See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338409260

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)

Chapter · January 2020

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2602-1

CITATIONS READS

8 2,161

3 authors, including:

Thomas Haarklau Kleppestø Lotte Thomsen

University of Oslo University of Oslo
17 PUBLICATIONS   65 CITATIONS    54 PUBLICATIONS   2,086 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PREPRINT: Toddlers prefer those who win, but not when they win by force View project

Acknowledging common Abrahamic heritage View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas Haarklau Kleppestø on 06 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

S
Social Dominance Orientation
(SDO)
Thomas Haarklau Kleppestø1,
Nikolai Haahjem Eftedal1 and Lotte Thomsen1,2
1
Department of Psychology, University of Oslo,
Oslo, Norway
2
Department of Political Science, Aarhus
University, Aarhus, Denmark
Synonyms
Between-group hierarchy; Dominance;
Evolutionary political psychology; Political
attitudes; Prejudice; Sex differences; Warfare
Definition
Social dominance orientation is a measurement of
“the general desire to establish and maintain
hierarchically structured intergroup relations
regardless of the position of one’s own group
(s) within this hierarchy” (Sidanius et al. 2016,
p. 152).
Introduction
Human societies tend to structure themselves as
group-based social hierarchies such that some
groups enjoy greater access to fitness-relevant
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
T. K. Shackelford, V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2602-1
resources such as prestige, wealth, social status,
healthcare, food, homes, mates, and so on. Social
dominance theory (SDT, Sidanius and Pratto
1999) asks the questions why and how group-
based hierarchies are continuously reproduced,
at least among surplus-producing societies. The
theoretical framework spans macrostructural,
institutional, ideological, social role, individual,
and behavioral genetic levels of analysis to
address this question and postulates that humans
have a predisposition to navigate group-based
social structures (Kleppestø et al. 2019; Kunst
et al. 2017; Pratto et al. 2006; Sidanius et al.
2016; Sidanius and Pratto 1999).
Conflicts between groups are ubiquitous across
history and cultures. Ideologies that justify
beliefs about the superiority of dominating groups
might serve the function of reducing conflicts by
legitimizing the hierarchical status quo (Pratto
et al. 1994; Sidanius and Pratto 1999). According
to SDT, when these ideologies are widely
accepted within a society, they justify discrimina-
tion and allow some groups to dominate over
others based on their gender, age, and, especially,
socially constructed markers of group member-
ship such as class, race, ethnicity, caste, and
religion – what SDT coins arbitrary sets. The
beliefs and ideologies that justify dominance hier-
archies are called hierarchy-enhancing legitimiz-
ing myths; examples are the “divine rights of
kings,” sexism, and the Protestant work ethic
suggesting that you get what you personally
deserve (myths in this context mean widely shared
2 Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)
ideologies, not implying that they are false or
true). Beliefs that justify flat or egalitarian group
structures are called hierarchy-attenuating legiti-
mizing myths, examples being the universal
rights of man, socialism, and feminism (Sidanius
et al. 2016; Sidanius and Pratto 1999). Impor-
tantly, SDT postulates that particular instances of
modern group-based discrimination such as rac-
ism, classism, sexism, and nationalism are mani-
festations of more general processes where
dominant groups maintain social, economic, and
military supremacy over subordinates (Sidanius
et al. 2016).
At the individual level of analysis, endorse-
ment of such intergroup dominance hierarchies
is reflected in the individual difference of
social dominance orientation (SDO) (Ho et al.
2015; Pratto et al. 1994) to which we now turn
our attention. This general relational motive to
enhance versus attenuate between-group hierar-
chies has proven one of the most robust predictors
of intergroup attitudes (Pratto et al. 2006; Sidanius
et al. 2016; Sidanius and Pratto 1999), from sup-
port for social welfare to ethnic persecution of
immigrants (Dunwoody and McFarland 2018;
Ho et al. 2012, 2015; Thomsen et al. 2008).
