scholarly journals Social Dominance Orientation Predicts Civil and Military Intelligence Analysts’ Utilitarian Responses to Ethics-of-Intelligence Dilemmas

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Margoni ◽  
Giangiuseppe Pili
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Moral Dilemmas ◽  
Ethical Framework ◽  
Military Intelligence ◽  
The Real ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
First Time ◽  
Safety And Stability

What is the real ethical framework of an intelligence analyst? We addressed this question by presenting a group of civil and military intelligence analysts with a set of dilemmas depicting intelligence agents facing the decision about whether to violate a deontological rule where that would benefit their work. Participants judged how much violating the rule was acceptable. Next, we measured participants’ individual differences in social dominance orientation (the proclivity to endorse intergroup hierarchy and anti-egalitarianism), their deontological and utilitarian tendencies (using classical moral dilemmas), and how much they value rule conformity, traditions, and safety and stability in the society. Among these factors, only social dominance significantly helped explain variability in participants’ resolution of the ethics-of-intelligence dilemmas. Specifically, social dominance positively predicted the tendency to judge violating the deontological rule acceptable. For the first time in the open literature, we elucidated some key aspects of the real ethics of intelligence.

scholarly journals Social dominance orientation predicts civil and military intelligence analysts’ utilitarian responses to ethics-of-intelligence dilemmas

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Margoni ◽  
Giangiuseppe Pili
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Moral Dilemmas ◽  
Ethical Framework ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Military Intelligence ◽  
The Real ◽  
The Social ◽  
Orientation Scale ◽  
Key Aspects

AbstractWhat is the real ethical framework of an intelligence analyst? We addressed this question by presenting a group of civil and military intelligence analysts (N = 41), and a control group of non-professionals (N = 41), with a set of dilemmas depicting intelligence agents facing the decision whether to violate a deontological rule where that would benefit their work (ethics-of-intelligence dilemmas). Participants judged how much violating the rule was acceptable. Next, we measured participants’ individual differences in social dominance orientation (using the Social Dominance Orientation scale which measures the proclivity to endorse intergroup hierarchy and anti-egalitarianism), their deontological and utilitarian response tendencies (using classical moral dilemmas), and how much they value rule conformity, traditions, and safety and stability in the society (using the Value Survey). A multiple regression analysis revealed that, among all the factors, only social dominance significantly helped explain variability in intelligence analysts’ but not non-professionals’ resolutions of the ethics-of-intelligence dilemmas. Specifically, social dominance positively predicted the tendency to judge violating the deontological rule acceptable, possibly suggesting that analysts who show a stronger proclivity to desire their country or company to prevail over others are also more lenient toward deontological violations if these result in a greater good for the state or the company. For the first time in the open literature, we elucidated some key aspects of the real ethics of intelligence.

Examining dispositional and situational effects on outgroup attitudes

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 307-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joke Meeus ◽  
Bart Duriez ◽  
Norbert Vanbeselaere ◽  
Karen Phalet ◽  
Peter Kuppens
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Intergroup Relations ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism ◽  
Situational Characteristics ◽  
Situational Effects ◽  
Ingroup Identification ◽  
The Individual

Two research lines have dominated the quest for the antecedents of outgroup attitudes. Whereas the first has viewed outgroup attitudes as a result of individual differences, the second stressed the importance of the intergroup situation. In order to investigate the interplay of individual differences and situational characteristics, key predictors of the individual differences perspective (i.e. right‐wing authoritarianism or RWA, and social dominance orientation or SDO) and the intergroup relations perspective (i.e. ingroup identification and ingroup threat) were simultaneously tested. Two studies revealed additive but no interaction effects of RWA and SDO, ingroup identification and threat. Additionally, Study 1 showed that threat effects remain limited to the outgroup that is portrayed as threatening and do not generalize to other outgroups. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

scholarly journals A Multi-Level Research Framework for the Analyses of Attitudes Toward Immigrants

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Chan-Hoong Leong
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Self Esteem ◽  
Host Community ◽  
Cultural Assimilation ◽  
Attitudes Toward Immigrants ◽  
National Pride ◽  
Final Study

