Search

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the actor–partner effects of attitudes toward group‐based inequality as measured by social dominance orientation (SDO) and marital quality, and the indirect actor–partner effects of SDO on marital quality via ambivalent sexism and partners' perceptions of their own relationship power toward their partner. Background: Previous research suggests that certain social attitudes play a role in relationship processes. However, it is unclear whether broader views on social inequality could have an effect on partners' marital quality. Method: Ninety heterosexual married couples in Turkey (N = 180) responded via an online survey on SDO, marital quality, relationship power, and ambivalent sexism. Actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) and actor–partner interdependence model of mediation (APIMeM) were conducted to examine the direct and indirect actor–partner effects. Results: For indirect effects, men's SDO was negatively associated with their marital quality through their relationship power and hostile sexism. No significant indirect effects were found for women. However, women's relationship power was positively and their benevolent sexism was negatively associated with their own and their partners' marital quality. Conclusion: Our findings help develop a more comprehensive understanding of how the political, social, and personal aspects of our lives are connected with one another. Implications: Our study points to the importance of exploring the topic of men's and women's views toward social inequality and its effects on their close relationships in clinical practice and relational education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research suggests that interacting with women may encourage civic and prosocial attitudes, yet findings to date have been limited to democracies notable for their egalitarian norms. Using simulated contact experiments under controlled conditions, this article tests hypotheses for the first time in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, arguably "hard cases" given persistent norms of patriarchy and gender segregation. Yet, despite stronger contexts for male dominance, results suggest that interacting with women may indeed steer Saudi and Kuwaiti men toward more civic and other-regarding orientations, including aspects of tolerance, egalitarianism, openness, and community rule-following. These findings add much-needed comparative perspective to experimental research on mixed-gender dynamics and align with broader work highlighting the benefits of diverse interactions for groups and nations. [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]

There has been considerable debate regarding whether Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) constitutes a global individual difference that predicts prejudice or is instead a product of self-categorization processes. Two studies addressed this issue by contrasting the predictive and discriminant validity of SDO and reworded SDO items assessing prescriptive attitudes toward inequality and dominance based on specific stratifications. Consistent with a global individual difference perspective, SDO predicted systematic between-person consistencies in attitudes toward inequality based on specific group-based stratifications. Moreover, SDO and specific stratification attitudes exerted reciprocal cross-lagged effects on one another over five months (Study 1, N = 252). These results indicate that SDO is partially derived from specific attitudes and experiences (a bottom-up effect), but once formed, SDO exerts a reciprocal (top-down) effect on specific attitudes and cognitions about group-based dominance across a range of stratifications. Cross-sectional analyses indicated that SDO also predicted generalized prejudice toward ethnic groups after controlling for ethnic stratification attitudes (Study 2, N = 138). Taken together, these results indicate that SDO reflects a global motivation to achieve group-based dominance that is partially determined by situational factors but not reducible to self-categorization processes associated with attitudes towards specific social groups or categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the recent influx of studies suggesting the negative societal impact of inequality, many remain skeptical of these scientific findings. Across four studies, we explore how political affiliation and social dominance orientation (SDO) interactively shape attitudes toward the emerging science on the repercussions of social inequality. Acceptance of this science was consistently polarized based on partisanship, with Republicans exhibiting less acceptance of the findings than Democrats. Consistent with a solution aversion perspective, correlational studies showed that this gap in acceptance was related to Republicans' distaste for policies they presumed would be introduced to solve this problem, rather than a direct aversion to equality itself (Studies 1a and 1b). Supporting this interpretation, experimental studies that manipulated the content of likely policy solutions to inequality to be less inconsistent with Republican beliefs resulted in abated Republican skepticism of these same findings (Study 2 and Study 3). However, we also observed an important boundary condition to the solution aversion effect and evidence for another driver of this case of denial: social dominance orientation (Study 2 and Study 3). The value of testing and considering multiple individual differences when explaining motivated scientific (dis)belief is discussed. • Republicans deny evidence that inequality is harmful more so than Democrats. • This denial is due to their distaste for typical solutions to inequality. • When solutions are less threatening to Republicans, they exhibit less denial. • This solution aversion effect is relegated to Republicans lower in SDO. • Those higher in SDO rejected these findings regardless of the proposed solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]