Why social dominance theory has been falsified

Abstract

Schmitt, Branscombe and Kappen (2003) and Wilson and Lui (2003) present a persuasive series of studies which raise major problems for the conceptualization of social dominance orientation in social dominance theory. Building on these and other data in the literature, this commentary summarizes six fundamental criticisms which can be made of the theory. We conclude that social dominance theory is flawed by conceptual inconsistencies and has been disconfirmed empirically in relation to its key hypothesis of behavioural asymmetry. The reaction of subordinate groups to the social hierarchy is better explained by social identity theory.

A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo

“…Among other things, this evidence contradicts the content-free assumptions of social identity theory as applied to ideology and political group membership, including the claim by Turner and Reynolds (2003) that "the right-wing versus left-wing continuum of political thought does not correlate well with being simply for or against group inequalities" (p. 202). Indeed, right-wing conservatism is consistently associated with acceptance (rather than rejection) of inequality across many different contexts (see also Jost et al, 2003aJost et al, , 2003b.…”

“…Social identity theorists agree with relatively few assumptions made by social dominance theorists, but they do concur that members of higherstatus groups hold more favorable attitudes than do members of low-status groups toward the preservation of the social order (e.g., see the exchange between Schmitt, Branscombe, &Kappen, 2003, andSidanius &Pratto, 2003). Turner and Reynolds (2003) pointed out that social identity and social dominance perspectives lead to the common conclusion that "subordinate groups are more likely to reject the status quo than are dominant groups, consistent with the self-interest of both" (p. 201). By contrast, an emphasis on the system-justifying (rather than egojustifying or group-justifying) functions of attitudes, beliefs, and ideologies entails recognizing that preserving the status quo is a collaborative process in which, as Havel (1991) put it, "everyone .…”

Navigating Straight Waters: The Lived Experience of How Out, White, Gay Males Have Successfully Navigated the College Presidential Search Process

“…Social dominance theory has come under scrutiny for factors related to measurement issues with regard to the social dominance orientation tool Schmitt, Branscombe, & Kappen, 2003;Turner & Reynolds, 2003).…”

“…Also, researchers challenged the methodological approaches taken by Sidanius and Pratto and suggested that the theory for measuring social dominance orientation can be better founded within the framework for social identity theory. Furthermore, articles by and Turner and Reynolds (2003) identified theoretical inconsistencies related to attitudes toward intergroup inequalities as measured using the social dominance inventory. Schmitt, Branscombe, & Kappen (2003) reported that "how people orient themselves towards inequality will be a function of what social categories come to mind when 'general' attitudes toward inequality are assessed" (p. 163).…”

Equality, Justice and Identity in an Expatriate/Local Setting: Which Human Factors Enable Empowerment of Filipino Aid Workers?

“…It is worth noting that the present focus on perceptions of social dominance at the institutional level is at least partly a response to suggestions that research into social dominance has disproportionately focused on the individual (Sidanius & Pratto, 2003;Turner & Reynolds, 2003).…”