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, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Apker, J., & Eggly, S. (2004). Communicating professional identity in medical socialization: Considering the ideological discourse of morning report. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 411–429.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Borges, N. J., & Osmon, W. R. (2001). Personality and medical specialty choice: Technique orientation versus people orientation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 22–35.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Geist, P., & Dreyer, J. (1993). The demise of dialogue: A critique of medical encounter ideology. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 233–246.
Gorenflo, D., Ruffin, M., & Sheets, K. (1994). A multivariate model for specialty preference by medical students. Journal of Family Practice, 39, 570–576.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jordan, J., Brown, J. B., & Russell, G. (2003). Choosing family medicine. What influences medical students? Canadian Family Physician, 49, 1131–1137.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Norredam, M., & Album, D. (2007). Prestige and its significance for medical specialties and diseases. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 35, 655–661.
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.
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.
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.
Rosoff, S. M., & Leone, M. C. (1991). The public prestige of medical specialties: Overviews and undercurrents. Social Science and Medicine, 32, 321–326.
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.
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.
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.
Thornton, J., & Esposto, F. (2003). How important are economic factors in choice of medical specialty? Health Economics, 12, 67–73.
Wear, D. (1997). Professional development of medical students: Problems and promises. Academic Medicine, 72, 1056–1062.
Whitley, J. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126–134.
Wong, A., & Trollope-Kumar, K. (2014). Reflections: An inquiry into medical students’ professional identity formation. Medical Education, 48, 489–501.
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.
Wright, S., Wong, A., & Newill, C. (1997). The impact of role models on medical students. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 12, 53–56.
The first author wishes to thank Vincent Lorant and Stephanie Demoulin for their support and guidance in the study.
Conflict of interest
The 16 item Social Dominance Orientation Scale (Pratto et al. 1994; Appendix C).
Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.
Group equality should be our ideal (R).
In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups.
We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups (R).
It’s OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than others.
Increased social equality is beneficial to society (R).
To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups.
We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally (R).
If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems.
No group should dominate in society (R).
It would be good if groups could be equal (R).
All groups should be given an equal chance in life (R).
It’s probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom.
Inferior groups should stay in their place.
We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible (R).
Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.
Source: Pratto et al. (1994).
About this article
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
- Career choice
- Clinical clerkship
- Education, medical, undergraduate
- Medical students
- Social dominance