Introduction
Social hierarchies have been in existence from time immemorial in all human societies. Social hierarchies constructed during the ancient civilizations were more pronounced than those in the contemporary societies. The hierarchies are contracted on three main bases: gender, age, and other parameters that group individuals and defined differently by different societies. There are mainly two hierarchies in the society: dominant and subordinate groups. The dominant enjoys more privileges than the subordinate group.
Social dominance orientation measures the extent to which individuals embrace ideologies and myths that encourage and tend to justify the existence and maintenance of social hierarchies in the society. It is one of the key features of social dominance theory, first formulated by two psychology professors: Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto. SDO has been applied widely in predicting attitudes of individuals belonging to different groups in the social hierarchy. The tool is applicable in determining the level of racism among individuals in the various groups of the society. SOD is assessed using a scale with approximately fourteen items. People who score high on the scale strongly embrace the existence of the social hierarchy. On the other hand, people who score low on the SOD scale tend to think that social hierarchy should not exist, and all members of the society should be treated equally. Individuals belonging to the dominant group in the social hierarchy tend to favor the various aspects of the social hierarchy. On the other hand, most individuals belonging to a subordinate group do not approve of it.
Social dominance orientation correlates positively with ideologies that encourage inequality, authoritarianism, and egocentric tendencies. For instance, individuals that embrace prejudice tend to be more social dominance oriented than individuals who do not exhibit little or no negative attitude towards other people. According to a study carried out by Whitley (1999) and Pratto (1999), prejudice is greatly influenced by social dominance orientation and Right-wing authoritarianism. The study found that many forms of prejudice are related to social dominance orientation.
Several studies have been conducted to explore the attitude of different people towards inequality and how the attitudes differ from one group of people to another. A study conducted by Schmitt, Branscombe, and Kappen (2003), found that attitude of an individual towards inequality depends on the social-structural position of the group to which the individual belong. In other words, individuals belonging to social-structural groups that enjoy many privileges tend to favor inequality. On the other hand, individuals that belong to the disadvantaged groups occupying a low position in the social hierarchy tend to have a negative attitude towards inequality. Pratto et al (2000) also reports similar finding. A study by Pratto and colleagues (1994) reported similar findings. According to the study, men tend to exhibit higher social dominance orientation than women across cultures. Pratto et al. (2000) and Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Rabinowitz (1994) also report a similar finding. A possible explanation to this observation is that men are more privileged than women. Consequently, they are more likely to embrace inequality than their female counterparts. In this sense, the finding of this study agrees with the findings of the study by Schmitt, Branscombe, and Kappen. Another study by Sidanius, Pratto, and Rabinowitz (1994) also reported that there is a positive correlation between the attitudes towards inequality and group affiliation of individuals. In general, many studies agree that social dominance orientation greatly depends on people’s social-structural group affiliation. People who belong to groups that are privileged are more likely to record high social dominance orientation. On the other hand, individuals affiliated to groups that are disadvantaged in the society tend to be less social dominance-oriented than their counterparts affiliated to groups entitled to many privileges. Social dominance orientation exhibits a great influence on people’s willingness or lack of it to support various policies with implications on various groups. Few studies have been conducted to determine the correlation between SDO and the degree of membership of a given group. This study sought to determine the relationship between social dominance orientation and racial group membership.
Hypotheses
- There is no relationship between SDO and group membership among the whites
- With the black targets there is no relationship between SDO and group membership
- With black-white biracial targets, there is a negative relationship between SDO and group membership. As SDO increases, group membership decreases.
Method
Participants
One hundred and fifty participants were recruited to take part in the survey. Out of this number, two people dropped out. Eventually, the number of Black-white biracial, Whites, and Blacks who took part in the survey were 46, 54, and 48 respectively. The age range for the participants was 64. Standard deviation, on the other hand, was 13.910 while the mean age was 29.20. The standard deviation of the ages of the participants was 0.06. No compensation was offered to the participants during recruitment for participation in the survey. The participants also included individuals belonging to both male and female gender.
Materials
Online social dominance orientation scale was used in the study. Besides, phones were availed to contact the participants for request for participation in the survey. The consent of the participants was obtained by sending soft copies of the consent form to the prospective participant for signing after which the participants sent the forms via mail.
Procedure
The survey began with the recruitment of participants. In this case, the participants were first contacted on Facebook, twitter, and histogram. They were then requested to take part in the survey. The email addresses for the individuals who agreed to take part in the survey were obtained, and consent form sent to them. The participants had to verify their age, race, and nationality before being recruited for the survey. After the recruitment, the link to the questionnaire was sent to the participants via mail. The filled questionnaires were then analyzed and tested for Pearson-product moment correlation. The results were then presented.
Results
Among the White target population, SDO was found to be negatively correlated with group membership, r(52)= -0.057, p = 0.680. Among the Blacks, the results show that SDO was also negatively correlated with group membership, r(46) = -0.412, p= 0.004. Finally, for the Black-White Biracial, SDO was negatively correlated with group membership, r(42) = -0.204, p= 0.174.
Discussion
All the three racial groups; Blacks, Whites, and Black-Whites Biracial showed a negative correlation between SDO and group membership. The results show that most American population has a negative attitude towards inequality. A possible explanation for this observation could be the fact that people are becoming increasingly aware of the need to respect other people’s rights. In addition, awareness of the need to protect the minority against exploitation is constantly increasing in the United States. This trend has been characterized by the growth of civil society organizations and the emergence of policies that protect the minority from unequal treatments. In addition, the American society is becoming more and more empathetic. The population of the members of the generation Z is also constantly growing in the United States. This generation is unique partly because its members are more empathetic than the members of the previous generations. In short, the findings from this survey indicate that the perception of Americans is changing.
One of the limitations of the study was the inability of the researcher to ensure that the respondents give honest responses. The findings from this study confirmed the hypotheses formulated at the beginning of the study. Therefore, this study approves all the hypotheses developed at the beginning of the survey. The findings from this survey can help predict the current attitude of the American population on inequality.
References
Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. Advances in experimental social psychology, 31, 191-263.
Pratto, F., Liu, J. H., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih, M., Bachrach, H., & Hegarty, P. (2000). Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of inequality across cultures. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 31(3), 369-409.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 67(4), 741.
Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & Kappen, D. M. (2003). Attitudes toward group‐based inequality: Social dominance or social identity?. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 161-186.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Rabinowitz, J. L. (1994). Gender, Ethnic Status, and Ideological Asymmetry A Social Dominance Interpretation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25(2), 194-216.
Whitley Jr, B. E. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 126.
