Social Dominance Orientation and Intergroup Bias: The Legitimation of Favoritism for High-Status Groups

2002 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shana Levin ◽  
Christopher M. Federico ◽  
Jim Sidanius ◽  
Joshua L. Rabinowitz
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Intergroup Bias ◽  
High Status

System Justification or Social Dominance? A Multilevel Test of the Ideological Motivators of Perceived Discrimination

2021 ◽  
pp. 014616722110360
Author(s):  
Joaquín Bahamondes ◽  
Chris G. Sibley ◽  
Danny Osborne
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Perceived Discrimination ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
System Justification ◽  
Societal Implications ◽  
Reverse Discrimination ◽  
High Status ◽  
Majority Group ◽  
Group Members

Although system-justifying beliefs often mitigate perceptions of discrimination, status-based asymmetries in the ideological motivators of perceived discrimination are unknown. Because the content and societal implications of discrimination claims are status-dependant, social dominance orientation (SDO) should motivate perceptions of (reverse) discrimination among members of high-status groups, whereas system justification should motivate the minimization of perceived discrimination among the disadvantaged. We tested these hypotheses using multilevel regressions among a nationwide random sample of New Zealand Europeans ( n = 29,169) and ethnic minorities ( n = 5,118). As hypothesized, group-based dominance correlated positively with perceived (reverse) discrimination among ethnic-majority group members, whereas system justification correlated negatively with perceived discrimination among the disadvantaged. Furthermore, the proportion of minorities within the region strengthened the victimizing effects of SDO-Dominance, but not SDO-Egalitarianism, among the advantaged. Together, these results reveal status-based asymmetries in the motives underlying perceptions of discrimination and identify a key contextual moderator of this association.

scholarly journals Support for group-based inequality among members of low-status groups as an ingroup status-enhancement strategy

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catarina L. Carvalho ◽  
Isabel R. Pinto ◽  
Rui Costa-Lopes ◽  
Darío Paéz ◽  
José M. Marques
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Contextual Factors ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
High Status ◽  
Status Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Ingroup Identification ◽  
Minimal Groups ◽  
Status Enhancement

We discuss the idea that competition-based motives boost low-status group members’ support for group-based hierarchy and inequality. Specifically, the more low-status group members feel motivated to compete with a relevant high-status outgroup, based on the belief that existing status positions may be reversed, the more they will defend status differentials (i.e., high social dominance orientation; SDO). Using minimal groups (N = 113), we manipulated ingroup (low vs. high) status, and primed unstable status positions to all participants. As expected, we found that SDO positively mediates the relation between ingroup identification and collective action, when ingroup’s status is perceived to be low and status positions are perceived as highly unstable. We discuss the implications of considering situational and contextual factors to better understand individuals’ support for group-based hierarchies and inequality, and the advantages of considering ideological processes in predicting collective action.

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.

The selection of leaders and social dominance orientation

2015 ◽  
Vol 34 (10) ◽  
pp. 1211-1226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aneika L. Simmons ◽  
Elizabeth E. Umphress
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Business Students ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Leadership Role ◽  
High Status ◽  
Leadership Position ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Status Group ◽  
Group Member ◽  
Selection Of

Purpose – Individuals who are high in social dominance orientation (SDO) tend to endorse the belief that members of traditionally considered high-status groups should dominate members of traditionally considered low-status groups within society. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how SDO influences the selection of an individual who is a member of a traditionally considered low-status group for a leadership position as opposed to a non-leadership position. Design/methodology/approach – The methodology included undergraduate business students who were investigated in a laboratory setting. Findings – Results indicate that individuals who are high in SDO are more likely to discriminate against the most qualified candidate who is a traditionally considered low-status group member when compared to those low in SDO, and job position moderated this outcome. This effect was stronger when selecting the traditionally considered low-status group member candidate for a leadership role as opposed to a non-leadership position. Originality/value – To the knowledge of the authors, this is the first investigation to examine both leadership and selection using social dominance theory as a theoretical framework. Further, this is the first empirical analysis to determine that the influence of SDO is stronger when an individual high in SDO is selecting a traditionally considered low-status group member for a leadership position as opposed to a non-leadership position.

