Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning and Unlearning the Myths We Are Taught: Gender and Social Dominance Orientation

  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Within social dominance theory (SDT) the invariance hypothesis predicts that men will be higher in social dominance orientation (SDO) even after accounting for cultural or social factors. We tested this hypothesis by measuring the relationship between sex and SDO while controlling for the effects of gender socialization. Our first two studies demonstrated that the sex difference in SDO is mediated by gender socialization and that masculinity and femininity are differentially related to two different forms of SDO. Study 3 extended these results by showing that SDO decreases as a function of feminist identity acquisition. These results suggest that the status hierarchy based on gender has properties of arbitrary classifications such as race, and they call into question the classification of gender as invariant within SDT.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand-McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargad, A., & Hyde, J. S. (1991). Women's studies: A study of feminist identity development in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 181-201.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1974). Measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettencourt, B. A., Dorr, N., Charlton, K., & Hume, D. L. (2001). Status differences and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520-542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B. (1979). Ingroup bias and the minimal group paradigm: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, R. (1971). Sex differences in ego functioning: Exploratory studies of agency and communion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 37, 267-277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, P., & Westergren, H. (1999). Gender identity: Affected by social change? Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 19-30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, W. E. (1971). The Negro to Black conversion experience: Towards a psychology of Black liberation. Black World, 20, 13-27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downing, N. E., & Roush, K. L. (1985). From passive acceptance to active commitment: A model of feminist identity development for women. Counseling Psychologist, 13, 695-709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, M., Weis, L., Addelston, J., & Marusza, J. (1997). (In)secure times: Constructing White working-class masculinities in the late 20th century. Gender and Society, 11, 52-68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerstmann, E. A., & Kramer, D. A. (1997). Feminist identity development: Psychometric analyses of two feminist identity scales. Sex Roles, 36, 327-348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson-King, D., & Stewart, A. J. (1997). Feminist consciousness: Perspectives on women's experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 415-426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, C. L., & Ellis, J. B. (1998). Assessing the current validity of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 39, 929-941.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-27.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karniol, R., Gabay, R., Ochion, Y., & Harari, Y. (1998). Is gender or gender-role orientation a better predictor of empathy in adolescence? Sex Roles, 39, 45-59.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubinski, D., Tellegen, A., & Butcher, J. N. (1983). Masculinity, femininity, and androgyny viewed and assessed as distinct concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 428-439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A Collective Self-Esteem Scale: Self-evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302-318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103-122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parson, T., & Bales, R. F. (1955). Family, socialization, and interaction process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., & Sidanius, J. (1997). The gender gap: Differences in political attitudes and social dominance orientation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 49-68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., Sidanius, J., & Siers, B. (1997). The gender gap in occupational role attainment: A social dominance approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 37-53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratto, F., Tatar, D. G., & Conway-Lanz, S. (1999). Who gets what and why: Determinants of social allocations. Political Psychology, 20, 127-150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J. (1993). The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: A social dominance perspective. In S. Iyengar & W. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 183-219). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., Levin, S., & Pratto, F. (1996). Consensual social dominance orientation and its correlates with the hierarchical structure of American society. International Journals of Intercultural Relations, 20, 385-408.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1993). The dynamics of social dominance and the inevitability of oppression. In P. Sniderman, P. E. Tetlock, & E. G. Carmines (Eds.), Prejudice, politics, and race in America today (pp. 173-211). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    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., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1994). Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 998-1011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Brief, D. (1995). Group dominance and the political psychology of gender: A cross-cultural comparison. Political Psychology, 16, 381-396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Mitchell, M. (1994). In-group identification, social dominance orientation, and differential intergroup social allocation. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 151-167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J. Pratto, J., & Rabinowitz, J. L. (1994). Gender, ethnic status, and ideological asymmetry: A social dominance perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 194-216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unger, R. K. (1979). Female and male: Psychological perspectives. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York

    Rob Foels & Christopher J. Pappas

Authors
  1. Rob Foels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher J. Pappas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rob Foels.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Foels, R., Pappas, C.J. Learning and Unlearning the Myths We Are Taught: Gender and Social Dominance Orientation. Sex Roles 50, 743–757 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000029094.25107.d6

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000029094.25107.d6

Search

Navigation