Social Dominance Orientation
Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality trait measuring an individual's support for social hierarchy and the extent to which they desire their in-group be superior to out-groups. SDO is conceptualized under social dominance theory as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination; that is, it is a measure of an individual's preference for hierarchy within any social system and the domination over lower-status groups. It is a predisposition toward anti-egalitarianism within and between groups.
Individuals who score high in SDO desire to maintain and, in many cases, increase the differences between social statuses of different groups, as well as individual group members. Typically, they are dominant, driven, tough, and seekers of power. People high in SDO also prefer hierarchical group orientations. Often, people who score high in SDO adhere strongly to belief in a "dog-eat-dog" world. It has also been found that men are generally higher than women in SDO measures. A study of undergraduates found that SDO does not have a strong positive relationship with authoritarianism.
Social dominance theory
SDO was first proposed by Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto as part of their social dominance theory (SDT). SDO is the key measurable component of SDT that is specific to it.
SDT begins with the empirical observation that surplus-producing social systems have a threefold group-based hierarchy structure:
- age-based,
- gender-based and
- arbitrary set-based,
...which can include race, class, sexual orientation, caste, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc.
Age-based hierarchies invariably give more power to adults and middle-age people than children and younger adults, and gender-based hierarchies invariably grant more power to one gender over others, but arbitrary-set hierarchies—though quite resilient—are truly arbitrary.
SDT is based on three primary assumptions:
While age- and gender-based hierarchies will tend to exist within all social systems, arbitrary-set systems of social hierarchy will invariably emerge within social systems producing sustainable economic surpluses. Most forms of group conflict and oppression (e.g., racism, homophobia, ethnocentrism, sexism, classism, regionalism) can be regarded as different manifestations of the same basic human predisposition to form group-based hierarchies. Human social systems are subject to the counterbalancing influences of hierarchy-enhancing (HE) forces, producing and maintaining ever higher levels of group-based social inequality, and hierarchy-attenuating (HA) forces, producing greater levels of group-based social equality.
SDO is the individual attitudinal aspect of SDT. It is influenced by group status, socialization, and temperament. In turn, it influences support for HE and HA "legitimating myths", defined as "values, attitudes, beliefs, causal attributions and ideologies" that in turn justify social institutions and practices that either enhance or attenuate group hierarchy. Legitimising myths are used by SDT to refer to widely accepted ideologies that are accepted as explaining how the world works—SDT does not have a position on the veracity, morality or rationality of these beliefs, as the theory is intended to be a descriptive account of group-based inequality rather than a normative theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation
Social Dominance Theory
Social dominance theory (SDT) is a social psychological theory of intergroup relations that examines the caste-like features of group-based social hierarchies, and how these hierarchies remain stable and perpetuate themselves. According to the theory, group-based inequalities are maintained through three primary mechanisms: institutional discrimination, aggregated individual discrimination, and behavioral asymmetry. The theory proposes that widely shared cultural ideologies (“legitimizing myths”) provide the moral and intellectual justification for these intergroup behaviors by serving to disguise privilege as “normal”. For data collection and validation of predictions, the social dominance orientation (SDO) scale was composed to measure acceptance of and desire for group-based social hierarchy, which was assessed through two factors: support for group-based dominance and generalized opposition to equality, regardless of the ingroup’s position in the power structure.
The theory was initially proposed in 1992 by social psychology researchers Jim Sidanius, Erik Devereux, and Felicia Pratto. It observes that human social groups consist of distinctly different group-based social hierarchies in societies that are capable of producing economic surpluses. These hierarchies have a trimorphic (three-form) structure, a description which was simplified from the four-part biosocial structure identified by van den Berghe (1978). The hierarchies are based on: age (i.e., adults have more power and higher status than children), gender (i.e., men have more power and higher status than women), and arbitrary-set, which are group-based hierarchies that are culturally defined and do not necessarily exist in all societies. Such arbitrariness can select on ethnicity (e.g., in the US, Bosnia, Asia, Rwanda), religion (Sunni versus Shia Islam), nationality, or any other socially constructed category. Social hierarchy is not only seen as a universal human feature – SDT argues there is substantial evidence it is shared, including the theorized trimorphic structure – among apes and other primates.
Contents
1 - Group hierarchy***
A primary assumption in social dominance theory (SDT) is that racism, sexism, nationalism, and classism are all manifestations of the same human disposition to form group-based social hierarchies. The social tiers described by multiple theories of stratification become organized into hierarchies due to forces that SDT believes are best explained in evolutionary psychology to offer high survival value. Human social hierarchies are seen to 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 and occupy higher status positions illustrating the iron law of androcracy.
