Search

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]

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]

Social dominance orientation (SDO) has been reported to be strongly related to a multitude of intergroup phenomena, but little is known about situational experiences that may influence SDO. Drawing from research on intergroup contact theory, we argue that positive intergroup contact is able to reduce SDO-levels. The results of an intergroup contact intervention study among high school students (Study 1, N = 71) demonstrated that SDO levels were indeed attenuated after the intervention. Furthermore, this intervention effect on SDO was especially pronounced among students reporting a higher quality of contact. A cross-lagged longitudinal survey among adults (Study 2, N = 363) extended these findings by demonstrating that positive intergroup contact is able to decrease SDO over time. Moreover, we did not obtain evidence for the idea that people high in SDO would engage less in intergroup contact. These findings indicate that intergroup contact erodes one of the important socio-ideological bases of generalized prejudice and discrimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors used multilevel modeling to examine whether peer group ideological beliefs (n = 109 friendship groups) predicted the homophobic and racist attitudes of other individuals within the group (n = 395 college students). Results indicated that the social dominance orientation (SDO), right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and universal-diverse orientation (UDO) ideological beliefs of peers predicted the prejudiced attitudes of other group members, over and above individuals' own ideological views. Additionally, the strength with which individuals' own ideological beliefs predicted their prejudiced attitudes varied systematically across peer groups. Affiliations with high-RWA peers strengthened the extent to which individuals' own SDO and RWA predicted their prejudiced attitudes. Results suggest the ideological beliefs of peers are relevant to predicting the prejudiced attitudes of the individuals with whom they affiliate. Although specific peer ideologies differentially predicted forms of prejudice, the overall contribution of these peer ideology beliefs to the prediction of individuals' prejudiced attitudes was comparable for both homophobic and racist attitudes. Attention to proximal social networks and the social dynamics within these networks can contribute to better explanations of individual differences in prejudiced attitudes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]