How people higher on social dominance orientation deal with hierarchy-attenuating institutions: the person-environment (mis)fit perspective in the grammar of hierarchies

Abstract

Interweaving Social Dominance theory with Person-Environment (P-E) fit theory, the present study examines how people higher on social dominance orientation (SDO, i.e., those who generally favor group hierarchies and inequalities) can deal with belonging to institutions that culturally sustain group equality (i.e., hierarchy-attenuating institutions). We enrolled two cohorts of first year students majoring in social work (Sample 1, N = 296; Sample 2, N = 117), a typical hierarchy-attenuating setting. Participants’ belonging to a hierarchy-attenuating institution was primed before administering a self-report questionnaire for measuring the study’s variables. Results of mediation analyses showed that people higher in SDO experienced higher P-E misfit with the institution in both samples. In turn, P-E misfit was positively associated with the intention to leave the social work faculty and with a higher pro-self hierarchy-enhancing motivation (i.e., agreeing that “I am enrolled in a Social work faculty primarily to have more chances to gain money and success in the future”). These results show that people higher in SDO can deal with the dissonant condition of P-E misfit with a hierarchy-attenuating institution by leaving such institution (i.e., differential attrition process) and/or by adopting a framework for their presence in a hierarchy-attenuating institution that aligns with their own’s socially dominant beliefs (i.e., motivational shaping process). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

“Does this setting really fit with me?”: How support for group‐based social hierarchies predicts a higher perceived misfit in hierarchy‐attenuating settings

“…For example, people could pursue personal motivation aligned with their dominant worldviews (e.g., "I work/study here to gain more money/success in the future") that reduce the dissonance of having to inhabit a hierarchy-attenuating context (Tesi et al, 2022).…”

“…Future studies could address how some self‐regulation processes may be implied in the case of staying in a hierarchy‐attenuating context even if people experience P−E misfit. For example, people could pursue personal motivation aligned with their dominant worldviews (e.g., “I work/study here to gain more money/success in the future”) that reduce the dissonance of having to inhabit a hierarchy‐attenuating context (Tesi et al, 2022).…”

The Pathway between Social Dominance Orientation and Drop out from Hierarchy-Attenuating Contexts: The Role of Moral Foundations and Person-Environment Misfit

“…Specifically, drawing on social dominance theory (SDT) [ 7 ], we studied the possible consequence (i.e., behavioral intention to leave the context) that might result from a particular form of attrition; i.e., when people report high levels of social dominance orientation (SDO, i.e., the extent to which people want to support group-based hierarchies and inequalities), and when they are in environments where the organizational culture strongly values SDO-inconsistent, hierarchy-reducing social norms (i.e., social welfare). Studies [ 8 , 9 ] have previously confirmed that people’s level of SDO is associated with an increased perceived P-E misfit in hierarchy-attenuating contexts, and that PE misfit can subsequently lead people to express a higher willingness to leave their organization [ 10 ]. In the present study, we deepened these findings by testing the hypothesis that perceived P-E misfit could be generated by a set of moral beliefs associated with higher levels of SDO.…”

“…According to this notion, SDO was found positively associated with self-enhancement, achievement, and coercive power and negatively associated with empathy, emotional concern for the harm of others, and social justice [ 11 , 14 , 26 ]. Individuals higher on SDO are more likely to pursue self-enhancement goals (i.e., salary, status) even in contexts where social justice and solidarity with marginalized groups are normative [ 10 ]. Since the production of social inequalities cannot neglect the role of contextual social norms, the ways through which people can express and shape their SDO levels are influenced by social norms and by the characteristics of social contexts that can support or hinder the legitimizing myths of hierarchies [ 6 , 27 , 28 ].…”

Supportive, resistant, or both? A person-centric view on employee responses to diversity initiatives.

“…Therefore, social dominance orientation as an inegalitarian belief structure can act as a counterforce to diversity efforts (Umphress et al, 2008). Individuals higher on social dominance orientation support the maintenance of traditional societal hierarchies (Tesi et al, 2023) and see diversity initiatives as threatening to their preferred status quo-a tendency also present in minority status group members with high social dominance orientations (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999;Umphress et al, 2007). Accordingly, we expect that diversity initiatives pose a threat to individuals high on social dominance orientation, making these individuals more defensive and more likely to show unfavorable response patterns.…”