Social Dominance and Social Identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup Favoritism or Outgroup Derogation?

Abstract

American and Israeli university students completed questionnaires in their native languages assessing ingroup identification, social dominance orientation (SDO), and ingroup and outgroup affect. The interrelationships among the variables were examined for high-and low-status groups in three intergroup contexts: whites and Latinos in the United States, Ashkenazim and Mizrachim in Israel, and Jews and Arabs in Israel. Theoretical predictions of social identity theory and social dominance theory were tested. Results indicated that for all high-and low-status groups, stronger ingroup identification was associated with more positive ingroup affect, and for nearly all groups, higher SDO was associated with more negative affect toward the low-status group. In addition, SDO was positively associated with ingroup identification for all high-status groups, and negatively associated with ingroup identification for almost all low-status groups. Explanations for cross-cultural differences in the factors driving group affect are suggested, and theoretical refinements are proposed that accommodate them.

Identidad nacional y su relación con la dominancia social y la tolerancia a la transgresión en residentes de Buenos Aires (Argentina)

“…Articulando ambas teorías (Teoría de la Iden tidad Social y Teoría de la Dominancia Identidad nacional, dominancia social y tolerancia a la transgresión Social) se ha encontrado que, si bien se espera que el deseo por mantener una identidad social positiva manifieste un afecto positivo hacia el endogrupo, los deseos de dominación social se manifestarán en un afecto positivo hacia el grupo dominante, y en un menor afecto hacia el grupo de menor estatus, sin importar el gru po al que uno per tenezca (Espinosa, Calderón, Burga & Güimac, 2007;Levin & Sidanius, 1999;Schmitt, Branscombe & Kappen, 2003). En esta misma línea se ha argumentado que la construcción saludable de una identidad colectiva nacional resulta difí-cil en un contexto donde el prejuicio y la exclusión de importantes segmentos de la sociedad predominan, debido a que la desvalorización de las minorías cuestiona la imagen global de la nación (Espinosa, 2011).…”

Ethnic Enclaves and the Dynamics of Social Identity on the College Campus: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

“…This victimization variable was defined as a composite of four questions: (a) "I experience discrimination at UCLA because of my ethnicity," (b) "Other members of my ethnic group experience discrimination on campus," (c) "Most of my professors don't have any ethnic prejudices" (reverse 2 Although these variable clusters do not strictly conform to the results of empirical factor analyses, this organization of the variables is consistent with the manner in which they are usually conceptualized within the literature (see, e.g., Sears, Sidanius, & Bobo, 2000). 3 This ethnic identity scale was either identical to or nearly identical to other identity measures used in this literature (see, e.g., Ellemers, Van Knippenberg, De Vries, & Wilke, 1988;Ellemers, Van Knippenberg, & Wilke, 1990;Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 1996;Levin & Sidanius, 1999;Levin, Sidanius, Rabinowitz, & Federico, 1998;Sinclair, Sidanius, & Levin, 1998;Sidanius, Feshbach, Levin, & Pratto, 1997). As an additional check on the construct validity of this ethnic identity scale, we examined ethnic identity as a function of ethnic group and college tenure (between the freshman and senior years).…”

Multiple Facets of Compassion: The Impact of Social Dominance Orientation and Economic Systems Justification

“…Stemming from the larger Social Dominance Theory (SDT) which expresses ''the existence of a fundamental human desire to establish and maintain systems of group-based social hierarchy'' (Levin and Sidanius 1999), SDO is a preference for maintaining certain social (e.g., racial, ethnic, and cultural group) hierarchies, whether or not they reflect self-interest (Pratto et al 1994;Sidanius and Pratto 1993). The level of one's SDO can be measured using the SDO Scale (Pratto et al 1994).…”

“…The level of one's SDO can be measured using the SDO Scale (Pratto et al 1994). Individuals who rate high on the SDO Scale typically ''become members of institutions and choose roles that maintain or increase social inequality'' (Pratto et al 1994) will find diverse organizations unattractive (Umphress et al 2007); will find ''more positive affect toward highstatus groups and more negative toward low-status groups'' (Levin and Sidanius 1999); and will follow beliefs that promote one group's dominance over another, i.e., racism, sexism, and nationalism (Pratto et al 1994).…”