Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 62, Issue 9–10, pp 684–692 | Cite as

Gender Differences in Social Dominance Orientation: The Role of Cognitive Complexity

  • Rob Foels
  • Landon D. Reid
Original Article

Abstract

The present research examined the invariance hypothesis, which predicts lower levels of social dominance orientation (SDO) for women compared to men even when accounting for other factors. Previous research shows that gender linked variables mediate the gender difference in SDO. In two studies using undergraduates in the northeastern U.S., we tested mediation by cognitive complexity, a variable linked to social status but not to gender. Study 1 (n = 117) found that women had higher levels of attributional complexity, but not need for cognition. Study 2 (n = 206) further found that attributional complexity mediated the relationship between gender and SDO, suggesting that higher cognitive complexity due to low social status may be involved in gender differences in SDO.

Keywords

Social dominance orientation Gender differences Cognitive complexity 

Notes

Ackonowledgments

Portions of this paper were presented at the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues 2008 conference.

The authors thank Kate Jassin for her comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

  1. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other authoritarian personality. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47–92. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60382-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Ari, R., Kedem, P., & Levy-Weiner, N. (1992). Cognitive complexity and intergroup perception and evaluation. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 1291–1298. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(92)90171-K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bieri, J. (1955). Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 263–268. doi: 10.1037/h0043308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumberg, S. J., & Silvera, D. H. (1988). Attributional complexity and cognitive development: A look at the motivational and cognitive requirements for attribution. Social Cognition, 16, 253–266.Google Scholar
  6. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caricati, L. (2007). The relationship between social dominance orientation and gender: The mediating role of values. Sex Roles, 57, 159–171. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9231-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conway, M., Pizzamiglio, T., & Mount, L. (1996). Status communality, and agency: Implications for stereotypes of gender and other groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 25–38. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornelis, I., & Van Hiel, A. (2006). The impact of cognitive styles on authoritarianism based conservatism and racism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 37–50. doi: 10.1207/s15324834basp2801_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Costanzo, M. (1992). Training students to decode verbal and nonverbal cues: Effects on confidence and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 308–313. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dambrun, M., Guimond, S., & Duarte, S. (2002). The impact of hierarchy-enhancing vs. attenuating academic major on stereotyping: The mediating role of perceived social norm. Current Research in Social Psychology, 7, 114–136.Google Scholar
  13. Dambrun, M., Duarte, S., & Guimond, S. (2004). Why are men more likely to support group-based dominance than women?: The mediating role of gender identification. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 287–297. doi: 10.1348/0144666041501714.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Eagly, A. H., Diekman, A. B., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Koenig, A. M. (2004). Gender gaps in sociopolitical attitudes: A social psychological analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 796–816. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.796.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 699–724. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.911998091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Federico, C. M. (1998). The interactive effects of social dominance orientation, group status, and perceived stability on favoritism for high-status groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2, 119–143. doi: 10.1177/1368430299022002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fiske, S. T., & Dépret, E. (1996). Control, interdependence, and power: Understanding social cognition in its social context. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology, vol. 7 (pp. 31–61). New York: Wiley. doi: 10.1080/14792779443000094.Google Scholar
  18. Fletcher, G. J. O., Danilovics, P., Fernandez, G., Peterson, D., & Reeder, G. D. (1986). Attributional complexity: An individual differences measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 875–884. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.4.875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foels, R., & Pappas, C. J. (2004). Learning and unlearning the myths we are taught: Gender and social dominance orientation. Sex Roles, 50, 743–757. doi: 10.1023/B:SERS.0000029094.25107.d6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geis, F. L., Brown, V., Jennings, J., & Corrado-Taylor, D. (1984). Sex vs. status in sex-associated stereotypes. Sex Roles, 11, 771–785. doi: 10.1007/BF00287809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guimond, S., Dambrun, M., Michinov, N., & Duarte, S. (2003). Does social dominance generate prejudice?: Integrating individual and contextual determinates of intergroup cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 697–721. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.697.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Guimond, S., Chatard, A., Martinot, D., Crisp, R. J., & Redersdorff, S. (2006). Social comparison, self-stereotyping, and gender differences in self-construals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 221–242. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.221.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Huang, L., & Liu, J. H. (2005). Personality and social structural implications of the situational priming of social dominance orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 267–276. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jackson, L. A., & Hymes, R. W. (1985). Gender and social categorization: Familiarity and ingroup polarization in recall and evaluation. Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 81–88.Google Scholar
