Social Dominance Theory: Its Agenda and Method

Social Dominance Theory

Introduction

  • Social Dominance Theory (SDT) addresses the pervasive nature of group-based oppression.
  • It aims to explain why human societies tend to form and maintain group-based hierarchies.
  • SDT considers various forms of oppression (racism, sexism, classism, etc.) as specific manifestations of a general tendency to create and maintain group-based hierarchy.

Misconstruals of Social Dominance Theory

  • The theory has been misconstrued in four primary ways:
    • Psychological reductionism
    • Conceptual redundancy
    • Biological determinism
    • Hierarchy justification

Claim of Psychological Reductionism

  • SDT is not merely a personality theory focused solely on individual differences, particularly social dominance orientation (SDO).
  • SDT examines how psychological predispositions, social identities, social context, social institutions, and cultural ideologies intersect to produce and reproduce group-based social inequality.
Social Context
  • SDO is not a static personality variable, but influenced by socialization, experiences, and situational cues.
  • Threats to group status can increase SDO among members of dominant groups but decrease it among members of subordinate groups.
  • Priming individuals with intergroup conflict can also affect SDO levels.
  • The source of SDO are not restricted to a single set of factors, rather it arises from a number of factors such as socialization experiences (e.g., aggression or victimization).
Social Institutions
  • Social dominance theory emphasizes the role of social institutions in the establishment and maintenance of group-based hierarchy and intergroup discrimination.
  • Hierarchy-enhancing institutions (e.g., financial houses and criminal justice systems) allocate resources that maintain group-based dominance.
  • Hierarchy-attenuating institutions (e.g., human rights organizations and public defender's offices) allocate resources in ways that reduce group-based dominance.
Intersection Between Individual Preferences and Institutional Roles
  • Individuals with hierarchy-enhancing values and attitudes are often attracted to and selected into hierarchy-enhancing institutions, while those with hierarchy-attenuating values are drawn to hierarchy-attenuating institutions.
  • This sorting process is influenced by: self-selection, institutional selection, and institutional socialization.
Self-Selection
  • Individuals are more likely to choose jobs or roles that align with their SDO levels.
  • For example, people high in SDO may be more attracted to hierarchy-enhancing careers, while those low in SDO may prefer hierarchy-attenuating roles.
Institutional Selection
  • Institutions often select individuals whose values are compatible with the institution's goals.
  • Employers may favor high-SDO candidates for hierarchy-enhancing positions and low-SDO candidates for hierarchy-attenuating positions.
Institutional Socialization
  • Exposure to an institution's values and norms can influence individuals' attitudes and behaviors over time.
  • For example, individuals in hierarchy-enhancing institutions may become more discriminatory over time, while those in hierarchy-attenuating institutions may become less discriminatory.
Differential Reward
  • Institutions may reward behavior compatible with their social roles and to punish behavior incompatible with those roles.
  • For example, campus police officers with higher racial prejudice scores were more likely to receive positive performance evaluations from their supervisors.
Differential Attainment
  • Over time and across a variety of institutions and roles, people's attitudes toward group dominance fit with the institutions by which they're surrounded.

Claim of Conceptual Redundancy

  • SDT is distinct from other constructs such as authoritarianism and political conservatism.
Social Dominance Orientation Versus Authoritarianism
  • While both SDT and authoritarian personality theory address ethnocentrism and sociopolitical attitudes, their etiologies and foci differ.
  • Authoritarianism emphasizes ego-defensive mechanisms and submission to in-group authorities, while SDT focuses on group-based dominance and opposition to equality.
  • Unlike authoritarianism, SDO is less focused on intrapsychic motivations, addressing the relation between institutional discrimination and social ideologies.
Social Dominance Orientation Versus Political Conservatism
  • SDO is conceptually and empirically distinct from political conservatism.
  • While some definitions of conservatism may overlap with SDO (e.g., opposition to social leveling), contemporary conservatism encompasses broader values such as individual freedom and limited government intervention.
  • Research shows a moderate correlation between political conservatism and SDO, indicating they are not redundant constructs.

Claim of Biological Determinism

  • SDT is not an exercise in biological determinism.
  • SDT recognizes the interplay between genes, environment, and culture in shaping human behavior.
  • It does not assume that genes autonomously determine behavior but acknowledges the interaction between genetic predispositions and contextual factors.

Claim of Hierarchy Justification

  • SDT is not an endorsement of inequality or oppression.
  • Rather, it seeks to understand the processes that create and maintain group-based social hierarchy to inform efforts to promote equality.
  • SDT highlights the problem of group-based inequality as a starting point to seeing the problem addressed. Rather than an endorsement of oppression, it can be seen as a prerequisite to morally driven intervention.

Similarities and Differences with Other Theories

Social Identity Theory

  • SDT builds upon social identity theory by considering the broader social and political context in which intergroup relations occur.
  • It differs from social identity theory in several ways:
    • Motivation: SDT emphasizes the role of social dominance and power in intergroup relations, whereas social identity theory focuses on the desire for positive group distinctiveness and self-esteem.
    • Group Asymmetry: SDT recognizes that dominant and subordinate groups may differ in their levels of ingroup identification and outgroup bias.
    • Power: SDT explicitly considers the role of social power in intergroup relations, whereas social identity theory primarily focuses on status.
    • Group Differences: SDT distinguishes between different types of group relations (e.g., gender, arbitrary-set, and adult-child distinctions), whereas social identity theory often treats all groups as equivalent.

System Justification Theory

  • SDT shares common ground with system justification theory, which posits that people are motivated to defend and justify the existing social system.
  • Both theories recognize that ideologies play a crucial role in maintaining group-based hierarchies.
  • However, SDT differs from system justification theory in its emphasis on the role of power, social dominance orientation, and intergroup conflict.

Conclusion

  • Social dominance theory does not reject the insights of other models of intergroup relations and discrimination, such as social identity theory, authoritarian personality theory, and realistic group conflict theory.
  • Social dominance theory is not an attempt to reject the insights of other important models of intergroup relations and discrimination.
  • Social dominance theory integrates many of the insights of these other models into a more comprehensive framework for understanding group-based oppression.
  • SDT offers several unique contributions to the study of intergroup relations:
    • A multilevel analysis that considers interactions between individual, social, and institutional factors.
    • A focus on the role of social power and institutional discrimination.
    • A distinction between different types of group relations.
    • An emphasis on the dynamic interplay between ideologies and social behaviors.
  • SDT identifies and understands the multi-leveled mechanisms responsible for this ubiquitous form of social organization and how these mechanisms effect discrimination, and intergroup conflict.