Relationships Among Social Dominance Orientation, Social Axioms, and Values

Abstract

We adopted 2 cross-culturally validated instruments, developed for the measurement of human values (Schwartz's value model) and generalized beliefs (Leung and Bond's social axioms model), to examine their relationships with the perceptions of legitimacy, permeability, and social dominance orientation (SDO) in a group of 383 Turkish university students. The results showed that the students' perceptions of legitimacy were positively related to their conservation values and the religiosity belief dimension, and negatively related to openness to change and self-transcendence values. We also found that the permeability scores were positively correlated with conservation values and religiosity beliefs, and negatively correlated with openness to change, self-enhancement values, and social cynicism beliefs. Regression analysis results revealed that generalized beliefs (social axioms) and SDO were more effective than values in predicting the legitimacy scores of participants who saw boundaries as legitimate and permeable. This pattern was reversed for participants who regarded the boundaries as illegitimate and impermeable.Social dominance theory (SDT) stands out as a major alternative to social identity theory (SIT) as a means of explaining observed regularities in intergroup behaviors and beliefs related to hierarchical structures across societies (Huddy, 2004). It is explained in SDT how group-based hierarchies are formed and maintained, by the application of multiple levels of analysis ranging from SOCIAL

The relationship between value and ideological orientations using the refined theory of basic values

“…By using the 10-values original structure, many scholars (e.g. Duriez & Van Hiel, 2002;Kuşdil & Akoğlu, 2014;Leone et al, 2016) have analyzed the underlying value patterns of SDO and RWA.…”

The discrimination of immigrants in the socioeconomic domain: the role of intergroup attitudes of the mainstream population

“…С момента своего появления два деся-тилетия назад данный конструкт ока-зался одним из самых универсальных и полезных для понимания социально-политических идеологий, психологии предубеждений и межгруппового пове-дения [28], а теория социального доми-нирования выделяется в качестве основ-ной альтернативы теории социальной идентичности и как средство для объяс-нения наблюдаемых закономерностей в межгрупповом поведении и верованиях, связанных с иерархическими структу-рами в разных культурах [30]. Однако, хотя сильная прогностическая валид-ность ОСД и была доказана, тем не ме-нее этот кострукт не в состоянии охва-тить все аспекты общественной жизни и полностью не заменяет объяснительный потенциал других конструктов, напри-мер индивидуальных ценностей, соци-альных аксиом и верований [37]. Также существуют некоторые вопросы и споры касательно ОСД -скажем, одномерный это или двухмерный конструкт (домини-рование и антиэгалитаризм), актуален ли он для современных межгрупповых отношений, направлен ли он на группо-вую иерархию вообще или же лишь на предпочтение доминирования только ингруппы (тогда чем это отличается от ингруппового фаворитизма?)…”

Religiosity Decline in Europe: Age, Generation, and the Mediating Role of Shifting Human Values

“…Indeed, empirical evidence confirms that religiosity is positively associated with tradition and conformity, and to a lesser extent, with security and benevolence. It is also negatively associated with hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction, and, to a lesser extent, with achievement, power, and universalism (Chan et al, 2018 ; Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004 ; Kuşdil & Akoğlu, 2014 ; Maio, 2010 ; Rohan, 2000 ; Saroglou et al, 2004 ). These findings seem robust across different contexts (religious denominations, countries, etc.).…”

“…Generations are more than just groups of people of similar age; generations can be defined as communities of shared experiences, feelings (Mannheim, 1940(Mannheim, , 1970, and shared values (Marcus et al, 2017;Twenge et al, 2012). Because values and religiosity are significantly related (Chan et al, 2018;Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004;Kuşdil & Akoğlu, 2014;Maio, 2010;Rohan, 2000;Saroglou et al, 2004), generational differences in values should translate into generational differences in religiosity. Therefore, we propose that religiosity decline can be explained by values differing across generations, and that this mechanism is mostly independent of the age effect.…”