Search

Three studies introduce a novel individual-difference construct to explain majority group members' responses to organizational diversity efforts: lay theories of diversity initiatives. Zero-sum beliefs (ZSBs) presume that efforts to advance diversity come at the expense of majority group members. Win-win beliefs (WWBs) posit that diversity initiatives can benefit all racial groups. Study 1 created and validated measures of ZSBs and WWBs. Study 2 showed that ZSBs and WWBs are distinct from 10 intergroup measures (e.g., social dominance orientation, modern racism) and that each lay theory accounts for unique variance in explaining Whites' reactions to diversity initiatives. Study 3 demonstrated that ZSBs and WWBs predict Whites' reactions to diversity policies of a hypothetical company. These findings suggest that ZSBs and WWBs both help explain majority group members' backlash against and support for organizational diversity initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Feelings of group-based relative deprivation (GRD) motivate collective responses to defend the ingroup. As such, there may be status-based asymmetries in the associations GRD has with ideologies that perpetuate inequality—namely, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). Study 1 examined this hypothesis using a national sample of adults (N = 41,007) and revealed that the correlations GRD had with RWA and SDO were positive among members of a high-status group but negative among members of low-status groups. Study 2 examined these associations longitudinally (N = 22,083) across eight annual assessments. Although a traditional cross-lagged panel analysis identified status-based asymmetries in the longitudinal associations between our variables of interest, analyses partitioning between-person stability from within-person change found no evidence that GRD leads to differences in RWA or SDO (or vice versa). The theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a contingency model on the effectiveness of dominance as a route to influence in organizational work teams. In a field study (n = 397 members from 54 work teams), we observed that perceived intra-team competition represents a key context factor that moderates the relationship between dominance displays and influence attainment. Although dominant members attained more influence than non-dominant members, their influence was proportionally greater when team competition was high, rather than low. A follow-up scenario experiment (n = 429 participants) confirmed the proposed causal direction of this interaction effect. Moreover, this study showed that normative evaluations of (non-)dominant behavior drive the findings. Dominance displays were considered more appropriate, normal, and functional (i.e., normative) in teams with high competition, whereas non-dominant behavior was seen as more normative in teams where competition was low. Consequently, non-dominant members also gained influence in this last team situation, reducing the relative influence advantage of dominant members. The results support both the functional view and the contextual value perspective on hierarchy formation in teams, and inform organizations about how they can prevent dominance-based influence processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research examines gender-based helping behavior from a social dominance perspective. We focused on the interplay between the gender of a prospective donor and the gender of the recipient in shaping donation decisions in contexts that either empower recipients or not. In two studies (N = 866), male (but not female) donors chose to donate less often (Study 2) and to give lower amounts (Studies 1–2) to women in need than to men when donations were made in a potentially empowering context – a business context (e.g., donating to a person whose shop burned down), than in a nonempowering context – a domestic context (e.g., donating to a person whose house burned down). Lack of empathy for the female recipient among men partially mediated this gender–donation bias effect (Study 2). These findings suggest that men are less likely to help women in situations that empower women and challenge the existing gender hierarchy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whites display an asymmetry when detecting discrimination—disparate treatment from high-status groups directed toward low-status groups constitutes discrimination but not the opposite. Whites also believe they experience just as much racial discrimination as Blacks. This latter pattern could be especially true for Whites with higher social dominance orientation (SDO)—preference for intergroup dominance and inequality. Three studies (including one pilot study) investigated whether Whites with higher (vs. lower) SDO perceived examples of institutional and individual instances of racial discrimination as evidence of racism when happening to White (vs. Black) victims. Results revealed partial support for our prediction that the asymmetry in discrimination detection for Whites with higher (vs. lower) SDO would be opposite to the previously identified asymmetry, especially for examples of institutional (vs. individual) discrimination. Implications are discussed in the context of the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests and 2021 Capitol siege. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has demonstrated that low social dominance orientation (social equality orientation) promotes empathy with disadvantaged group members. In three studies, we tested a model relating preference for egalitarianism to positive attitudes towards immigrants through emotional experiences (pride, guilt, moral anger/ anger, disgust). Studies 1 and 2 showed that social equality orientation was positively related to proimmigrant attitudes through increased pride in helping immigrants, controlling for participants' gender, age, and political orientation. Such a preference for egalitarianism was unrelated to proimmigrant attitudes through guilt for not helping immigrants and moral anger concerning mistreatment of immigrants. By focusing on emotional experience concerning proimmigrant national initiatives (e.g., integrating immigrants into the labor market), Study 3 corroborated the indirect effect of social equality orientation on proimmigrant attitudes through increased pride, controlling for participants' gender, age, political orientation, as well as competitive jungle and dangerous world beliefs. Although much weaker, we also found a positive association between social equality orientation and proimmigrant attitudes through reduced anger, while no significant association through guilt and disgust was found. Results suggest that, relative to guilt, anger, and disgust, pride is the key channel through which preference for egalitarianism is related to positive attitudes towards immigrants. Implications and future directions for research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although religiosity correlates positively with authoritarianism, the temporal ordering of this relationship is unclear. Because religious teachings often promote authoritarian values, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) should increase following religious conversion. Yet spiritual beliefs may also promote egalitarianism. As such, social dominance orientation (SDO) might decrease postconversion. We tested these hypotheses using data from a subset of participants who converted to Christianity at some point during a 9-year longitudinal panel study (N = 536). We also examined a separate subsample who deconverted over the same period (N = 696). As hypothesised, RWA was stable before conversion, but increased slightly after becoming religious. Unexpectedly, SDO was stable both pre- and postconversion. Conversely, those who deconverted from Christianity experienced declines in RWA both before and after losing their religion, whereas SDO declined only postdeconversion. These results suggest that religious conversion precedes increases in RWA (but not SDO), and that declines in RWA precede deconversion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Police administrators are looking for concrete pathways to fight the phenomenon of (ethnic) prejudice among members of the police force. Surprisingly, few studies have assessed the effectiveness of existing police ethics training programs on prejudice and social dominance orientation. Therefore, we assessed the impact of a 1-day training called the Holocaust, Police, and Human Rights (HPH) program on the attitudes related to ethnic prejudice and social dominance orientation of 223 members of the Belgian police. Analyses of three-wave panel data indicate that HPH training reduced ethnic prejudice and social dominance orientation. For ethnic prejudice, the reduced effects were maintained after 1 month in the follow-up study. However, the effect of training on prejudice was weaker for police officers who were more often exposed to victims and perpetrators of crime. No lasting effect of HPH training was found for social dominance orientation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Those on the political right engage in greater meat consumption and animal exploitation than their left-wing counterparts. Previous research suggests this is because they view vegetarianism as threatening the nation's dietary customs and economy. Across two studies, I extend this concept of "vegetarianism threat" by showing that it separates into two distinct dimensions of concern: cultural (symbolic) threats and economic (realistic) threats. The resultant multidimensional scale allows a finer grained understanding of the roots of ideology-based threat responses to meat-free movements. Together, results implicate symbolic concerns as the key element of vegetarianism threat contributing to negative attitudes towards meat abstention and its proponents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we examine the roles of social dominance orientation (SDO) and ecological dominance orientation (EDO) as predictors of climate change risk and threat perceptions and associated pro-environmental policy support. EDO is a novel measure that we devised based on social dominance theory to assess general preferences for an anthropocentric, hierarchical arrangement between humans, non-human animals, and the natural environment. Across two pre-registered studies (N = 715; USA and Germany) our results indicate that SDO and EDO are uniquely associated with decreased support for climate change mitigation policies benefitting humans, non-human animals, and the natural environment. These relationships in turn are partially mediated by decreased climate change risk and threat perceptions. We successfully replicate our findings using a more behavioral measure as dependent variable. Notably, using a more behavioral measure (Study 2), EDO was significantly associated with pro-environmental behavior but not SDO, when threats are accounted for as mediators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Against the backdrop of significant social and political change in the US, dominant groups' perceptions of discrimination against their group have increased. Previous research shows that group threat and legitimizing beliefs augment these perceptions. However, the concurrent role of individuals' attitudes towards hierarchy in perceived discrimination has not been examined. In the present research, we investigate whether social dominance orientation (SDO) and group threat (status and moral image threat) interact to predict perceived discrimination among two dominant groups, White Americans and men. Furthermore, we test whether their perceived