Dimensions of social dominance and their associations with environmentalism

Stanley, Samantha K.; Wilson, Marc; Sibley, Chris G.; Milfont, Taciano L.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.051

Cited by 41 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also note that the subdimension of SDO on egalitarianism (vs. dominance) has stronger correlations with our pro‐environmental measures (see Table ), which is consistent with a recent finding by Stanley et al. (). SDO‐Egalitarianism entails support for ideologies and policies that enhance group‐based inequality through unequal distribution of resources.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The SDO 7 (Ho et al., ) is an eight‐item scale measuring individuals’ endorsement of group‐based hierarchy and inequality. SDO is reflected in two factors: SDO‐Dominance, the endorsement of higher status groups forcefully oppressing lower status groups (e.g., “An ideal society requires some groups to be on top and others to be on the bottom”), and SDO‐Egalitarianism, a preference for ideologies and social policies that subtly enhance group‐based inequality (e.g., “It is unjust to try to make groups equal;” also see Jost & Thompson, ; Stanley, Wilson, Sibley, & Milfont, ). Responses were rated on a scale of 1 ( Strongly disagree ) to 7 ( Strongly agree ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding pro‐environmental intentions by integrating insights from social mobility, cosmopolitanism, and social dominance

Leung

Koh

2018

Asian J of Social Psycho

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To offer an integrative account bridging individuals' sociocultural orientations with pro-environmentalism, the current research tested the mediating and moderating relationships among pro-environmental intentions and three person-level factors: perceived social mobility, cosmopolitan orientation, and social dominance orientation (SDO). With a Singaporean college student sample (N = 220), we found support for the hypothesized second-stage moderation model that perceived social mobility positively predicts cosmopolitan orientation, and in turn, cosmopolitan orientation is moderated by SDO to positively predict proenvironmental intentions. Specifically, lower levels of SDO strengthen the pro-environmental advantages of endorsing higher levels of cosmopolitan orientation. These findings add novel knowledge to the environmental psychology literature by advancing an integrative approach that demonstrates how the interplay of people's perceptions about the social, cultural, and group standing impacts their likelihood to engage in proenvironmental actions. We discuss the implications that an egalitarian worldview toward other cultures, social groups, and human-nature relations might be the key to addressing the global challenge of climate change.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding pro‐environmental intentions by integrating insights from social mobility, cosmopolitanism, and social dominance

Leung

Koh

2018

Asian J of Social Psycho

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, given that the relationship between submission to authority and climate change denial would theoretically depend on the climate change stance of the authority, this aspect of RWA would be context dependent, as is seen in Germany where submission to authority positively predicts pro‐environmental beliefs (Reese, ). Unsurprisingly then, previous studies have found that both RWA and SDO are significant positive ideological predictors of climate change denial (Häkkinen & Akrami, ; Hoffarth & Hodson, ; Milfont et al, ; Stanley, Wilson, Sibley, & Milfont, ). Additionally, despite RWA and SDO being moderately correlated, their impact on climate change denial has been shown to be independent of one another, with each explaining unique variance in climate change denial (Milfont et al, ; Milfont & Sibley, ; Stanley, Wilson, & Milfont, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Mitigation system threat partially mediates the effects of right‐wing ideologies on climate change beliefs

Clarke

Ling

Kothe

et al. 2019

J Applied Social Pyschol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research consistently shows that right‐wing ideological adherents are more likely to deny climate change. However, less is known about how right‐wing ideological subtypes are uniquely related to climate change denial, as well as what explains these relationships. This study examines whether threat to the socioeconomic system in the form of climate change mitigation policies, referred to as Climate Change Mitigation Threat (CCMT), mediates the relationships between Right‐Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) subtypes and four forms of climate change denial (existence denial, human cause denial, impact denial and climate science denial). U.S. participants (N = 334; Mage = 34.70, SD = 5.98) were recruited via Amazon MTurk. When shared variance in the predictors was accounted for, we found that: (a) Conventionalism (RWA‐C) positively predicted all forms of climate change denial; (b) Dominance (SDO‐D) positively predicted existence denial; (c) Anti‐Egalitarianism (SDO‐E) positively predicted both human cause and impact denial; and (d) Aggression (RWA‐A) negatively predicted existence denial. All significant direct relationships were partially mediated by CCMT, except for the direct paths between SDO‐D and existence denial, and RWA‐A and existence denial. These findings suggest that right‐wing adherents who conform to societal norms and prefer unequal social systems may deny climate change partly due to a perception that mitigation strategies proposed to combat climate change threaten the existing socioeconomic system.

show abstract

“…Moreover, Meleady, Crisp, Dhont, Hopthrow, and Turner (2019) found, across several studies (one longitudinal), that positive contact predicted greater environmental concern and pro‐environmental behaviors via lower SDO. Individuals higher in SDO may be more willing to exploit the environment to maintain hierarchical social structures (Stanley, Wilson, Sibley, & Milfont, 2017), but by reducing SDO, positive contact attenuates these tendencies.…”

Section: Contact Effects On Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of individual differences in understanding and enhancing intergroup contact

Turner

Hodson

Dhont

2020

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a world characterized by divisive rhetoric, heightened xenophobia, and other forms of prejudice, it is increasingly important to find effective ways of promoting functional intergroup relations. Research on the relationship between intergroup contact and individual differences substantially contributes to achieving this goal. We review research considering the role played by individual differences in moderating the relationship between contact and prejudice and predicting contact, but also as an outcome of contact. We then outline potential directions for future research, including identifying underlying mechanisms, examining the role of context at an intergroup and societal level, and considering how positive-negative contact asymmetry may be influenced by individual differences. We then call for a broader range of individual difference and contact outcomes to be explored and encourage utilization of new methodological advances in the study of intergroup contact.

show abstract

Dimensions of social dominance and their associations with environmentalism

Cited by 41 publications

References 28 publications

Understanding pro‐environmental intentions by integrating insights from social mobility, cosmopolitanism, and social dominance

Understanding pro‐environmental intentions by integrating insights from social mobility, cosmopolitanism, and social dominance

Mitigation system threat partially mediates the effects of right‐wing ideologies on climate change beliefs

The role of individual differences in understanding and enhancing intergroup contact

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About