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.

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.

Relationships Among Social Dominance Orientation, Social Axioms, and Values

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (8) ◽  
pp. 1395-1407 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Ersin Kuşdil ◽  
Selinay Çağlar Akoğlu
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Human Values ◽  
Openness To Change ◽  
Social Axioms ◽  
Social Cynicism ◽  
Turkish University Students ◽  
Conservation Values ◽  
Self Transcendence ◽  
Value Model

We adopted 2 cross-culturally validated instruments, developed for the measurement of human values (Schwartz's value model) and generalized beliefs (Leung and Bond's social axioms model), to examine their relationships with the perceptions of legitimacy, permeability, and social dominance orientation (SDO) in a group of 383 Turkish university students. The results showed that the students' perceptions of legitimacy were positively related to their conservation values and the religiosity belief dimension, and negatively related to openness to change and self-transcendence values. We also found that the permeability scores were positively correlated with conservation values and religiosity beliefs, and negatively correlated with openness to change, self-enhancement values, and social cynicism beliefs. Regression analysis results revealed that generalized beliefs (social axioms) and SDO were more effective than values in predicting the legitimacy scores of participants who saw boundaries as legitimate and permeable. This pattern was reversed for participants who regarded the boundaries as illegitimate and impermeable.

Obedient Authoritarians or Lay Darwinists?

2019 ◽  
pp. 29-61
Author(s):  
Michał Bilewicz
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Mass Murder ◽  
Social Darwinism ◽  
Conspiracy Theories ◽  
The Holocaust ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
General Explanation

This chapter discusses the role of ideology in genocides, beyond the traditional conservatism–liberalism distinction. This chapter analyzes ideological views in greater detail by reviewing established psychological concepts, such as authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, as well as conspiracy theories, racial health ideology, and the concept of Lebensraum that formed the ideological foundation of the Holocaust and other large-scale crimes. Authoritarian ideology accurately explains the behavior of desk killers, bureaucrats responsible for organizing the mass murder. Social dominance ideology seems to give a more general explanation of genocide—it can be found in German social Darwinism, the idea of Lebensraum, the Nazi eugenic program, and the illusions spread by occupiers among the victims and the bystanders. The chapter suggests that deep study of ideologies might provide important insight into perpetrators’ worldviews and into their justifications of criminal acts, as well as an explanation of bystanders’ and victims’ behavior.

scholarly journals Introducing the Sociopolitical Motive × Intergroup Threat Model to Understand How Monoracial Perceivers’ Sociopolitical Motives Influence Their Categorization of Multiracial People

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 260-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arnold K. Ho ◽  
Nour S. Kteily ◽  
Jacqueline M. Chen
Keyword(s):  
Social Identity ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Research Area ◽  
System Justification ◽  
Group Status ◽  
Intergroup Threat ◽  
Threat Model ◽  
Racial Categorization ◽  
Moderating Role

Researchers have used social dominance, system justification, authoritarianism, and social identity theories to understand how monoracial perceivers’ sociopolitical motives influence their categorization of multiracial people. The result has been a growing understanding of how particular sociopolitical motives and contexts affect categorization, without a unifying perspective to integrate these insights. We review evidence supporting each theory’s predictions concerning how monoracial perceivers categorize multiracial people who combine their ingroup with an outgroup, with attention to the moderating role of perceiver group status. We find most studies cannot arbitrate between theories of categorization and reveal additional gaps in the literature. To advance this research area, we introduce the sociopolitical motive × intergroup threat model of racial categorization that (a) clarifies which sociopolitical motives interact with which intergroup threats to predict categorization and (b) highlights the role of perceiver group status. Furthermore, we consider how our model can help understand phenomena beyond multiracial categorization.

Prejudice and Inclusiveness in Adolescence: The Role of Social Dominance Orientation and Multiple Categorization

2019 ◽  
Vol 91 (4) ◽  
pp. 1183-1202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Flavia Albarello ◽  
Elisabetta Crocetti ◽  
Monica Rubini
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document