A quantitative and qualitative analysis of social dominance orientation and race-related comments

2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (7/8) ◽  
pp. 531-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aneika L. Simmons ◽  
Rochelle Parks-Yancy
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
High Status ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Status Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Group Member ◽  
Influence Perceptions

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to determine how social dominance orientation (SDO) might influence perceptions of bias when the race of the offender and the target of the biased comment is either white or black. Design/methodology/approach – This investigation was conducted in a laboratory with undergraduate students. Findings – In a study utilizing American student participants, the authors found that when an individual is high in SDO they are more likely to perceive racism/stereotyping when a low-status group member (i.e. African-American) makes a racially biased comment about high-status group members (i.e. Caucasian). Originality/value – The authors determined the influence of SDO on the perception of racial comments regarding African-Americans and Caucasians. These findings are also unique in that the authors manipulate the authority (i.e. status) of the offender and target.

scholarly journals Social Dominance Orientation Boosts Collective Action Among Low-Status Groups

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catarina L. Carvalho ◽  
Isabel R. Pinto ◽  
Rui Costa-Lopes ◽  
Darío Páez ◽  
Mariana P. Miranda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Social Structure ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
High Status ◽  
Collective Actions ◽  
The Social ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Status Enhancement

We propose that low-status group members' support for group-based hierarchy and inequality (i.e., social dominance orientation; SDO) may represent an ideological strategy to guarantee the legitimacy of future ingroup status-enhancement. Specifically, we argue that, under unstable social structure conditions, SDO serves as an ideological justification for collective action tendencies aimed at competing for a higher status. In such context, SDO should be positively related with actions aimed to favor the ingroup (i.e., collective actions) by increasing group members' motivation to engage in direct competition with a relevant higher-status outgroup. We conducted two studies under highly competitive and unstable social structure contexts using real life groups. In Study 1 (N = 77), we induced Low vs. High Ingroup (University) Status and in Study 2 (N = 220) we used competing sports groups. Overall, results showed that, among members of low-status groups, SDO consistently increased individuals' motivation to get involved in actions favoring the ingroup, by boosting their motivation to compete with the opposing high-status outgroup. We discuss the results in light of the social dominance and collective action framework.

scholarly journals Race-Status Associations: Distinct Effects of Three Novel Measures Among White and Black Perceivers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cydney H. Dupree ◽  
Brittany Torrez ◽  
Obianuju Obioha ◽  
Susan Fiske
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Racial Inequality ◽  
Black Americans ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Policy Preferences ◽  
High Status ◽  
White Americans ◽  
The Status

Race is fraught with meaning, but unequal status is central. Race-status associations (RSAs) link White Americans with high status and Black Americans with low status. RSAs could occur via observation of racially distributed jobs, perceived status-related stereotypic attributes, or simple ranking. Nine samples (N = 3,933) validate three novel measures of White=high status/Black=low status RSAs—based on jobs, rank, and attributes. First, RSA measures showed clear factor structure, internal validity, and test-retest reliability. Second, these measures differentially corresponded to White Americans’ hierarchy-maintaining attitudes, beliefs, and preferences. Potentially based on observation, the more spontaneous Job-based RSAs predicted interracial bias, social dominance orientation, meritocracy beliefs, and hierarchy-maintaining hiring or policy preferences. Preference effects held after controlling for bias and support for the status quo. In contrast, the more deliberate Rank- and Attribute-based RSAs negatively predicted hierarchy-maintaining beliefs and policy preferences; direct inferences of racial inequality linked to preferences for undoing it. Third, Black=low status, rather than White=high status, associations largely drove these effects. Finally, Black Americans also held RSAs; Rank- or Attribute-based RSAs predicted increased perceived discrimination, reduced social dominance, and reduced meritocracy beliefs. Although individuals’ RSAs vary, only White Americans’ Job- based stratifying associations help maintain racial status hierarchies. Theory-guided evidence of race-status associations introduces powerful new assessment tools.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document