GROUP-BASED DOMINANCE AND OPPOSITION TO EQUALITY 1 Running Head: GROUP-BASED DOMINANCE AND OPPOSITION TO EQUALITY Group-Based Dominance and Opposition to Equality Correspond to Different Psychological Motives

Social Dominance Orientation, one of the most popular individual differences measures in the study of generalized prejudice, can be understood as having two components: Opposition to Equality (OEQ) and support for Group-Based Dominance (GBD). We consider these components in terms of system justification theory and social identity theory. We find that each component best explains different kinds of political views, consistent with the theory that they arise from different motivations. OEQ reflects system justification motives. It better predicts attitudes towards redistributive social policy, a lack of humanitarian compassion for the disadvantaged, and overall conservatism. GBD reflects social identity motives. It is more associated with hostility towards outgroups and concerns about intergroup competition. GBD and OEQ have different personality and demographic correlates, have distinct relations with explicit and implicit attitudinal preferences, and differentially predict a variety of policy attitudes. Use of GBD and OEQ as separate constructs enriches the understanding of prejudice, policy attitudes, and political ideology. GROUP-BASED DOMINANCE AND OPPOSITION TO EQUALITY 2 Many social psychological theories seek to explain attitudes towards inequality. These theories can be grouped into the categories of social identity/ingroup promotion (Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; 1986; Turner, Brown, & Tajfel, 1979) and system justification/resistance to change (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Jost & Hunyady, 2005; Katz & Haas, 1988, Lerner, 1980). These motives, operationalized in various ways, have been shown to independently and differentially predict attitudes towards social policies related to inequality (Bobo & Klugel, 1993; Klugel & Smith, 1986; Sears & Henry, 2005). Here, we investigate these two constructs in relation to the two subscales of Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, and Malle‘s (1994) Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale: The promotion of Group-Based Dominance (GBD) and Opposition to Equality (OEQ; Jost & Thompson, 2000). In the most comprehensive review of these constructs to date, we consider their convergences and divergences across other measures of political and social attitudes. We gather studies that have investigated these constructs and, using our own new data, establish Group-Based Dominance as an ingroup promotion and outgroup derogation construct and Opposition to Equality as a system justification construct. Group-Based Dominance is more strongly related to negative attitudes towards outgroups, hostile competition, and individual differences associated with the propensity to use stereotypes; it appears to be primarily reflective of social identity motives and support for the dominance of one’s own group. Opposition to Equality is more strongly linked to the rejection of universalism, humanitarian/egalitarianism, and economic redistribution; it is primarily related to system justification motives and unwillingness to overturn the current social order. Although these constructs are interrelated, they are associated with different underlying motivations, subject to different social pressures, and lead to attitudinal preferences in different domains. This two-factor conceptualization of SDO, we propose, offers an enriched theoretical understanding of its core features and predictive utility for social judgment (see also Jost & Thompson, 2000). Social Dominance Orientation Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is described as a ―general attitudinal orientation toward intergroup relations, reflecting whether one generally prefers such relations to be equal, versus hierarchical‖ and the ―extent to which one desires that one‘s in-group dominate and be superior to out-groups‖ (Pratto et al., 1994, p. 742). Those high in SDO are generally opposed to policies that help the disadvantaged and hold negative opinions of low status group members (Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). The creators of SDO emphasize that the scale is a theoretical tool in service of the broader Social Dominance Theory (Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin, 2006). SDO is thus not strictly a personality theory, and levels of SDO are not proposed to be invariant across time and social situation. According to recent formulations, higher levels of SDO in high status group members are partly situational and group members‘ SDO would decline if their group lost status or if they were forced into upward comparisons (Pratto et al., 2006). In a sample of Israeli participants, Levin (1996) found that there was no difference in the SDO levels of Askenazi (high status Jews) and Mizrachi (low status Jews) when both groups were primed to think of the Arab-Israeli conflict – in which both groups shared a common high status compared to the relevant outgroup but that there was a difference when the same participants were asked to consider their intra-religion ethnic GROUP-BASED DOMINANCE AND OPPOSITION TO EQUALITY 3 divisions. Similarly, the white-black gap in SDO scores is only present among participants who believe that there is a large ethnic status gap between members of the two racial groups (Levin, 2004). Along with Right-Wing Authoritarianism, SDO accounts for a substantial portion of the variation in prejudice across individuals (Altemeyer, 1998; 2006; Duckitt, 2001; 2006; Ekehammer, Akrami, Gylje, & Zakrisson, 2004; Sibley & Duckitt, 2008; Whitley, 1999). Endorsement of SDO predicts support for wars of dominance (Pratto et al., 1994), valuing the lives of one‘s own countrymen over foreigners (Pratto & Glasford, 2008), opposition to social welfare policies (Pratto, Stallworth, & Conway-Lanz, 1998), harsh sentences for low status defendants (Kemmelmeier, 1995), and sexist attitudes (Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007a). SDO operates similarly across cultural contexts (Pratto et al., 2000). Importantly for present purposes, SDO has been shown to be related to both ingroup favoritism (Levin & Sidanius, 1999) and system justification type effects such as the derogation of lower status groups, even among low status group members (Henry, Sidanius, Levin, & Pratto, 2005; Overbeck, Jost, Mosso, & Flizik, 2004). Almost all of the theory and empirical research on SDO treats it as a unidimensional measure, and it performs reasonable well as such. The scale consistently has high alphas and endorsement of SDO predicts many attitudes and beliefs related to prejudice, hierarchy, and inequality. As a consequence, it is one of the most widely used individual difference measures in the study of generalized prejudice (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). A Two-Factor Conceptualization of SDO: Jost and Thompson Identify Distinctions Based on Group Status Jost and Thompson (2000) argued that SDO combines two related but distinct constructs: Opposition to Equality (OEQ) and support for Group-Based Dominance (GBD). They believed that treating SDO as a unidimensional construct fails to capture the ideological experiences of low status group members. For high status group members, endorsing the dominance of one‘s own group (high GBD) and resisting change to the social order (high OEQ) are highly consonant; ingroup dominance is the social order. For low-status group members, however, ingroup dominance can only come at the expense of the current social order. For a low status group member to be high in SDO, they would need to promote their ingroup while, simultaneously, affirm the very social order that is disadvantaging their ingroup. Assuming that the individual recognizes that their group is low status, these are dissonant cognitions. Consistent with this conceptualization, Jost and Thompson found that the correlation between OEQ and GBD was stronger in White students (higher status) than in Black students (lower status). They also found reliable differences between Black and White participants in how GBD and OEQ correlated with ethnocentrism and self-esteem. For both racial groups, GBD was positively correlated with ethnocentrism. This is consistent with GBD as a group-justification factor. OEQ, however, was positively correlated with self-esteem for White participants, but negatively correlated for Black participants. This dissociation strongly suggests the operation of distinct constructs. These results were consistent with system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost et al., 2004), which suggests that low status individuals will experience a psychological cost if they defend the status quo against their self interest. While both GROUP-BASED DOMINANCE AND OPPOSITION TO EQUALITY 4 high and low status groups could endorse GBD and its associated ethnocentric beliefs without internal conflict, agreement with the OEQ statements – and their broad implications for the proper ordering of society predicts very different outcomes depending on one‘s status in the system. For Black participants, opposing equality accepts the existing order and the implication that their group deserves to be of lower status. Thus this system-justifying tendency is associated with lower self esteem and increased neuroticism among Blacks (Jost & Thompson, 2000). Conversely, for White participants, greater opposition to equality was associated with higher self esteem, insofar as it justifies their advantaged position. In a subsequent study, Ashburn-Nardo, Knowles, and Monteith (2003) investigated implicit racial attitudes among African Americans. A stronger implicit preference for Blacks compared to Whites on an Implicit Association Test (IAT; see Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2007 for a review) was negatively correlated with OEQ, but was positively (if nonsignificantly) correlated with GBD.F 1 F This is consistent with Jost and Thompson‘s theorizing about the negative impact of high levels of OEQ on self-and own-group views for subordinate group members. An untested corollary prediction is that OEQ is positively related with implicit ingroup preference for Whites. This finding ought to generalize across social groups such that dominant groups will show positive relations between ingroup preference and both OEQ and GBD while subordinate groups will show a split – positive relations with GBD, but negative relations with OEQ. Jost and Thompson (2000) also considered GBD and OEQ in terms of social values. They found that ethnocentrism was reliably related to GBD, consistent with its framing as a social identity and ingroup promotion (group justification) construct, but OEQ was not. OEQ was more strongly linked to economic system justification (β = .26) – a general measure of the perceived fairness of the economic system – than was GBD (β = .10). This follows the trend of OEQ being more strongly correspondent to system justification motives. OEQ also predicted decreased support for affirmative action for women and minorities (β = -.24), whereas GBD did not. These findings raise several interesting questions. One might have predicted that Whites high in ethnocentrism would be especially opposed to policies aimed at helping minorities, yet OEQ was a better predictor of affirmative action support than was GBD. Jost and Thompson speculated that this was because opposition to such redistributive policies among members of the dominant group grows more out of system justification than ingroup protection concerns, which raises the question of when and what kind of views GBD should better predict. 0BAn Updated Conceptualization of Opposition to Equality (OEQ) and Group-Based Dominance (GBD) as Components of Social Dominance Orientation The foregoing review provides initial support for a two-factor conceptualization of SDO. Until now, however, no attempt has been made to integrate the data that has subsequently emerged with Jost and Thompson‘s (2000) initial theorizing about the nature of Opposition to Equality (OEQ) and Group-Based Dominance (GBD). This article provides such a review and adds new evidence supporting a two factor model. Further, by drawing on such a broad base of data, we are able to go beyond Jost and 1 r OEQ( 83) = -.38, r GBD( 83) = .10, t(80) = 3.73, p < .001.. GROUP-BASED DOMINANCE AND OPPOSITION TO EQUALITY 5 Thompson (2000) and make additional predictions which may not have been inherent in their initial theorizing. We propose the following conceptualizations of the two-factors: Group-Based Dominance captures preference for one‘s own group compared to those of others. It is driven by negative attitudes toward the outgroup and the belief that the world is a competitive, zero sum, place. It is associated with individual differences in prejudice toward outgroups. Rather than reflecting approval of inequality in general, Group-Based Dominance exclusively concerns inequalities that have implications for the ingroup and is most strongly associated with active and aggressive hierarchy promotion. Opposition to Equality is a system justification construct. It is negatively predicted by personality variables related to empathy and universalism and it in turn predicts opposition to challenges to the status quo, regardless of ingroup involvement. OEQ is the driving force in pro-status-quo sentiment from low status group members. We begin by considering the individual differences that may be related to OEQ and GBD.. In assembling a list of these constructs, we are indebted to Jost and colleagues (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003) for their meta-analytic review of politically conservative ideologies. For this section of the paper, we will consider the preexisting literature as well as new data from a large-scale web-based data collection (Project Implicit: HUhttps://implicit.harvard.edu/ UH). Afterward we consider the political and social attitudes that are correlated OEQ and GBD. This section will draw upon more data from Project Implicit as well as two other survey studies and a small meta-analysis of data from other researchers. In the final phase, we will address an alternative explanation for our results by producing a new version of the SDO scale that counterbalances item framing within subscale, showing that the pattern of results observed is not due to proand con-trait item wordings. The Relationship Between OEQ and GBD Overall, OEQ and GBD are positively correlated in all of the datasets we have examined. The strength of the relationship