Search

Social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) are foundational constructs in intergroup relations, yet their development across the lifespan is poorly understood. The few studies on the topic demonstrate that age positively correlates with both SDO and RWA. However, it is unclear whether this association is due to (a) normative aging, (b) generational differences associated with the period in which one was born and raised, or (c) a combination of these processes. This study estimates a series of cohort-sequential latent growth models to examine change due to both aging and cohort effects using 11 annual waves of longitudinal panel data collected from a nationwide random sample of adults (Ns = 61,858–61,862). Mean levels of SDO and RWA both trended upward across the adult lifespan, although this pattern was more marked for RWA. Cohort effects also emerged for both constructs and were again more pronounced for RWA. Contextual factors thus appear to influence authoritarianism more than they impact the preference for intergroup hierarchy. Similar trends emerged when differentiating birth cohorts by gender and ethnic majority status. Age and cohort effects for generalized prejudice among an ethnic majority group were also assessed (N = 47,955), revealing that prejudice declined in early adulthood but began to stabilize in middle age. This is the first large-scale study to document how SDO, RWA, and generalized prejudice change over the adult lifespan while also examining trends associated with the period in which a person was born and socialized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Preliminary studies indicate that ideologies and worldviews are key in understanding the motivation behind corruption. Yet, there is no model seeking to explain corrupt intention that incorporates ideology and worldviews as predictors. Our objective was to propose a model integrating ideological factors (social dominance orientation [SDO] and right-wing authoritarianism [RWA]) and their underlying worldviews (competitive worldview beliefs [CWB] and dangerous worldview beliefs [DWB]) as predictors of corrupt intention and attitudes toward corrupt people and examine the model in the high corruption context of Brazil. For that purpose, preregistered hypotheses were tested across six studies. Results confirmed that corrupt intention is predicted by SDO but not RWA, while attitudes toward corrupt people are predicted by RWA but not SDO (Studies 1, 2, and 4). Replicating these findings cross-culturally, World Values Survey data (Study 3) indicated that corrupt intention is predicted by a proxy SDO index but not by a proxy RWA index. Experimentally increasing DWB amplified corrupt intention, but attitudes toward corrupt people remained unaffected (Study 5). Study 6 further confirmed the independence of corrupt intention and attitudes toward corrupt people, with corrupt intention primarily predicted by CWB and attitudes toward corrupt people primarily predicted by RWA. Hence, the first social psychological model that seeks to explain corruption integrating ideologies and worldviews was successfully proposed with implications for future research. [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]

Intergroup contact is among the most effective ways to improve intergroup attitudes. Although it is now beyond any doubt that contact can reduce prejudice, in this article we provide evidence that its benefits can extend beyond intergroup relations—a process referred to as cognitive liberalization (Hodson, Crisp, Meleady, & Earle, 2018). We focus specifically on the impact of intergroup contact on environmentally relevant attitudes and behavior. Recent studies suggest that support for an inequality-based ideology (social dominance orientation [SDO]) can predict both intergroup attitudes and broader environmental conduct. Individuals higher in SDO are more willing to exploit the environment in unsustainable ways because doing so aids the production and maintenance of hierarchical social structures. In 4 studies conducted with British adults, we show that by promoting less hierarchical and more egalitarian viewpoints (reduced SDO), intergroup contact encourages more environmentally responsible attitudes and behavior. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal data support this model. Effects are more strongly explained by reductions in an antiegalitarian motive than a dominance motive. We discuss how these findings help define an expanded vision for intergroup contact theory that moves beyond traditional conflict-related outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research estimates the points of relative group representation at which members of dominant and nondominant groups declare an organization to be diverse. Across 7 studies, members of dominant groups, relative to members of nondominant groups, reported that diversity was achieved at lower representations of the nondominant group within an organization. This was explained by the dominant group members’ relative opposition to using the equal representation of groups as a standard against which to judge diversity. This mediation was also replicated with the antiegalitarian dimension of social dominance orientation, suggesting that the setting of diversity thresholds serves a hierarchy relevant function. Group differences in thresholds of diversity were strongest when people were evaluating whether an organization was sufficiently (vs. descriptively) diverse, when group status was perceived to be threatened, and when the nondominant group was also a numerical minority in the relevant context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research estimates the points of relative group representation at which members of dominant and nondominant groups declare an organization to be diverse. Across 7 studies, members of dominant groups, relative to members of nondominant groups, reported that diversity was achieved at lower representations of the nondominant group within an organization. This was explained by the dominant group members' relative opposition to using the equal representation of groups as a standard against which to judge diversity. This mediation was also replicated with the antiegalitarian dimension of social dominance orientation, suggesting that the setting of diversity thresholds serves a hierarchy relevant function. Group differences in thresholds of diversity were strongest when people were evaluating whether an organization was sufficiently (vs. descriptively) diverse, when group status was perceived to be threatened, and when the nondominant group was also a numerical minority in the relevant context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Protecting men’s power is fundamental to understanding the origin, expression, and targets of hostile sexism, yet no prior theoretical or empirical work has specified how hostile sexism is related to experiences of power. In the current studies, we propose that the interdependence inherent in heterosexual relationships will lead men who more strongly endorse hostile sexism to perceive they have lower power in their relationship, and that these perceptions will be biased. We also predicted that lower perceptions of power would in turn promote aggression toward intimate partners. Across 4 studies, men who more strongly endorsed hostile sexism perceived lower power in their relationships. Comparisons across partners supported that these lower perceptions of power were biased; men who more strongly endorsed hostile sexism underestimated the power they had compared with their partners’ reports of that power (Studies 1 and 2). These lower perceptions of power, in turn, predicted greater aggression toward female partners during couples’ daily interactions (Study 1), observed during couples’ video-recorded conflict discussions (Study 2), and reported over the last year (Studies 3 and 