavior Perspective.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 40 (1): 7–17.) to examine the relationship between “darker” personality traits, such as SDO, and entrepreneurial outcomes.

scholarly journals Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Haarklau Kleppestø
Keyword(s):  
Social Status ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Role ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Social Structures ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
Social Dominance Theory ◽  
Social Hierarchies

Human societies tend to structure themselves as group-based social hierarchies such that some groups enjoy greater access to fitness-relevant resources such as prestige, wealth, social status, healthcare, food, homes, mates, and so on. Social Dominance Theory (SDT, Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) asks the questions why and how group-based hierarchies are continuously reproduced, at least among surplus-producing societies. The theoretical framework spans macro-structural, institutional, ideological, social role, individual, and behavioural genetic levels of analysis to address this question and postulates that humans have a predisposition to navigate group-based social structures (Kleppestø et al., 2019; Kunst, Fischer, Sidanius, & Thomsen, 2017; Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin, 2006; Sidanius, Cotterill, Sheehy-Skeffington, Kteily, & Carvacho, 2016; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).

Social Dominance Orientation and Discrimination against People with Schizophrenia: Evidence of Medicalization and Dangerousness Beliefs as Legitimizing Myths

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitrios Lampropoulos ◽  
Thémis Apostolidis
Keyword(s):  
Social Distance ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Equation Modeling ◽  
Social Dominance Theory ◽  
Modeling Analysis ◽  
The Social ◽  
Humanities Students

AbstractMedicalizing beliefs about schizophrenia (biogenetic causes and psychiatric labels) are connected to the belief that people with schizophrenia are dangerous and to discriminating intentions towards them. In this research, we draw on the Social Dominance theory and we examine these beliefs as legitimizing myths that are connected to the individuals’ social dominance orientation (SDO) and that legitimize discrimination. In total, 238 Humanities students participated in the current research (Mage = 20.4; SD = 3.03; 107 male and 131 female). A vignette presenting a person with schizophrenia symptoms that offered no labels or explanations about the depicted person’s condition was presented to research participants. A structural equation modeling analysis was carried out, in order to confirm our hypotheses in accordance with social dominance theory. Participants’ social dominance orientation (SDO) was associated with higher endorsement of medicalizing (β = .16, p < .01) and dangerousness beliefs (β = .22, p < .001). In turn, medicalizing beliefs were connected to dangerousness (β = .21, p < .001) and higher discriminating intentions, both for desired social distance (β = .15, p < .05) and for deprivation of sociopolitical rights (β = .14, p < .05). Dangerousness was highly associated with both these measures (β = .28, p < .001 and β = 43, p < .001 respectively) while SDO was not significantly associated with discriminating intentions. Our model showed good fit to the data. This study confirms the role of SDO in schizophrenia stigma and the fact that ideological and power factors underpin the stigma of schizophrenia.

Exploring the Multidimensional Facets of Authoritarianism: Authoritarian Aggression and Social Dominance Orientation

2008 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Passini
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Model Fit ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
One Dimensional ◽  
Confirmatory Factor ◽  
The One ◽  
Better Than

The relation between authoritarianism and social dominance orientation was analyzed, with authoritarianism measured using a three-dimensional scale. The implicit multidimensional structure (authoritarian submission, conventionalism, authoritarian aggression) of Altemeyer’s (1981, 1988) conceptualization of authoritarianism is inconsistent with its one-dimensional methodological operationalization. The dimensionality of authoritarianism was investigated using confirmatory factor analysis in a sample of 713 university students. As hypothesized, the three-factor model fit the data significantly better than the one-factor model. Regression analyses revealed that only authoritarian aggression was related to social dominance orientation. That is, only intolerance of deviance was related to high social dominance, whereas submissiveness was not.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document