Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T17:01:59.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Maintaining but also changing hierarchies

What Social Dominance Theory has to say

from Part I - How status differences are legitimated

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Jone L. Pearce
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Get access

Summary

Sands (2009) reports some interesting observations about gender bias in theater. If you went to see a Broadway play recently, the odds are about seven to one that the play you saw was written by a man. These odds are roughly consistent with real differences in submission rates for these scripts, organized by gender. In a subsequent study, however, Sands reported that female evaluators in the theatrical industry rated identical plays by pseudonymous female playwrights more stringently than male raters did, who did not discriminate along gender lines (Cohen, 2009).

As a manifestation of systemic discrimination, the overall picture here is not surprising. It is well known that in the theater and movie industry a gender hierarchy exists that favors not only male writers, but also male actors, producers, and directors. But why do female raters act so harshly with respect to female playwrights and thereby contribute to inequality at the expense of their gender? Social Dominance Theory (SDT) (see, e.g., Sidanius and Pratto, 1999), which is a theory of group-based social hierarchies, contends that “group oppression is very much a cooperative game” (p. 43). Low-status groups are enmeshed in the very system that produces negative outcomes for them, and they paradoxically and often inadvertently support their own oppression. This example indicates how SDT explains, at least partially, the maintenance of social hierarchies.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adorno, T. W.Frenkel-Brunswick, E.Levinson, D. J.Sanford, R. N. 1950 The Authoritarian PersonalityNew YorkNortonGoogle Scholar
Akrami, N.Ekehammar, B. 2006 Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation: Their roots in Big-Five personality factors and facetsJournal of Individual Differences 27 117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altemeyer, B. 1998 The other ‘authoritarian personality.’Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 30 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altemeyer, B. 2006 The AuthoritariansWinnipegLulu.comGoogle Scholar
Aquino, K.Stewart, M.Reed, A. 2005 How Social Dominance Orientation and job status affect perceptions of African‐American affirmative action beneficiariesPersonnel Psychology 58 703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, J. M.Fisek, H.Norman, R.Zelditch, M. 1977 Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation States ApproachNew YorkElsevierGoogle Scholar
Blumer, H. 1960 Race prejudice as a sense of group positionPacific Sociological Review 1 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brief, A. P.Dietz, J.Cohen, R. R.Pugh, S. D.Vaslow, J. B. 2000 Just doing business: Modern racism and obedience to authority as explanations for employment discriminationOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 81 72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caditz, J. 1975 Dilemmas over racial integration: Status consciousness vs. direct threatSociological Inquiry 45 51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatman, J. A.O’Reilly, C. A. 2004 Asymmetric reactions to work group sex diversity among men and womenAcademy of Management Journal 47: 193Google Scholar
Cialdini, B. 2001 Influence: Science and Practice (4th edn.)Boston, MAAllyn and BaconGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Patricia. 2009
Correll, S. J.Benard, S.Paik, I. 2007 Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty?American Journal of Sociology 112 1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dambrun, M.Kamiejski, R.Haddadi, N.Duarte, S. 2009 Why does Social Dominance Orientation decrease with university exposure to the social sciences? The impact of institutional socialization and the mediating role of ‘geneticismEuropean Journal of Social Psychology 39 88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duckitt, J. 2001 A cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice,” in M. P. Zanna (ed.)Advances in Experimental Social Psychology41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duckitt, J.Sibley, C. 2006 Right wing authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation, and the dimensions of generalized prejudiceEuropean Journal of Personality 20 1Google Scholar
Duckitt, J.Wagner, C.du Plessis, I.Birum, I. 2002 The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process modelJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 83 75CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekehammar, B.Akrami, N. 2007 Personality and prejudice: From Big Five personality factors to facetsJournal of Personality 75 899CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ely, R.Thomas, D. 2001 Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomesAdministrative Science Quarterly 46 229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S. E.Joshi, A.Erhardt, N. L. 2003 Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implicationsJournal of Management 29 801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonsen, K.Maznevski, M. L.Schneider, S. C.Diversity and its not so diverse literature: An international perspectiveInternational Journal of Cross-Cultural Management
