The Construct of Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)

Medium entry: 2000-5000 words

a* Thomas Haarklau Kleppestø a* Nikolai Haahjem Eftedal a, b Lotte Thomsen a Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway b Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Denmark

Synonyms Between-group hierarchy, Dominance, prejudice, warfare, sex differences, political attitudes, evolutionary political psychology

Definition Social Dominance Orientation is a measurement of “the general desire to establish and maintain hierarchically structured intergroup relations regardless of the position of one’s own group(s) within this hierarchy” (Sidanius, Cotterill, Sheehy-Skeffington, Kteily, & Carvacho, 2016, p. 152).

Introduction Human societies tend to structure themselves as group-based social hierarchies such that some groups enjoy greater access to fitness-relevant resources such as prestige, wealth, social status, healthcare, food, homes, mates, and so on. Social Dominance Theory (SDT, Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) asks the questions why and how group-based hierarchies are continuously reproduced, at least among surplus-producing societies. The theoretical framework spans macro-structural, institutional, ideological, social role, individual, and behavioural genetic levels of analysis to address this question and postulates that humans have a predisposition to navigate group-based social structures (Kleppestø et al., 2019; Kunst, Fischer, Sidanius, & Thomsen, 2017; Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin, 2006; Sidanius, Cotterill, Sheehy-Skeffington, Kteily, & Carvacho, 2016; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Conflicts between groups are ubiquitous across history and cultures. Ideologies that justify beliefs about the superiority of dominating groups might serve the function of reducing conflicts by legitimizing the hierarchical status quo (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). According to SDT, when these ideologies are widely accepted within a society, they justify discrimination and allow some groups to dominate over others based on their gender, age, and, especially, socially-constructed markers of group membership such as class, race, ethnicity, caste, and religion - what SDT coins arbitrary sets. The beliefs and ideologies that justify dominance hierarchies are called hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths, examples are the ”divine rights of kings”, sexism, and the protestant work ethic suggesting that you get what you personally deserve (myths in this context means widely shared ideologies, not implying that they are false or true). Beliefs that justify flat or egalitarian group structures, are called hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing myths, examples being the universal rights of man, socialism, and feminism (Sidanius et al., 2016; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Importantly, SDT postulates that particular instances of modern group-based discrimination such as racism, classism, sexism and nationalism are manifestations of more general processes where dominant groups maintain social, economic, and military supremacy over subordinates (Sidanius et al., 2016). At the individual level of analysis, endorsement of such intergroup dominance hierarchies is reflected in the individual difference of Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) (Ho et al., 2015; Pratto et al., 1994) to which we now turn our attention. This general relational motive to enhance versus attenuate between-group hierarchies has proven one of the most robust predictors of intergroup attitudes (Pratto et al., 2006; Sidanius et al., 2016; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), from support for social welfare to ethnic persecution of immigrants (Dunwoody & McFarland, 2018; Ho et al., 2015; Ho et al., 2012; Thomsen, Green, & Sidanius, 2008). Here, we discuss the conceptual- and psychometric properties of SDO, and we highlight some key evolutionary forces that might explain SDO’s inter-individual variation and mean-level sex differences.

The construct of Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)

Sidanius et al. (2016, p. 152) define SDO as “the general desire to establish and maintain hierarchically structured intergroup relations regardless of the position of one’s own group(s) within this hierarchy”. Since its first introduction in 1994 (Pratto et al., 1994), the SDO scale has gone through several iterations. The most recent version, the SDO7 (Ho et al., 2015), consists of 16 statements (such as “Some groups of people must be kept in their place”), which responders rate their levels of agreement with on 7-point Likert scales. Scores on these items can be averaged to form an SDO score (with half the items being reverse scored). Below we discuss the dimensionality of SDO, and how SDO relates to other variables and constructs.

