Group differences in the legitimization of inequality: Questioning the role of social dominance orientation

Abstract

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is conceived as an individual's level of support for group-based hierarchy in general that causes support for more specific group hierarchies. According to social dominance theory, group differences in SDO underpin ideological and behavioural group differences related to specific group hierarchies. Using representative 5-year longitudinal panel data from New Zealand (N = 3,384), we test whether SDO mediates effects of sex and ethnicity on legitimizing myths (LMs) relating to gender and ethnic hierarchy over time. The SDO mediation hypothesis is supported in the case of hostile sexism. However, it is unsupported in the case of benevolent sexism and LMs relating to ethnic hierarchy, where there was no cross-lagged effect of SDO. Moreover, being in the dominant ethnic group is associated with more legitimization of ethnic hierarchy but less legitimization of gender hierarchy, which is inconsistent with the notion of a general orientation underpinning group differences in legitimation. There was mixed evidence for a reverse path whereby specific LMs mediate group differences in SDO across time. We argue for the need to find alternative ways to theorize ideological consensus and difference between groups.

A systematic review of the ambivalent sexism literature: Hostile sexism protects men’s power; benevolent sexism guards traditional gender roles.

“…The most consistent finding is that social dominance orientation is positively associated with HS in both men and women (e.g., Christopher & Mull, 2006; Ruthig et al, 2017; Sibley & Overall, 2011), although some articles find this association only for men (e.g., Schmitt & Wirth, 2009; Stewart, 2017). In longitudinal designs, social dominance orientation predicts increases in HS (but not BS) over time (Pehrson et al, 2017; Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007 [among men]). A path model linking this association to personality and social worldviews among men further indicated that the social dominance orientation link to HS stems from perceptions of the world as a competitive place (a “dog-eat-dog” world) and a personality disposition high in tough-mindedness (Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007).…”

“…Most articles focused either on both social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism (e.g., Feather & McKee, 2012) or solely on social dominance orientation (e.g., Radke, Hornsey, Sibley, & Barlow, 2018), with fewer articles dealing solely with right-wing authoritarianism (e.g., Patev et al, 2019). The reported correlations between the ambivalent sexism constructs and these social ideologies are either direct (e.g., Mosso et al, 2013) or reported as part of broader mediational models (e.g., Pehrson et al, 2017).…”

Visiones sobre el género y el envejecimiento en hombres y mujeres trabajadores en Colombia

“…El sexismo benevolente, en apariencia bien intencionado (Dardenne et al, 2007;Stedham & Wieland, 2017), es condescendiente y se fundamenta en la premisa de que los hombres deben ser arriesgados y evitar la debilidad, mientras las mujeres requieren de su protección (Glick & Fiske, 1996;, son cuidadoras y evitan ser dominantes (Koenig, 2018). Este tipo de sexismo debilita a la mujer (Dardenne et al, 2007;Pesce & Etchezahar, 2020), afectando su percepción de competencia o autoeficacia (Dumont et al, 2010;Pehrson et al, 2017). De manera complementaria, el sexismo benevolente se ha asociado empíricamente con el tradicionalismo y la dominancia (Austin & Jackson, 2019) con la tolerancia con el uso de tácticas agresivas de persuasión sexual masculina (Garrido Macías et al, 2017) y con la adopción de prácticas de salud no seguras (Orozco-Idárraga et al, 2021) en el contexto de las relaciones heterosexuales íntimas (Becker & Wright, 2011;Glick & Raberg, 2018;Hideg & Ferris, 2016;Jost & Kay, 2005).…”