Social Dominance Theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social Dominance Theory is a social psychological theory of group conflict which describes human society as consisting of oppressive group-based hierarchical structures. According to the theory, individual people possess varying levels of preference for social dominance, which can be measured by the social psychological measure Social Dominance Orientation.

Social Dominance Theory was first formulated by Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto. The key principles of the theory are that societies are stratified by age, sex and group. These group divisions are based on ethnicity, religion, nationality, and so on. Human social hierarchies consist of a hegemonic group at the top and negative reference groups at the bottom. More powerful social roles are increasingly likely to be occupied by a hegemonic group member (for example, an older white male). Males are more dominant than females, and they possess more political power (the iron law of andrarchy). Most high-status positions are held by males (Sidanius, 1992). Prejudiced beliefs such as racism, sexism, nationalism and classism are all manifestations of this same principle of social hierarchy. The origin of social hierarchies is given an evolutionary explanation: prehistoric human societies organized in hierarchies were more efficient at combat than non-hierarchical groups, giving a competitive advantage to groups disposed towards social hierarchies (Sidanius, 1992).

Various processes of hierarchical discrimination are driven by legitimizing myths (Sidanius, 1992), which are beliefs justifying social dominance, such as paternalistic myths (hegemony serves society, looks after incapable minorities), reciprocal myths (suggestions that hegemonic groups and outgroups are actually equal), and sacred myths (the divine right of kings - a religion-approved mandate for hegemony to govern). Pratto et al (1994) suggest the Western idea of meritocracy and individual achievement as an example of a legitimizing myth, and argues that meritocracy produces only an illusion of fairness. SDT draws on social identity theory, suggesting that social comparison processes drive individual discrimination (ingroup favouritism). Discriminatory acts (such as insulting remarks about minorities) are performed because they increase the actors self-esteem.

Consistent with the assumption that males tend to be more dominant than females, SDT predicts that males will tend to have a higher social dominance orientation. As such, males will tend to function as hierarchy enforcers, that is, they will carry out acts of discrimination such as the systematic terror by police officers (Sidanius, 1992) and the extreme example of death squads and concentration camps. This is supported by evidence such as police officers possessing measurably higher levels of SDO (citation needed).

Social Dominance Theory is a consideration of group conflict which describes human society as consisting of oppressive group-based hierarchy structures. Jim Sidanius is a major proponent of SDT.The key principles of Social Dominance Theory are:

• Individuals are stratified by age, sex and group. Group identification is based on ethnicity, religion, nationality, and so on.
• Human social hierarchy consists of a hegemonic group at the top and negative reference groups at the bottom
• As a role gets more powerful, the probability it is occupied by a hegemonic group member increases (Law of increasing proportion)
• Males are more dominant than females; they possess more political power (the iron law of andrachy). Most high-power positions will be held by males.
• Racism, Sexism, Nationalism and Classism are all manifestations of this same principle of social hierarchy.

The reason that social hierarchies exist in human societies is that they were necessary for survival of inter-group competition during conflict over resources. Essentially, groups organised in hierarchies were more efficient at combat than groups who were organised in other ways, giving a competitive advantage to groups disposed towards social hierarchies.

Social Dominance Theory explains the mechanisms of group hierarchy oppression using three basic mechanisms:

• Aggregated individual discrimination (ordinary discrimination)
• Aggregated institutional discrimination (discrimination by governmental and business institutions)
  • Systematic Terror (police violence, death squads, etc)
• Behavioural asymmetry
  • systematic outgroup favouritism or deference (minorities favour hegemony individuals)
  • asymmetric ingroup bias (as status increases, opposition to interracial mixing increases)
  • self-handicapping (low expectations of minorities are self-fulfilling prophecies)
  • ideological asymmetry (as status increases, so do discriminatory political beliefs eg conservatism)

These processes are driven by legitimizing myths, which are beliefs justifying social dominance:

• paternalistic myths (hegemony serves society, looks after incapable minorities)
• reciprocal myths (suggestions that hegemonic and outgroups are actually equal)
• sacred myths (Divine right of kings - religion-approved mandate for hegemony to govern)

It is suggested that the Western idea of meritocracy (individual achievement) is an example of a legitimizing myth, i.e. meritocracy is false and produces only an illusion of fairness.

SDT draws on social identity theory, suggesting that social comparison processes drive individual discrimination (ingroup favouritism). Such acts are performed because they increase the actors self-esteem.

SDT states that an individual's level of discrimination and domination can be conceptualised, or measured, with the social dominance orientation. This is an individual set of beliefs, sometimes viewed as something akin to a personality-trait, which describes the actors views on social domination and the extent to which they will aspire to gain more power and climb the social ladder. For instance, the SDO6 scale measures social dominance orientation by agreement with statements such as "Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place" and "Its probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups at the bottom."

Consistent with the assumption that males tend to be more dominant than females, SDT posits that males will tend to have a higher social dominance orientation. As such, males will tend to function as hierarchy enforcers, that is, they will carry out acts of discrimination such as the systematic terror by police officers and the extreme example of death squads and concentration camps.

The biological reason for this difference in dominance is the relationship with androgens, primarily testosterone. Male levels of testosterone are much higher than that of females. Higher levels of androgens are correlated with sexual aggression, dominance, spontaneous aggression and decreased restraint of aggression. There is also a correlation between gains in social status and increased testosterone.