discrimination predicts less support for policies benefitting minorities and immigrants, and women, respectively. Across two correlational studies (Studies 1 and 2) and one experiment (Study 3), we found little support for the proposed interaction between SDO and group threat; instead, they were independent predictors of the outcomes. By testing SDO and perceived group threats simultaneously, these studies contribute to the literature by showing that group-based and hierarchy-based concerns play distinct roles in perceived discrimination among dominant groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars have long argued that sexism is partly rooted in dominance motives over animals and nature, with women being perceived as more animal-like and more closely connected to nature than men. Yet systematic research investigating these associations is currently lacking. Five studies (N = 2,409) consistently show that stronger beliefs in human supremacy over animals and nature were related to heightened hostile and benevolent sexism. Furthermore, perceiving women as more closely connected to nature than men was particularly associated with higher benevolent sexism, whereas subtle dehumanization of women was uniquely associated with higher hostile sexism. Blatant dehumanization predicted both types of sexism. Studies 3 and 4 highlight the roles of social dominance orientation and benevolent beliefs about nature underpinning these associations, while Study 5 demonstrates the implications for individuals' acceptance of rape myths and policies restricting pregnant women's freedom. Taken together, our findings reveal the psychological connections between gender relations and human–animal relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Serious concerns about public distrust of scientific experts and the spread of misinformation are growing in the US and elsewhere. To gauge ideological and psychological variability in attitudes toward science, we conducted an extensive analysis of public opinion data based on a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults (N = 1,500) and a large replication sample (N = 2,119). We estimated the unique effects of partisanship, symbolic and operational forms of political ideology, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), and general system justification (GSJ), after adjusting for demographic factors. Multiverse analyses revealed that (a) conservatism and SDO were significant predictors of distrust of climate science in > 99.9% of model specifications, with conservatism accounting for 80% of the total variance; (b) conservatism, RWA, religiosity, (male) sex, (low) education, (low) income, and distrust of climate science were significant predictors of skepticism about science in general (vs. faith) in > 99.9% of model specifications; (c) conservatism, RWA, (low) education, and distrust of climate science were significant predictors of trust in ordinary people (over scientific experts) > 99.9% of the time; and (d) GSJ was a significant predictor of trust in scientific experts (over ordinary people) 81% of the time, after adjusting for all other demographic and ideological factors. Implications for the role of science in democratic society are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The cultural dimension of power distance refers to individuals' acceptance of power inequalities in society. Countries characterized by high power distance at the collective level face more domestic extremism. However, research has yet to examine how individual differences in power distance orientation may affect individuals' intentions to engage in radical and violent political action. In this research, we test the hypothesis that stronger endorsement of power distance values makes people more prone to express their intentions to engage in radical and violent political action. To test the hypothesis' generalizability across contexts, we sample from 2 countries characterized by different levels of power distance at the collective level, South Korea (higher power distance) and the United States (lower power distance). Studies 1a and 1b were surveys (N = 1,214) demonstrating an association between power distance orientation and radical political action over and beyond other known predictors of political participation, including political efficacy, perceived justice, emotions of anger and contempt, political orientation, and social dominance orientation. In Studies 2a–2c (N = 430; 2c preregistered), priming a higher (vs. lower) power distance orientation heightened individuals' propensity to express the intentions to engage in radical political action. Theoretical implications of the findings, and future research directions, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People deeply value their social bonds with companion animals, yet routinely devalue other animals, considering them mere commodities to satisfy human interests and desires. Despite the inherently social and intergroup nature of these complexities, social psychology is long overdue in integrating human-animal relations in its theoretical frameworks. The present body of work brings together social psychological research advancing our understanding of: 1) the factors shaping our perceptions and thinking about animals as social groups, 2) the complexities involved in valuing (caring) and devaluing (exploiting) animals, and 3) the implications and importance of human-animal relations for human intergroup relations. In this article, we survey the diversity of research paradigms and theoretical frameworks developed within the intergroup relations literature that are relevant, perchance critical, to the study of human-animal relations. Furthermore, we highlight how understanding and rethinking human-animal relations will eventually lead to a more comprehensive understanding of many human