Social Dominance Orientation, Authoritarianism, and Support for Intergroup Violence Between the Middle East and America

Abstract

Social dominance theory has generally posited that terror and intergroup violence can be explained in terms of social dominance struggles. Social dominance theorists have described terror mostly as a tool for maintaining intergroup hierarchies in society (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Although implications of the theory suggest that terror may also be used by lower status groups as a tool for the resistance of domination by higher status groups, this prediction heretofore has not been empirically demonstrated. Data from two samples, one in the United States and one in Lebanon, were collected regarding attitudes toward terrorism and intergroup violence. The results show that the American sample demonstrates the typical patterns of social dominance such that those who are higher in social dominance orientation tend to support greater violence toward the Middle East. However, the Lebanese sample shows the opposite pattern, such that those who are lower in social dominance orientation tend to support violence toward the West. These results suggest that (1) support for terrorism among Middle East citizens is a project of counterdominance, and, more broadly, that (2) the relationship between social dominance orientation and support for violence depends on the dynamics of the conflict and the status of the perpetrators.

Support for religio‐political aggression among teenaged boys in Gaza: Part I: psychological findings

“…Multiple social and political variables, including legitimate grievances, appear to play a role in such support [Ciampi, 2005;Haddad, 2004;Haddad and Khashan, 2002;Henry et al, 2005;Levin et al, 2003;Pyszczynski et al, 2006;Schbley, 2004]. To the best of our knowledge, with the exception of Ginges et al…”

If they can’t change, why support change? Implicit theories about groups, social dominance orientation and political identity

“…While research on SDO has focused primarily on discrimination on the basis of intra-societal categories such as gender, age, race, class, sexual orientation etc., a number of studies have also shown that social dominance orientation is related to hawkish positions in interstate conflicts (e.g., Porat, Halperin, & Bar-Tal, 2015;Pratto et al, 1994); at least to the extent that one's own country is perceived as more powerful than its' counterpart (Henry, Sidanius, Levin, & Pratto, 2005).…”

We will hunt them down: How social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism fuel ethnic persecution of immigrants in fundamentally different ways

“…Because of the differences in the motivational bases of RWA and SDO, there is reason to suspect that these two constructs will not only have slightly different implications for people's intergroup attitudes and behaviors, but in some circumstances these effects can even be opposite one another. For example, using a sample of young Lebanese in Beirut, Henry, Sidanius, Levin, and Pratto (2005) found that although RWA was positively correlated with support for terrorism against the West, SDO was negatively correlated with support for terrorism against the West. Henry and his colleagues reasoned that since endorsement of SDO implies support for the existing, salient system of group-based hierarchy, violence against the West (i.e., the dominant force in world politics) by Arabs and Muslims (i.e., the subordinates in world politics) would be regarded as subversive to this hierarchical international order and thus opposed.…”