Learning and Unlearning the Myths We Are Taught: Gender and Social Dominance Orientation

Foels, Rob; Pappas, Christopher J.

doi:10.1023/b:sers.0000029094.25107.d6

Cited by 54 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Researchers have shown that both gender identity (Dambrun et al 2004) and masculinity and femininity (Foels and Pappas 2004;Snellman et al 2009) mediate the link between gender and SDO, such that the gender difference is attenuated or disappears when accounting for these factors. Further, characteristics associated with masculinity and femininity such as power and benevolence also mediate the link between gender and SDO (Caricati 2007).…”

Section: Gender and Sdomentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The invariance hypothesis of social dominance theory asserts that these gender differences in SDO will exist even when accounting for other factors, because of biologically based, evolutionary processes (Sidanius and Pratto 1999). Contrary to this hypothesis, accumulating evidence has shown that gender differences in SDO can be accounted for by social factors such as gender roles and gender identity (Foels and Pappas 2004;Snellman et al 2009). This evidence, however, does not definitively undermine the gender invariance hypothesis because the factors that have been shown to mediate the relationship between gender and SDO are gender related factors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender Differences in Social Dominance Orientation: The Role of Cognitive Complexity

Foels

Reid

2010

Sex Roles

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research examined the invariance hypothesis, which predicts lower levels of social dominance orientation (SDO) for women compared to men even when accounting for other factors. Previous research shows that gender linked variables mediate the gender difference in SDO. In two studies using undergraduates in the northeastern U.S., we tested mediation by cognitive complexity, a variable linked to social status but not to gender. Study 1 (n=117) found that women had higher levels of attributional complexity, but not need for cognition. Study 2 (n=206) further found that attributional complexity mediated the relationship between gender and SDO, suggesting that higher cognitive complexity due to low social status may be involved in gender differences in SDO.

show abstract

Section: Gender and Sdomentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Gender Differences in Social Dominance Orientation: The Role of Cognitive Complexity

Foels

Reid

2010

Sex Roles

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The SDO-E dimension, or some variant of it, accounts for variance in conservatism, opposition to international diplomacy, anti-Black attitudes (not including old-fashioned racism), just world beliefs, and opposition to redistributive social policies (Cohrs, Moschner, Maes, & Kielmann, 2005;Eagly, Diekman, Johannesen-Schmidt, & Koenig, 2004;Freeman, Aquino, & McFerran, 2009;Jost & Thompson, 2000;Reyna, Henry, Korfmacher, & Tucker, 2006;Kugler, Cooper, & Nosek, 2010;Sears et al, 2008;Wakslak, Jost, Tyler, & Chen, 2007;Yoshimura & Hardin, 2009 Foels & Pappas, 2004) or in interpersonal rather than intergroup competition (e.g., Cozzolino & Snyder, 2008).…”

Section: Existing Evidence For the Predictive Validity Of Two Dimensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Dominance Orientation

Sidanius

Pratto

et al. 2012

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

344

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is one of the most powerful predictors of intergroup attitudes and behavior. Although SDO works well as a unitary construct, some analyses suggest it might consist of two complementary dimensions-SDO-Dominance (SDO-D), or the preference for some groups to dominate others, and SDO-Egalitarianism (SDO-E), a preference for nonegalitarian intergroup relations. Using seven samples from the United States and Israel, the authors confirm factor-analytic evidence and show predictive validity for both dimensions. In the United States, SDO-D was theorized and found to be more related to old-fashioned racism, zero-sum competition, and aggressive intergroup phenomena than SDO-E; SDO-E better predicted more subtle legitimizing ideologies, conservatism, and opposition to redistributive social policies. In a contentious hierarchical intergroup context (the Israeli-Palestinian context), SDO-D better predicted both conservatism and aggressive intergroup attitudes. Fundamentally, these analyses begin to establish the existence of complementary psychological orientations underlying the preference for group-based dominance and inequality.

