Literature DB >> 12869242

Why social dominance theory has been falsified.

John C Turner1, Katherine J Reynolds.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12869242     DOI: 10.1348/014466603322127184

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Soc Psychol        ISSN: 0144-6665


  3 in total

1.  "We get what we deserve": the belief in a just world and its health consequences for Blacks.

Authors:  Nao Hagiwara; Courtney J Alderson; Jessica M McCauley
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2015-06-28

2.  Intergroup Contact Effects via Ingroup Distancing among Majority and Minority Groups: Moderation by Social Dominance Orientation.

Authors:  Mathias Kauff; Katharina Schmid; Simon Lolliot; Ananthi Al Ramiah; Miles Hewstone
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Correlations between social dominance orientation and political attitudes reflect common genetic underpinnings.

Authors:  Thomas Haarklau Kleppestø; Nikolai Olavi Czajkowski; Olav Vassend; Espen Røysamb; Nikolai Haahjem Eftedal; Jennifer Sheehy-Skeffington; Jonas R Kunst; Lotte Thomsen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 11.205

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.