Personality and social structural implications of the situational priming of social dominance orientation

Huang, Li‐Li; Liu, James H.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.04.006

Cited by 66 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the halves were correlated (r ¼ 0.56), the association offers only modest evidence of relative stability. In a related study manipulating the salience of different identities before measuring SDO, Huang and Liu (2005) found that the SDO scale's test-retest reliability after a 1-week interval was similarly low (r ¼ 0.48).…”

Section: Rwa and Sdo As Context-specific Responsesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Group domination and inequality in context: evidence for the unstable meanings of social dominance and authoritarianism

Lehmiller

Schmitt

2006

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) are assumed to be general and relatively stable psychological orientations that individuals 'carry with them' from context to context, influencing responses to salient forms of intergroup inequality and domination. In two experimental studies we tested the relative stability of SDO (Studies 1 and 2) and RWA (Study 1). That is, we examined whether people who score relatively high on SDO/RWA in one context tend to support intergroup hierarchy and domination in other contexts. To do so, we manipulated the salience of different intergroup relationships before measuring SDO and RWA, and then observed the associations among these constructs and attitudes toward specific intergroup relationships and legitimizing ideologies (support for war, conservatism, heterosexism, and religious fundamentalism). Contrary to the assumption of relative stability, the extent to which SDO and RWA were related to these specific attitudes and ideologies varied markedly depending on the experimental context. These results highlight the contextual basis and meaning of individuals' expressed support for group-based dominance. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Individual difference approaches to prejudice view support for various forms of group-based inequality and domination as resulting, at least in part, from individuals' relatively stable orientations toward intergroup relations in general. Two of the most researched individual difference predictors of prejudice are right-wing authoritarianism (RWA; Altemeyer, 1998) and social dominance orientation (SDO; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Numerous studies with samples from around the world provide evidence consistent with the view that RWA and SDO are relatively enduring aspects of individual psychology that have a general influence over responses to intergroup conflict, encouraging support for multiple forms of group-based domination and inequality. However, recent evidence has called into question both the stability and generality of SDO and RWA, suggesting that scores on these measures

show abstract

Section: Rwa and Sdo As Context-specific Responsesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Group domination and inequality in context: evidence for the unstable meanings of social dominance and authoritarianism

Lehmiller

Schmitt

2006

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The description of these two central dimensions of social attitudes closely resemble the definitions that have been provided for two well known constructs in the field of political psychology, being RWA and SDO. Originally proposed as dispositional variables, these are considered now to be social attitudes of a broad ideological nature (see also Huang & Liu, 2005;Roets, Van Hiel, & Cornelis, 2006;Van Hiel, Pandelaere, & Duriez, 2004b).…”

Section: A Two-dimensional Model Of Social Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The intervening role of social worldviews in the relationship between the five‐factor model of personality and social attitudes

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research investigates in a student (N ¼ 183) and a voter sample (N ¼ 276) whether the relationships between the Five-Factor Model (FFM) personality dimensions and social attitudes (i.e. Right-Wing Authoritarianism [RWA] and Social Dominance Orientation [SDO]) are mediated by social worldviews (i.e. dangerous and jungle worldviews). Two important results were obtained. First, the perception of the world as inherently dangerous and chaotic partially mediated the relationships of the personality dimensions Openness and Neuroticism and the social attitude RWA. Second, the jungle worldview completely mediated the relationships between Agreeableness and SDO, but considerable item overlap between the jungle worldview and SDO was also noted. It was further revealed that acquiescence response set and item overlap had an impact on social worldviews and attitudes, but that their relationships were hardly affected by these biases. The discussion focuses on the status of social worldviews to explain social attitudes.

show abstract

“…Given that social dominance orientation was initially conceived of as a stable personality trait reflecting people's general orientation toward group-based inequality, one could situate Social Dominance Theory at the interpersonal level of Doise's (1986) continuum. However, recent studies have found that people's social dominance orientation is contextually sensitive depending on the concepts that are made salient just before participants fill out the SDO scale (Huang & Liu, 2005;Schmitt, Branscombe, & Kappen, 2003). Consequently, an increasing number of researchers think that social dominance orientation may be more adequately understood in terms of ideological beliefs than in terms of a stable personality trait (Duckitt, 2001;Duckitt, Wagner, du Plessis, & Birum, 2002;Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov, & Duarte, 2003).…”

Section: Social Dominance Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Social power

Bräuer

Bourhis

2006

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present article, we discuss and compare recent theoretical and empirical contributions to the growing body of research on social power. In the last decade, five different theories on power have been proposed. These theories can be distinguished according to whether they focus on intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergroup or ideological processes. Our analysis leads us to claim that future theoretical contributions would have much to gain by addressing the issue of social power on multiple levels of analysis. The recent empirical work on social power suggests that powerful individuals and members of powerful groups differ from powerless individuals and members of powerless groups with regard to (a) how they perceive and judge others, (b) how they are evaluated as targets, and (c) how they behave. Those who have power perceive others more stereotypically and judge them more negatively. They also tend to take action more frequently and generally behave in a more variable manner. This difference in objective variability is further reinforced by perceivers' tendency to exaggerate the variability of high power groups. The latter two effects contribute to the phenomenon that high power groups are less often the target of stereotypes than low power groups.

show abstract

Personality and social structural implications of the situational priming of social dominance orientation

Cited by 66 publications

References 20 publications

Group domination and inequality in context: evidence for the unstable meanings of social dominance and authoritarianism

Group domination and inequality in context: evidence for the unstable meanings of social dominance and authoritarianism

The intervening role of social worldviews in the relationship between the five‐factor model of personality and social attitudes

Social power

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About