Dimensionality SDO was previously considered a unitary construct, but increasingly there is evidence that the construct can be divided in two: Dominance (SDO-D) and Egalitarianism (SDO-E) (Ho et al., 2015; Ho et al., 2012). SDO-D reflects preferences for active oppression of groups and is most reflective of hostile beliefs such as old-fashioned racism, dehumanization, and support for war (Sidanius et al., 2016). SDO-E, on the other hand, reflects a preference for inequality, or at least an opposition to active measures towards reducing inequality. SDO-E is also often labeled “anti-egalitarianism”. SDO-D and SDO-E have been shown to constitute separate facets of SDO in factor analyses, and they also differ when used as predictors for conceptually relevant variables. In the overview of relations between SDO and other traits below, we discuss correlations for full-scale SDO scores, while noting differences between SDO-D and SDO-E whenever relevant.

Predictive power of SDO SDT predicts that SDO will correlate positively with support for hierarchy-enhancing and negatively with hierarchy-attenuating ideologies or legitimizing myths. Consistent with this, SDO has been tied to support for a wide range of attitudes about ideology and politics, including political- and, particularly, economic conservatism, support for social welfare and affirmative action (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). And SDO continues to predict emergent current phenomena, such as attitudes towards Syrian refugees and voting for Donald Trump (Dunwoody & McFarland, 2018; Sheehy-Skeffington & Thomsen, 2019). Most centrally, SDO has been found to consistently predict most kinds of prejudicial attitudes. This includes prejudice against women, the poor, ethnic/racial minorities, LGBTQ people, and immigrants (see Sidanius et al., 2016, for an overview of studies on this, for an overview of studies on this). Prejudicial attitudes predicted from having low scores on SDO are less studied, though there are indications that they could include prejudice against political conservatives and against social groups deemed to be privileged (Lucas & Kteily, 2018). SDO has also been explored in relation to personality traits. In particular, SDO has been connected to many personality traits that are socially undesirable (Ho et al., 2015). Such as the Dark Triad traits of Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy , which are particularly strongly linked to SDO-D. Relatedly, SDO-D in particular is inversely correlated with the Honesty/humility dimension of the HEXACO personality inventory , which reflects an unwillingness to “get ahead” through dishonest means. Among the Big Five traits , SDO is most strongly related to Agreeableness and Openness to Experience, with both correlations being negative here as well. The Empathic Concern scale is also negatively related to SDO (Lucas & Kteily, 2018).

Distinctions between SDO and related constructs To further clarify what the SDO construct is meant to represent, we here go through three constructs that SDO is related to but importantly distinct from. These are: Interpersonal dominance, ingroup favoritism, and Right Wing Authoritarianism. Upon hearing the name “Social Dominance Orientation”, a natural interpretation is that it reflects how oriented someone is towards being interpersonally dominant in social settings. But this is not what SDO is meant to measure, and the discriminant validity of SDO from standard personality measures of interpersonal dominance was established early on (Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999): SDO concerns preferences regarding dominance hierarchies between groups in society, and so it is conceptually quite distinct from being interpersonally dominant. Another misinterpretation of SDO is that it necessarily involves a preference that one’s own group should be the one to dominate, so that it would correspond to ingroup favoritism. Such an interpretation would indeed align with how SDO was originally conceptualized (e.g., Pratto et al., 1994), but contemporary understandings of SDO have shifted away from this to propose that SDO reflects a person’s general orientation towards the idea of hierarchies between groups. Consistent with SDT’s prediction of ideological asymmetry this suggests that a black American with a high score on SDO would not desire blacks to dominate whites, but would rather endorse the existing hierarchical status quo, even though this implies that Whites continue to have more status and power than blacks (Ho et al., 2015; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Accordingly, SDO is more positively associated with ethnic identity, perceived ethnic victimization and other variables related to ingroup favouritism among dominant than subordinate groups (Sidanius et al., 2016; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Thomsen et al., 2010). SDO is also related to, but yet distinct from, the concept of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA). RWA is manifested in submission to traditional authorities and in aggressive enforcement of established norms and customs. Thus, RWA and SDO are conceptually related, as they both concern attitudes towards hierarchy. Additionally, SDO and RWA tend to correlate quite substantially (usually at about r = .40), and they are both good predictors of many kinds of prejudicial attitudes. However, SDO and RWA also have important theoretical- and empirical distinctions. The dual-process motivational model of ideological attitudes (Duckitt & Sibley, 2010) proposes that RWA reflects needs for social order and stable traditions, which result from seeing the world as a threatening and dangerous place. Thus, people high in RWA should prefer authorities that emphasize order and law and that defend traditional values. High SDO rather implies perceiving society as a competitive jungle, where you need to fight for power and control over others. People high in SDO therefore tend to prefer authorities that favor social inequality and group dominance. While both RWA and SDO are associated with prejudice towards outgroups, the particular types of prejudice predicted from them are importantly different. According to Duckitt and Sibley (2010), RWA predicts dislike of groups that are socially deviant and/or norm-violating, whereas SDO predicts prejudice against groups that are low in status. For example, Thomsen, Green, and Sidanius (2008) demonstrated in Switzerland and Southwestern USA that for people high in RWA, negative attitudes towards immigrants were mainly provoked by immigrants’ refusal to assimilate into the dominant culture and adhere to established norms, thus threatening cultural conventionality. In contrast, SDO predicted aggression towards immigrants that assimilated too much into the dominant culture and thus threatened the existing status boundaries.

