Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences

Living Edition
| Editors: Virgil Zeigler-Hill, Todd K. Shackelford

Social Dominance Orientation and Social Dominance Theory

Living reference work entry
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1267-1
How to cite

Synonyms

SDO; social dominance; group-based dominance; intergroup dominance; opposition to equality; intergroup antiegalitarianism

Definition

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a social–attitudinal dimension representing the extent to which an individual endorses the idea of hierarchy between groups in society or the dominance of certain groups over others (SDO is sometimes informally referred to as social dominancebut should not be confused with social dominance as defined in evolutionary and developmental psychology and behavioural studies as behavioural dominance in social or communal groups (e.g., dominating territory, social interaction/attention, or access to resources or mating opportunities)). SDO is one of the most widely researched constructs in social and political psychology, with individual differences in SDO found to be related to various personality traits and predictive of a wide range of social attitudes and behaviors across times and cultures. For example, higher...

Keywords

Social Dominance Social Dominance Orientation Rape Myth Protestant Work Ethic Dark Triad 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bergh, R., Sidanius, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2015). Dimensions of social dominance: Their personality and socio-political correlates within a New Zealand probability sample. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 44(2), 25–34.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, M. A. (2011). Learning from service: The effect of helping on helpers’ social dominance orientation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(4), 850–871. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00738.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corr, P. J., Hargreaves-Heap, S., Tsutsui, K., Russell, A., & Seger, C. (2013). Personality and social attitudes: Evidence for positive-approach motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7), 846–851. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dhont, K., Van Hiel, A., & Hewstone, M. (2014). Changing the ideological roots of prejudice: Longitudinal effects of ethnic intergroup contact on social dominance orientation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(1), 27–44. doi: 10.1177/1368430213497064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Duckitt, J. (2006). Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(5), 684–696. doi: 10.1177/0146167205284282.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer, R., Hanke, K., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Cultural and institutional determinants of social dominance orientation: A cross-cultural meta-analysis of 27 societies. Political Psychology, 33(4), 437–467. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00884.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385. doi: 10.1037/a0021847.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Haley, H., & Sidanius, J. (2005). Person-organization congruence and the maintenance of group-based social hierarchy: A social dominance perspective. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 187–203. doi: 10.1177/1368430205051067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Levin, S., Thomsen, L., Kteily, N., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2012). Social dominance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 583–606. doi: 10.1177/0146167211432765.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., et al. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000033.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hodson, G., Hogg, S. M., & MacInnis, C. C. (2009). The role of ‘dark personalities’ (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), big five personality factors, and ideology in explaining prejudice. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(4), 686–690. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jetten, J., & Iyer, A. (2010). Different meanings of the social dominance orientation concept: Predicting political attitudes over time. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 385–404. doi: 10.1348/014466609X435723.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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(3), 209–232. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1999.1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kteily, N. S., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2011). Social dominance orientation: Cause or ‘mere effect’? Evidence for SDO as a causal predictor of prejudice and discrimination against ethnic and racial outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 208–214. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.09.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kugler, M. B., Cooper, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2010). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality correspond to different psychological motives. Social Justice Research, 23(2–3), 117–155. doi: 10.1007/s11211-010-0112-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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(4), 741–763. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pratto, F., Liu, J. H., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih, M., Bachrach, H., & Hegarty, P. (2000). Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of inequality across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(3), 369–409. doi: 10.1177/0022022100031003005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Sibley, C. G., Harding, J. F., Perry, R., Asbrock, F., & Duckitt, J. (2010). Personality and prejudice: Extension to the HEXACO personality model. European Journal of Personality, 24(6), 515–534. doi: 10.1002/per.750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1993). The dynamics of social dominance and the inevitability of oppression. In P. Sniderman & P. E. Tetlock (Eds.), Prejudice, politics, and race in America today (pp. 173–211). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2012). Social dominance theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 418–438). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Ho, A. K., Sibley, C., & Duriez, B. (2013). You’re inferior and not worth our concern: The interface between empathy and social dominance orientation. Journal of Personality, 81(3), 313–323. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Simmons, A. L., & Umphress, E. E. (2015). The selection of leaders and social dominance orientation. Journal of Management Development, 34(10), 1211–1226. doi: 10.1108/JMD-11-2014-0149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Swami, V., Neofytou, R.-V., Jablonska, J., Thirlwell, H., Taylor, D., & McCreary, D. R. (2013). Social dominance orientation predicts drive for muscularity among British men. Body Image, 10(4), 653–656. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.07.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003). Why social dominance theory has been falsified. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 199–206. doi: 10.1348/014466603322127184.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Hiel, A., Pandelaere, M., & Duriez, B. (2004). The impact of need for closure on conservative beliefs and racism: Differential mediation by authoritarian submission and authoritarian dominance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(7), 824–837. doi: 10.1177/0146167204264333.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhu, L. L., Aquino, K., & Vadera, A. K. (2016). What makes professors appear credible: The effect of demographic characteristics and ideological beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(6), 862–880. doi: 10.1037/apl0000095.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MarketingDeakin UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OsnabrueckOsnabrueckGermany