Open AccessBook
Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression
Jim Sidanius,Felicia Pratto +1 more
TLDR
In this paper, the authors present a theory of intergroup relations from visiousness to viciousness, and the psychology of group dominance, as well as the dynamics of the criminal justice system.Abstract:
Part I. From There to Here - Theoretical Background: 1. From visiousness to viciousness: theories of intergroup relations 2. Social dominance theory as a new synthesis Part II. Oppression and its Psycho-Ideological Elements: 3. The psychology of group dominance: social dominance orientation 4. Let's both agree that you're really stupid: the power of consensual ideology Part III. The Circle of Oppression - The Myriad Expressions of Institutional Discrimination: 5. You stay in your part of town and I'll stay in mine: discrimination in the housing and retail markets 6. They're just too lazy to work: discrimination in the labor market 7. They're just mentally and physically unfit: discrimination in education and health care 8. The more of 'them' in prison, the better: institutional terror, social control and the dynamics of the criminal justice system Part IV. Oppression as a Cooperative Game: 9. Social hierarchy and asymmetrical group behavior: social hierarchy and group difference in behavior 10. Sex and power: the intersecting political psychologies of patriarchy and empty-set hierarchy 11. Epilogue.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Hierarchies, Power Inequalities, and Organizational Corruption
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors use social dominance theory to explore the dynamic and systemic nature of the initiation and maintenance of organizational corruption and suggest that organizational corruption is driven by the individual and institutional tendency to structure societies as group-based social hierarchies.
Book ChapterDOI
The Dual Process Motivational Model of Ideology and Prejudice
John Duckitt,Chris G. Sibley +1 more
Abstract: Early research on prejudice resulted in two important empirical observations. First, the kinds of social groups or categories that are targeted with prejudice vary markedly in different societies; and second, individuals within societies vary markedly in the degree to which they are generally prejudiced or generally tolerant. This suggested that we need two kinds of theories to explain prejudice. In the first case, societal or intergroup theories have focused on particular kinds of intergroup relations (e.g., intergroup competition, threat, or inequality) that would cause prejudice to be directed against specific groups and to be widely shared within a particular society. Thomas Pettigrew (1958) referred to this as the “specificity of prejudice.” In the second case, individual difference theories have focused on certain stable characteristics of individuals (e.g., personality, values, motives, or ideological beliefs) that could cause them to be generally more or less prejudiced against all or most target groups. Early theorists referred to this as the “generality of prejudice” or “generalized prejudice” (e.g., Allport, 1954). More recently, however, theories have emerged that can encompass both individual and intergroup factors within their explanatory frameworks. The dual process model (DPM) is one such approach. It was originally formulated to explain systematic individual differences in generalized prejudice, which it did in terms of two basic motivational orientations that dispose individuals to be generally prejudiced or tolerant. It also, however, proposed that these two motivational orientations would be largely activated by socially shared situational and intergroup factors (such as intergroup competition, threat, and inequality). In this way both individual and social or intergroup factors would operate together to generate prejudices. These prejudices are both specific (widely shared and directed against targets specific to a particular society) and generalized (with individuals in these societies varying systematically in the degree to which they were generally prejudiced or tolerant). The DPM encompasses three closely intertwined explanatory contributions to the understanding of prejudice. First, it conceptualizes the two major social attitudinal predictors of individual differences in prejudice as expressions of two distinct motivational goal or value dimensions. Second, the DPM shows how these two motivationally based ideological dimensions are shaped by and emerge from different social and psychological bases. And third, the DPM provides an explanation of why these two motivationally based dimensions cause prejudice and describes how they operate in a complementary and interactive fashion with social and intergroup causes of prejudice.
Journal ArticleDOI
Not in my backyard! authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and support for strict immigration policies at home and abroad
TL;DR: This article explored the role of national context in shaping support for immigration policies and found that social dominance orientation predicts policy support regardless of its national context; this effect is mediated by perceived competition, whereas right-wing authoritarians predict policy support only if the policy affects domestic immigration.
Journal ArticleDOI
Why are men more likely to support group-based dominance than women? The mediating role of gender identification.
TL;DR: The main objective of this study was to test the validity of Social Dominance Theory by contrasting it with a model derived from Social Identity Theory (SIT), and the results provide strong support for the SIT model and no support for SDT predictions.
Journal ArticleDOI
Leadership and Diversity: Theory and Research.
Jacky Lumby,Marlene Morrison +1 more
TL;DR: This article explored the epistemological and methodological implications of moving forward by considering the symbiosis of how diversity is theorised and researched, and how this relates to existing and future leadership power structures.
References
More filters
Book
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life
TL;DR: For instance, in the case of an individual in the presence of others, it can be seen as a form of involuntary expressive behavior as discussed by the authors, where the individual will have to act so that he intentionally or unintentionally expresses himself, and the others will in turn have to be impressed in some way by him.
Journal ArticleDOI
The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour. I
TL;DR: A genetical mathematical model is described which allows for interactions between relatives on one another's fitness and a quantity is found which incorporates the maximizing property of Darwinian fitness, named “inclusive fitness”.
Book ChapterDOI
Parental investment and sexual selection
TL;DR: The p,cnetics of sex nas now becn clarif ied, and Fishcr ( 1958 ) hrs produccd , n,od"l to cxplarn sex ratios at coDception, a nrodel recently extendcd to include special mccha_ nisms that operate under inbreeding (Hunrilron I96?).
Journal ArticleDOI
The Department of Health and Human Services.
TL;DR: This letter is in response to your two Citizen Petitions, requesting that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) require a cancer warning on cosmetic talc products.