SDO is contingent upon hierarchical position, but is also a stable trait There are myriad studies documenting that SDO responds to the hierarchical nature of the context. Perhaps most importantly, it has been shown many times over that one’s level of SDO is highly contingent on the placing of one’s own group in the hierarchy. Consistent with how SDO only reflects self interest when measured in dominant groups, people from lower ranking groups tend to score substantially lower on SDO. For example, the difference in mean SDO between blacks and whites in the US is substantial (e.g., Ho et al., 2015). It has been found that as the objective, salient, or perceived difference in power between groups becomes larger, so too does the difference in SDO levels between the groups (e.g., Levin, 2004). Consistent with this, in a meta-analysis across 27 countries, the average SDO level among dominant groups corresponded to the macro-structural level of inequality, that is, to the status gap between dominant and subordinates, consistent with dove-hawk type dynamics Fischer, Hanke, and Sibley (2012). Accordingly, SDO among dominant groups also correlated across nations with macro-level indicators of poor governance, corruption, lack of rule of law and democracy, all consistent with the notion that dominant groups are more likely to coercively claim resources the greater the macro-structural inequality. In an independent sample collected across 30 US states, macro-structural inequality (Gini) across states predicted SDO and mediated the effect of SDO on attitudes towards minorities (Kunst et al., 2017). Just as SDT describes hierarchy-enhancing myths, it also describes hierarchy- enhancing social institutions. These are institutions which serve to uphold and enhance hierarchies and the theory predicts not only that people will self-select to hierarchy-enhancing versus attenuating institutions depending on their SDO levels, but also that membership in hierarchy-enhancing institutions will lead to corresponding increases in SDO (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Examples of institutions that have been described to have hierarchy enhancing elements are the criminal justice system and the police force, housing, labor, health care, retail, and education (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Consistent with this, Sidanius, Liu, Shaw & Pratto (1994) found that police officers in LA had higher mean SDO than students and jurors (who represented a random sample of Los Angeles citizens), whereas public defenders (working at the public defenders office, which is a HA institution) were found to be significantly less social dominance–oriented than both students and jurors. SDO scores can also vary on more of a moment-to-moment basis when one’s salient position in the hierarchical context changes. In a study illustrating this, Levin (1997) divided the SDO scale in half and put one half alongside questions about the tensions between Ashkenazi- and Mizrachi Jews in Israel, and the other half alongside questions about the tensions between Jews and Arabs. In the section on Jew conflict, Ashkenazis (who are seen as higher in status) scored higher on SDO than Mizrachis. But in the section on tensions between Jews and Arabs (where both groups of Jews are higher in status), then both groups of Jews scored higher than in the other condition, and the difference in scores between the groups disappeared. Interestingly, Levin’s (1997) study of contextual influences on SDO also illustrates how SDO also can be seen as a stable trait. Specifically, as has been shown in many studies, SDO has high rank-order stability. This means that people with relatively high scores in one context will be likely to be high scorers in other contexts. Despite the large shifts in mean SDO levels between conditions in Levin’s study, correlations between SDO scores from the same participant were still substantial. Levin (2004) conceptually replicated these effects in Northern Ireland among Catholics and Protestants and further demonstrated that the difference in SDO between dominant and subordinate groups are moderated by personal perception of the nature and size of the status gap. Recently, Bratt, Sheehy-Skeffington & Sidanius (2016) demonstrated the rank-order stability of SDO and its predictive power on outgroup prejudice over time using latent growth-curve modeling among large samples of Norwegian teenagers and American university students. Thomsen et al (2010) demonstrated the stable relations of SDO scores across more than 3 years, as well as their longitudinal, cross-lagged effects on perceived White victimhood and prejudice. In summary, SDO does, contrary to the claims of some critics, constitute a generalized orientation towards intergroup hierarchy that holds regardless of which groups people are instructed to hold in mind when they fill out the SDO scale.

