Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social dominance theory and medical specialty choice

  • Published:
Advances in Health Sciences Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Understanding how medical students select their specialty is a fundamental issue for public health and educational policy makers. One of the factors that students take into account is a specialty’s prestige which hinges partly on its focus on technique rather than whole person. We examine the potential of a psychological framework, social dominance theory, to explain why some students, and not others, are drawn to more prestigious, technique-oriented specialties, based on their desire for hierarchy. We conducted a cross-sectional study among medical students at Institution X (N = 359). We examined the link between medical students’ characteristics i.e. social dominance orientation (SDO), gender, age, and their career intention. We also examined level of medical students’ SDO at different stages of the curriculum. SDO scores were significantly associated with technique-oriented career intentions (OR 1.56; 95 % CI [1.18, 2.06]; p = 0.001). The effect was independent of gender. Medical students’ SDO scores were significantly higher in later stages of the medical curriculum (F = 6.79; p = 0. 001). SDO is a significant predictor of medical students’ career intention. SDO scores are higher in students during the clinical phase of the curriculum. Medical socialization, involving the internalization of implicit and explicit norms, particularly in hospital settings, is likely to underpin our findings. This theory illuminates consistent findings in the literature on specialty prestige and the influence of medical school on career choice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Apker, J., & Eggly, S. (2004). Communicating professional identity in medical socialization: Considering the ideological discourse of morning report. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 411–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, K. L., & Phillips, J. P. (2010). Finding, recruiting, and sustaining the future primary care physician workforce: A new theoretical model of specialty choice process. Academic Medicine, 85, S81–S88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bland, C. J., Meurer, L. N., & Maldonado, G. (1995). Determinants of primary care specialty choice: A non-statistical meta-analysis of the literature. Academic Medicine, 70, 620–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, S. D., Clark-Chiarelli, N., Peters, A. S., & Singer, J. D. (1996). Academia’s chilly climate for primary care. Journal of the American Medical Association, 276, 677–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borges, N. J., & Gibson, D. D. (2005). Personality patterns of physicians in person-oriented and technique-oriented specialties. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 4–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borges, N. J., & Osmon, W. R. (2001). Personality and medical specialty choice: Technique orientation versus people orientation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 22–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burack, J. H., Irby, D. M., Carline, J. D., Ambrozy, D. M., Ellsbury, K. E., & Stritter, F. T. (1997). A study of medical students’ specialty-choice pathways: Trying on possible selves. Academic Medicine, 72, 534–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chazal, S., & Guimond, S. (2003). La théorie de la dominance sociale et les choix d’orientation scolaire et de rôles sociaux des filles et des garçons. L’orientation scolaire et professionnelle, 32, 595–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 334–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, M. T., Sullivan, A. M., Peters, A. S., Clark-Chiarelli, N., Zotov, N., Martin, N., et al. (2003). Variation in predictors of primary care career choice by year and stage of training: A national survey. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18, 159–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costello, K., & Hodson, G. (2010). Exploring the roots of dehumanization: The role of animal–human similarity in promoting immigrant humanization. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulehan, J., & Williams, P. C. (2001). Vanquishing virtue: The impact of medical education. Academic Medicine, 76, 598–605.

  • Creed, P. A., Searle, J., & Rogers, M. E. (2010). Medical specialty prestige and lifestyle preferences for medical students. Social Science and Medicine, 71, 1084–1088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dambrun, M., Kamiejski, R., Haddadi, N., & Duarte, S. (2009). Why does social dominance orientation decrease with university exposure to the social sciences? The impact of institutional socialization and the mediating role of “geneticism”. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 88–100.

  • Davis, B. E., Nelson, D. B., Sahler, O. J. Z., McCurdy, F. A., Goldberg, R., & Greenberg, L. W. (2001). Do clerkship experiences affect medical students’ attitudes toward chronically ill patients? Academic Medicine, 76, 815–820.

  • Davis-Floyd, R. (2001). The technocratic, humanistic, and holistic paradigms of childbirth. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 75, S5–S23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis-Floyd, R., & St-John, G. (1998). From doctor to healer: The transformative journey. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

  • De Oliveira, P., Guimond, S., & Dambrun, M. (2012). Power and legitimizing ideologies in hierarchy-enhancing vs hierarchy-attenuating environments. Political Psychology, 33, 867–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dopelt, K., Yahav, Z., Urkin, J., Bachner, Y., & Davidovitch, N. (2014). The social role of the faculties of medicine: Physicians’ perception of the dominant orientation of their medical studies and social involvement. Harefuah, 153(87–91), 126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duarte, S., Dambrun, M., & Guimond, S. (2004). La dominance sociale et les «mythes légitimisateurs»: Validation française de l’échelle d’orientation à la dominance sociale. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 17, 97–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekehammar, B. O., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson, I. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big five personality, social dominance orientation, or right-wing authoritarianism? European Journal of Personality, 18, 463–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geist, P., & Dreyer, J. (1993). The demise of dialogue: A critique of medical encounter ideology. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 233–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorenflo, D., Ruffin, M., & Sheets, K. (1994). A multivariate model for specialty preference by medical students. Journal of Family Practice, 39, 570–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith III, C. H., & Wilson, J. F. (2001). The loss of student idealism in the 3rd-year clinical clerkships. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 24, 61–71.