4). Moreover, the associations between hostile sexism, power, and aggression were specific to men perceiving lower relationship power rather than desiring greater power in their relationships (Studies 3 and 4), and they were not the result of generally being more dominant and aggressive (Studies 3 and 4), or more negative relationship evaluations from either partner (Studies 1–4). The findings demonstrate the importance of an interdependence perspective in understanding the experiences, aggressive expressions, and broader consequences associated with hostile sexism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current theorizing on socioeconomic status (SES) focuses on the availability of resources and the freedom they afford as a key determinant of the association between high SES and stronger orientation toward the self and, by implication, weaker orientation toward others. However, this work relies nearly exclusively on data from Western countries where self-orientation is strongly sanctioned. In the present work, we predicted and found that especially in East Asian countries, where other-orientation is strongly sanctioned, high SES is associated with stronger other-orientation as well as with self-orientation. We first examined both psychological attributes (Study 1, N = 2,832) and socialization values (Study 2a, N = 4,675) in Japan and the United States. In line with the existent evidence, SES was associated with greater self-oriented psychological attributes and socialization values in both the U.S. and Japan. Importantly, however, higher SES was associated with greater other orientation in Japan, whereas this association was weaker or even reversed in the United States. Study 2b (N = 85,296) indicated that the positive association between SES and self-orientation is found, overall, across 60 nations. Further, Study 2b showed that the positive association between SES and other-orientation in Japan can be generalized to other Confucian cultures, whereas the negative association between SES and other-orientation in the U.S. can be generalized to other Frontier cultures. Implications of the current findings for modernization and globalization are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The visual perception of individuals has received considerable attention (visual person perception), but little social psychological work has examined the processes underlying the visual perception of groups of people (visual people perception). Ensemble-coding is a visual mechanism that automatically extracts summary statistics (e.g., average size) of lower-level sets of stimuli (e.g., geometric figures), and also extends to the visual perception of groups of faces. Here, we consider whether ensemble-coding supports people perception, allowing individuals to form rapid, accurate impressions about groups of people. Across nine studies, we demonstrate that people visually extract high-level properties (e.g., diversity, hierarchy) that are unique to social groups, as opposed to individual persons. Observers rapidly and accurately perceived group diversity and hierarchy, or variance across race, gender, and dominance (Studies 1-3). Further, results persist when observers are given very short display times, backward pattern masks, color- and contrast-controlled stimuli, and absolute versus relative response options (Studies 4a-7b), suggesting robust effects supported specifically by ensemble-coding mechanisms. Together, we show that humans can rapidly and accurately perceive not only individual persons, but also emergent social information unique to groups of people. These people perception findings demonstrate the importance of visual processes for enabling people to perceive social groups and behave effectively in group-based social interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We explore the relationship between group-based egalitarianism and empathy for members of advantaged groups (e.g. corporate executives; state officials) versus disadvantaged groups (e.g., blue-collar workers; schoolteachers) subjected to harmful actions, events, or policies. Whereas previous research suggests that anti-egalitarians (vs. egalitarians) dispositionally exhibit less empathy for others, we propose that this relationship depends on the target's position in the social hierarchy. We examined this question across eight studies (N = 3,154) conducted in the U.S. and the U.K., including online and in-person experiments and examining attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. We observed that (anti-)egalitarianism negatively predicted empathy for members of disadvantaged groups subjected to harmful situations, but positively predicted empathy for members of advantaged groups. This pattern held regardless of perceivers' own membership in advantaged or disadvantaged groups (i.e., perceiver gender, race, or SES). (Anti-)egalitarianism's differential effects on empathy for advantaged versus disadvantaged targets were attributable in part to differences in perceived degree of harm incurred (beyond roles for perceived value conflict and perceived deservingness): Egalitarians perceived the same action as more harmful than anti-egalitarians when it occurred to a disadvantaged target but less harmful than anti-egalitarians when it occurred to an advantaged target. We also explored how these patterns informed individuals' downstream policy attitudes and policy-relevant behavior (e.g.. willingness to sign a petition). Our findings enrich understanding of (anti-)egalitarianism by testing competing perspectives on the link between (anti-)egalitarianism and empathy, and by demonstrating when and why individuals' preferences for social equality (vs. hierarchy) lead them to extend versus withhold empathy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on multiracial categorization has focused on majority group social perceivers (i.e., White Americans), demonstrating that they (a) typically categorize Black-White multiracials according to a rule of hypodescent, associating them more with their lower status parent group than their higher status parent group and (b) do so at least in part to preserve the hierarchical status quo. The current work examines whether members of an ethnic minority group, Black Americans, also associate Black-White multiracials more with their minority versus majority parent group and if so, why. The first 2 studies (1A and IB) directly compared Black and White Americans, and found that although both Blacks and Whites categorized Black-White multiracials as more Black than White, White's use of hypodescent was associated with intergroup antiegalitarianism, whereas Black's use of hypodescent was associated with intergroup egalitarianism. Studies 2-3 reveal that egalitarian Blacks use hypodescent in part because they perceive that Black-White biracials face discrimination and consequently feel a sense of linked fate with them. This research establishes that the use of hypodescent extends to minority as well as majority perceivers but also shows that the beliefs associated with the use of hypodescent differ as a function of perceiver social status. In doing so, we broaden the social scientific understanding of hypodescent, showing how it can be an inclusionary rather than exclusionary phenomenon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Debate surrounding the issue of inequality and hierarchy between social groups has become increasingly prominent in recent years. At the same time, individuals disagree about the extent to which inequality between advantaged and disadvantaged groups exists. Whereas prior work has examined the ways in which individuals legitimize (or delegitimize) inequality as a function of their motivations, we consider whether individuals’ orientation toward group-based hierarchy motivates the extent to which they perceive inequality between social groups in the first place. Across 8 studies in both real-world (race, gender, and class) and artificial contexts, and involving members of both advantaged and disadvantaged groups, we show that the more individuals endorse hierarchy between groups, the less they perceive inequality between groups at the top and groups at the bottom. Perceiving less inequality is associated with rejecting egalitarian social policies aimed at reducing it. We show that these differences in hierarchy perception as a function of individuals’ motivational orientation hold even when inequality is depicted abstractly using images, and even when individuals are financially incentivized to accurately report their true perceptions. Using a novel methodology to assess accurate memory of hierarchy, we find that differences may be driven by both antiegalitarians underestimating inequality, and egalitarians overestimating it. In sum, our results identify a novel perceptual bias rooted in individuals’ chronic motivations toward hierarchy-maintenance, with the potential to influence their policy attitudes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

