Preferences for group dominance track and mediate the effects of macro-level social inequality and violence across societies

Abstract

Whether and how societal structures shape individual psychology is a foundational question of the social sciences. Combining insights from evolutionary biology, economy, and the political and psychological sciences, we identify a central psychological process that functions to sustain group-based hierarchies in human societies. In study 1, we demonstrate that macrolevel structural inequality, impaired population outcomes, socio-political instability, and the risk of violence are reflected in the endorsement of group hegemony at the aggregate population level across 27 countries (n = 41,824): The greater the national inequality, the greater is the endorsement of between-group hierarchy within the population. Using multilevel analyses in study 2, we demonstrate that these psychological group-dominance motives mediate the effects of macrolevel functioning on individual-level attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, across 30 US states (n = 4,613), macrolevel inequality and violence were associated with greater individuallevel support of group hegemony. Crucially, this individual-level support, rather than cultural-societal norms, was in turn uniquely associated with greater racism, sexism, welfare opposition, and even willingness to enforce group hegemony violently by participating in ethnic persecution of subordinate out-groups. These findings suggest that societal inequality is reflected in people's minds as dominance motives that underpin ideologies and actions that ultimately sustain group-based hierarchy. social dominance | multi-level mediation | social inequality | racism | ethnic persecution

Ideological measurement in social and political psychology

“…Social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999;2004) asserts that stable societies are maintained via the construction and maintenance of group-based hierarchies. Inevitably this leads to some social groups typically being placed in positions of higher status, and others in lower status roles (Kunst, Fischer, Sidanius, & Thomsen, 2017;Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994;Wilson & Sibley, 2013). According to established theorizing in political psychology, those with a greater propensity for endorsing the hierarchical status quo can be said to have a higher social dominance orientation (SDO).…”

“…According to established theorizing in political psychology, those with a greater propensity for endorsing the hierarchical status quo can be said to have a higher social dominance orientation (SDO). The fact that societies are stabilized by having hierarchies in place (Fischer, Hanke, & Sibley, 2012), challenging existing structures can be costlyparticularly to those in historically or socially disadvantaged positions (Kunst et al, 2017). As such, it might be expected to see relatively few challenges to the social quo under conditions of relative political or economic stability, and more discontent with established hierarchies under conditions of instability.…”

“…As stated above, times of economic or political instability may lead to an emboldening of those groups who wish to destabilize and rebuild social hierarchies (Kunst et al, 2017). It is perhaps little surprise that there have been increasing calls for challenging the status quo and existing social hierarchies since the global financial crash of 2008 (for a review of this financial milestone, see Mishkin, 2011).…”

The Road to Psychopathology: Neoliberalism and the Human Mind

“…The larger gaps in power and wealth integral to neoliberalism mean that those with outsized influence in the political‐economic governance of society operate under a psychological handicap. They also contribute to the development of ideologies that justify, and behavior that sustains, the dominance of powerful groups; that is, the effects of inequality operate on the individual psychological level, activating dominance motives that propel people to justify and enforce existing hierarchies (Kunst, Fischer, Sidanius, & Thomsen, ).…”

Explaining prejudice toward the mentally ill: A test of sociopolitical, demographic, and socioeconomic factors

“…Importantly, the theory argues that people differ in the degree to which they endorse groupbased hegemony; that is in their degree of SDO , which in turn should predict support of such ideologies. Indeed, a large body of research has demonstrated that SDO predicts a wide variety of ideologies and prejudices across contexts that ultimately strengthen the societal hierarchy, including more political and economic conservatism, more cultural elitism, more racism, more sexism, more chauvinism, less support of gay/lesbian rights, less empathy, less altruism, and a generally lower concern for others ( Bizer et al, 2012;Duckitt, 2001;Kunst, Fischer, Sidanius, & Thomsen, 2017;Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin, 2006;Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007a;Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1994). Some research suggests that individuals with high SDO tend to want more social distance from, show less acceptance toward, and exhibit more victim blaming of people described as mentally ill (Bizer et al, 2012;Kvaale & Haslam, 2016;Phelan & Basow, 2007).…”