Jost, J. T.Thompson, E. P. 2000 Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European AmericansJournal of Experimental Social Psychology 36 209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalev, A.Kelly, E.Dobbin, F. 2006 Corporate affirmative action and diversity policiesAmerican Sociological Review 71 589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magee, J. C.Galinsky, A. D. 2008 Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and statusAcademy of Management Annals 2 351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, P. F.Avery, D. R. 2006 What has race got to do with it? Unraveling the role of racioethnicity in job seekers’ reactions to site visitsPersonnel Psychology 59 395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, A. A. M. 2007 Social Dominance Orientation, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, and their relation with alienation and spheres of controlPersonality and Individual Differences 43 891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, A. A. M. 2009 Social Dominance Orientation, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, and their relation with leadership stylesPersonality and Individual Differences 47 657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pareto, V. 1901 The Rise and Fall of the ElitesNew YorkArnoGoogle Scholar
Pearce, J. L.Xu, Q. J. 2010
Petersen, L. E.Dietz, J. 2000 “Social discrimination in a personnel selection context: The effects of an authority’s instruction to discriminate and followers’ authoritarianismJournal of Applied Social Psychology 30 206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, L.-E.Dietz, J. 2005 Prejudice and enforcement of workforce homogeneity as explanations for employment discriminationJournal of Applied Social Psychology 35 144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratto, F.Sidanius, J.Levin, S. 2006 Social Dominance Theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forwardEuropean Review of Social Psychology 17 271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratto, F.Sidanius, J.Stallworth, L. M.Malle, B. F. 1994 Social Dominance Orientation: A personality variable relevant to social roles and intergroup relationsJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rokeach, M. 1979 Rokeach, M.Understanding Human Values: Individual and SocialNew YorkFree PressGoogle Scholar
Rudman, L. A.Glick, P. 1999 Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle-managersJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 1004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sands, E. 2009 www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/theater/24play.html
Sibley, C. G.Robertson, A.Wilson, M. S. 2006 Exploring the additive and interactive effects of Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism on prejudice and related intergroup attitudesPolitical Psychology 27 755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidanius, J.Liu, J. H.Shaw, J. S.Pratto, F. 1994 Social Dominance Orientation, hierarchy attenuators and hierarchy enhancers: Social Dominance Theory and the criminal justice systemJournal of Applied Social Psychology 24 338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidanius, J.Pratto, F. 1999 Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and OppressionNew YorkCambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidanius, J.Pratto, F.Sinclair, S.van Laar, C. 1996 Mother Teresa meets Genghis Khan: The dialectics of hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchy-attenuating career choicesSocial Justice Research 9 145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Son Hing, L.Bobocel, D. R.Zanna, M. P.McBride, M. V. 2007 Authoritarian dynamics and unethical decision making: High Social Dominance Orientation leaders and high Right-Wing Authoritarianism leadersJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 92 67CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, C. K.Bavetta, A. G.Gist, M. E. 1993 Gender differences in the acquisition of salary negotiation skills: The role of goals, self-efficacy and perceived controlJournal of Applied Psychology 78 723CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tajfel, H.Turner, J. C. 1986 Worchel, Austin, Psychology of Intergroup RelationsChicago, ILNelson-HallGoogle Scholar
Tilly, C. 1998 Durable InequalityBerkeley, CAUniversity of California PressGoogle Scholar
Umphress, E. E.Simmons, A. L.Boswell, W.Triana, M. C. 2008 Managing discrimination in selection: The impact of accountability and Social Dominance OrientationJournal of Applied Psychology 93 982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umphress, E. E.Smith-Crowe, K.Brief, A. P.Dietz, J.Baskerville, M. 2007 When birds of a feather flock together and when they do not: Status composition, Social Dominance Orientation, and organizational attractivenessJournal of Applied Psychology 92 396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, G.Cohen, G. 2003 Stereotype liftJournal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 456CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×