General, spontaneous evaluations of strangers based on their faces have been shown to reflect judgments of these persons' intention and ability to harm. These evaluations can be mapped onto a 2D space defined by the dimensions trustworthiness (intention) and dominance (ability). Here we go beyond general evaluations and focus on more specific personality judgments derived from the Big Two and Big Five personality concepts. In particular, we investigate whether Big Two/Big Five personality judgments can be mapped onto the 2D space defined by the dimensions trustworthiness and dominance. Results indicate that judgments of the Big Two personality dimensions almost perfectly map onto the 2D space. In contrast, at least 3 of the Big Five dimensions (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness) go beyond the 2D space, indicating that additional dimensions are necessary to describe more specific face-based personality judgments accurately. Building on this evidence, we model the Big Two/Big Five personality dimensions in real facial photographs. Results from 2 validation studies show that the Big Two/Big Five are perceived reliably across different samples of faces and participants. Moreover, results reveal that participants differentiate reliably between the different Big Two/Big Five dimensions. Importantly, this high level of agreement and differentiation in personality judgments from faces likely creates a subjective reality which may have serious consequences for those being perceived-notably, these consequences ensue because the subjective reality is socially shared, irrespective of the judgments' validity. The methodological approach introduced here might prove useful in various psychological disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why are physically formidable men willingly allocated higher social status by others in cooperative groups? Ancestrally, physically formidable males would have been differentially equipped to generate benefits for groups by providing leadership services of within-group enforcement (e.g., implementing punishment of free riders) and between-group representation (e.g., negotiating with other coalitions). Therefore, we hypothesize that adaptations for social status allocation are designed to interpret men's physical formidability as a cue to these leadership abilities, and to allocate greater status to formidable men on this basis. These hypotheses were supported in 4 empirical studies wherein young adults rated standardized photos of subjects (targets) who were described as being part of a white-collar business consultancy. In Studies 1 and 2, male targets' physical strength positively predicted ratings of their projected status within the organization, and this effect was mediated by perceptions that stronger men possessed greater leadership abilities of within-group enforcement and between-group representation. Moreover, (a) these same patterns held whether status was conceptualized as overall ascendancy, prestige-based status, or dominance-based status, and (b) strong men who were perceived as aggressively self-interested were not allocated greater status. Finally, 2 experiments established the causality of physical formidability's effects on status-related perceptions by manipulating targets' relative strength (Study 3) and height (Study 4). In interpreting our findings, we argue that adaptations for formidability-based status allocation may have facilitated the evolution of group cooperation in humans and other primates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A new conceptualization and measurement of social dominance orientation--individual differences in the preference for group based hierarchy and inequality--is introduced. In contrast to previous measures of social dominance orientation that were designed to be unidimensional, the new measure (SDO?) embeds theoretically grounded subdimensions of SDO--SDO-Dominance (SDO-D) and SDO-Egalitarianism (SDO-E). SDO-D constitutes a preference for systems of group-based dominance in which high status groups forcefully oppress lower status groups. SDO-E constitutes a preference for systems of group-based inequality that are maintained by an interrelated network of subtle hierarchy-enhancing ideologies and social policies. Confirmatory factor and criterion validity analyses confirmed that SDO-D and SDO-E are theoretically distinct and dissociate in terms of the intergroup outcomes they best predict. For the first time, distinct personality and individual difference bases of SDO-D and SDO-E are outlined. We clarify the construct validity of SDO by strictly assessing a preference for dominance hierarchies in general, removing a possible confound relating to support for hierarchy benefitting the ingroup. Consistent with this, results show that among members of a disadvantaged ethnic minority group (African Americans), endorsement of SDO7 is inversely related to ingroup identity. We further demonstrate these effects using nationally representative samples of U.S. Blacks and Whites, documenting the generalizability of these findings. Finally, we introduce and validate a brief 4-item measure of each dimension. This article importantly extends our theoretical understanding of one of the most generative constructs in social psychology, and introduces powerful new tools for its measurement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although hierarchies are thought to be beneficial for groups, empirical evidence is mixed. We argue and find in 7 studies spanning methodologies and samples that different bases of hierarchical differentiation have distinct effects on lower ranking group members' disruptive competitive behavior because status hierarchies are seen as more mutable than are power hierarchies. Greater mutability means that more opportunity exists for upward mobility, which motivates individuals to compete in hopes of advancing their placement in the hierarchy. This research provides further evidence that different bases of hierarchy can have different effects on individuals and the groups of which they are a part and explicates a mechanism for those effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cohesion, cooperation, and the formation of positive bonds among group members are key processes that facilitate effective group functioning. Consequently, group leaders usually work to enhance the positive social bonds among group members to facilitate cooperation and group cohesion. The present research suggests, however, that leaders sometimes are motivated to generate divisions--not cooperation--among their subordinates. Although such divisions may undermine group functioning, they can also serve as a means of protecting the leader's own power. Four experiments supported the hypothesis that, when they perceive their