Interpretation of low SDO scores SDO is often skewed towards the lower end of the scale. For instance, in Ho et al.’s (2015) validation study of the SDO7 scale, the average SDO score across six US samples on a 7-point likert-scale was 2.6, corresponding to a percentage of maximum possible agreement (POMP) score of 27.2 (ranging from 0 to 100), including a representative population sample, the SDO mean of which was 3.0, corresponding to a POMP score of 32.5. Consistent with this, meta-analytical estimates indicated that the mean SDO POMP score across 27 nations was at 25.8, ranging from 15.7 in Switzerland to 63.0 in Japan (Fischer et al., 2012). This raises issues about how scores are to be categorized. An SDO score of 3.8, for example, is below the scale midpoint of 4, yet it would place you about a standard deviation above the mean in Ho et al.’s samples. So, if you score at 3.8, do you then have high or low SDO? Are you predicted to want to attenuate or amplify hierarchies? Notably, SDO correlates very strongly with the Anti-Egalitarianism scale (r = .85 in Lucas & Kteily, 2018), which has scores more evenly distributed around its scale midpoint than SDO has. Thus, it could be argued that SDO scores that are high relative to most sample means can be taken to represent opposition to egalitarianism, even if they are below the midpoint of the scale (see Lucas & Kteily, 2018). Plausibly, SDO scores might be shifted downwards e.g. through social desirability bias. If so, then the “true” SDO-level of someone scoring 3.8 could be well above 4, and so they would have high SDO in both a relative and an absolute sense. Also, the low scores may simply reflect a general human aversion to strong group-hierarchy or a preference for between-group equality, relatively speaking. Indeed, SDO scores would presumably only be shifted downwards due to social desirability concerns if there is a wide- spread normative default expectation of equality (that makes endorsement of between-group dominance socially undesirable). Recent evidence from preverbal human infants suggests this is in fact the case, at least for default expectations of equal resource distribution (see Sheehy- Skeffington & Thomsen, 2019). In any case, although the majority of people may disagree with strong intergroup oppression in absolute terms, the variance between strongly and less strongly disagreeing with between-group hierarchy, as captured by the SDO scale, has proven one of the most robust predictors of intergroup phenomena in political psychology. Social dominance theory attempts to understand how this variance intersects with macro-structure and immediate institutional contexts and social roles to explain the continuous reproduction of the hierarchical status quo (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).

