Social dominance theory (
SDT) is a theory of
intergroup relations that focuses on the maintenance and stability of group-based social hierarchies.
[1] According to the theory, group-based inequalities are maintained through three primary intergroup behaviors: institutional
discrimination, aggregated individual discrimination, and behavioral asymmetry. The theory proposes that widely shared cultural ideologies (i.e., legitimizing myths) provide the moral and intellectual justification for these intergroup behaviors.
Social dominance theory was first formulated in 1999 by psychology professors and researchers,
Jim Sidanius and
Felicia Pratto.
[1][2] The theory begins with the observation that human social groups tend to be organized according to group-based social hierarchies in societies that produce economic surplus. These hierarchies have a trimorphic (3-form) structure. This means that these hierarchies are based on (1) age (i.e., adults have more power and higher status than children), (2) sex (i.e., men have more power and higher status than women), and (3) arbitrary-set, which are group-based hierarchies that are culturally defined and do not necessarily exist in all societies. Arbitrary-set hierarchies can be based on ethnicity (e.g., Whites over Blacks in the U.S.), religion, nationality, and so on.
Human social hierarchies consist of a
hegemonic group at the top and negative reference groups at the bottom. More powerful social roles are increasingly likely to be occupied by a hegemonic group member (for example, an older white male). Males are more dominant than females, and they possess more political power (the iron law of
andrarchy). Most high-status positions are held by males.
[1]
Researcher at
University of Auckland, John Duckitt, accepts the concept of Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and attempts to pair it to a related set of beliefs,
Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA).
[4] A scale was produced to measure RWA, and it was focused on conventionalism, authoritarian aggression and authoritarian submission.
[4] These three core authoritarian characteristics were identified in the sociology book,
The Authoritarian Personality.
[4]
Duckitt proposes a model in which RWA and SDO are produced by socialization in childhood, by personality, and by worldview beliefs.[
citation needed] Punitive socialisation is hypothesised as a cause of social conformity. This conformity is predicted to lead to a view of the world as a dangerous, dog-eat-dog place.[
citation needed] These correspond to high–RWA beliefs, and in turn influence ingroup and
outgroup attitudes
