Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Relationship between Social Dominance Orientation and Gender: The Mediating Role of Social Values

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Invariance hypothesis posits that, across cultures and contexts, men are higher in SDO than women. Social Dominance Theory (SDT) suggests that this difference is biologically determined and resulting from the differences in reproductive strategies between sexes. In this study we tested the hypothesis that values can explain gender–SDO differences. SDT suggests that SDO mediates gender differences in values. The contrasting hypothesis suggests that gender–SDO differences are mediated by values. Using SEM with a sample of Italian University students (N = 162, 80 men), the results provided strong support for the hypothesis of a mediation effect of values. Indeed, when controlling for values, gender difference in SDO disappear. Very similar findings were obtained for both GBD and OEQ. Results are discussed.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiello, A., Chirumbolo, A., Leone, L., & Pratto, F. (2005). Uno studio di Adattamento e Validazione della scala di Orientamento/Tendenza alla Dominanza Sociale (Pratto et al. 1994) [A study for the validation of the social dominance orientation scale]. Rassegna di Psicologia, 22, 65–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 30 (pp. 47–92). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). Amos 5.0 [Computer Software]. Chicago, IL: SPSS.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, M. (1988). Finding universal dimensions of individual variation in multicultural studies of values: The Rokeach and Chinese value surveys. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 1009–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capanna, C., Vecchione, M., & Schwartz, S. H. (2005). La misura dei valori: un contributo alla validazione del Portrait Values Questionnaire su un campione italiano. [The measurement of values. A contribution to the validation of the Portrait Value Questionnaire on an Italian sample]. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 246, 29–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caricati, L. (2007a). Orientamento alla dominanza sociale e ipotesi dell’asimmetria ideologica fra maschi e femmine: un’analisi con il modello di Rasch [Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and asymmetry hypothesis between men and women: An analysis via the Rasch Model]. (in press).

  • Caricati, L. (2007b). Organizzazione, gerarchia e struttura valoriale nei giovani adolescenti: il modello di Schwartz e l’utilizzo del Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ).[Organization, hierarchy and structure of values among young adolescents: The Schwartz’s Model and use of the Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ)]. Rassegna di Psicologia, 24, 147–158.

  • Chatard, A., Guimond, S., Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., & Désert, M. (2005). Domination masculine et identité de genre. Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 67–68, 113–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, (3rd edn.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Devos, T., Spini, D., & Schwartz, S. H. (2002). Conflicts among human values and trust in institutions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 481–494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 33 (pp. 41–113). San Diego, CA: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 75–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duriez, B., & Van Hiel, A. (2002). The march of modern fascism. A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1199–1213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Taunter (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • EURISPES (2005). Rapporto Italia 2005. Consulted online at: http://www.eurispes.it/.

  • Feather, N. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, psychological androgyny, and the structure of values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 604–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foels, R., & Pappas, C. J. (2004). Learning and unlearning the myths we are taught: Gender and social dominance orientation. Sex roles, 50, 743–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heaven, P. C. L., & Connors, J. R. (2001). A note on the value correlates of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 925–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 359–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, L. L., & Liu, J. H. (2005). Personality and social structural implications of the situational priming of social dominance orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 249–499.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A. (2005). Mediation analysis. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from: http://users.rcn.com/dakenny/mediate.htm.

  • Lyons, S., Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (2005). Are gender differences in basic human values a generational phenomenon? Sex roles, 53, 763–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maio, G. R., Olson, J. M., Bernard, M. M., & Luke, M. A. (2003). Ideologies, values, attitudes, and behaviour. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 283–308). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFarland, S. G. (1998). Toward a typology of prejudiced persons. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Society for Political Psychology, Montreal, Canada, July 1998.

  • McFarland, S. G. (1999). Personality, values, and latent prejudice: A test of a causal model. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Society for Political Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, July 1999.

  • McFarland, S. G., & Adelson, S. (1996). An omnibus study of personality, values, and prejudice. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Society for Political Psychology, Vancouver, British Columbia, July 1996.

  • Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 31 (pp. 191–263). San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratto, F., & Hegarty, P. (2000). The political psychology of reproductive strategies. Psychological Science, 11, 57–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prince-Gibson, E., & Schwartz, S. H. (1998). Value priorities and gender. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 49–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, J. J. (2006). Social dominance orientation: Theory or artefact?. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from: http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/sdo.html.

  • Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (2004). Social identity, system justification, and social dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et al., and Sidanius et al. Political Psychology, 25, 823–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryckman, R. M., & Houston, D. M. (2003). Value priorities in American and British female and male university students. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 127–138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 25 (pp. 1–65). New York: Academic.

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2004). Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory of universals in individual human values. In A. Tamayo & J. Porto (Eds.), Valores e trabalho [Values and work]. Brasilia: Editora Universidade de Brasilia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 32, 268–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 230–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burges, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 32,519–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 1010–1028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 26, 92–116.

    Article  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., Liu, J. H., & Pratto, F. (2000). Social dominance orientation, antiegalitarianism and the political psychology of gender: An extension and cross-cultural replication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 41–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Liu, J. (1992). The gulf war and the Rodney King beating: Implications of the general conservatism and social dominance perspectives. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 685–700.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 476–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Struch, N., Schwartz, S. H., & van der Kloot, W. A. (2002). Meanings of basic values for women and men: A cross-cultural analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 16–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. The American Psychologist, 51, 407–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003). Why social dominance theory has been falsified. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 199–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, D. (1995). Social dominance theory: Are the genes too tight? Paper presented at the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Washington, DC.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Parma, Borgo Carissimi, 10, 43100, Parma, Italy

    Luca Caricati

Authors
  1. Luca Caricati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca Caricati.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Caricati, L. The Relationship between Social Dominance Orientation and Gender: The Mediating Role of Social Values. Sex Roles 57, 159–171 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9231-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9231-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation