Gender Differences in Social Dominance Orientation: The Role of Cognitive Complexity
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.
KeywordsSocial dominance orientation Gender differences Cognitive complexity
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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: 10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1997.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Joireman, J. (2004). Relationships between attributional complexity and empathy. Individual Differences Research, 2, 197–202.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1982). Measuring sex stereotypes. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar