Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

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.

  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.

  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.

  4. Bieri, J. (1955). Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 263–268. doi:10.1037/h0043308.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  25. Joireman, J. (2004). Relationships between attributional complexity and empathy. Individual Differences Research, 2, 197–202.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  33. Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 44, 1469–1481.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  44. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  50. Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1982). Measuring sex stereotypes. Beverly Hills: Sage.

  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.

  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.

Download references

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.

Author information

Correspondence to Rob Foels.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Foels, R., Reid, L.D. Gender Differences in Social Dominance Orientation: The Role of Cognitive Complexity. Sex Roles 62, 684–692 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9775-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Social dominance orientation
  • Gender differences
  • Cognitive complexity