<p>Contemporary research on acculturation tended to focus on the sojourners' or immigrants' perspectives on adaptation. The current dissertation however, centers on recipient nationals' attitudes toward immigrants and perceptions of multiculturalism. Three distinctive frameworks to study host nationals' perceptions are adopted; they include: (1) intergroup relations, (2) individual differences, and (3) cultural differences. Five separate studies were done based on the three frameworks using attitudes toward Chinese immigrants as the dependent measure in all except the final study. Based on the intergroup framework, Study 1 and 2 examined the influence of intergroup contact, national pride, perceived permeability, fairness, threat and host community acculturation strategies. Results showed that decreased contact and increased threat predicted less favorable perception towards immigrants (Study 1); respondents who espoused a need for immigrant assimilation and exclusionism, and those who adopted a less individualistic perception towards migration tended to express a more negative attitude (Study 2). Based on an individual differences framework, Study 3 and 4 examined the influence of social dominance orientation, self-esteem, individualism-collectivism, national pride and personal values. Increased self-esteem and collectivism predicted more favorable attitudes toward immigrants, and increased social dominance orientation predicted less favourable perceptions among host nationals who rated high on individualism (Study 3); respondents who placed greater emphases on security and achievement motivation have expressed more negative attitudes, but endorsement of stimulation value predicted more favourable perceptions (Study 4). In the final study, cultural differences were adopted as correlates of attitudes. Secondary data from the Eurobarometer (2000) and Schwartz's and Hofstede's typologies of cultural differences were used. Based on Schwartz's model, increased mastery was associated with less multicultural optimism; increased egalitarian commitment was linked to lesser support for policies that promote co-existence; and increased harmony was related to less demand for cultural assimilation. Based on Hofstede's model, increased masculinity was associated with less multicultural optimism and lower demand for cultural assimilation; and increased uncertainty avoidance was related to decreased multicultural optimism. Overall, two broad dimensions of acculturation experience have emerged from the research, first one is based on an 'invasion' perspective and the second one reflects an 'enrichment' experience.</p>

scholarly journals A Multi-Level Research Framework for the Analyses of Attitudes Toward Immigrants

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Chan-Hoong Leong
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Self Esteem ◽  
Host Community ◽  
Cultural Assimilation ◽  
Attitudes Toward Immigrants ◽  
National Pride ◽  
Final Study

<p>Contemporary research on acculturation tended to focus on the sojourners' or immigrants' perspectives on adaptation. The current dissertation however, centers on recipient nationals' attitudes toward immigrants and perceptions of multiculturalism. Three distinctive frameworks to study host nationals' perceptions are adopted; they include: (1) intergroup relations, (2) individual differences, and (3) cultural differences. Five separate studies were done based on the three frameworks using attitudes toward Chinese immigrants as the dependent measure in all except the final study. Based on the intergroup framework, Study 1 and 2 examined the influence of intergroup contact, national pride, perceived permeability, fairness, threat and host community acculturation strategies. Results showed that decreased contact and increased threat predicted less favorable perception towards immigrants (Study 1); respondents who espoused a need for immigrant assimilation and exclusionism, and those who adopted a less individualistic perception towards migration tended to express a more negative attitude (Study 2). Based on an individual differences framework, Study 3 and 4 examined the influence of social dominance orientation, self-esteem, individualism-collectivism, national pride and personal values. Increased self-esteem and collectivism predicted more favorable attitudes toward immigrants, and increased social dominance orientation predicted less favourable perceptions among host nationals who rated high on individualism (Study 3); respondents who placed greater emphases on security and achievement motivation have expressed more negative attitudes, but endorsement of stimulation value predicted more favourable perceptions (Study 4). In the final study, cultural differences were adopted as correlates of attitudes. Secondary data from the Eurobarometer (2000) and Schwartz's and Hofstede's typologies of cultural differences were used. Based on Schwartz's model, increased mastery was associated with less multicultural optimism; increased egalitarian commitment was linked to lesser support for policies that promote co-existence; and increased harmony was related to less demand for cultural assimilation. Based on Hofstede's model, increased masculinity was associated with less multicultural optimism and lower demand for cultural assimilation; and increased uncertainty avoidance was related to decreased multicultural optimism. Overall, two broad dimensions of acculturation experience have emerged from the research, first one is based on an 'invasion' perspective and the second one reflects an 'enrichment' experience.</p>

The Effects of Mortality Salience and Social Dominance Orientation on Attitudes Toward Illegal Immigrants

2010 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan F. Bassett
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
University Students ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Mortality Salience ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Political Orientation ◽  
Illegal Immigrants ◽  
Negative Attitudes ◽  
Main Effect ◽  
Political Conservatism

The paper examines the hypothesis that the effects of mortality salience on attitudes toward illegal immigrants are moderated by individual differences predisposing participants toward prejudice or intolerance. A total of 122 university students completed measures of political orientation, authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation prior to being randomly assigned to a mortality salience or control condition. Political conservatism, authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation were all associated with more negative attitudes toward illegal immigrants. Although there was no main effect for mortality salience, there was an interaction between mortality salience and social dominance orientation. Higher social dominance orientation was associated with more negative attitudes toward illegal immigrants, albeit only in the mortality salience condition.

scholarly journals Parasite stress and pathogen avoidance relate to distinct dimensions of political ideology across 30 nations

2016 ◽  
Vol 113 (44) ◽  
pp. 12408-12413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua M. Tybur ◽  
Yoel Inbar ◽  
Lene Aarøe ◽  
Pat Barclay ◽  
Fiona Kate Barlow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Disease ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cultural Evolution ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Group Norms ◽  
Disgust Sensitivity ◽  
Local Norms ◽  
Pathogen Avoidance

People who are more avoidant of pathogens are more politically conservative, as are nations with greater parasite stress. In the current research, we test two prominent hypotheses that have been proposed as explanations for these relationships. The first, which is an intragroup account, holds that these relationships between pathogens and politics are based on motivations to adhere to local norms, which are sometimes shaped by cultural evolution to have pathogen-neutralizing properties. The second, which is an intergroup account, holds that these same relationships are based on motivations to avoid contact with outgroups, who might pose greater infectious disease threats than ingroup members. Results from a study surveying 11,501 participants across 30 nations are more consistent with the intragroup account than with the intergroup account. National parasite stress relates to traditionalism (an aspect of conservatism especially related to adherence to group norms) but not to social dominance orientation (SDO; an aspect of conservatism especially related to endorsements of intergroup barriers and negativity toward ethnic and racial outgroups). Further, individual differences in pathogen-avoidance motives (i.e., disgust sensitivity) relate more strongly to traditionalism than to SDO within the 30 nations.

scholarly journals Relationships between individual endorsement of aggressive behaviors and thoughts with prejudice relevant correlates among adolescents

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Piumatti ◽  
Cristina Mosso
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Emotional Control ◽  
Aggressive Behaviors ◽  
Future Studies ◽  
Interpersonal Aggression ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Lower Tolerance

The current study explored how individual differences in endorsement of aggressive behaviors and thoughts relate to individual levels of tolerance and prejudice toward immigrants and established prejudice correlates such as social dominance orientation (SDO) and ethnic out-groups ratings among adolescents. Participants (N = 141; Age M = 16.08, 68% girls) completed the Readiness for Interpersonal Aggression Inventory, the Tolerance and Prejudice Questionnaire, and measures of SDO and ethnic out-groups ratings. Results indicated that higher individual endorsement of aggression was related to higher prejudice and SDO and lower tolerance and ethnic out-groups ratings. Patterns of endorsement of aggression related to habitual and socially determined aggressive acts or stable needs to hurt others as a source of satisfaction were significantly correlated with prejudice. Conversely, the relationship between prejudice and endorsement of impulsive actions lacking of emotional control resulted was less marked. The results highlight how in the cognitive spectrum of prejudice, individual levels of endorsement of aggression may play a significant triggering role during adolescence. These findings may have implications for future studies and interventions aimed at reducing prejudice already in young ages.

scholarly journals Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation predict rejection of science and scientists

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 550-567
Author(s):  
John R. Kerr ◽  
Marc S. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism ◽  
Scientific Issue ◽  
Ideological Attitudes ◽  
First Time ◽  
Conspiracy Thinking

Previous research has highlighted how ideological factors such as political self-identification, religiosity and conspiracy thinking influence our beliefs about scientific issues such as climate change and vaccination. Across three studies (combined N = 9,022) we expand on this line of inquiry to show for the first time that the ideological attitudes relating to authoritarianism and group-based dominance predict disagreement with the scientific consensus in several scientific domains. We show these effects are almost entirely mediated by varying combinations of ideological (political ideology, religiosity, free-market endorsement, conspiracy thinking) and science-specific (scientific knowledge, trust in scientists) constructs, depending on the scientific issue in question. Importantly, a general distrust of science and scientists emerges as the most consistent mediator across different scientific domains. We find that, consistent with previous research, the ideological roots of rejection of science vary across scientific issues. However, we also show that these roots may share a common origin in ideological attitudes regarding authority and equality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document