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.

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 Psychology of Turkish University Students as Electorate: The Mediating Role of Political Trust

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
Ozlem Dirilen Gumus ◽  
Talha Yalcinkaya ◽  
Alper Kayaalp
Keyword(s):  
University Students ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Cognitive Structure ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Political Trust ◽  
System Justification ◽  
Openness To Change ◽  
Cognitive Hierarchy ◽  
The Republic

Turkey has been ruled by a secular and democratic government since 1923 under the name of ‘the Republic of Turkey’. In this rarely examined culture, we tested the effects of political trust(PT), social values(SV), system justification(SJ) and social dominance orientation(SDO) on university students’ intention of voting before the June 2015 election. Depending on the theory of planned behavior and the cognitive hierarchy model of human behavior, it is conceptualized that SV, SJ and SDO are placed higher in cognitive structure than PT, therefore PT would mediate the relations between those cognitions and the intention of voting. About 300 university students completed the following questionnaires: PVQ-R, Political Trust, Social Dominance Orientation, and System Justification Scales, in addition to intention of voting, and demographics. Results show that conservation and social dominance orientation was positively related to the intention of voting for MHP and openness to change and system justification was positively related to intention of voting for AKP. When we tested the role of mediation for PT; we have found extensive evidence that, the relationships between SV (i.e. openness to change), SJ, and SDO and intention of voting for AKP and MHP were significantly mediated by PT. Ideological differences between and within left and right wing parties in Turkey were discussed to explain the results.

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.

Attitudes towards tall poppies: the role of Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation, political ideologies, and self-esteem in New Zealand.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathew Marques ◽  
Norman T. Feather ◽  
Darren E. J. Austin ◽  
Chris G Sibley
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Self Esteem ◽  
High Status ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism ◽  
Political Ideologies

Individuals occupying high-status positions are sometimes victims of the tall poppy syndrome where people want to see them cut down to size. These attitudes reflect a tension between achievement, authority, and equality. In a pre-registered study (Study 1: N = 47,951), and a replication (Study 2: N = 5,569), of two representative New Zealand samples we investigated how social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, political ideologies and self-esteem predicted favoring the fall of the tall poppy. Novel findings showed individuals high in social dominance orientation favored the fall of the tall poppy. In both studies, high authoritarian aggression and submission, and low conventionalism (in Study 1 only) were also associated with negative tall poppy attitudes. So too were individuals with lower self-esteem and who were less conservative in their political ideology. These findings advance our understanding of how group-based hierarchy and inequality relate to attitudes towards individuals in high status positions.

scholarly journals Increased Conformity to Social Hierarchy Under Public Eyes

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daeeun Kim ◽  
JuYoung Kim ◽  
Hackjin Kim
Keyword(s):  
Social Status ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Rank ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Social Hierarchy ◽  
Negative Evaluation ◽  
Fear Of Negative Evaluation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Individual Preferences ◽  
The Social

Why would people conform more to others with higher social positions? People may place higher confidence in the opinions of those who rank higher in the social hierarchy, or they may wish to make better impressions on people of higher social status. We investigated how individual preferences for novel stimuli are influenced by the preferences of others in the social hierarchy and whether anonymity affects such preference changes. After manipulation of their social rank, participants were asked to indicate how much they liked or disliked a series of images. Then, they were shown the rating given to each image by a partner (either inferior or superior in social rank) and were given a chance to adjust their ratings. The participants were more likely to change their preferences to match those of a superior partner in the public vs. private condition. The tendency to conform to the views of the superior partner was stronger among those with higher social dominance orientation (SDO) and those with greater fear of negative evaluation (FNE) by others. Altogether, the findings suggest that the motivation to make better impressions on people of higher social status can be the major driver of conformity to others with higher social positions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document