As a role gets more powerful, Putnam’s law of increasing disproportion becomes applicable and the probability the role is occupied by a hegemonic group member increases.
SDT adds new theoretical elements attempting a comprehensive synthesis of explanations of the three mechanisms of group hierarchy oppression that are regulated by legitimizing myths:
- Aggregated individual discrimination (ordinary discrimination)
- Aggregated institutional discrimination (by governmental and business institutions)
- State terrorism (e.g., police violence, death squads)
- Behavioural asymmetry
- Deference–systematic outgroup favouritism (minorities favour members of dominant group)
- asymmetric ingroup bias (as status increases, in-group favoritism decreases)
- self-handicapping (self-categorization as an inferior becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy)
- ideological asymmetry (as status increases, so do beliefs legitimizing and/or enhancing the current social hierarchy)
Although the nature of these hierarchical differences and inequality differs across cultures and societies, significant commonalities have been verified empirically using the social dominance orientation (SDO) scale. In multiple studies across countries, the SDO scale has been shown to correlate robustly with a variety of group prejudices (including sexism, sexual orientation prejudice, racism, nationalism) and with hierarchy-enhancing policies.
2 - Legitimizing myths theory
SDT believes that decisions and behaviors of individuals and groups can be better understood by examining the “myths” that guide and motivate them. Legitimizing myths are consensually held values, attitudes, beliefs, stereotypes, conspiracy theories,[23] and cultural ideologies. Examples include the inalienable rights of man, divine right of kings, the protestant work ethic, and national myths. In current society, such legitimizing myths or narratives are communicated through platforms like social media, television shows, and films, and are investigated using a variety of methods including content analysis, semiotics, discourse analysis, and psychoanalysis. The granularity of narrative extends from broad ideologies at the highest level to middle level personal myths (positive thinking of oneself as a successful smart dominant, or submissive inferior), reaching the lowest level of behavioral scripts or schemas for particular dominant-submissive social situations. Categories of myth include:
- paternalistic myths (the dominant hegemony serves society, looks after incapable minorities)
- reciprocal myths (suggestions that dominants and outgroups are actually equal)
- sacred myths (karma or divine right of kings as a religion-approved mandate to dominate others)
For regulation of the three mechanisms of group hierarchy oppression, there are two functional types of legitimizing myths: hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchy-attenuating myths.
1 - Hierarchy-enhancing ideologies (e.g., racism or meritocracy) contribute to greater levels of group-based inequality. Felicia Pratto presented meritocracy as an example of a legitimizing myth, and how the myth of meritocracy produces only an illusion of fairness.
2 - Hierarchy-attenuating ideologies such as protected rights, universalism, Christian Brotherhood/egalitarianism, feminism, and multiculturalism contribute to greater levels of group-based equality.
People endorse these different forms of ideologies based in part on their psychological orientation to accept or reject unequal group relations as measured by the SDO scale.
People who score higher on the SDO scale tend to endorse hierarchy-enhancing ideologies, and people who score lower tend to endorse hierarchy-attenuating ideologies. Finally, SDT proposes that the relative counterbalance of hierarchy-enhancing and -attenuating social forces stabilizes group-based inequality.
3 - Interactions with authoritarian personality theory
4 - Gender and
dominance
5 - Elite theory influences – Marx and others*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_theory
......
Legitimizing myths theory; sub-parts;
Myth of Meritocracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy
Stereotypes As Legitimizing Myths
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/without-prejudice/201212/stereotypes-legitimizing-myths
History of legitimizing myths in America
https://sites.psu.edu/movingpsychology/2013/11/12/history-of-legitimizing-myths-in-america/
..............................
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_identity_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ingroup_identity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-categorization_theory
Mapping Myths is a planisphere on which the stars represent police murders
of Black Americans and the constellations depict the social fictions that
justify those murders. It questions the absurdity of the racialized
legitimizing myths used to justify police brutality in the United
States.
http://www.williamslaurenm.com/mapping-myths-1
................
full papers----
When Inequality Fails: Power, Group Dominance, and Societal Change
https://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jspp/article/view/4745/4745.html
From Power and Privilege to Dignity and Respect: Developing a Theory of
Species Stratification and Interspecies Dominance
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2020.553460/full
Legitimizing Myth and the Search for Meaning
https://www.academia.edu/198025/Legitimizing_Myth_and_the_Search_for_Meaning