intergroup phenomena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many people in Western societies tolerate the mistreatment of nonhuman animals, despite obvious ethical concerns about the injustice of animal suffering and exploitation. In three studies, we applied system justification theory to examine the ideological basis of human–animal relations. In Studies 1a and 1b, we showed in both a large convenience sample (N = 2,119) and a nationally representative sample in the US (N = 1,500) that economic system justification uniquely explained the relationship between political conservatism and animal welfare attitudes even after adjusting for social dominance orientation. In Study 2, we replicated and extended these findings using more elaborate measures of animal welfare attitudes in the context of an MTurk sample of U.S. respondents (N = 395). Specifically, we found that conservatism was associated with less support for animal welfare and greater endorsement of speciesism (the belief that humans are morally superior to nonhuman animals) and that individual differences in economic system justification mediated these associations. We discuss several ways in which system justification theory may inform interventions designed to promote support for animal welfare in society at large. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the present research, we applied the dual process model of ideology and prejudice to beliefs and behavioral intentions toward animals. In Study 1 (N = 126), we demonstrate in a community sample that right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) predicts support for restricting the distribution of wolves and bears in the wild mediated by perceived threat elicited from the animal outgroups. In contrast, social dominance orientation (SDO) had an indirect effect on the legitimization of meat consumption via endorsement of human supremacy beliefs. In Study 2 (N = 223), we examined the causal direction of the dual process model using an experimental approach. Results show that RWA predicts support for restricting the free movement of a new animal species in the wild only when it is perceived to be threatening for humans. However, SDO predicted perceived legitimacy of meat consumption, regardless of whether the new animal species was characterized as lower or higher in status compared to other animals. Implications of these findings are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals' perceptions of biracials can vary based on the motives of the perceiver. Here, we examine how two factors—perceivers' group-level identification motives and their system-level beliefs about the desirability of hierarchy (i.e., social dominance orientation)—predict the degree to which they attribute a biracial target's successes or failures to that target's White versus minority background. Across three studies examining different contexts, more anti-egalitarian White participants and more highly identified White participants rated a half-White, half-minority target as being shaped more by his minority (vs. White) background when he was disreputable (vs. reputable)—patterns broadly consistent with prior theorizing on the motivations to maintain social stratification and protect ingroup standing, respectively. In direct contrast, however, egalitarian White participants and White participants low on ethnic identification credited a target's outgroup minority background when he was reputable (vs. disreputable), consistent with a desire to promote social equality and forgoing the opportunity to "bask in reflected glory" on behalf of the ingroup. Our results extend extant theorizing by underlining the benefits of jointly considering both group- and system-level motives when analyzing perceptions and attributions of individuals and groups, and by shedding new light on the understudied psychology of social egalitarians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent research demonstrates that intergroup contact effectively reduces prejudice even among prejudice-prone persons. But some assert that evidence regarding the benefits of contact among prejudice-prone individuals is "mixed," particularly for those higher in social dominance orientation (SDO), one of the field's most important individual differences. Problematically, person variables are typically considered in isolation despite being intercorrelated, leaving the question of which unique psychological aspects of prejudice proneness (e.g., authoritarianism, antiegalitarianism, cognitive style) are responsive to intergroup contact unresolved. To address this shortcoming, in a large sample of White Americans (N = 465) we simultaneously examined the contact–attitude association at varying levels of ideological (SDO, right-wing authoritarianism), cognitive style (need for closure), and identity-based (group identification) indicators of prejudice proneness. Examining a broad range of intergroup criterion measures (e.g., racism, support for racial profiling) we reveal that greater contact quality is associated with lower levels of intergroup hostility for those both lower and higher on a variety of indicators of prejudice proneness, simultaneously considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many studies have focused on mediated paths by which social dominance orientation (SDO) and rightwing authoritarianism (RWA) predict prejudice; fewer have identified factors that moderate their effects. We applied social cognitive domain theory to test whether different ways of reasoning about antigay discriminatory acts moderated the association between SDO, RWA, and condoning antigay discrimination. Moral reasoning (e.g., emphasizing fairness, equality) and personal reasoning (e.g., emphasizing individual interests, qualifications) attenuated the association between SDO, RWA, and condoning discriminatory resource denial in general and religious-specific contexts. Conventional reasoning (e.g., emphasizing group norms, rules) magnified the association between SDO, RWA, and condoning resource denial, but only in a religious-specific context. Findings highlight the need to examine moderators of SDO and RWA effects in effort to disrupt discrimination by those most likely to engage in it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current study tested the extent to which intergroup contact reduces social dominance orientation (SDO), producing secondary transfer effects. Participants were first-year undergraduate students randomly assigned to live with either a same-race roommate or a roommate of a different race in university housing. Participants completed a feeling thermometer and a measure of SDO at the beginning and end of the fall semester. Participants in interracial rooms reported lower levels of SDO and more positive attitudes toward secondary groups (i.e., racial/ethnic groups other than their roommates’ group) than participants in same-race rooms at the end of the semester. Those in interracial rooms exhibited a significant change in SDO levels and attitudes across time, whereas those in same-race rooms exhibited no change. Furthermore, SDO fully mediated the effect of intergroup contact on attitudes toward secondary groups. These findings provide causal evidence of secondary transfer effects and indicate SDO as an underlying mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inspired by the popular Arab protests against oppressive regimes that began in 2010, people around the world protested in sympathy with the Arab peoples. The present research draws on two major theories of intergroup relations to develop an initial integrative model of sympathetic collective action. We incorporate social dominance theory’s (SDT) concept of (rejectionist) legitimizing myths with the solidarity and emotional mediation concept of the social identity model of collective action (SIMCA) to understand motivations for sympathetic collective action among bystanders. Using data from 12 nations (N = 1,480), we tested three models: (a) SIMCA (i.e., solidarity, anger, and efficacy), (b) a social dominance theory model of collective action (i.e., social dominance orientation and ideologies concerning Arab competence), and (c) an integrated model of sympathetic collective action combining both theories. Results find the greatest support for an integrated model of collective action. Discussion focuses on theoretical pluralism and suggestions for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In two studies, the influence of victim sensitivity, defined as individual differences in the extent to which people react emotionally when confronted with injustice to their own disadvantage, on intergroup emotions in potentially exploitative intergroup situations was examined. Using a cross-lagged design embedded in the German reunification context (N = 451), it was found that West Germans high in victim sensitivity felt more anger toward East Germans and angst for their ingroup’s future vitality 2 years later. In a second experimental study (N = 63), the effect of victim sensitivity on intergroup anger and intergroup angst was shown to be dependent upon perceived exploitation by an outgroup and explained unique variance over and beyond ideological variables (social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, political orientation). Taken together, these results suggest that victim sensitivity is an important variable to consider in potentially exploitative situations, not only on the interpersonal, but also on the intergroup level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present research demonstrates that social dominance orientation (SDO) and trust propensity provide a valuable theoretical framework and methodological toolkit with which to both assess the concept of “defiant individualism,” Sánchez-Jankowski’s trait theory of gang membership, and understand social-psychological gang processes. The research samples 95 gang members in London, UK, while looking at the effects of age, contact with the gang, and position in the gang on the presence of SDO and trust propensity. Using path analysis, the research demonstrates gang tenure and rank are strong predictors of high SDO and low trust propensity, independent of time spent in the gang, which also significantly predicts high SDO and low trust propensity. High SDO and low trust propensity in gangs are also positively correlated. Gang members, it seems, exhibit a “defiant individualist” social character and both selection and group socialization processes are accountable. Such, in turn, may help explain intergang relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In introducing this Special Issue on gangs, we overview the thrust of its papers, demonstrating how they assist in plugging research gaps from the dearth of psychological attention to gangs. The papers therein raise important theoretical considerations of group process effects, social identity, and communication influences in gangs. Also included are empirical examinations of how attitudes to formal organized crime groups may nurture progang views, how social networks bridge gang divides, the dehumanization and social dominance association with gang membership, and how membership longevity associates with gang members’ attitudes to their group. We conclude with theoretical prospects and empirical vistas for future work. For instance, vitality theory may help explain members’ immersion in gangs, discursive strategies could explain how youth are enticed into gangs, and examinations of community and law enforcement attitudes to gangs may provide insight into how oppositional attitudes are fostered on both sides of the gang divide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]