power to be threatened, leaders create divisions among their subordinates in order to protect their power and reduce threats posed by potential alliances among those subordinates. Leaders restricted the amount of communication among subordinates (Experiment 1), physically sequestered subordinates (Experiment 2), and prevented subordinates from bonding with one another interpersonally (Experiments 3 and 4). Those behaviors were observed only among dominance-motivated leaders (not prestige-motivated leaders), and were directed only toward highly skilled (and thus highly threatening) subordinates. Consistent with the hypothesis that leaders' behavior was driven by a desire to protect their power, the tendency to prevent in-group bonding was eliminated when leaders were assured that their power could not be lost (Experiment 4). These results shed light on factors that may undermine positive social processes within groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hierarchies are a ubiquitous form of human social organization. We hypothesized that I reason for the prevalence of hierarchies is that they offer structure and therefore satisfy the core motivational needs for order and control relative to less structured forms of social organization. This hypothesis is rooted in compensatory control theory, which posits that (a) individuals have a basic need to perceive the world as orderly and structured, and (b) personal and external sources of control are capable of satisfying this need because both serve the comforting belief that the world operates in an orderly fashion. Our first 2 studies confirmed that hierarchies were perceived as more structured and orderly relative to egalitarian arrangements (Study 1) and that working in a hierarchical workplace promotes a feeling of self-efficacy (Study 2). We threatened participants' sense of personal control and measured perceptions of and preferences for hierarchy in 5 subsequent experiments. Participants who lacked control perceived more hierarchy occurring in ambiguous social situations (Study 3) and preferred hierarchy more strongly in workplace contexts (Studies 4-5). We also provide evidence that hierarchies are indeed appealing because of their structure: Preference for hierarchy was higher among individuals high in Personal Need for Structure and a control threat increased preference for hierarchy even among participants low in Personal Need for Structure (Study 5). Framing a hierarchy as unstructured reversed the effect of control threat on hierarchy (Study 6). Finally, hierarchy-enhancing jobs were more appealing after control threat, even when they were low in power and status (Study 7). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In contrast to authors of previous single-nation studies, we propose that supporting multiculturalism (MC) or assimilation (AS) is likely to have different effects in different countries, depending on the diversity policy in place in a particular country and the associated norms. A causal model of intergroup attitudes and behaviors, integrating both country-specific factors (attitudes and perceived norms related to a particular diversity policy) and general social-psychological determinants (social dominance orientation), was tested among participants from countries where the pro-diversity policy was independently classified as low, medium, or high (N = 1,232). Results showed that (a) anti-Muslim prejudice was significantly reduced when the pro-diversity policy was high; (b) countries differed strongly in perceived norms related to MC and AS, in ways consistent with the actual diversity policy in each country and regardless of participants' personal attitudes toward MC and AS; (c) as predicted, when these norms were salient, due to subtle priming, structural equation modeling with country included as a variable provided support for the proposed model, suggesting that the effect of country on prejudice can be successfully accounted by it; and (d) consistent with the claim that personal support for MC and AS played a different role in different countries, within-country mediation analyses provided evidence that personal attitudes toward AS mediated the effect of social dominance orientation on prejudice when pro-diversity policy was low, whereas personal attitudes toward MC was the mediator when pro- diversity policy was high. Thus, the critical variables shaping prejudice can vary across nations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The pursuit of social rank is a recurrent and pervasive challenge faced by individuals in all human societies. Yet, the precise means through which individuals compete for social standing remains unclear. In 2 studies, we investigated the impact of 2 fundamental strategies-Dominance (the use of force and intimidation to induce fear) and Prestige (the sharing of expertise or know-how to gain respect)-on the attainment of social rank, which we conceptualized as the acquisition of (a) perceived influence over others (Study 1), (b) actual influence over others' behaviors (Study 1), and (c) others' visual attention (Study 2). Study 1 examined the process of hierarchy formation among a group of previously unac- quainted individuals, who provided round-robin judgments of each other after completing a group task. Results indicated that the adoption of either a Dominance or Prestige strategy promoted perceptions of greater influence, by both group members and outside observers, and higher levels of actual influence, based on a behavioral measure. These effects were not driven by popularity; in fact, those who adopted a Prestige strategy were viewed as likable, whereas those who adopted a Dominance strategy were not well liked. In Study 2, participants viewed brief video clips of group interactions from Study 1 while their gaze was monitored with an eye tracker. Dominant and Prestigious targets each received greater visual attention than targets low on either dimension. Together, these findings demonstrate that Dominance and Prestige are distinct yet viable strategies for ascending the social hierarchy, consistent with evolutionary theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although psychopathic personality (psychopathy) is marked largely by maladaptive traits (e.g., poor impulse control, lack of guilt), some authors have conjectured that some features of this condition (e.g., fearlessness, interpersonal dominance) are adaptive in certain occupations, including leadership positions. We tested this hypothesis in the 42 U.S. presidents up to and including George W. Bush using (a) psychopathy trait estimates derived from personality data completed by historical experts on each president, (b) independent historical surveys of presidential leadership, and (c) largely or entirely objective indicators of presidential performance. Fearless Dominance, which reflects the boldness associated with psychopathy, was associated with better rated presidential performance, leadership, persuasiveness, crisis management, Congressional relations, and allied variables; it was also associated with several largely or entirely objective indicators of presidential performance, such as initiating new projects and being viewed as a world figure. Most of these associations survived statistical control for covariates, including intellectual brilliance, five factor model personality traits, and need for power. In contrast, Impulsive Antisociality and related traits of psychopathy were generally unassociated with rated presidential performance, although they were linked to some largely or entirely objective indicators of negative job performance, including Congressional impeachment resolutions, tolerating unethical behavior in subordinates, and negative character. These findings indicate that the boldness associated with psychopathy is an important but heretofore neglected predictor of presidential performance, and suggest