Ethnic hierarchies, ethnic prejudice, and social dominance orientation

Abstract

Previous research in multi-ethnic societies has shown that people rank, or form hierarchies of, the ethnic groups on the basis of social distance. Based on self-report data from a community sample (N ¼ 150 non-psychology students), this study examined (1) the correspondence of ratings and rankings of six ethnic target groups among various subgroups of participants (Swedish and immigrant men and women), and (2) the relationship of inclination to ethnic ranking with ethnic prejudice and social dominance orientation. In accord with our hypotheses, the results disclosed that (1) irrespective of gender and ethnic origin, the various subgroups of participants ranked and formed similar hierarchies of the six ethnic target groups, and (2) people's inclination to ethnic ranking showed significant correlations with their ethnic prejudice as well as social dominance orientation.

Representaciones esquemáticas de minorías étnicas en jóvenes universitarios

“…Also now, in the classroom, with some group tasks and so on. (Focus group 4) Conversely, the ranking of ethnic groups drawn from the thermometer measure supported some findings in other European studies (Cea D"Ancona & Valles, 2009Hagendoorn, Drogendijk, Tumanov & Hraba, 1998;PerezYruela & Desrues, 2007;Snellman & Ekehammar, 2005). Among the reasons justifying the positions in the rank, differences in culture, economy and phenotype were the mostoften cited (see Gómez-Berrocal & Navas, 2000;Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995).…”

“…In multiethnic societies, a propensity to rank ethnic groups with the majority group at the top and the rest of the minorities in positions placed closer or further away according to the largest ingroup criteria, has been shown to exist in diverse countries and settings (e.g., Hagendoorn, Drogendijk, Tumanov & Hraba, 1998;Hraba, Hagendoorn & Hagendoorn, 1989;Snellman & Ekehammar, 2005). Different aspects such as ethnocentrism, stereotyping, and perceptions of threat play an important role in the way this ranking is built, and mirror the interrelated social psychological and structural processes that shape group identities (Emessik & Mackie, 1989;Hraba et al, 1989;Stephan & Stephan, 1985).…”

The Relationship between Political Orientation and Race on Modern Racism

“…SDO is a possible explanation for Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3 (Akrami & Ekehammar, ISSN 2329-9150 2016 2006; Snellman & Ekehammar, 2005). Individuals high in SDO would discriminate against females even within the same racial or ethnic group.…”

“…Individuals high in SDO desire to maintain their superior position and strive to denigrate is members of out-groups and oppose equality enhancing social programs such as affirmative action and to discriminate against other out-group members in order to retain the status-quo (Guimond et al, 2003;Pratto et al, 1994;Sidanius & Pratto, 2004;Snellman & Ekehammar, 2005;Whitley, 1999;Whitley & Kite, 2006). Although SDO was not assessed directly in the current study, these findings strongly suggest that an aspect of SDO, principle-implementation gap may explain the apparent contradiction whereby, White participants vocally support racial equality and at the same time appear to oppose policies that would strive for racial equality.…”

College Major and Modern Racism: A Matter of Moral Hypocrisy?

“…Essentially, this implies there will be those achieving and obtaining less compared to those who are more competitive who gain more. Previous research has shown strong correlations with social dominance orientation (SDO) (Akrami & Ekehammar, 2006;Pratto et al, 1994;Snellman & Ekehammar, 2005). Oxendine (2016b) found support for participants from a conservative political orientation to hold more prejudiced and modern racial attitudes and beliefs.…”