  25. Joireman, J. (2004). Relationships between attributional complexity and empathy. Individual Differences Research, 2, 197–202.Google Scholar
  26. Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 209–232. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1999.1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levin, S. (2004). Perceived group status differences and the effects of gender, ethnicity, and religion on social dominance orientation. Political Psychology, 25, 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levin, S., & Sidanius, J. (1999). Social dominance and social identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup favoritism or outgroup derogation? Political Psychology, 20, 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levy, S. R. (1999). Reducing prejudice: Lessons from social-cognitive factors underlying perceiver differences in prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 745–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lorenzi-Cioldi, R. (1998). Group status and perceptions of homogeneity. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology, vol. 9 (pp. 31–75). Chicester, England: Wiley. doi: 10.1080/14792779843000045.Google Scholar
  31. Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., Eagly, A. H., & Stewart, T. L. (1995). Homogeneity of gender groups in memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 193–217. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1995.1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacGeorge, E. L. (2003). Gender differences in attributions and emotions in helping contexts. Sex Roles, 48, 175–182. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1995.1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 44, 1469–1481.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (1990). Measures and models of perceived group variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 173–191. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pittman, T. S., & D’Agostino, P. R. (1989). Motivation and cognition: Control deprivation and the nature of subsequent information processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 465–480. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(89)90001-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 191–263. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60274-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271–320. doi: 10.1080/10463280601055772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ridgeway, C. L. (1991). The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70, 367–386. doi: 10.2307/2580244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ridgeway, C. L., & Bourg, C. (2004). Gender as status: An expectation states theory approach. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  41. Sargent, M. J. (2004). Less thought, more punishment: Need for cognition predicts support for punitive responses to crime. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1485–1493. doi: 10.1177/0146167204264481.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Schaller, M., Boyd, C., Yohannes, J., & O’Brien, M. (1995). The prejudiced personality revisited: Personal need for structure and formation of erroneous group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 544–555. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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, 161–186. doi: 10.1348/014466603322127166.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Martin, M., & Stallworth, L. (1991). Consensual racism and career track: Some implications of social dominance theory. Political Psychology, 12, 691–721. doi: 10.2307/3791552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sidanius, J., Liu, J. H., Shaw, J. S., & Pratto, F. (1994). Social dominance orientation, hierarchy attenuators and hierarchy-enhancers: Social dominance theory and the criminal justice system. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 338–366. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00586.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Liu, J., & Pratto, F. (2000). Social dominance orientation, anti-egalitarianism and the political psychology of gender: An extension and cross-cultural replication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 41–67. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200001/02)30:1<41::AID-EJSP976>3.0.CO;2-O.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Snellman, A., Ekehammar, B., & Akrami, N. (2009). The role of gender identification in social dominance orientation: Mediating or moderating the effect of sex? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 999–1012. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00469.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tam, K., Au, A., & Leung, A. K. (2008). Attributionally more complex people show less punitiveness and racism. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1074–1081. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2007.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1982). Measuring sex stereotypes. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Wilson, M. S., & Liu, J. H. (2003). Social dominance orientation and gender: The moderating role of gender identity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 187–198. doi: 10.1348/014466603322127175.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Zakrisson, I. (2008). Gender differences in social dominance orientation: Gender invariance may be situation invariance. Sex Roles, 59, 254–263. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9445-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyColgate UniversityHamiltonUSA

Personalised recommendations