Search

We offer norm theory as a framework for developing some common ground within both feminist psychology and lesbian and gay psychology about the meaning of empirical differences between social groups. Norm theory is a social cognitive theory that predicts that empirical differences will be consistently explained by taking more typical groups (e.g., men, straight people) as implicit norms for comparison and by attributing differences to less typical groups (e.g., women, lesbians, and gay men). Results of an experiment (N = 114) are presented to show that norms shape interpretations of empirical differences between lesbian/gay and straight persons by (1) leading explanations to focus on attributes of lesbian/gay persons, and (2) leading to judgments that straight persons have less mutable attributes. Stereotypes also affected interpretations; stereotype-consistent results led to more essentialistic explanations and, when targets were female, to higher ratings of the results' importance and fundamentality. We highlight how experiments can be used to understand the process of constructing the meaning of scientific data, and make recommendations for empiricists' interpretive practices and constructionist theories in feminist psychology and lesbian and gay psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Responds to comments on an article related to the social dominance theory (SDT), published in the 2003 issue of the 'British Journal of Social Psychology.' Criticisms on the SDT; Depiction of concepts on SDT; Analysis of factors for the creation of gender inequality and arbitrary-set inequality.

Immigration can evoke two recurring and contradictory social psychology situations: group inclusion and group threat. This ambiguity implies that immigration can bring out either people's communal, egalitarian natures, or their prejudicial, oppressive natures. Further, it means that immigration policies can be framed in ways that appeal to one psychological orientation or the other. Using this perspective, we examined Californians' attitudes toward a fictitious immigration policy. The policy was framed in one of two ways, and participants' values concerning group equality versus group dominance were measured. Results showed that framing the policy as a way of maintaining dominance over immigrants appealed to those high in social dominance orientation, whereas framing the policy as a way of increasing equality between immigrants and members of the receiving society appealed to those low on social dominance orientation. The practical political aspects of promoting immigration policy are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much of politics is involved with the distribution of resources and the regulation of intergroup relations. Social dominance theory posits that social ideologies provide social justification for policies that have unequal effects on different social groups. In the present studies, we examine the mediating role that ideologies have in transforming people's general orientation toward group inequality into policy support. Using data from 5 samples, we offer evidence that social dominance orientation orients people to support discriminatory ideologies, which in turn influence support for policies. Support for the theoretical model was shown in studies of both long-standing social policy attitudes, such as toward social welfare and military programs, and of unfolding political events, including Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court, the Persian Gulf War, and reinstitution of the death penalty in California. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors present archival evidence that men disproportionately hold occupational roles that enhance group-based inequality and that women disproportionately hold roles that attenuate group-based inequality. The authors found evidence for 3 processes that may contribute to this pattern: self-selection that is based on gender-linked differences in support for group inequality (social dominance orientation), hiring biases that are based on matching job applicants' group equality values with the hierarchy function of the job, and gender-stereotyped hiring biases. These processes were found across a number of occupations and participant variables. The social systems nature of these processes and the implications of the results for theoretical understandings of gender roles, social inequality, and theories of stereotyping are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social dominance orientation (SDO), one's degree of preference for inequality among social groups, is introduced. On the basis of social dominance theory, it is shown that (a) men are more social dominance-oriented than women, (b) high-SDO people seek hierarchy-enhancing professional roles and low-SDO people seek hierarchy-attenuating roles, (c) SDO was related to beliefs in a large number of social and political ideologies that support group-based hierarchy (e.g., meritocracy and racism) and to support for policies that have implications for intergroup relations (e.g., war, civil rights, and social programs), including new policies. SDO was distinguished from interpersonal dominance, conservatism, and authoritarianism. SDO was negatively correlated with empathy, tolerance, communality, and altruism. The ramifications of SDO in social context are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ïVladimir's choice' refers to the tendency for people to favor the ingroup relative to the outgroup-even when doing so requires that people sacrifice ingroup profits in absolute terms. We investigated correlates of this tendency by asking a sample of White undergraduates to complete an allocation task using a resource allocation matrix. While there was a slight tendency for Vladimir's choice to increase with increasing levels of ethnic identification, this tendency disappeared when other factors were considered. Consistent with realistic group conflict theory and social dominance theory, the tendency to make Vladimir's choice increased with increasing levels of perceived intergroup competition and social dominance orientation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]