Social Dominance Orientation: Revisiting the Structure and Function of a Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes

被引:303
作者
Ho, Arnold K. [1 ]
Sidanius, Jim
Pratto, Felicia [2 ]
Levin, Shana [3 ]
Thomsen, Lotte [4 ]
Kteily, Nour
Sheehy-Skeffington, Jennifer
机构
[1] Harvard Univ, Dept Psychol, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
[2] Univ Connecticut, Storrs, CT USA
[3] Claremont Mckenna Coll, Claremont, CA 91711 USA
[4] Univ Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
关键词
SDO; social dominance orientation; SDO-Dominance; SDO-Egalitarianism; legitimizing ideologies; hierarchy-enhancing and -attenuating social policy; RIGHT-WING AUTHORITARIANISM; IN-GROUP IDENTIFICATION; RACISM; DISCRIMINATION; ETHNOCENTRISM; DETERMINANTS; CONTEMPORARY; OPPOSITION; EQUALITY; VALUES;
D O I
10.1177/0146167211432765
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Social dominance orientation (SDO) is one of the most powerful predictors of intergroup attitudes and behavior. Although SDO works well as a unitary construct, some analyses suggest it might consist of two complementary dimensions-SDO-Dominance (SDO-D), or the preference for some groups to dominate others, and SDO-Egalitarianism (SDO-E), a preference for nonegalitarian intergroup relations. Using seven samples from the United States and Israel, the authors confirm factor-analytic evidence and show predictive validity for both dimensions. In the United States, SDO-D was theorized and found to be more related to old-fashioned racism, zero-sum competition, and aggressive intergroup phenomena than SDO-E; SDO-E better predicted more subtle legitimizing ideologies, conservatism, and opposition to redistributive social policies. In a contentious hierarchical intergroup context (the Israeli-Palestinian context), SDO-D better predicted both conservatism and aggressive intergroup attitudes. Fundamentally, these analyses begin to establish the existence of complementary psychological orientations underlying the preference for group-based dominance and inequality.
引用
收藏
页码:583 / 606
页数:24
相关论文
共 46 条
[1]  
Altemeyer R. A., 1996, AUTHORITARIAN SPECTE
[2]   Ideological beliefs as determinants of discrimination in positive and negative outcome distributions [J].
Amiot, CE ;
Bourhis, RY .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2005, 35 (05) :581-598
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1999, Social Dominance, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139175043
[4]   Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? [J].
Buhrmester, Michael ;
Kwang, Tracy ;
Gosling, Samuel D. .
PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2011, 6 (01) :3-5
[5]  
Christie R., 1958, J PSYCHOL, V45, P1717
[6]   The motivational bases of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation: Relations to values and attitudes in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 [J].
Cohrs, JC ;
Moschner, B ;
Maes, J ;
Kielmann, S .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, 2005, 31 (10) :1425-1434
[7]   Gender gaps in sociopolitical attitudes: A social psychological analysis [J].
Eagly, AH ;
Diekman, AB ;
Johannesen-Schmidt, MC ;
Koenig, AM .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2004, 87 (06) :796-816
[8]  
Essex T. R., REAL REASONS OPPOSE
[9]   Racism, ideology, and affirmative action revisited: The antecedents and consequences of "principled objections" to affirmative action [J].
Federico, CM ;
Sidanius, J .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2002, 82 (04) :488-502
[10]   Overcoming Beneficiary Race as an Impediment to Charitable Donations: Social Dominance Orientation, the Experience of Moral Elevation, and Donation Behavior [J].
Freeman, Dan ;
Aquino, Karl ;
McFerran, Brent .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, 2009, 35 (01) :72-84