that certain features of psychopathy are tied to successful interpersonal behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our knowledge on the personality basis of ideological attitudes and prejudice, while based on a substantial body of research, suffers from a potentially serious methodological limitation: an overreliance on the method of self-reports. Across 2 studies (Ns = 193, 424), we examined associations between the Big Five personality dimensions, Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), and generalized prejudice, using both self-report and peer-report data stemming from 1 (Study 1) or 2 (Study 2) peer rater/s. Correlational and regression analyses as well as structural equation modeling showed that (a) the associations between personality dimensions, ideological attitudes, and prejudice were largely similar to previous research for both data sources; (b) RWA and prejudice showed a similar level of self-peer agreement to personality dimensions; (c) most of the known associations between personality, ideological attitudes, and prejudice were replicated also when measured by independent methods; (d) peer reports had some incremental validity in predicting ideological attitudes and prejudice; and (e) there was evidence that Openness to Experience and Agreeableness predicted prejudice directly and not only indirectly via RWA and SDO, respectively. Implications for the status of RWA, SDO, and prejudice as individual-difference constructs and for their bases in personality dimensions are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scripts for sexual behavior dictate that women be submissive and tender and that men be assertive and dominant, reflecting the stereotypical view of women as communal and of men as agentic. Six experiments tested the hypothesis that exposure to sexuality cues causes men's and women's momentary self-perceptions and concomitant behavior to become more gender-typical. Using both pictorial and verbal prime materials that were presented both supraliminally and subliminally, we found that sexpriming strengthened gender-based self-perceptions (i.e., faster self-categorization as a woman or man; Study 1), heightened identification with one's own gender (Study 2), increased gender self-stereotyping (Study 3), and elicited greater submissiveness in women's behavior and greater assertiveness in men's behavior (Studies 4 and 5). These findings indicate that sex-priming causes self-perception and social behavior to become "attuned" to gender stereotypes. Study 6 demonstrated that these sex-priming effects can be eliminated by modem gender role primes. The potentially detrimental effects of sex-priming and possible countermeasures are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Throughout history, humans have had to detect and deflect myriad threats from their social and physical environment in order to survive and flourish. When people detect a threat, the most common response is avoidance. In the present research, the authors provide evidence that ingroup power threats elicit a very different response. Three experiments supported the hypothesis that dominant leaders seek proximity to ingroup members who pose a threat to their power, as a way to control and down regulate the threat that those members pose. In each experiment, leaders high (but not low) in dominance motivation sought proximity to an in group member who threatened their power. Consistent with the hypothesis that increased proximity was designed to help leaders protect their own power, the proximity effect was apparent only under conditions of unstable power (not stable power), only in the absence of inter group competition (not when a rival out group was present), and only toward a threatening group member (not a neutral group member). Moreover, the effect was mediated by perceptions of threat (Experiment 1) and the desire to monitor the threatening group member (Experiment 3). These results shed new light on one key strategy through which dominant leaders try to maintain control over valuable yet potentially threatening group members. Findings have implications for theories of power, leadership, and group behavior [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bridging the literatures on social dilemmas, intergroup conflict, and social hierarchy, the authors systematically varied the intergroup context in which social dilemmas were embedded to investigate how costly contributions to public goods influence status conferral. They predicted that contribution behavior would have opposite effects on 2 forms of status--prestige and dominance--depending on its consequences for the self, in-group and out-group members. When the only way to benefit in-group members was by harming out-group members (Study 1), contributions increased prestige and decreased dominance, compared with free-riding. Adding the option of benefitting in-group members without harming out-group members (Study 2) decreased the prestige and increased the dominance of those who chose to benefit in-group members via intergroup competition. Finally, sharing resources with both in-group and out-group members decreased perceptions of both prestige and dominance, compared with sharing them with in-group members only (Study 3). Prestige and dominance differentially mediated the effects of contribution behavior on leader election, exclusion from the group, and choices of a group representative for an intergroup competition. Taken together, these findings show that the well-established relationship between contribution and status is moderated by both the intergroup context and the conceptualization of status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We tested the hypothesis that social hierarchies are fluent social stimuli; that is, they are processed more easily and therefore liked better than less hierarchical stimuli. In Study I, pairs of people in a hierarchy based on facial dominance were identified faster than pairs of people equal in their facial dominance. In Study 2, a diagram representing hierarchy was memorized more quickly than a diagram representing equality or a comparison diagram. This faster processing led the hierarchy diagram to be liked more than the equality diagram. In Study 3, participants were best able to learn a set of relationships that represented hierarchy (asymmetry of power)-compared to relationships in which there was asymmetry of friendliness, or compared to relationships in which there was symmetry-and this processing ease led them to like the hierarchy the most. In Study 4, participants found it easier to make decisions about a company that was more hierarchical and thus thought the hierarchical organization had more positive qualities. In Study 5, familiarity as a basis for the fluency of hierarchy was demonstrated by showing greater fluency for male than female hierarchies. This study also showed that when social relationships are difficult to learn, people's preference for hierarchy increases. Taken together, these results suggest one reason people might like hierarchies-hierarchies are easy to process. This fluency for social hierarchies might contribute to the construction and maintenance of hierarchies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) contends that institutional-level mechanisms exist that reinforce and perpetuate existing group-based inequalities, but very few such mechanisms have been empirically demonstrated. We propose that gendered wording (i.e., masculine- and feminine-themed words, such as those associated with gender stereotypes) may be a heretofore unacknowledged, institutional-level mechanism of inequality maintenance. Employing both archival and experimental analyses, the present research demonstrates that gendered wording commonly employed in job recruitment materials can maintain gender inequality in traditionally male-dominated occupations. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated the existence of subtle but systematic wording differences within a randomly sampled set of job advertisements. Results indicated that job advertisements for male-dominated areas employed greater masculine wording (i.e., words associated with male stereotypes, such as leader, competitive. dominant) than advertisements within female-dominated areas. No difference in the presence of feminine wording (i.e.. words associated with female stereotypes, such as support, understand, interpersonal) emerged across male- and female-dominated areas. Next, the consequences of highly masculine wording were tested across 3 experimental studies. When job advertisements were constructed to include more masculine than feminine wording, participants perceived more men within these occupations (Study 3), and importantly. women found these jobs less appealing (Studies 4 and 5). Results confirmed that perceptions of belongingness (but not perceived skills) mediated the effect of gendered wording on job appeal (Study 5). The function of gendered wording in maintaining traditional gender divisions, implications for gender parity, and theoretical models of inequality are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Past research reveals preferences for disparaging humor directed toward disliked others. The group-dominance model of humor appreciation introduces the hypothesis that beyond initial outgroup attitudes, social dominance motives predict favorable reactions toward jokes targeting low-status outgroups through a subtle hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myth: cavalier humor beliefs (CHB). CHB characterizes a lighthearted, less serious, uncritical, and nonchalant approach toward humor that dismisses potential harm to others. As expected, CHB incorporates both positive (affiliative) and negative (aggressive) humor functions that together mask biases, correlating positively with prejudices and prejudice-correlates (including social dominance orientation [SDO]; Study 1). Across 3 studies in Canada, SDO and CHB predicted favorable reactions toward jokes disparaging Mexicans (low-status outgroup). Neither individual difference predicted neutral (noninter-group) joke reactions, despite the jokes being equally amusing and more inoffensive overall. In Study 2, joke content targeting Mexicans, Americans (high-status outgroup), and Canadians (high-status ingroup) was systematically controlled. Although Canadians preferred jokes labeled as anti-American overall, an underlying subtle pattern emerged at the individual-difference level: Only those higher in SDO appreciated those jokes labeled as anti-Mexican (reflecting social dominance motives). In all studies, SDO predicted favorable reactions toward low-status outgroup jokes almost entirely through heightened CHB, a subtle yet potent legitimatizing myth that "justifies" expressions of group dominance motives. In Study 3, a pretest-posttest design revealed the implications of this justification process: CHB contributes to trivializing outgroup jokes as inoffensive (harmless), subsequently contributing to postjoke prejudice. The implications for humor in intergroup contexts are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adopting an evolutionary approach to the psychology of race bias, we posit that intergroup conflict perpetrated by male aggressors throughout human evolutionary history has shaped the psychology of modem forms of intergroup bias and that this psychology reflects the unique adaptive problems that differ between men and women in coping with male aggressors from groups other than one's own. Here we report results across 4 studies consistent with this perspective, showing that race bias is moderated by gender differences in traits relevant to threat responses that differ in their adaptive utility between the sexes-namely, aggression and dominance motives for men and fear of sexual coercion for women. These results are Consistent with the notion that the psychology of intergroup bias is generated by different psychological systems for men and women, and the results underscore the importance of considering the gender of the outgroup target as well as the gender of the agent in psychological studies on prejudice and discrimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study addressed hypotheses about cyclical entrainment between interacting dyad members in their moment-to-moment levels of dominance and affiliation. Using a computer joystick technique, observers recorded the continuous stream of behavior for each partner in 50 mixed-sex dyads, and the data for each dyad were submitted to time-series analyses, including cross-spectral analysis. Although potentially interesting individual differences emerged, in most dyads, partners shared behavior cycles of roughly the same frequency with strongly correlated variations in amplitude (coherence). Consistent with interpersonal theory, partners' affiliation behaviors were very strongly in phase, whereas their dominance behaviors were equally strongly out of phase. In addition, these cyclical forms of interpersonal complementarity were distinguishable from other forms, such as mutual adjustment in overall levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals high in the personality trait dominance consistently attain high levels of influence in groups. Why they do is unclear, however, because most group theories assert that people cannot attain influence simply by behaving assertively and forcefully; rather, they need to possess superior task abilities and leadership skills. In the present research, the authors proposed that individuals high in trait dominance attain influence because they behave in ways that make them appear competent—even when they actually lack competence. Two studies examined task groups using a social relations analysis of peer perceptions (D. A. Kenny & L. LaVoie, 1984). The authors found that individuals higher, in trait dominance were rated as more competent by fellow group members, outside peer observers, and research staff members, even after controlling for individuals' actual abilities. Furthermore, frequency counts of discrete behaviors showed that dominance predicts the enactment of competence-signaling behaviors, which in turn predicts peer ratings of competence. These findings extend researchers' understanding of trait dominance, hierarchies in groups, and perceptions of competence and abilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Six studies examined how power affects responses to situational affordances. Participants were assigned to a powerful or a powerless condition and were exposed to various situations that afford different classes of behavior. Study 1 examined behavior intentions for weekdays and weekends. Studies 2 and 3 focused on responses to imaginary social and work situations. Study 4 examined planned behavior for winter and summer days. Finally, Studies 5 and 6 examined behavior and attention in the presence of situation-relevant and irrelevant information. Consistently across these studies, powerful individuals acted more in situation-consistent ways, and less in situation-inconsistent ways, compared with powerless individuals. These findings are interpreted as a result of the greater tendency for powerful individuals to process information selectively in line with the primary factors that drive cognition, such as affordances. One consequence of these findings is that powerful individuals change behavior across situations more than powerless individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Past research suggests that individuals high in basal testosterone are motivated to gain high status. The present research extends previous work by examining endocrinological and behavioral consequences of high and low status as a function of basal testosterone. The outcome of a competition—victory versus defeat-was used