Advertisement

Social Dominance Orientation and Selfish Behaviors in Chinese Adolescents: the Mediating Role of Psychological Entitlement

  • Bao-yu Bai
  • Xu-yun Tan
  • Ning ZhangEmail author
  • Ying Yang
Article
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

Selfish behaviors widely occur in adolescence and can be detrimental to adolescents’ moral development and social well-being. However, little is known about the antecedents of selfish behaviors among adolescents in collectivist samples (e.g., East Asia). As social dominance orientation (SDO) is negatively related to morality and concerns about others, we aim to understand whether and how individual differences in SDO predict people’s intention to engage in selfish behaviors among Chinese adolescents. We hypothesize that people high in SDO would display higher level of psychological entitlement and, in turn, be more likely to engage in selfish behaviors. To examine this hypothesis, we measured SDO, psychological entitlement, and selfish behavioral intentions using hypothetical scenarios among 254 middle school students aged 12–18 years in China. The results demonstrated that, compared to middle school students low in SDO, those high in SDO reported stronger selfish behavioral intentions, and this effect was partially mediated by psychological entitlement. Directions for future research and implications for interventions to curb selfish behaviors among adolescents are discussed.

Keywords

Social dominance orientation Psychological entitlement Selfish behaviors Chinese adolescents 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a MOE Youth Project from the 12th Five-year Plan of National Education Sciences of China (EBA140363):The Influence of Psychological Entitlement on College Students’ Unethical Behaviors and Its Intervention Measures.

References

  1. Altemeyer, B. (1998). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Brunell, A. B., Staats, S., Barden, J., & Hupp, J. M. (2011). Narcissism and academic dishonesty: The exhibitionism dimension and the lack of guilt. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 323–328.Google Scholar
  3. Cai, H., Kwan, V. S. Y., & Sedikides, C. (2012). A socio-cultural approach to narcissism: The case of modern China. European Journal of Personality, 26, 529–535.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(1), 29–45.Google Scholar
  5. Decelles, K. A., Derue, D. S., Margolis, J. D., & Ceranic, T. L. (2012). Does power corrupt or enable? When and why power facilitates self-interested behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 681–689.Google Scholar
  6. Dillenberger, D., & Sadowski, P. (2012). Ashamed to be selfish. Theoretical Economics, 7(1), 99–124.Google Scholar
  7. Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Duckitt, J. (2006). Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(5), 684–696.Google Scholar
  9. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1861–1894.Google Scholar
  10. Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., Du, P. I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 75–93.Google Scholar
  11. Fetchenhauer, D., & Huang, X. (2004). Justice sensitivity and distributive decisions in experimental games. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(5), 1015–1029.Google Scholar
  12. Freeman, D., Aquino, K., & McFerran, B. (2009). Overcoming beneficiary race as an impediment to charitable donations: Social dominance orientation, the experience of moral elevation, and donation behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(1), 72–84.Google Scholar
  13. Guimond, S., Dambrun, M., Michinov, N., & Duarte, S. (2003). Does social dominance generate prejudice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 697–721.Google Scholar
  14. Heaven, P. C. L., & Bucci, S. (2001). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and personality: An analysis using the IPIP measure. European Journal of Personality, 15(1), 49–56.Google Scholar
  15. Henry, D. B., Schoeny, M. E., Deptula, D. P., & Slavick, J. T. (2007). Peer selection and socialization effects on adolescent intercourse without a condom and attitudes about the costs of sex. Child Development, 78(3), 825–838.Google Scholar
  16. Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2008). The spreading of disorder. Science, 322(5908), 1681–1685.Google Scholar
  17. Liang, J. (2016). A revisit of ‘moral and character education’ subject in junior-high school in China. China Journal of Social Work, 9(2), 103–111.Google Scholar
  18. Lippa, R., & Arad, S. (1999). Gender, personality, and prejudice: The display of authoritarianism and social dominance in interviews with college men and women. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(4), 463–493.Google Scholar
  19. Nicol, A. A. M., & Rounding, K. (2013). Alienation and empathy as mediators of the relation between social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism and expressions of racism and sexism. Personality & Individual Differences, 55(3), 294–299.Google Scholar
  20. Piff, P. K. (2014). Wealth and the inflated self: Class, entitlement, and narcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(1), 34–43.Google Scholar
  21. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.Google Scholar
  22. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.Google Scholar
  23. Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 191–263). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763.Google Scholar
  25. Rabinowitz, J. L. (2010). Go with the flow or fight the power? The interactive effects of social dominance orientation and perceived injustice on support for the status quo. Political Psychology, 20(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  26. Rutland, A., Killen, M., & Abrams, D. (2010). A new social-cognitive developmental perspective on prejudice: The interplay between morality and group identity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 280–291.Google Scholar
  27. Saucier, G. (2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 366–385.Google Scholar
  28. Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & Kappen, D. M. (2003). Attitudes toward group-based inequality: Social dominance or social identity? British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 161–186.Google Scholar
  29. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sinclair, S., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (1998). The interface between ethnic and social system attachment: The differential effects of hierarchy enhancing and hierarchy-attenuating environments. Journal of Social Issues, 54(4), 741–757.Google Scholar
  31. Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., & Mcbride, M. V. (2007). Authoritarian dynamics and unethical decision making: High social dominance orientation leaders and high right-wing authoritarianism followers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 67–81.Google Scholar
  32. Tan, H. B., & Forgas, J. P. (2010). When happiness makes us selfish, but sadness makes us fair: Affective influences on interpersonal strategies in the dictator game. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(3), 571–576.Google Scholar
  33. Tan, X., Liu, L., Huang, Z., Zhao, X., & Zheng, W. (2016). The dampening effect of social dominance orientation on awareness of corruption: Moral outrage as a mediator. Social Indicators Research, 125(1), 89–102.Google Scholar
  34. Tolmacz, R., & Mikulincer, M. (2011). The sense of entitlement in romantic relationships—Scale construction, factor structure, construct validity, and its associations with attachment orientations. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 28, 75–94.Google Scholar
  35. Wang, H. Q., & Peng, J. S. (2016). The impact of psychological entitlement on abusive management: The moderating role of intergenerational differences. Nanjing Social Sciences, 2, 39–46.Google Scholar
  36. Wölfer, R., Bull, H. D., & Scheithauer, H. (2012). Social integration in youth: Insights from a social network perspective. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16(2), 138–147.Google Scholar
  37. Wölfer, R., Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., & van Zalk, M. (2016). Developmental dynamics of intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes: Long-term effects in adolescence and early adulthood. Child Development, 87(5), 1466–1478.Google Scholar
  38. Yang, Y., Li, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Kou, Y. (2018). Chinese adolescents with higher social dominance orientation are less prosocial and less happy: A value-environment fit analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 54(5).  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12474.Google Scholar
  39. Zitek, E. M., Jordan, A. H., Monin, B., & Leach, F. R. (2010). Victim entitlement to behave selfishly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 245–255.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bao-yu Bai
    • 1
  • Xu-yun Tan
    • 2
  • Ning Zhang
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  • Ying Yang
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, School of PhilosophyWuhan UniversityWuhanChina
  2. 2.Institute of SociologyChinese Academy of Social SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.School of Public HealthZhejiang University School of MedicineHangzhouChina
  4. 4.The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of MedicineHangzhouChina
  5. 5.School of Psychology and Cognitive ScienceEast China Normal UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations