Search

This paper explores the motivations and barriers behind the decision of economically disadvantaged Moldovans to refrain from migrating for better economic prospects. Drawing on 30 qualitative interviews with voluntary stayers, it uncovers a range of individual‐level characteristics that impede migration aspirations. These findings highlight the heightened sensitivity of lower‐wage stayers to their perceived social status abroad, their limited adaptability to new cultures and environments and their lower willpower to endure the challenges of long‐term gains. Moreover, this paper sheds light on their contentment with modest material gains and their aversion to migration risks. At the structural level, it emphasizes how social inequalities act as barriers for specific social groups, particularly the economically disadvantaged. These empirical insights challenge prevailing assumptions about the dominance of economic costs and network abroad in migration decision‐making, offering a fresh perspective on the social factors and costs shaping stayers' choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is defined as the individual disposition to accept hierarchy and dominance among groups. The measurement of SDO has evolved accordingly with the development of the theory, providing several versions of this scale. This scale has demonstrated indicators of reliability and validity across contexts, but it also has some limitations related to potential ambiguities and the phrasing of items. In this article we present the adaptation and validation of the SDO7 scale in Spanish for the Colombian context, where some of these limitations are addressed. In 2 studies conducted with conventional samples (nStudy1 = 394; nStudy2 = 867), we provide evidence for the psychometric properties of the scale and the predictive validity of its dimensions on social/political attitudes within the Colombian context. Factor analyses confirmed the factorial structure of two substantive dimensions of SDO (dominance and anti- egalitarianism). Regression analyses suggested that both dimensions, dominance and anti-egalitarianism, were accordingly associated with different attitudes that justify inequality: Dominance was associated with more explicit and hostile attitudes, whereas anti-egalitarianism was linked to subtler measures that maintain inequality. This article contributes to the comprehension of one of the processes related to the legitimacy of inequality and to the development of tools for its empirical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Moving beyond prior research establishing people's preference for underdogs, we examined the role of social dominance orientation (SDO) in shaping individuals' preference for underdogs versus top dogs in intergroup competitions. Because a victorious underdog can be seen as a threat to hierarchy, we predicted that SDO would be negatively associated with underdog support. In the context of two real-world group competitions—i.e., the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games—we found that SDO was positively associated with a greater preference for top dogs rather than underdogs (Studies 1–3). This SDO effect on group preference was mediated by beliefs about international sports competitions as opportunities for hierarchy maintenance versus equality promotion (Study 2). Furthermore, SDO and top dog preference were positively associated regardless of the hierarchy domain—i.e., countries' economic power versus athletic achievement (Study 3). We discuss the theoretical implications of these findings for intergroup research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: We suggest that because racial discrimination claims made by Blacks potentially challenge the legitimacy of racial inequality, whereas racial discrimination claims made by Whites potentially reinforce the legitimacy of racial inequality, social dominance orientation (SDO) may differentially predict reactions to Black and White discrimination claimants. Consistent with this idea, Studies 1 and 2 suggest that negativity toward Blacks who make discrimination claims increases as a function of participants' SDO, while SDO predicts increased positivity toward Whites who make discrimination claims. Moreover, Study 3 demonstrates that differential reactions to White discrimination claimants as a function of SDO are particularly likely to occur when racial inequality is thought to be unstable; when racial inequality is thought to be stable, SDO does not predict positive reactions to White discrimination claimants. In all, the reported studies provide evidence for the idea that reactions to Black and White discrimination claimants may serve a role in respectively challenging or reinforcing racial inequality. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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]

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]

In our research, we (Schmitt, Branscombe, & Kappen) questioned the assumption that social dominance orientation (SDO) scores reflect a general orientation toward group-based inequality. After considering the objections raised by Sidanius and Pratto, we conclude that our data pose problems for SDO's explanatory potential and social dominance theory's invariance hypothesis. We concur with Turner and Reynolds' contentions that social dominance theory is hindered by internal theoretical inconsistencies, and that attitudes toward intergroup inequality are better understood in terms of social identity processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Responds to comments on an article related to the social dominance theory (SDT), published in the 2003 issue of the 'British Journal of Social Psychology.' Criticisms on the SDT; Depiction of concepts on SDT; Analysis of factors for the creation of gender inequality and arbitrary-set inequality.

This article argues that social class, always a controversial and contested topic, can be viewed as a large group, and therefore, further study of social class dynamics, along with further study of large group dynamics, can be mutually informative. Definitions of modern social classes, various and multiple, essentially rank individuals and groups according to their access to resources and accumulated material or social wealth. Importantly, ranking implies a hierarchy of meaning or worth, thus devaluing large groups of people. Therefore, powerful group (class) forces exist that profoundly shape psychological development and intergroup relations, including of course, power relations. Five forces or large group dynamics are considered, each with application to understanding social class dynamics and a modern imperative: reducing inequality and fostering further international collaborations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social dominance theory distinguishes between hierarchy-enhancing environments, which promote inequality between groups (e.g.. American society), and hierarchy-attenuating environments, which promote equality between groups ( e.g.. universities). Consistent with predictions derived from this distinction, a panel study that assessed attitudes prior to university exposure and after one year of university exposure yielded three findings: (1) exposure to the university decreased antiegalitarian attitudes: (2) at the end of their first year of college, European Americans exhibited greater national attachment than Asian Americans, Latinos. and African Americans. but members of all groups exhibited similar levels of university attachment: and (3) European Americans exhibited a more positive association between ethnic attachment and national attachment than members of the other three groups, but members of all groups exhibited similar relationships between ethnic attachment and university attachment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Egalitarian society is "explained chiefly in terms of ecological or social factors that are self-organizing. However, egalitarian behavior is found in a wide variety of social and ecological settings, and the indications are that such societies are deliberately shaped by their members. This paper looks to egalitarian behavior as an instance of domination of leaders by their own followers, who are guided by an ethos that disapproves of hierarchical behavior in general and of bossiness in leaders in particular. A substantial cross-cultural survey reveals the specific mechanisms by which the political rank and file creates a reverse dominance hierarchy, an anomalous social arrangement which has important implications for cross-phylogenetic comparisons and for the theory of state formation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]