varies from moderate (Study 2 in this article; r = .39) to strong (Cohrs, Moschner, Maes, & Kielmann, 2005; r = .63). In the largest dataset we considered, OEQ and GBD correlated r = .47 among 6,714 White participants (Nosek & Hansen, 2008)F 2 F. Methodological factors such as superficially similar wording and intermixing of items may inflate the correlation somewhat. Even so, it is clear that there is both substantial shared and unique variance between OEQ and GBD. We hypothesize that the unique variance captures two distinct constructs. Individual Differences Correlated with OEQ and GBD Over the last 15 years, many individual difference and personality traits have been shown to correlate with SDO and even more have been shown to correlate with political 2 This data is reported as Study 1 in this manuscript. OEQ and GBD correlated at r = .42 in the sample as a whole (N = 9531). GROUP-BASED DOMINANCE AND OPPOSITION TO EQUALITY 6 orientation in general. For example, the meta-analysis by Jost and colleagues (2003) found that political conservatism – measured in a variety of ways, including SDO, RightWing Authoritarianism, the F-scale, the C-scale, and a simple liberal-conservative axis – was positively correlated with dogmatism, inflexibility, intolerance of ambiguity, need for order, personal need for structure, neuroticism, perception of a dangerous world, attention to danger and threat (variously measured), fear of death, mortality salience, and need for cognitive closure. Conservatism was negatively correlated with integrative complexity, cognitive flexibility, cognitive complexity, attributional complexity, sensation seeking, valuing broadmindedness, and openness to experience. Self esteem and collective self esteem had mixed relations across studies. Only a handful of these associations were derived from studies that employed SDO, most notably: attributional complexity, openness to experience, personal need for structure, self esteem and collective self esteem, perceptions of a dangerous world, and neuroticism. Though all of these were related to political orientation overall, not all were correlated with SDO in particular. For example, personal need for structure and collective self esteem exhibited very weak relationships with SDO and the correlations with Rosenberg‘s self-esteem scale and neuroticism varied considerably in sign and magnitude across studies. The relations of OEQ and GBD to these measures have not been extensively studied previously, so let us consider how we would expect these constructs to relate to each. From the above list, several broad categories can be extracted: self and group worth, cognitive engagement and closure, and perceptions of dangerousness and threat. The relationship of self esteem with OEQ and GBD appears to be dependent on group status and, presumably, social context (Jost & Thompson, 2000). Thus we do not predict that self-esteem will inherently be more related to one component or the other. We would, however, expect cognitive engagement and need for cognitive closure to be more strongly negatively related to GBD than OEQ. Previous work has found that low Need for Cognition and high Need for Cognitive Closure are related to increased use of stereotypes as cognitive shortcuts (Crawford & Skowronski, 1998; Neuberg & Newsom, 1993; Tam, Leung, & Chiu, 2008; Waller, 1993). Similarly, more education is correlated with less prejudice (e.g. Farley, Steeh, Jackson, & Reeves, 1994; Tumin, Barton, & Burrus, 1958). Thus, these cognitive measures are all indicative of majority group propensity to stereotype and engage in discriminatory behavior. Since we have conceptualized GBD as our ingroup promotion and outgroup derogation factor, we expected it to be more strongly correlated with all three. Supporting this hypothesis, one study has shown that educational attainment was strongly negatively correlated with GBD, but was not related to endorsement of equality (Eagly, Diekman, JohannesenSchmidt, & Koenig, 2004) Perceptions of dangerousness and threat are moderately associated with SDO as a whole (Duckitt, 2001; 2006; Jost, Glaser et al., 2003). As we expect GBD to govern ingroup promotion and bias, it should be more closely tied to such defensiveness in response to group level threat. We would therefore predict that GBD is more strongly related to dangerous world beliefs and Right-Wing Authoritarianism than is OEQ. Related to concern for the safety of the ingroup, two studies using the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ) have found that GBD is more strongly related to valuing security a composite of items such as ―the safety of his country is very important to him‖ and ―he GROUP-BASED DOMINANCE AND OPPOSITION TO EQUALITY 7 wants his country to be safe from its enemies‖ (Schwartz, Melech, Lehmann, Burgess, Harris, & Owens, 2001, p. 526) – than is OEQ (Caricati, 2007; Cohrs et al., 2005).F 3