Evolution of Dominance and Egalitarianism As we have seen, social dominance orientation predicts a plethora of political beliefs and ideologies. In the ethological literature, a concept known as behavioral syndrome captures traits that tend to correlate across situations and contexts. Given that SDO correlates with many related political beliefs, can these patterns be described as a behavioral syndrome? Strategies of dominance and egalitarianism have deep evolutionary roots, and can often coexist within the same species. In game theoretical competitions for dominance, the contests often follows a hawk-dove dynamics where more formidable individuals (hawks) will prevail in such zero-sum conflicts, claiming contested resources, while subordinates (doves) will yield to more formidable opponents, so as to minimize costly fighting and injury. Consistent with the notion of evolved representations and motives for social dominance, greater physical formidability is also associated with greater dominance motives and claiming of societal resources among humans (Petersen, Sznycer, Sell, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2013). Indeed, even preverbal infants use cues of formidability and predict that the novel agents who are largest, most numerous and have won before will prevail in zero-sum conflict over smaller, less numerous and previously weaker ones (Thomsen, Frankenhuis, Ingold-Smith, & Carey, 2011). Importantly, egalitarian strategies are likely to have evolutionary underpinnings as well. In several primate species, coalitions form amongst lower-ranked males in order to gain access to fitness-relevant resources guarded by higher-ranking individuals. Furthermore, hunter-gatherers do display levelling mechanisms that keeps any one individual from gaining despotic control (Boehm, 1999). If both dominant and egalitarian intergroup strategies, as tapped by low and high SDO, are maintained in human populations, what evolutionary genetic forces maintains them? A recent investigation using genetic sensitive data found that SDO and related political beliefs were all heritable, and that the covariation between them are genetic in origin (Kleppestø et al., 2019). It is possible, then, that both endorsement and opposition to intergroup hierarchies and the social policies that are meant to amplify or attenuate them, build on universal adaptations for navigating social hierarchies. Given the enormous variation in available resources across ecological and social contexts throughout human history, it is unlikely that a single optimal level of hierarchy-preference exists. Hence, it is plausible that some kind of balancing selection may maintain the heritable variation in SDO, for example through migration- selection balance, a process where genetic variation is maintained due to the changing selection pressures over time and space. This maintenance of genetic variation can occur with personality traits because humans select environments and alliances that matches their traits (niche-specialization or active gene-environment correlation). Individuals will then maximise the chance of obtaining fitness-relevant resources such as social alliances and mates. The extensive evidence that people self-select to areas of study and professional careers that match their levels of SDO in terms of being hierarchy-enhancing or attenuating (e.g. people who are high in SDO are more likely to chose to become police officer and people low in SDO are more likely to chose to become social workers) and also stay longer and do better in these educations and jobs the better this SDO-institution match is (e.g. students with lower SDO get better grades in traditionally hierarchy-attenuating educations), and, finally, also socialize SDO to go up or down according to the hierarchy-enhancing or attenuating nature of the institution (Gatto & Dambrun, 2012; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) provide support for this proposal. This also suggests that any heritability of SDO must be understood in its broadest sense to allow for such niche-building gene-environment associations, where SDO leads to the selection of environments that further adjust SDO levels in congruent ways Evolution of sex differences in Social Dominance Orientation