  • Guimond, S. (2000). Group socialization and prejudice: The social transmission of intergroup attitudes and beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 335–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 697–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haley, H., & Sidanius, J. (2005). Person-organization congruence and the maintenance of group-based social hierarchy: A social dominance perspective. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8, 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinze, S. W. (1999). Gender and the body of medicine or at least some body parts: (Re)constructing the prestige hierarchy of medical specialties. Sociological Quarterly, 40, 217–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hojat, M., Vergare, M. J., Maxwell, K., Brainard, G., Herrine, S. K., Isenberg, G. A., et al. (2009). The devil is in the third year: A longitudinal study of erosion of empathy in medical school. Academic Medicine, 84, 1182–1191.

  • Hosmer, D., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

  • Jetten, J., & Iyer, A. (2010). Different meanings of the social dominance orientation concept: Predicting political attitudes over time. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 385–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, J., Brown, J. B., & Russell, G. (2003). Choosing family medicine. What influences medical students? Canadian Family Physician, 49, 1131–1137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, S. R., & Hoban, J. D. (2003). Predicting career decisions in primary care medicine: A theoretical analysis. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 23, 68–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lempp, H., & Seale, C. (2004). The hidden curriculum in undergraduate medical education: Qualitative study of medical students’ perceptions of teaching. British Medical Journal, 329, 770–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhi, G. S., Parker, G. B., Parker, K., Carr, V. J., Kirkby, K. C., Yellowlees, P., et al. (2003). Attitudes toward psychiatry among students entering medical school. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 107, 424–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manuel, R. S., Borges, N. J., & Jones, B. J. (2009). Person-oriented versus technique-oriented specialties: early preferences and eventual choice. Medical Education Online, 14, 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norredam, M., & Album, D. (2007). Prestige and its significance for medical specialties and diseases. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 35, 655–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratto, F., Liu, J. H., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih, M., Bachrach, H., et al. (2000). Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of inequality across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 369–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 741–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, V. A., Jernstedt, G. C., & Reber, E. S. (2001). Understanding and improving medical student specialty choice: A synthesis of the literature using decision theory as a referent. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 13, 117–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosoff, S. M., & Leone, M. C. (1991). The public prestige of medical specialties: Overviews and undercurrents. Social Science and Medicine, 32, 321–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, I., Gowans, M., Wright, B., Brenneis, F., Banner, S., & Boone, J. (2011). Determinants of choosing a career in family medicine. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 183, E1–E8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senf, J. H., Campos-Outcalt, D., & Kutob, R. (2003). Factors related to the choice of family medicine: A reassessment and literature review. The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 16, 502–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Ho, A. K., Sibley, C., & Duriez, B. (2013). You’re inferior and not worth our concern: The interface between empathy and social dominance orientation. Journal of Personality, 81, 313–323.

  • Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambirdge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, J., & Esposto, F. (2003). How important are economic factors in choice of medical specialty? Health Economics, 12, 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wear, D. (1997). Professional development of medical students: Problems and promises. Academic Medicine, 72, 1056–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, J. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, A., & Trollope-Kumar, K. (2014). Reflections: An inquiry into medical students’ professional identity formation. Medical Education, 48, 489–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, B., Scott, I., Woloschuk, W., & Brenneis, F. (2004). Career choice of new medical students at three Canadian universities: Family medicine versus specialty medicine. CMAJ, 170, 1920–1924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S., Wong, A., & Newill, C. (1997). The impact of role models on medical students. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 12, 53–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The first author wishes to thank Vincent Lorant and Stephanie Demoulin for their support and guidance in the study.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Health and Society (IRSS), Université catholique de Louvain, Clos Chapelle-aux-Champs 30, B1.30.15, 1200, Brussels, Belgium

    Brice Lepièce, Christine Reynaert & Philippe van Meerbeeck

  2. Faculty of Medicine, Centre for Medical Education, McGill University, Montréal, Canada

    Valérie Dory

Authors
  1. Brice Lepièce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine Reynaert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philippe van Meerbeeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Valérie Dory
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brice Lepièce.

Appendix

Appendix

The 16 item Social Dominance Orientation Scale (Pratto et al. 1994; Appendix C).

  1. 1.

    Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.

  2. 2.

    Group equality should be our ideal (R).

  3. 3.

    In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups.

  4. 4.

    We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups (R).

  5. 5.

    It’s OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than others.

  6. 6.

    Increased social equality is beneficial to society (R).

  7. 7.

    To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups.

  8. 8.

    We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally (R).

  9. 9.

    If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems.

  10. 10.

    No group should dominate in society (R).

  11. 11.

    It would be good if groups could be equal (R).

  12. 12.

    All groups should be given an equal chance in life (R).

  13. 13.

    It’s probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom.

  14. 14.

    Inferior groups should stay in their place.

  15. 15.

    We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible (R).

  16. 16.

    Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.

Source: Pratto et al. (1994).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lepièce, B., Reynaert, C., van Meerbeeck, P. et al. Social dominance theory and medical specialty choice. Adv in Health Sci Educ 21, 79–92 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9612-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9612-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation