Social Dominance in Context and in Individuals

Pratto, Felicia; Cidam, Atilla; Stewart, Andrew L.; Zeineddine, Fouad Bou; Aranda, María; Aiello, Antonio; Chryssochoou, Xénia; Cichocka, Aleksandra; Cohrs, J. Christopher; Durrheim, Kevin; Eicher, Véronique; Foels, Rob; Górska, Paulina; Lee, I-Ching; Licata, Laurent; Liu, James H.; Li, Liu; Meyer, Ines; Morselli, Davide; Muldoon, Orla T.; Muluk, Hamdi; Παπαστάμου, Στάμος; Petrović, Igor; Petrović, Nebojša; Prodromitis, Gerasimos; Prati, Francesca; Rubini, Monica; Saab, Rim; Stekelenburg, Jacquelien van; Sweetman, Joseph; Zheng, Wuxing; Henkel, Kristen E.

doi:10.1177/1948550612473663

Cited by 214 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Within a social-cognition framework, a different literature has focussed on the ideological polarisation currently characterising many developed democracies [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72]. Most of this work has been carried out within English-speaking countries and is particularly suitable to the Australia setting [19,73,74].…”

Section: Analysis: Interpreting Our Results Within Common Narratives mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They are less likely to believe that Nature is able to recover from human impacts and stressors (Nature Elastic in [148]). They are less authoritarian (lower Right-Wing Authoritarianism [149,150]), but show no differences on other measure of political beliefs (Social Dominance Orientation [65]) or affiliation [26]. They are more likely to believe that climate change is anthropogenic (we used measures from [74]).…”

Section: Participants' Cognitive Signaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Citizens’ Views of Australia’s Future to 2050

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In four focus group exercises involving both forecasting and backcasting approaches, we gave approximately 100 Australian citizens the opportunity to discuss likely, desirable and feared futures to 2050. The image they paint is both coherent and consistent. Education, governance, personal attitudes and societal trends, rather than specific events, are drivers of a future which is perceived as being largely shaped by human choices. Innovation is believed to be more necessary in novel social arrangements than in further technology. The most feared futures arise from an amplification of trends already at play in the present: economic growth at the expense of the environment and quality of life, lack of equity, poor government, corporate greed, commercialism and erosion of social values. Economic and material growth does not feature in the most desired futures which are local, inclusive, peaceful, equitable and in some cases frugal. The visions and scenarios developed find a place within established foresight frameworks and global political narratives, but seem to lie at the fringe of current media and short-term political discourse. These results should not be interpreted as representative of the overall Australian population, but suggest that extending the analysis to the broader community could provide significant insights and enrich the discussion of important societal choices. OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2015, 7 223

show abstract

Section: Analysis: Interpreting Our Results Within Common Narratives mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Participants' Cognitive Signaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Citizens’ Views of Australia’s Future to 2050

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A consequence of SDO is a preference for ideologies supportive of group-based hierarchies (Pratto et al 1994;Pratto et al 2013), which contributes to prejudice, as well as support for maintaining inequality (i.e. Duckitt 2006;Pratto et al 2000;Whitley 1999).…”

Section: Social Dominance Orientationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Across a diverse array of studies, conservatives report stronger beliefs in a just world, greater system justification, a more pronounced tendency toward social dominance orientation, and a greater alignment with cultural groups that question the existence of climate change. These tendencies, in turn, give rise to greater resistance to acknowledging and responding to the realities of climate change, as a means to protecting the status quo, the established societal hierarchy, a perception of the world as a fair, just, and beneficial place, and of one's own position and commitment to one's groups Feygina 2013;Grina et al 2016;Häkkinen and Akrami 2014;Pratto et al 2000;Pratto et al 2013;Wilson and Sibley 2013). In other words, climate skepticism serves deeply seated motives to protect people's beliefs and commitments, and these are particularly pronounced among conservatives, who report a stronger commitment to established social and economic systems.…”

Section: Political Ideology and Climate Change Skepticismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responding to Climate Change Skepticism and the Ideological Divide

Santos¹,

Feygina²

2017

Michigan Journal of Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change is an increasingly politicized issue in the United States, with many members of the American public, especially those who identify as politically conservative, skeptical about this dangerous phenomenon. A host of social and psychological processes have been investigated in an attempt to understand skepticism and resistance to responding to the threat of climate change, including motivated reasoning, system justification theory, social dominance orientation, belief in a just world, the cultural cognition thesis, and solution aversion. In this article, we review recent research into these processes and their implications for understanding the political divide in responding to climate change. We also highlight efforts to test communications interventions aimed at ameliorating these processes underlying climate change skepticism, including framing and scientific consensus. This literature review may be informative for climate change focused communicators, policymakers, practitioners, and academics who directly or indirectly interact with the 6

show abstract

“…RWA (α = .90) and political conservatism (r = .69, p < .001) were measured identically to Study 2. We also used a shorter version of the SDO with 4 items scored from 1, extremely oppose, to 10, extremely favor (α = 84; Pratto et al, 2013).…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective action by outsiders to group conflict and inequality

Saeri¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Every day, people around the world struggle and strive as they challenge injustice and inequality through collective action. They petition, they protest, and they call for changes in public policy to secure rights and status for themselves and for the groups to which they belong. From revolutions in the Arab Spring, to reactionary demonstrations by the US Tea Party, to worldwide protests of Russia's annexing of Crimea, the twenty-first century has seen people on the march.Most existing social psychological research into collective action has focused on understanding the motives for collective action by people who are directly involved in a context of group conflict or inequality ("insiders"). But will external observers ("outsiders") also take collective action when they encounter an external conflict? Who will they support in that conflict? Do their motives for intervening through collective action differ from those of insiders? In this thesis I aim to answer these questions.Chapter 1 establishes the need to consider outsiders as potential collective actors. I review the existing collective action literature and discuss its historical and current focus on insiders. I then introduce outsiders, hypothesise how they may differ from insiders, and argue for the importance of understanding how outsiders respond when they encounter group conflict.Chapter 2 includes two studies that sought to determine (1) whether outsiders are willing to take collective action on behalf of an external conflict, and (2) whether outsiders and insiders' motives for action differ. I used the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA; van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008) to measure appraisals of income inequality in the United States by residents of both the US (insiders) and India (outsiders). SIMCA is a well-established framework for explaining insider collective action, and specifies that group identification, perceived injustice, and perceived group efficacy are each unique motives for collective action. In both studies, outsiders were willing to take collective action. In addition, both outsiders' and insiders' motives for action could be captured using the SIMCA framework. Outsiders perceived the conflict as less self-relevant than insiders, and reported less identification with the disadvantaged group than insiders; a personal connection with the group conflict or inequality is thus necessary for outsiders to take collective action. To understand and predict outsider collective action, I must then investigate how outsiders come to see an instance of group conflict as self-relevant.Chapter 3 explores how ideological orientations shape outsiders' appraisals of a group conflict, and whether outsiders may also choose to support a relatively advantaged group in conflict.In two studies, I investigated how Social Dominance Orientation (SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994) and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA;Altemeyer, 1996) shape US residents' appraisals of separate conflicts between disadvantaged citizens an...

show abstract

Social Dominance in Context and in Individuals

Abstract: The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.

Cited by 214 publications

References 21 publications

Citizens’ Views of Australia’s Future to 2050

Citizens’ Views of Australia’s Future to 2050

Responding to Climate Change Skepticism and the Ideological Divide

Collective action by outsiders to group conflict and inequality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About