as a marker of status. In Study 1, high testosterone men who lost in a dog agility competition rose in cortisol, whereas high testosterone men who won dropped in cortisol. Low testosterone men's cortisol changes did not depend on whether they had won or lost. Study 2 replicated this pattern of cortisol changes in women who participated in an experimental laboratory competition, and Study 2 extended the cortisol findings to behavior. Specifically, high testosterone winners chose to repeat the competitive task, whereas high testosterone losers chose to avoid it. In contrast, low testosterone winners and losers did not differ in their task preferences. These results provide novel evidence in humans that basal testosterone predicts cortisol reactivity and behavior following changes in social status. Implications for the social endocrinology of dominance are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using the framework of social dominance theory, the current investigation tested for the contextual effects of adolescent peer groups on individuals, homophobie and social dominance attitudes. Results from multilevel models indicated that significant differences existed across peer groups on homophobic attitudes. In addition, these differences were accounted for on the basis of the hierarchy-enhancing or -attenuating climate of the group. A group socialization effect on individuals' social dominance attitudes over time was also observed. Furthermore, the social climate of the peer group moderated the stability of individuals" social dominance attitudes. Findings support the need to examine more proximal and informal group affiliations and earlier developmental periods in efforts to build more comprehensive theoretical models explaining when and how prejudiced and dominance attitudes are formed and the way in which they are perpetuated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

White Americans tend to believe that there has been greater progress toward racial equality than do Black Americans. The authors explain this difference by combining insights from prospect theory and social dominance theory. According to prospect theory, changes seem greater when framed as losses rather than gains. Social dominance theory predicts that White Americans tend to view increases in equality as losses, whereas Black Americans view them as gains. In Studies 1 and 2, the authors experimentally tested whether groups judge the same change differently depending on whether it represents a loss or gain. In Studies 3-6, the authors used experimental methods to test whether White participants who frame equality-promoting changes as losses perceive greater progress toward racial equality. The authors discuss theoretical and political implications for progress toward a just society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Four studies examined gender differences in self-construals and the role of social comparison in generating these differences. Consistent with previous research, Study 1 (N = 461) showed that women define themselves as higher in relational interdependence than men, and men define themselves as higher in independence/agency than women. Study 2 (N = 301) showed that within-gender social comparison decreases gender differences in self-construals relative to a control condition, whereas between-genders comparison increases gender differences on both relational interdependence and independence/agency. Studies 3 (N = 169) and 4 (N = 278) confirmed these findings and showed that changing self-construal changes gender differences in social dominance orientation. Across the 4 studies, strong evidence for the role of in-group stereotyping as mediator of the effect of gender on self-construal was observed on the relational dimension but not on the agentic dimension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A 16-nation study involving 8,360 participants revealed that hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men, assessed by the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory (P. Glick & S. T. Fiske, 1999), were (a) reliably measured across cultures, (b) positively correlated (for men and women, within samples and across nations) with each other and with hostile and benevolent sexism toward women (Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, P. Glick & S. T. Fiske, 1996), and (c) negatively correlated with gender equality in cross-national comparisons. Stereotype measures indicated that men were viewed as having less positively valenced but more powerful traits than women. The authors argue that hostile as well as benevolent attitudes toward men reflect and support gender inequality by characterizing men as being designed for dominance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social dominance orientation (SDO) has been proposed as an important variable in the explanation of prejudice. We distinguish between three conceptualizations of SDO: SDO as a personality trait (personality model), SDO as a moderator of the effects of situational variables (Person X Situation model), and SDO as a mediator of the effect of social position on prejudice (group socialization model [GSM]). Four studies (N = 1,657) looking at the relations between social positions, SDO, and prejudice in a natural setting and in a laboratory setting provide strong support for the GSM. In contrast to previous correlational findings, there is evidence of a cause (dominant social position), an effect (prejudice increases), and a mediator (SDO), These results suggest new perspectives on the integration of individual and contextual determinants of prejudice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The hypothesis that subjective well-being (SWB) is heritable and genetically correlated with Dominance was tested using 128 zoo chimpanzees. Dominance was a chimpanzee-specific personality factor including items reflecting Extraversion and low Neuroticism. SWB was measured with a 4-item scale. The best behavior genetic model included additive genetic and nonshared environmental effects for SWB and Dominance, marginal maternal effects for SWB, a high genetic correlation, and a low nonshared environmental correlation. Results indicated that the shared variance between SWB and Dominance was a consequence of common genes and that the unique variance between SWB and Dominance was a consequence of the nonshared environment. These findings indicate that common genes may underlie the correlation between human personality factors and SWB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research in the domain of attitude change has described 2 primary dimensions of thinking that impact persuasion processes and outcomes: the extent (amount) of thinking and the direction (valence) of issue-relevant thought. The authors examined the possibility that another, more meta-cognitive aspect of thinking is also important--the degree of confidence people have in their own thoughts. Four studies test the notion that thought confidence affects the extent of persuasion. When positive thoughts dominate in response to a message, increasing confidence in those thoughts increases persuasion, but when negative thoughts dominate, increasing confidence decreases persuasion. In addition, using self-reported and manipulated thought confidence in separate studies, the authors provide evidence that the magnitude of the attitude-thought relationship depends on the confidence people have in their thoughts. Finally, the authors also show that these self-validation effects are most likely in situations that foster high amounts of information processing activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2 studies, the antecedents and consequences of "principled objections" to affirmative action (specific, "race-neutral" reasons for opposing the policy) among Whites were examined. In Study 1, data from a probability sample of Los Angeles adults indicated the following: (a) that principled-objection endorsement was driven not merely by race-neutral values but also by dominance-related concerns like racism; (b) that principled objections mediated the effects of group dominance; and (c) that education strengthened-- rather than attenuated--the relationship between dominance-related concerns and principled objections, whereas it left the relationship between race-neutral values and the latter essentially unchanged. In Study 2, the education findings were conceptually replicated in a panel study of undergraduates: The completion of additional years of college boosted the correlation between racism and principled objections, whereas it had no effect on the predictive power of conservatism. These results provide support for a general group-dominance approach, which suggests that factors like racism continue to shape White opposition to race-targeted policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three studies examined the independent effects of social acceptance and dominance on self-esteem. In Studies 1 and 2, participants received false feedback regarding their relative acceptance and dominance in a laboratory group, and state self-esteem was assessed. Results indicated that acceptance and dominance feedback had independent effects on self-esteem. Study 2 showed that these effects were not moderated by individual differences in participants' self-reported responsivity to being accepted versus dominant. In Study 3, participants completed multiple measures of perceived dominance, perceived acceptance, and trait self-esteem. Results showed that both perceived dominance and perceived acceptance accounted for unique variance in trait self-esteem, but that perceived acceptance consistently accounted for substantially more variance than perceived dominance. Also, trait self-esteem was related to the degree to which participants felt accepted by specific people in their lives, but not to the degree to which participants thought those individuals perceived them as dominant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation have been proposed as 2 major individual-difference variables underlying prejudice. This study examined the relationships of these variables to 3 forms of prejudice--affective responses, stereotyping, and attitudes toward equality enhancement--directed at 2 social groups--African Americans and homosexuals. Canonical correlation analyses showed that social dominance orientation was related to most forms of prejudice directed toward both groups and that right-wing authoritarianism was related to affective responses to and stereotyping of homosexuals. In addition, it was found that, as predicted by the social dominance model, stereotyping mediated the relationships between social dominance orientation and other forms of prejudice and that social dominance orientation mediated gender differences in expressions of prejudice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The accessibility of dominance ideation (as opposed to other types of ideation) was measured among parents with high or low perceived power as caregivers. Parents made comparative judgments of self versus child under concurrent memory load or no-load conditions. As predicted, dominance comparisons were found to be highly accessible for low-power parents; that is, attentional load served to increase response latencies in all conditions except those in which low-power parents made dominance judgments. Under cognitive load, low-power parents (unlike high-power parents) rated child as more dominant than self; under no load, however, they rated self as more dominant than child. Decision reversals in the absence of cognitive load were interpreted as "defensive corrections." Findings are discussed with respect to the elevated use of coercive control tactics by low-power parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predictions from interpersonal traits to affect were examined in the context of 3 models. In the global trait model, traits were used to predict affect aggregated over a 20-day period. In the situational congruence model, traits were used to predict affect in trait-relevant situations. In the behavioral concordance model, the co-occurrence between behaviors and affect was examined for individual participants, and then traits were used to predict the degree to which behavior and affect co-occurred. No support was found for the global trait and situational congruence models. Support was found for the behavioral concordance model for 3 of the 4 traits. Individuals high on agreeableness and quarrelsomeness experienced pleasant affect when they engaged in behaviors concordant with their traits. Individuals high on agreeableness, quarrelsomeness, and dominance experienced unpleasant affect when they engaged in behaviors opposite to their traits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Descriptions of self (e.g., "I am dominant") may reflect not only a person's behavioral tendencies but also idiosyncratic definitions of the social concepts and categories being considered. Five studies revealed that participants who differed in their self-ratings along trait dimensions also tended to associate different behaviors and performances with those traits. For example, participants who described themselves as dominant tended to emphasize desirable over undesirable behaviors and characteristics in their definitions of the trait, whereas self-described nondominants highlighted the opposite. Participants' self-ratings on dominance were also influenced by making positive or negative examples of dominant behavior salient to them. Moreover, when participants were induced to shift self-descriptions in self-serving ways, they tended to do so by revising their prototype of the trait in question. Discussion centers on the implications of these findings for the prediction of behavior and the interpretation of some social science results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three multimethod studies (total N = 348) probed the hypothesis that women's attraction to men would be influenced by male prosocial orientation. In Study 1, prosocial men were rated as more physically and sexually attractive, socially desirable, and desirable as dates than were nonprosocial men. Dominant men were no more attractive than low-dominance men, and male dominance did not interact with male prosocial orientation in eliciting attraction from women. In Study 2, prosocial orientation was manipulated to avoid "personalism," but still-affected attraction. Across all measures attraction was an interactive function of dominance and prosocial tendencies. Dominance alone did not increase any form of attraction measured. In Study 3, male prosocial tendencies and dominance interacted to affect women's attraction to men. Results are discussed in terms of the place of altruism and dominance in evolutionary approaches to human interpersonal attraction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social dominance orientation (SDO), one's degree of preference for inequality among social groups, is introduced. On the basis of social dominance theory, it is shown that (a) men are more social dominance-oriented than women, (b) high-SDO people seek hierarchy-enhancing professional roles and low-SDO people seek hierarchy-attenuating roles, (c) SDO was related to beliefs in a large number of social and political ideologies that support group-based hierarchy (e.g., meritocracy and racism) and to support for policies that have implications for intergroup relations (e.g., war, civil rights, and social programs), including new policies. SDO was distinguished from interpersonal dominance, conservatism, and authoritarianism. SDO was negatively correlated with empathy, tolerance, communality, and altruism. The ramifications of SDO in social context are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]