Here, we discuss the conceptual and psychometric
properties of SDO, and we highlight some key
evolutionary forces that might explain SDO’s
inter-individual variation and mean-level sex
differences.
The Construct of Social Dominance
Orientation (SDO)
Sidanius et al. (2016, p. 152) define SDO as
“the general desire to establish and maintain
hierarchically structured intergroup relations
regardless of the position of one’s own group
(s) within this hierarchy.” Since its first introduc-
tion in 1994 (Pratto et al. 1994), the SDO scale has
gone through several iterations. The most recent
version, the SDO7 (Ho et al. 2015), consists of
16 statements (such as “Some groups of people
must be kept in their place”), which responders
rate their levels of agreement with on 7-point
Likert scales. Scores on these items can be
averaged to form an SDO score (with half the
items being reverse scored). Below we discuss
the dimensionality of SDO and how SDO relates
to other variables and constructs.
Dimensionality
SDO was previously considered a unitary con-
struct, but increasingly there is evidence that the
construct can be divided into two: dominance
(SDO-D) and egalitarianism (SDO-E) (Ho et al.
2012, 2015). SDO-D reflects preferences for
active oppression of groups and is most reflective
of hostile beliefs such as old-fashioned racism,
dehumanization, and support for war (Sidanius
et al. 2016). SDO-E, on the other hand, reflects a
preference for inequality or at least an opposition
to active measures toward reducing inequality.
SDO-E is also often labeled “anti-egalitarianism.”
SDO-D and SDO-E have been shown to con-
stitute separate facets of SDO in factor analyses,
and they also differ when used as predictors for
conceptually relevant variables. In the overview
of relations between SDO and other traits below,
we discuss correlations for full-scale SDO scores,
while noting differences between SDO-D and
SDO-E whenever relevant.
Predictive Power of SDO
SDT predicts that SDO will correlate positively
with support for hierarchy-enhancing and nega-
tively with hierarchy-attenuating ideologies or
legitimizing myths. Consistent with this, SDO
has been tied to support for a wide range of atti-
tudes about ideology and politics, including polit-
ical and, particularly, economic conservatism and
support for social welfare and affirmative action
(Sidanius and Pratto 1999). And SDO continues
to predict emergent current phenomena, such as
attitudes toward Syrian refugees and voting for
Donald Trump (Dunwoody and McFarland 2018;
Sheehy-Skeffington and Thomsen 2019). Most
centrally, SDO has been found to consistently
predict most kinds of prejudicial attitudes. This
includes prejudice against women, the poor, eth-
nic/racial minorities, LGBTQ people, and immi-
grants (see Sidanius et al. 2016, for an overview of
studies on this). Prejudicial attitudes predicted
from having low scores on SDO are less studied,
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)
though there are indications that they could
include prejudice against political conservatives
and against social groups deemed to be privileged
(Lucas and Kteily 2018).
SDO has also been explored in relation to
personality traits. In particular, SDO has been
connected to many personality traits that are
socially undesirable (Ho et al. 2015), such as the
Dark Triad traits of Machiavellianism, narcissism,
and psychopathy, which are particularly strongly
linked to SDO-D. Relatedly, SDO-D in particular
is inversely correlated with the honesty/humility
dimension of the HEXACO personality inven-
tory, which reflects an unwillingness to “get
ahead” through dishonest means. Among the Big
Five traits, SDO is most strongly related to agree-
ableness and openness to experience, with both
correlations being negative here as well. The
Empathic Concern scale is also negatively related
to SDO (Lucas and Kteily 2018).
Distinctions Between SDO and Related
Constructs
To further clarify what the SDO construct is
meant to represent, we here go through
three constructs that SDO is related to but impor-
tantly distinct from. These are interpersonal dom-
inance, in-group favoritism, and right-wing
authoritarianism.
Upon hearing the name “social dominance
orientation,” a natural interpretation is that it
reflects how oriented someone is toward being
interpersonally dominant in social settings. But
this is not what SDO is meant to measure, and
the discriminant validity of SDO from standard
personality measures of interpersonal dominance
was established early on (Pratto et al. 1994;
Sidanius and Pratto 1999): SDO concerns prefer-
ences regarding dominance hierarchies between
groups in society, and so it is conceptually quite
distinct from being interpersonally dominant.
Another misinterpretation of SDO is that it
necessarily involves a preference that one’s own
group should be the one to dominate, so that it
would correspond to in-group favoritism. Such an
interpretation would indeed align with how SDO
was originally conceptualized (e.g., Pratto et al.
1994), but contemporary understandings of SDO
3
have shifted away from this to propose that SDO
reflects a person’s general orientation toward the
idea of hierarchies between groups. Consistent
with SDT’s prediction of ideological asymmetry,
this suggests that a black American with a high
score on SDO would not desire blacks to domi-
nate whites, but would rather endorse the existing
hierarchical status quo, even though this implies
that whites continue to have more status and
power than blacks (Ho et al. 2015; Sidanius and
Pratto 1999). Accordingly, SDO is more posi-
tively associated with ethnic identity, perceived
ethnic victimization, and other variables related
to in-group favoritism among dominant than sub-
ordinate groups (Sidanius et al. 2016; Sidanius
and Pratto 1999; Thomsen et al. 2010).
SDO is also related to, but yet distinct from,
the concept of right-wing authoritarianism
(RWA). RWA is manifested in submission to tra-
ditional authorities and in aggressive enforcement
of established norms and customs. Thus, RWA
and SDO are conceptually related, as they both
concern attitudes toward hierarchy. Additionally,
SDO and RWA tend to correlate quite substan-
tially (usually at about r = 0.40), and they are both
good predictors of many kinds of prejudicial
attitudes.
However, SDO and RWA also have important
theoretical and empirical distinctions. The dual-
process motivational model of ideological atti-
tudes (Duckitt and Sibley 2010) proposes that
RWA reflects needs for social order and stable
traditions, which result from seeing the world as
a threatening and dangerous place. Thus, people
high in RWA should prefer authorities that empha-
size order and law and that defend traditional
values. High SDO rather implies perceiving soci-
ety as a competitive jungle, where you need to
fight for power and control over others. People
high in SDO therefore tend to prefer authorities
that favor social inequality and group dominance.
While both RWA and SDO are associated with
prejudice toward outgroups, the particular types
of prejudice predicted from them are importantly
different. According to Duckitt and Sibley (2010),
RWA predicts dislike of groups that are socially
deviant and/or norm-violating, whereas SDO
predicts prejudice against groups that are low in
4 Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)
status. For example, Thomsen et al. (2008) dem-
onstrated in Switzerland and Southwestern USA
that for people high in RWA, negative attitudes
toward immigrants were mainly provoked by
immigrants’ refusal to assimilate into the domi-
nant culture and adhere to established norms, thus
threatening cultural conventionality. In contrast,
SDO predicted aggression toward immigrants that
assimilated too much into the dominant culture
and thus threatened the existing status boundaries.
SDO Is Contingent upon Hierarchical Position
but Is also a Stable Trait
There are myriad studies documenting that SDO
responds to the hierarchical nature of the context.
Perhaps most importantly, it has been shown
many times over that one’s level of SDO is highly
contingent on the placing of one’s own group in
the hierarchy. Consistent with how SDO only
reflects self-interest when measured in dominant
groups, people from lower-ranking groups tend to
score substantially lower on SDO. For example,
the difference in mean SDO between blacks and
whites in the USA is substantial (e.g., Ho et al.
2015). It has been found that as the objective,
salient, or perceived difference in power between
groups becomes larger, so too does the difference
in SDO levels between the groups (e.g., Levin
2004).
Consistent with this, in a meta-analysis across
27 countries, the average SDO level among
dominant groups corresponded to the macrostruc-
tural level of inequality, that is, to the status
gap between dominant and subordinates, consis-
tent with dove-hawk type dynamics (Fischer
et al. 2012). Accordingly, SDO among dominant
groups also correlated across nations with macro-
level indicators of poor governance, corruption,
lack of rule of law, and democracy, all consistent
with the notion that dominant groups are more
likely to coercively claim resources the greater
the macrostructural inequality. In an independent
sample collected across 30 US states, macrostruc-
tural inequality (Gini) across states predicted SDO
and mediated the effect of SDO on attitudes
toward minorities (Kunst et al. 2017).
Just as SDT describes hierarchy-enhancing
myths, it also describes hierarchy-enhancing
social institutions. These are institutions which
serve to uphold and enhance hierarchies, and
the theory predicts not only that people will self-
select to hierarchy-enhancing versus hierarchy-
attenuating institutions depending on their SDO
levels but also that membership in hierarchy-
enhancing institutions will lead to corresponding
increases in SDO (Sidanius and Pratto 1999).
Examples of institutions that have been described
to have hierarchy-enhancing elements are the
criminal justice system and the police force,
housing, labor, healthcare, retail, and education
(Sidanius and Pratto 1999).
Consistent with this, Sidanius et al. (1994)
found that police officers in LA had higher mean
SDO than students and jurors (who represented a
random sample of Los Angeles citizens), whereas
public defenders (working at the public defenders
office, which is a HA institution) were found to be
significantly less social dominance-oriented than
both students and jurors.
SDO scores can also vary on more of a
moment-to-moment basis when one’s salient
position in the hierarchical context changes. In a
study illustrating this, Levin (1997) divided the
SDO scale in half and put one half alongside
questions about the tensions between Ashkenazi
and Mizrachi Jews in Israel and the other half
alongside questions about the tensions between
Jews and Arabs. In the section on Jew conflict,
Ashkenazis (who are seen as higher in status)
scored higher on SDO than Mizrachis. But in the
section on tensions between Jews and Arabs
(where both groups of Jews are higher in status),
then both groups of Jews scored higher than in the
other condition, and the difference in scores
between the groups disappeared.
Interestingly, Levin’s (1997) study of contex-
tual influences on SDO also illustrates how SDO
also can be seen as a stable trait. Specifically, as
has been shown in many studies, SDO has high
rank-order stability. This means that people with
relatively high scores in one context will be likely
to be high scorers in other contexts. Despite the
large shifts in mean SDO levels between condi-
tions in Levin’s study, correlations between SDO
scores from the same participant were still sub-
stantial. Levin (2004) conceptually replicated
these effects in Northern Ireland among Catholics
and Protestants and further demonstrated that the
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)
difference in SDO between dominant and subor-
dinate groups are moderated by personal percep-
tion of the nature and size of the status gap.
Recently, Bratt et al. (2016) demonstrated
the rank-order stability of SDO and its predictive
power on outgroup prejudice over time using
latent growth-curve modeling among large sam-
ples of Norwegian teenagers and American
university students. Thomsen et al. (2010) dem-
onstrated the stable relations of SDO scores across
more than 3 years, as well as their longitudinal,
cross-lagged effects on perceived white victim-
hood and prejudice. In summary, SDO does, con-
trary to the claims of some critics, constitute a
generalized orientation toward intergroup hierar-
chy that holds regardless of which groups people
are instructed to hold in mind when they fill out
the SDO scale.
Interpretation of Low SDO Scores
SDO is often skewed toward the lower end of
the scale. For instance, in Ho et al.’s (2015) vali-
dation study of the SDO7 scale, the average SDO
score across six US samples on a 7-point Likert-
scale was 2.6, corresponding to a percentage of
maximum possible agreement (POMP) score of
27.2 (ranging from 0 to 100), including a repre-
sentative population sample, the SDO mean of
which was 3.0, corresponding to a POMP score
of 32.5. Consistent with this, meta-analytical esti-
mates indicated that the mean SDO POMP score
across 27 nations was at 25.8, ranging from 15.7
in Switzerland to 63.0 in Japan (Fischer
et al. 2012).
This raises issues about how scores are to be
categorized. An SDO score of 3.8, for example, is
below the scale midpoint of 4, yet it would place
you about a standard deviation above the mean in
Ho et al.’s samples. So, if you score at 3.8, do you
then have high or low SDO? Are you predicted to
want to attenuate or amplify hierarchies? Notably,
SDO correlates very strongly with the anti-
egalitarianism scale (r = 0.85 in Lucas and Kteily
2018), which has scores more evenly distributed
around its scale midpoint than SDO has. Thus,
it could be argued that SDO scores that are high
relative to most sample means can be taken to
represent opposition to egalitarianism, even if
5
they are below the midpoint of the scale (see
Lucas and Kteily 2018). Plausibly, SDO scores
might be shifted downward, e.g., through social
desirability bias. If so, then the “true” SDO level
of someone scoring 3.8 could be well above 4, and
so they would have high SDO in both a relative
and an absolute sense. Also, the low scores may
simply reflect a general human aversion to strong
group hierarchy or a preference for between-
group equality, relatively speaking. Indeed, SDO
scores would presumably only be shifted down-
ward due to social desirability concerns if there is
a widespread normative default expectation of
equality (that makes endorsement of between-
group dominance socially undesirable). Recent
evidence from preverbal human infants suggests
this is in fact the case, at least for default expecta-
tions of equal resource distribution (see Sheehy-
Skeffington and Thomsen 2019).
In any case, although the majority of people
may disagree with strong intergroup oppression in
absolute terms, the variance between strongly and
less strongly disagreeing with between-group
hierarchy, as captured by the SDO scale, has
proven one of the most robust predictors of
intergroup phenomena in political psychology.
Social dominance theory attempts to understand
how this variance intersects with macrostructure
and immediate institutional contexts and social
roles to explain the continuous reproduction of
the hierarchical status quo (Sidanius and Pratto
1999).
Evolution of Dominance and
Egalitarianism
As we have seen, social dominance orientation
predicts a plethora of political beliefs and ideolo-
gies. In the ethological literature, a concept known
as behavioral syndrome captures traits that tend to
correlate across situations and contexts. Given
that SDO correlates with many related political
beliefs, can these patterns be described as a behav-
ioral syndrome?
Strategies of dominance and egalitarianism
have deep evolutionary roots and can often coex-
ist within the same species. In game theoretical
6 Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)
competitions for dominance, the contests often
follow a hawk-dove dynamics where more formi-
dable individuals (hawks) will prevail in such
zero-sum conflicts, claiming contested resources,
while subordinates (doves) will yield to more
formidable opponents, so as to minimize costly
fighting and injury. Consistent with the notion of
evolved representations and motives for social
dominance, greater physical formidability is also
associated with greater dominance motives and
claiming of societal resources among humans
(Petersen et al. 2013). Indeed, even preverbal
infants use cues of formidability and predict that
the novel agents who are largest, most numerous
and have won before will prevail in zero-sum
conflict over smaller, less numerous, and previ-
ously weaker ones (Thomsen et al. 2011).
Importantly, egalitarian strategies are likely
to have evolutionary underpinnings as well.
In several primate species, coalitions form
among lower-ranked males in order to gain
access to fitness-relevant resources guarded by
higher-ranking individuals. Furthermore, hunter-
gatherers do display levelling mechanisms that
keep any one individual from gaining despotic
control (Boehm 1999).
If both dominant and egalitarian intergroup
strategies, as tapped by low and high SDO, are
maintained in human populations, what evolu-
tionary genetic forces maintain them? A recent
investigation using genetic sensitive data found
that SDO and related political beliefs were all
heritable and that the covariation between them
are genetic in origin (Kleppestø et al. 2019).
It is possible, then, that both endorsement
and opposition to intergroup hierarchies and the
social policies that are meant to amplify or atten-
uate them build on universal adaptations for nav-
igating social hierarchies. Given the enormous
variation in available resources across ecological
and social contexts throughout human history, it is
unlikely that a single optimal level of hierarchy-
preference exists. Hence, it is plausible that some
kind of balancing selection may maintain the
heritable variation in SDO, for example, through
migration-selection balance, a process where
genetic variation is maintained due to the chang-
ing selection pressures over time and space.
This maintenance of genetic variation can occur
with personality traits because humans select
environments and alliances that match their traits
(niche-specialization or active gene-environment
correlation). Individuals will then maximize the
chance of obtaining fitness-relevant resources
such as social alliances and mates.
The extensive evidence that people self-select
to areas of study and professional careers that
match their levels of SDO in terms of being
hierarchy-enhancing or attenuating (e.g. people
who are high in SDO are more likely to chose to
become police officer and people low in SDO are
more likely to chose to become social workers)
and also stay longer and do better in these educa-
tions and jobs the better this SDO-institution
match is (e.g. students with lower SDO get better
grades in traditionally hierarchy-attenuating edu-
cations), and, finally, also socialize SDO to go up
or down according to the hierarchy-enhancing or
attenuating nature of the institution (Gatto and
Dambrun 2012; Sidanius and Pratto 1999) pro-
vide support for this proposal. This also suggests
that any heritability of SDO must be understood
in its broadest sense to allow for such niche-
building gene-environment associations, where
SDO leads to the selection of environments that
further adjust SDO levels in congruent ways.
Evolution of Sex Differences in Social
Dominance Orientation
Across societies men score higher on SDO than
women (Lee et al. 2011). Typically this difference
is on the magnitude of about half a point on the
scale (e.g., ~2.9 for men vs. ~2.5 for women in Ho
et al. 2015). In contrast to the differences in scores
between ethnic groups, which are thought to be
entirely due to contextual factors, this sex differ-
ence is argued to be substantially less context
dependent. This claim about stable gender differ-
ences on SDO is called the “invariance hypothe-
sis” by SDO theoreticians and has been replicated
across many cultures (Lee et al. 2011).
Why would the sexes differ in attitudes and
behavior related to intergroup aggression? Sexual
selection and parental investment theory suggest
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)
that the payoff for costly intergroup aggression
might be very different for men and women
(Tooby and Cosmides 2010). In mammalian spe-
cies, the fitness of males is constrained by access
to fertile women. For women however, fitness
payoffs are not constrained by the availability of
fertile males, but rather by the time and resources
required for successful gestation and lactation.
This pattern gives rise to strong intrasexual com-
petition among men for access to fertile females.
This gives rise to men fighting other men individ-
ually, but also for intergroup competition where
men raid, or attempt to dominate, other groups for
access to the reproductive resources within them.
Furthermore, coalitional aggression has also been
observed in closely related primates (Wilson and
Wrangham 2003).
Based on this, social dominance theory
(Sidanius and Pratto 1999) predicted that
intergroup conflict between socially constructed,
arbitrary-set alliances (such as race, ethnicity, cul-
ture, class, caste, religion) will be a primarily
male-on-male phenomena. This implies that the
main targets of intergroup oppression will be sub-
ordinate males (i.e., in an American context black
and Hispanic males; in a European context Mus-
lim/Middle Eastern and African males), and so
SDT coined this idea the subordinate male target
hypothesis (SMTH) (Sidanius and Pratto 1999),
described more generally elsewhere as the male
warrior hypothesis (McDonald et al. 2012). It
postulates that men engage in coalitional aggres-
sion for direct sexual access but also indirectly for
foraging territories, social influence, power, and
status, and it may explain why men are much more
likely to be both perpetrators and victims of
intergroup violence and why men tend to be less
egalitarian in their social attitudes, such as SDO.
Indeed, the available evidence strongly suggest
that men are more prejudiced, conservative, puni-
tive, and racist than women are (Sidanius and
Pratto 1999). Nevertheless, modern expressions
of prejudice are probably not adaptations in and
of themselves (Navarrete et al. 2010). However,
they might have important evolutionary underpin-
nings, such as the alliance detection system. That
is, modern prejudice might be expressions of psy-
chological adaptations that evolved in a context
7
where coalitional aggression was much more
common than it is today (Tooby and Cosmides
2010). Indeed, high degrees of coalitional aggres-
sion can be observed among current hunter-
gatherer tribes.
SDT argues that men are not just the primary
agents of discrimination based on arbitrary-set
group differences (such as race), but also the
main target of it (Sidanius and Pratto 1999).
Experimental psychophysiological evidence on
prepared fear-learning supports the proposition
that we tend to primarily be wary of outgroup
males, rather than females (Navarrete et al.
2009). For women the argument has been made
that such outgroup bias is primarily motivated by
fear of sexual coercion, while for males it is based
on motives for aggression and social dominance
(Navarrete et al. 2010). In other words, sex is an
important variable in both the amount of prejudice
held by individuals but also in who is targeted for
discrimination.
Another crucial part of the male warrior
hypothesis is that it predicts variation among
males in their desire to dominate other groups.
That is, men are expected to calibrate their desire
for dominance based on their own formidability,
leadership ability, available alliances, and other
environmental information (Petersen et al. 2013).
In fact, the association between physical formida-
bility and SDO holds even when controlling for
the time spent lifting weights, suggesting that
physical formidability directly drives SDO, rather
than the reverse (Price et al. 2017; Sheehy-
Skeffington and Thomsen 2019).
Conclusion
Human societies tend to be structured as hierar-
chies where dominant groups enjoy a greater
access to fitness-relevant resources. Social domi-
nance orientation (SDO) measures the degree to
which individuals prefer that dominant groups
stay on top, or if society should be structured in
a more egalitarian fashion. SDO predicts many
important attitudes, such as political beliefs, prej-
udice, and life choices. Men tend to score higher,
which might reflect men’s sexually selected
8 Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)
tendency to be motivated to engage in intrasexual
competition for social status, which in turn give
them access to fertile females. Humans are likely
to possess adaptations designed for both domi-
nance and egalitarianism.
Cross-References
▶ Context, Environment, and Learning in Evolu-
tionary Psychology
▶ Dominance in Humans
▶ Evolutionary Personality Psychology
▶ Female Choice for Men High in SDO
▶ Indicators and Correlates of Status and
Dominance
▶ Political Affiliation
▶ Primate Dominance Hierarchies
▶ Self-Beneficial Political Attitudes
▶ Status and Dominance Hierarchies
References
Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution
of egalitarian behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bratt, C., Sidanius, J., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2016).
Shaping the development of prejudice: Latent growth
modeling of the influence of social dominance
orientation on outgroup affect in youth. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(12), 1617–1634.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology,
prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivational
model. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1861–1894.
Dunwoody, P. T., & McFarland, S. G. (2018). Support for
anti-Muslim policies: The role of political traits and
threat perception. Political Psychology, 39(1), 89–106.
Fischer, R., Hanke, K., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Cultural
and institutional determinants of social dominance
orientation: A cross-cultural meta-analysis of 27 socie-
ties. Political Psychology, 33(4), 437–467.
Gatto, J., & Dambrun, M. (2012). Authoritarianism, social
dominance, and prejudice among junior police officers.
Social Psychology, 43(2), 61–66.
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Levin, S., Thomsen, L.,
Kteily, N., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2012). Social
dominance orientation revisiting the structure and func-
tion of a variable predicting social and political atti-
tudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
38(5), 583–606.
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N. S., Sheehy-Skeffington,
J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., . . . Stewart, A. L. (2015).
The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing
and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality
using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003.
Kleppestø, T. H., Czajkowski, N. O., Vassend, O.,
Røysamb, E., Eftedal, N. H., Kunst, J. R., . . .
Thomsen, L. (2019). Correlations between social dom-
inance orientation and political attitudes reflect
common genetic underpinnings: A twin study.
https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/9bfaj
Kunst, J. R., Fischer, R., Sidanius, J., & Thomsen,
L. (2017). Preferences for group dominance track and
mediate the effects of macro-level social inequality and
violence across societies. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 114(21), 5407–5412.
Lee, I.-C., Pratto, F., & Johnson, B. T. (2011). Intergroup
consensus/disagreement in support of group-based
hierarchy: An examination of socio-structural and
psycho-cultural factors. Psychological Bulletin,
137(6), 1029.
Levin, S. (1997). A social psychological approach to
understanding intergroup attitudes in the United States
and Israel (Unpublished doctoral dissertation),
University of California, Los Angeles. (Ph.D.),
University of California, Los Angeles
Levin, S. (2004). Perceived group status differences and
the effects of gender, ethnicity, and religion on social
dominance orientation. Political Psychology, 25(1),
31–48.
Lucas, B. J., & Kteily, N. S. (2018). (Anti-) egalitarianism
differentially predicts empathy for members of
advantaged versus disadvantaged groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 114(5), 665.
McDonald, M. M., Navarrete, C. D., &
Van Vugt, M. (2012). Evolution and the psychology
of intergroup conflict: The male warrior hypothesis.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B,
367(1589), 670–679.
Navarrete, C. D., Olsson, A., Ho, A. K., Mendes, W. B.,
Thomsen, L., & Sidanius, J. (2009). Fear extinction to
an out-group face: The role of target gender.
Psychological Science, 20(2), 155–158.
Navarrete, C. D., McDonald, M. M., Molina, L. E., &
Sidanius, J. (2010). Prejudice at the nexus of race and
gender: An outgroup male target hypothesis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 933.
Petersen, M. B., Sznycer, D., Sell, A., Cosmides, L., &
Tooby, J. (2013). The ancestral logic of politics upper-
body strength regulates men’s assertion of self-interest
over economic redistribution. Psychological Science,
24(7), 1098–1103.
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.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social domi-
nance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations:
Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of
Social Psychology, 17(1), 271–320.
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)
Price, M. E., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Sidanius, J., &
Pound, N. (2017). Is sociopolitical egalitarianism
related to bodily and facial formidability in men?
Journal of Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(5),
626–634.
Sheehy-Skeffington, J., & Thomsen, L. (2019).
Egalitarianism. Psychological and socio-ecological
foundations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32,
146–152.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An
intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sidanius, J., Liu, J. H., Shaw, J. S., & Pratto, F. (1994).
Social dominance orientation, hierarchy attenuators
and hierarchy enhancers: Social dominance theory
and the criminal justice system. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 24(4), 338–366.
Sidanius, J., Cotterill, S., Sheehy-Skeffington, J.,
Kteily, N., & Carvacho, H. (2016). Social dominance
theory: Explorations in the psychology of oppression.
In C. G. Sibley & F. K. Barlow (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of the psychology of prejudice
(pp. 149–187). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
View publication stats
9
Thomsen, L., Green, E. G., & Sidanius, J. (2008). We will
hunt them down: How social dominance orientation
and right-wing authoritarianism fuel ethnic persecution
of immigrants in fundamentally different ways. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(6), 1455–1464.
Thomsen, L., Green, E. G., Ho, A. K., Levin, S., van Laar,
C., Sinclair, S., & Sidanius, J. (2010). Wolves in
sheep’s clothing: SDO asymmetrically predicts per-
ceived ethnic victimization among White and Latino
students across three years. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 36(2), 225–238.
Thomsen, L., Frankenhuis, W. E., Ingold-Smith, M., &
Carey, S. (2011). Big and mighty: Preverbal infants
mentally represent social dominance. Science,
331(6016), 477–480.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2010). Groups in mind: The
coalitional roots of war and morality. In H. Høgh-
Olesen (Ed.), Human morality and sociality: Evolu-
tionary and comparative perspectives (pp. 191–234).
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wilson, M. L., & Wrangham, R. W. (2003). Intergroup
relations in chimpanzees. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 32(1), 363–392.