Group differences in the legitimization of inequality : questioning the role of social dominance orientation
MetadataShow full item record
Social dominance orientation (SDO) is conceived as an individual’s level of support for group-based hierarchy in general that causes support for more specific group hierarchies.According to social dominance theory, group differences in SDO underpin ideological and behavioural group differences related to specific group hierarchies. Using representative 5-year longitudinal panel data from New Zealand (N=3384), we test whether SDO mediates effects of sex and ethnicity on legitimising myths (LMs) relating to gender and ethnic hierarchy over time.The SDO mediation hypothesis is supported in the case of hostile sexism. However, it is unsupported in the case of benevolent sexism and LMs relating to ethnic hierarchy, where there was no cross-lagged effect on SDO. Moreover, being in the dominant ethnic group is associated with more legitimization of ethnic hierarchy but less legitimisation of gender hierarchy, which is inconsistent with the notion of a general orientation underpinning group differences in legitimation. There was mixed evidence for a reverse path whereby specific LMs mediate group differences in SDO across time. We argue for the need to find alternative ways to theorise ideological consensus and difference between groups.
Pehrson , S , Carvacho , H & Sibley , C G 2017 , ' Group differences in the legitimization of inequality : questioning the role of social dominance orientation ' , British Journal of Social Psychology , vol. 56 , no. 1 , pp. 28-46 . https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12167
British Journal of Social Psychology
© 2016 The British Psychological Society. This work has been made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. This is the author created, accepted version manuscript following peer review and may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12167
DescriptionThis research was supported by a Templeton World Charity Foundation Grant (ID: 0077). H. Carvacho was supported by the Centre for Social Conflict and Cohesion Studies (Grant CONICYT/FONDAP/15130009) and the Interdisciplinary Center for Intercultural and Indigenous Studies (Grant CONICYT/FONDAP/15110006).
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.