Interestingly, the asymmetry of social groups comes into consideration here too. High-testosterone males in negative reference groups are much more likely to be delinquent criminals, and end up in jail, or victims of homicide. High-testosterone males in the hegemonic group will tend to quickly climb the social ladder and

Interestingly, the asymmetry of social groups comes into consideration here too. High-testosterone males in negative reference groups are much more likely to be delinquent criminals, and end up in jail, or victims of homicide. High-testosterone males in the hegemonic group will tend to quickly climb the social ladder and be rewarded with social/political power.

SDT is influenced by Marxist and socio-biological ideas. Marx described the oppressive hierarchy of hegemonic group(s) dominating negative reference groups, in his examples the bourgeoisie (owning class) dominate the proletariat (working class) by controlling capital (the means of production), not paying workers enough, and so on. However Marx thought that the working class would eventually grasp the solution to this oppression and destroy the bourgeoisie in a revolution. Sidanius has similar ideas of oppressive social hierarchies, albeit broadened to include many more types of group, but is pessimistic about change; social dominance is described as a permanent state of society caused by human nature.

Socio-biology views human psychological traits to be ultimately understandable in terms of evolutionary fitness. SDT views group hierarchies as an evolutionary adaptation. Similarly the androgen-mediated dominance of males is explained by reproductive strategy differences between men and women. Criticisms of SDT might include:

Questioning the iron law of andrachy - for instance, in New Zealand many high-status governmental roles are held by females, including Governor-General, Prime Minister, Speaker of the House and head of the Supreme Court. There is a clear trend for an increasing status of women, for instance the gender pay gap continues to narrow, and the NZ Parliament is currently 28% women. It is only one hundred years since women were first given the vote; perhaps it will take several generations to achieve complete gender equality, but the trend is clearly present in modern Western societies.

Similarly, New Zealand is an example of a country where racism is mild at most and race relations so are fairly good. The living standards of Maori and Pacific Islanders is increasing, and there are now two Asian MPs in Parliament; furthermore they are both in right-wing parties (Pansy Yu Fong Wong of National and Kenneth Xiaoxuan Wang of ACT).

Questioning the permanence of social hierarchy oppression - Sidanius agrees with Marx, that social-group relations only appear when societies leave the hunter-gatherer stage. If society changes upon structural change, who is to say that further structural change which could eliminate social hierarchies is impossible? For instance, new genetic technologies could allow parents to equalize androgen-mediated dominance behaviour between the sexes. This would conceivably help reduce gender inequality.

Essentially, these arguments focus on the negative, pessimistic nature of Social Dominance Theory and argue that statistically, many social relations are getting better, rather than staying oppressive.

One could also argue ideologically, that social status is caused not by current oppression by hegemonic groups, but by historical material disadvantages to minority groups caused by colonialism and racist, imperialistic governments. These historical problems will take generations to sort out, but with current equality-of-opportunity, a gradual reduction in social inequality should be observed and eventually true group equality may be achieved.

Duckitt accepts the concept of Social Dominance Orientation and attempts to pair it to a related set of beliefs, Right Wing Authoritarianism. This is a set of beliefs which include a rigid view of morality, often fundamentalist religious views, but overall the feeling that the government should have a strong leader, taking action to censor certain social groups (often those who are viewed as physically or morally threatening).

Duckitt proposes a model of RWA and SDO including their production by socialization in childhood, personality, and worldview beliefs. A representation of the model:

Punitive socialisation causes social conformity. This leads to a view of the world as a dangerous, dog-eats-dog place. This fits with RWA beliefs, which influence ingroup and outgroup attitudes.

Similarly, unaffectionate socialisation causes a tough-minded attitude. The world is then viewed as a competitive place, similar to the jungle of the evolutionary past. A desire to compete fits with social dominance orientation, which, again, influences ingroup and outgroup attitudes.

There is a close interaction between the two streams. Firstly the two parenting styles, punitive socialisation and unaffectionate socialisation, are not mututally exclusive but are potentially both present. A competitive-jungle worldview is entirely compatible with seeing the world as a dangerous place. Also, once a person has RWA beliefs, it is likely that they will adapt matching, compatible SDO beliefs, and vice versa. Finally, outgroup and ingroup attitudes influence each other.

After developing this extensive theoretical model, Duckitt tested his model using more than 500 Auckland University students. He used structural equation modeling with correlational data to test the predictions of relations between the SDo, RWA, worldviews, parenting styles, and ingroup/outgroup attitudes.

All the predicted pathways were found to have significant (p < 0.05) correlational connections in the correct direction, vindicating the theoretical model.

There were a few unpredicted significant correlations. Dangerous-world beliefs directly affected anti-minority attitudes. Unaffectinate socialization had a negative correlation with social conformity - unaffectionate parenting style reduces social conformity beliefs. These correlations were significant at the p < 0.1 level.

A repetition of the study in South Africa produced broadly similar results, with differences in the level of overall prejudice (higher in South Africa).

Duckitt further examines the complexities of the interaction between RWA, SDO and a variety of specific ideological/prejudical beliefs and behaviour. For instance:

• RWA beliefs are activated by social threat or threatening outgroups
• SDO beliefs are activated by competition and intergroup inequalities in status and power
• RWA is a stronger predictor of prejudice when the outgroup is threatening
• When group status is unstable, SDO is associated with higher ingroup bias (than stable status situations)
• Outgroup liking is best predicted by similarity to ingroup, while outgroup respect is predicted by status and technological advancement

Duckitt concludes that RWA and SDO have been well studied, and points out that this way of examining belief-paradigms and motivation-schemas could also be useful for an examination of anti-authoritarian-libertarian and egalitarian-altrusitic ideologies.