Search

Social dominance orientation (SDO) holds a central position in social dominance theory. Since the development, validation, and publication of the SDO7 scale in 2015, which was designed to distinguish between the dominance (SDO-D) and (anti-)egalitarianism (SDO-E) facets of SDO, it has become common in the literature to distinguish between these facets using the SDO7. This is based on the theoretical proposition that SDO-D and SDO-E meaningfully differ and have different relationships with other constructs. However, the present study critically reviews the original validity evidence provided for the SDO7's distinction between SDO-D and SDO-E and notes conceptual and empirical reasons to question this distinction. Because a sizable number of studies have used the SDO7 since the presentation of that original validity evidence, the present study uses meta-analysis to leverage this burgeoning literature to determine whether there has since been more convincing empirical evidence for the distinction between these facets. The meta-analysis finds that SDO-D and SDO-E have a magnitude of intercorrelation that would often be considered adequate for a reliability coefficient (mean ρ =.83), have extremely similar patterns and magnitudes of relationships with the variables in their nomological network, and have nearly identical means and standard deviations. Although the SDO7 is a useful, reliable, and valid measure of overall SDO, its use to distinguish between SDO-D and SDO-E is not empirically supported. The present meta-analysis also provides insights into the nomological network of SDO-D, SDO-E, and overall SDO and the distributional characteristics of study participants' SDO scale scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Behavioral adaptability is the ability to adapt one's interpersonal behavior to the expectations of the social interaction partners. In this paper, we investigated two factors that impact the extent to which people express behavioral adaptability. First, we investigated whether behavioral adaptability depends on the interaction partners' social categories (in-group vs. out-group). Second, we tested whether social dominance orientation (SDO) is related to behavioral adaptability and whether this relationship depends on the interaction partners' belonging to the in- or out-group. To do so, we conducted 2 studies in which we manipulated whether the interaction partners belong to the in- or to the out-group and in which we assessed participants SDO. In both studies, participants were in the role of a leader who had to give separate pep talks to 2 subordinates who differed in terms of preferred leadership style and we operationalized behavioral adaptability by coding to what extent participants adapted (Study 1) or reported that they would adapt (Study 2) their leadership style according to their subordinates' individual preferences. Study 1 used immersive virtual reality and included White/Caucasian male participants (N = 173). Study 2 was a vignette study including men and women who were either White/Caucasian or Black/African American (N = 741). Results showed that the subordinates' social category did not impact the extent to which participants express behavioral adaptability. However, SDO was differently related to behavioral adaptability depending both on participants social categories (e.g., ethnicity and sex) and subordinates' belonging to the in- or out-group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Authoritarianism has been the subject of scientific inquiry for nearly a century, yet the vast majority of authoritarianism research has focused on right-wing authoritarianism. In the present studies, we investigate the nature, structure, and nomological network of left-wing authoritarianism (LWA), a construct famously known as "the Loch Ness Monster" of political psychology. We iteratively construct a measure and data-driven conceptualization of LWA across six samples (N = 7,258) and conduct quantitative tests of LWA's relations with more than 60 authoritarianism-related variables. We find that LWA, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation reflect a shared constellation of personality traits, cognitive features, beliefs, and motivational values that might be considered the "heart" of authoritarianism. Relative to right-wing authoritarians, left-wing authoritarians were lower in dogmatism and cognitive rigidity, higher in negative emotionality, and expressed stronger support for a political system with substantial centralized state control. Our results also indicate that LWA powerfully predicts behavioral aggression and is strongly correlated with participation in political violence. We conclude that a movement away from exclusively right-wing conceptualizations of authoritarianism may be required to illuminate authoritarianism's central features, conceptual breadth, and psychological appeal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]