Across societies men score higher on SDO than women (Lee, Pratto, & Johnson, 2011). Typically this difference is on the magnitude of about half a point on the scale (e.g, ~2.9 for men vs ~2.5 for women in Ho et al., 2015). In contrast to the differences in scores between ethnic groups, which are thought to be entirely due to contextual factors, this sex difference is argued to be substantially less context dependent. This claim about stable gender differences on SDO is called the “invariance hypothesis” by SDO theoreticians and has been replicated across many cultures (Lee et al., 2011). Why would the sexes differ in attitudes and behavior related to intergroup aggression? Sexual selection and parental investment theory suggests that the payoff for costly intergroup aggression might be very different for men and women (Tooby & Cosmides, 2010). In mammalian species, the fitness of males are constrained by access to fertile women. For women however, fitness payoffs are not constrained by the availability of fertile males, but rather by the time and resources required for successful gestation and lactation. This pattern give rise to strong intrasexual competition amongst men for access to fertile females. This give rise to men fighting other men individually , but also for intergroup competition where men raid, or attempt to dominate, other groups for access to the reproductive resources within them. Furthermore, coalitional aggression have also been observed in closely related primates primates (Wilson & Wrangham, 2003). Based on this, Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) predicted that intergroup conflict between socially-constructed, arbitrary-set alliances (such as race, ethnicity, culture, class, caste, religion) will be a primarily male-on-male phenomena. This implies that the main targets of intergroup oppression will be subordinate males (i.e., in an American context Black and Hispanic males; in an European context Muslim/Middle Eastern and African males), and so SDT coined this idea the subordinate male target hypothesis (SMTH) (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), described more generally elsewhere as the male warrior hypothesis (McDonald, Navarrete, & Van Vugt, 2012). It postulates that men engage in coalitional aggression for direct sexual access, but also indirectly for foraging territories, social influence, power, and status, and it may explain why men are much more likely to be both perpetrators and victims of intergroup violence, and why men tend to be less egalitarian in their social attitudes, such as SDO. Indeed, the available evidence strongly suggest that men are more prejudiced, conservative, punitive, and racist than women are (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Nevertheless, modern expressions of prejudice are probably not adaptations in and of themselves (Navarrete, McDonald, Molina, & Sidanius, 2010). However, they might have important evolutionary underpinnings, such as the alliance detection system . That is, modern prejudice might be expressions of psychological adaptations that evolved in a context where coalitional aggression was much more common than it is today (Tooby & Cosmides, 2010). Indeed, high degrees of coalitional aggression can be observed amongst current hunter-gatherer tribes . SDT argues that men are not just the primary agents of discrimination based on arbitrary-set group differences (such as race), but also the main target of it (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Experimental psychophysiological evidence on prepared fear-learning supports the proposition that we tend to primarily be wary of outgroup males, rather than females (Navarrete et al., 2009). For women the argument has been made that such outgroup bias are primarily motivated by fear of sexual coercion, while for males it is based on motives for aggression and social dominance (Navarrete et al., 2010). In other words, sex is an important variable in both the amount of prejudice held by individuals, but also in who is targeted for discrimination. Another crucial part of the male warrior hypothesis is that it predicts variation amongst males in their desire to dominate other groups. That is, men are expected to calibrate their desire for dominance based on their own formidability, leadership ability, available alliances, and other environmental information (Petersen et al., 2013). In fact, the association between physical formidability and SDO holds even when controlling for the time spent lifting weights, suggesting that physical formidability directly drives SDO, rather than the reverse (Price, Sheehy-Skeffington, Sidanius, & Pound, 2017; Sheehy-Skeffington & Thomsen, 2019). Conclusion Human societies tend to be structured as hierarchies where dominant groups enjoys a greater access to fitness-relevant resources. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) measures the degree to which individuals prefer that dominant groups stay on top, or if society should be structured in a more egalitarian fashion. SDO predicts many important attitudes, such as political beliefs, prejudice, and life choices. Men tends to score higher, which might reflect mens sexually selected tendency to be motivated to engage in intrasexual competition for social status, that in turn give them access to fertile females. Humans are likely to possess adaptations designed for both dominance and egalitarianism.