show abstract

“…This suggests that addressing sexist perceptions of intra-gender hostility and conflict may be as important as addressing the conflict itself. Because higher status groups are motivated to justify their position in society (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999;Foels & Pappas, 2004), commonly endorsed perceptions of the prevalence and problematic nature of female hostility can contribute to legitimizing myths that women who express anger are crazy, overly emotional, and unreasonable (King, Ussher, & Perz, 2014;Thornton, 2013). Further, these myths operate to further justify why men are in charge -that is, because they work well together and are not prone to fighting with each other.…”

Section: Addressing Conceptualizations and Perceptions Of Intra-gendementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The present findings reinforce the importance of considering individual and social factors which perpetuate the perception that women in-fight more and contribute to the pathologising of women's conflict and competitiveness relative to men's. As high-status groups are motivated to justify their dominant position in society (Foels & Pappas, 2004) commonly endorsed perceptions about the nature and causes of female hostility may contribute to legitimising myths about women's lower status, and further justify why men are 'in charge'. While women's intra-gender hostility is problematic, as these attitudes predict poorer interpersonal relationships with other women (Cowan & Ullman, 2006) and greater acceptance of interpersonal violence and emotional dependence on men (Cowan, 2000), a disproportionate focus on it perpetuates a sexist assumption.…”

Section: Intra-gender Hostility Is Endorsed By Both Men and Womenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why can’t we all just get along? A social psychological examination of women’s intra-gender hostility

Lizzio‐Wilson¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Women's intra-gender hostility has been the focus of attention in both the popular media and scholarly literature. However, important gaps still remain in our understanding of the construct validity, causes of, and contextual factors influencing this process. Thus I investigate the following under-explored questions in this thesis: a) is intra-gender hostility a form of conflict unique to women, or are similar processes also evident among men?; b) do the unique identity pressures women face as a lower status group contribute to their intra-gender hostility?; and c) what contextual factors modify women's intra-gender hostility?In Chapter 3, I find that men and women report similar levels of attitudinal intra-gender hostility, indicating that it is not a form of intra-group conflict more commonly faced by women. I also demonstrate that the factor structure of men and women's intra-and inter-gender hostility are distinct, suggesting that intra-gender hostility is a form of intra-group conflict rather than an expression of general negativity. Building on this in Chapter 4, I provide more convincing evidence that women's intra-gender hostility reflects and potentially reinforces their disadvantaged position.Specifically, I demonstrate that women's intra-gender hostility is related to the unique identity pressures they face as a lower status group and factors which reflect and potentially reinforce their disadvantaged position (i.e. sexual competitiveness regarding attractiveness, hostile sexism, private collective self-esteem). In contrast, men's intra-gender hostility was uniquely related to factors which reflect and reinforce their higher status position (i.e. hostility toward men). This suggests that men and women's intra-gender hostility may function in complementary ways to reinforce the gender-related status hierarchy.In Chapter 5, I further investigate how women's unique identity pressures contribute to their intra-gender hostility. I replicate findings from previous research that women who more (versus less) strongly endorse hostile and, to a lesser extent, benevolent sexism, demonstrate greater intra-gender hostility toward non-traditional women. However, I extend these findings by demonstrating that collective threat (the concern that the poor behaviour of an ingroup will be generalised to a negative stereotype of the entire group Cohen & Garcia, 2005); partially explains hostile (but not benevolent) sexists' intra-gender hostility. This provides further evidence that the unique identity pressures women face contribute to their intra-gender hostility, and preliminary evidence to suggest that unique identity pressures related to gender-role appropriate behaviour and maintaining a positive social identity can influence women's attitudes toward and treatment of other women in certain circumstances.Finally in Chapter 6, I investigate the social psychological factors which may contextually activate or attenuate women's intra-gender hostility in the face of social identity threat. I replicate findings fro...

show abstract

Learning and Unlearning the Myths We Are Taught: Gender and Social Dominance Orientation

Cited by 54 publications

References 34 publications

Gender Differences in Social Dominance Orientation: The Role of Cognitive Complexity

Gender Differences in Social Dominance Orientation: The Role of Cognitive Complexity

Social Dominance Orientation

Why can’t we all just get along? A social psychological examination of women’s intra-gender hostility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About