Search results
Social dominance theory
- Social dominance theory is a framework for understanding how societies develop and maintain group-based hierarchies. It posits that group-based dominance and inequality are central, rather than peripheral, features of human social organization.
library.fiveable.me/key-terms/intro-psychology/social-dominance-theory
Apr 19, 2018 · a general model of the development and maintenance of social dominance and oppression that assumes societies minimize group conflict by creating consensus on ideologies that promote the superiority of one group over others.
Social dominance theory (SDT) is a social psychological theory of intergroup relations that examines the caste-like features [1] of group-based social hierarchies, and how these hierarchies remain stable and perpetuate themselves. [2]
- SDO Differences Between Demographic Groups
- Relationships with Personality and Individual-Difference Dimensions
- Relationships with Intergroup Attitudes and Prejudice
- Relationships with Social Ideologies and Policy Positions
- Criticism of The Predictive Value and Role of SDO
Research has found gender, ethnic, and cross-national differences in SDO. Men are consistently found to have higher SDO than women (e.g., Ho et al. 2015; Pratto et al. 1994, 2000). SDO also shows ethnic/racial differences (e.g., Ho et al. 2015; Sidanius and Pratto 1999), with higher SDO among groups of high status (e.g., White Americans) compared t...
SDO has also been found to share negative relationships with several socially desirable personality traits, and positive relationships with several socially undesirable traits. In particular, SDO is negatively correlated with agreeableness (e.g., Hodson et al. 2009), as well as honesty–humility, emotionality, and openness to experience (e.g., Sible...
Consistent with the dual-process model, SDO consistently predicts prejudice against a wide variety of stigmatized or disadvantaged groups, including women, the poor, ethnic/racial minorities, LGBTQ people, immigrants, and refugees (e.g., Altemeyer 1996; Ho et al. 2015; Pratto et al. 1994; Sidanius and Pratto 1999). Although these findings are corre...
Beyond attitudes and behavior towards specific outgroups, SDO predicts endorsement of a range of group-relevant social ideologies (Ho et al. 2015). It generally does so in ways that are consistent with the individual-level group-hierarchy-supporting conception of SDO proposed by social dominance theory (e.g., Sidanius and Pratto 1993, 1999, 2012) a...
Although SDO has been widely studied and found to predict a range of attitudes and behaviors, some disagreement remains as to its conceptualization and causal nature. For example, some researchers have contended that rather than a personality-rooted individual difference variable, SDO is better conceptualized as an attitudinal outcome of social con...
Social dominance attempts to show that group-based inequalities are maintained through three primary intergroup behaviors—specifically: (1) institutional discrimination, (2) aggregated individual discrimination, and (3) behavioral asymmetry.
Jan 1, 2024 · Among the psychological variables that promote social inequalities, the main role is played by social dominance orientation (SDO), the most crucial and developed construct in the SDT.
- michele.roccato@unito.it
Social Dominance Theory (SDT; e.g., Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) is an attempt to combine social psychological theories of intergroup relations with wider social process of ideology and the legitimization of social inequalities.
People also ask
What is social dominance theory?
What is dominance in psychology?
What is the psychological aspect of social dominance orientation (SDT)?
Is social dominance theory based on empirical evidence?
Does social dominance maintain group-based inequalities?
How does dominance manifest in social groups?
Social dominance orientation: Cause or “mere effect”? Evidence for SDO as a causal predictor of prejudice and discrimination against ethnic and racial outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47 (1), 208–214.Google Scholar