References

Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. USA: Harvard University Press. Bratt, C., Sidanius, J., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2016). Shaping the development of prejudice: latent growth modeling of the influence of social dominance orientation on outgroup affect in youth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(12), 1617- 1634. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual‐ process motivational model. Journal of personality, 78(6), 1861-1894. Dunwoody, P. T., & McFarland, S. G. (2018). Support for anti‐Muslim policies: The role of political traits and threat perception. 39(1), 89-106. Fischer, R., Hanke, K., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Cultural and institutional determinants of social dominance orientation: A cross‐cultural meta‐analysis of 27 societies. Political Psychology, 33(4), 437-467. Gatto, J., & Dambrun, M. (2012). Authoritarianism, social dominance, and prejudice among junior police officers. Social Psychology, 43(2), 61-66. Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N. S., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., . . . Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003. Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Levin, S., Thomsen, L., Kteily, N., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2012). Social dominance orientation revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 583-606. Kleppestø, T. H., Czajkowski, N. O., Vassend, O., Røysamb, E., Eftedal, N. H., Kunst, J. R., . . . Thomsen, L. (2019). Correlations Between Social Dominance Orientation and Political Attitudes Reflect Common Genetic Underpinnings: A Twin Study. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/9bfaj. Kunst, J. R., Fischer, R., Sidanius, J., & Thomsen, L. (2017). Preferences for group dominance track and mediate the effects of macro-level social inequality and violence across societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(21), 5407-5412. Lee, I.-C., Pratto, F., & Johnson, B. T. (2011). Intergroup consensus/disagreement in support of group-based hierarchy: an examination of socio-structural and psycho- cultural factors. Psychological bulletin, 137(6), 1029. Levin, S. (1997). A social psychological approach to understanding intergroup attitudes in the United States and Israel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. (Ph.D.), University of California, Los Angeles. Levin, S. (2004). Perceived group status differences and the effects of gender, ethnicity, and religion on social dominance orientation. Political Psychology, 25(1), 31-48. Lucas, B. J., & Kteily, N. S. (2018). (Anti-) egalitarianism differentially predicts empathy for members of advantaged versus disadvantaged groups. Journal of personality social psychology, 114(5), 665. McDonald, M. M., Navarrete, C. D., & Van Vugt, M. (2012). Evolution and the psychology of intergroup conflict: The male warrior hypothesis. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 367(1589), 670-679. Navarrete, C. D., McDonald, M. M., Molina, L. E., & Sidanius, J. (2010). Prejudice at the nexus of race and gender: an outgroup male target hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 933. Navarrete, C. D., Olsson, A., Ho, A. K., Mendes, W. B., Thomsen, L., & Sidanius, J. (2009). Fear extinction to an out-group face: The role of target gender. Psychological science, 20(2), 155-158. Petersen, M. B., Sznycer, D., Sell, A., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2013). The ancestral logic of politics upper-body strength regulates men’s assertion of self-interest over economic redistribution. Psychological science, 24(7), 1098-1103. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European review of social psychology, 17(1), 271-320. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741. Price, M. E., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Sidanius, J., & Pound, N. (2017). Is sociopolitical egalitarianism related to bodily and facial formidability in men? Journal of Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(5), 626-634. Sheehy-Skeffington, J., & Thomsen, L. (2019). Egalitarianism. Psychological and socio- ecological foundations. Current Opinion in Psychology. Sidanius, J., Cotterill, S., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Kteily, N., & Carvacho, H. (2016). Social dominance theory: Explorations in the psychology of oppression. In C. G. Sibley & F. K. Barlow (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 149- 187). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 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 system. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(4), 338-366. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Thomsen, L., Frankenhuis, W. E., Ingold-Smith, M., & Carey, S. (2011). Big and mighty: Preverbal infants mentally represent social dominance. Science, 331(6016), 477-480. Thomsen, L., Green, E. G., Ho, A. K., Levin, S., van Laar, C., Sinclair, S., & Sidanius, J. (2010). Wolves in sheep’s clothing: SDO asymmetrically predicts perceived ethnic victimization among White and Latino students across three years. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(2), 225-238. Thomsen, L., Green, E. G., & Sidanius, J. (2008). We will hunt them down: How social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism fuel ethnic persecution of immigrants in fundamentally different ways. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(6), 1455-1464. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2010). Groups in mind: The coalitional roots of war and morality. In H. Høgh-Olesen (Ed.), Human morality and sociality: Evolutionary and comparative perspectives (pp. 191-234). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Wilson, M. L., & Wrangham, R. W. (2003). Intergroup relations in chimpanzees. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32(1), 363-392.