SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION: RELATIONSHIP OF SDO AND CAMPAIGN MESSAGE PERCEPTION

A THESIS

Presented to the University Honors Program

California State University, Long Beach

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the

University Honors Program Certificate

Amy Delmore

Spring 2018 I, THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE,

HAVE APPROVED THIS THESIS

SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION: RELATIONSHIP OF SDO AND CAMPAIGN MESSAGE PERCEPTION

BY

Amy Delmore

______Advisor’s Name, Ph.D. (Thesis Advisor) Department Communication Studies

California State University, Long Beach

Spring 2018 Running head: SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 3

Social Dominance Orientation: Relationship of SDO and Campaign Message Perception

Amy Delmore

California State University, Long Beach

SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 4 Ideology and

Hierarchy is a way of organizing in which people or groups are ranked-one individual or group over the other. have existed as long as societies have. They took rise, initially, because of the way wealth was distributed among individuals or groups. Wealth was something that was then translated to social power. Traditional hunter-gatherer societies exhibited hierarchical structures in which individuals belonged; the structures would vary on the ability to obtain resources (Hamilton et. al., 2007). When society made a turn to become more agrarian during the Neolithic Revolution, wealth began to be controlled by a small number of people. The concept of hierarchy thus established people with resources at the top of society. Those with fewer resources would thus be ruled by the wealthy. Historically, hierarchy also finds origin within a context, one in which angels were ranked in importance order by the writings of

Dionysius the Areopagite. This ranking of angels or individuals shed light on the creation of social status and rank-order. Through such understanding of social order came an influence of hierarchy on various ideologies.

Ideology consists of attitudes and beliefs that people have that often affect the way they interact or behave with society. Ideology can be defined as a foundation that is common and shared amongst members of groups. Ideologies, then, allow these members to define what is good and right or evil and wrong. Their beliefs and understanding about situations will be driven by their basic beliefs, or ideologies, that they hold as true. As these ideologies will be important in the foundation of an individual or a group’s belief system, the ideologies will influence the perspectives and actions that the individuals carry out. These ideologies encourage individuals into action, whether that be religious ideology, beliefs on gender roles, or ideas on political platforms. People will easily attach to what cultural context promotes, which can influence their SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 5 ideologies or perspectives in a variety of contexts within any given society (Pratto et. Cathey,

2002). Individuals, , and groups adopt ideologies, which in turn, can influence the way they see the world and treat others. Most of the time, ideologies are a direct result or function of interests of a group, and the development of ideologies can be strongly influenced by “power over other groups (or resistance against the domination by other groups)” (van Dijk, 1998, p. 8).

Research has grown in understanding ideology and its effects on individuals. One important arena of research is political ideology, or one's beliefs and outlooks within the political realm. Typically, this ideology can be characterized by two schools of thought: conservatism and liberalism. Studies have demonstrated a correlation between personality- or even childhood experiences- and political ideology (Neve, 2015). Research indicates that one’s political ideology can be related to various outcomes, such as criminal activity (Wright, Beaver, Morgan, &

Connolly, 2016), attributions of luck and success (Gromet, Hartson, & Sherman, 2015), or trust in government or media behavior (Cacciatore, Scheufele, & Iyengar, 2016). Not only is political ideology something that one holds as an attitude or belief, but also something with implications for action.

Hierarchy is a concept that is endemic to certain ideology, such as political ideology. A modern-day look at judicial decision-making- for example- highlights that “the relationship of ideology to doctrinal choice… complex relationship based on the desire to control case outcomes, with lower courts, and the distribution of cases” (Lax, 2012, p. 767). This emphasizes how messages or desires to maintain hierarchy are intertwined with ideology- in turn- influences our actions in order to gain control. Historically, during the Hellenistic period, the Greeks organized themselves within hierarchies in order to make sensible decision making.

This led to them settling decisions on foreign and political policy, which in turn, was a reflective SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 6 measure of influencing ideology in order to support the hierarchies in place (Grynaviski et Hsieh,

2015).

As suggested above, research on ideology and hierarchy focuses on “the manner in which

preferences (for example, the desire for intergroup hierarchy) can steer people toward principles

congruent with those preferences” (Knowles & Ditto, 2011, p. 365). In a sense, people who are

in support of hierarchy will abide by specific ideologies that support such a desire. An example

is that a white man who desires to boost up the existing racial hierarchy would be one who buys

into the American ideology of colorblindness (Dyson, 2000). Existing hierarchies can influence

the of ideologies by individuals or societies, which at large, can vary depending on the

cultural or individual beliefs.

Many cultural and individual ideologies find their root and influence in hierarchy. Such ideology can date back to 3,000 years ago with the creation of the Indian system. Before the birth of Christ, Manusmriti was written in order to establish Hindu law and regulation. The book introduced practicing Hindus to the concept of the caste system, in which Hindus would be divided into “rigid hierarchies” based on their work and duty performed. The system is a graded hierarchy “such that the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas (descendants of the religious, warrior/military, and mercantile elite, respectively), comprise high-status groups, while the

“Untouchables” occupy the lowest rung of the social ladder” (Ambedkar, 1989. p. 99). A recent study found that beliefs in the caste system’s organization of social groups and within that organization “suggests that Karmic beliefs legitimize caste-based inequality to the same extent as does generalized , a quintessential and often cited example of a legitimizing ideology”

(Bhardwaj, Cotterill, Kumar, & Sidanius, 2014, p. 108). The belief in this caste system and SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 7 karma, or one paying the price for something they have done, are directly tied to one’s preference for hierarchy.

From the early influence of church and its values came an understanding of what social order was. Such social order manifested itself in the early formation of Catholic or protestant churches, while also in the functions of everyday social groups. Hierarchy began to unfold in a way that found itself existing in gender, family, and interpersonal relations. People began to use biblical text to give reasoning behind the male being the head provider of the family as the father, thus creating a hierarchical system operating within the family. People also began to associate males as the dominance gender, whereas the women would be considered providers and caretakers at home. Kingdoms were built within nations and roles were given to the highly established, such as the King and Queen, in order to provide a sense of structure, leadership, and rule.

Hierarchy in ideology can also be found as the root of foundational theories that we cite in modern times. Darwin’s theory of evolution and concepts such as survival of the fittest find their underlying root in the idea that groups of species, whether it be animal or humans, will rank themselves according to their ability to survive and thrive on Earth. Within his work, The Origin of the Species, he addresses his beliefs in groups of people being more advanced and evolutionary over others. Studies on his book provide insight that he believed men were more established than women. His “view on gender” were conventionally displayed in his book. The

Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, in the sense that, according to his work, men were “more courageous, pugnacious, and energetic than woman with a more inventive genius.

His brain is absolutely larger… the formation of her skull is said to be intermediate between the child and the man” (Darwin, 1871, p. 356). SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 8 A study on his works provide insight that he believed that white and European races were, in an evolutionary sense, more advanced than the black races. This created a mark in establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy (Rose, 2009). Rose highlights that it is possible that Darwin was convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races— especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy.

In light of the influence of hierarchy, the 21st century has witnessed a reactionary shift to a desire for a more egalitarian, equity-based system of relation. The fight for equality continues in our modern era but began long before the 21st century. Up until the 18th century, the assumption that human beings were unequal by nature was the superior ideology on equality

(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2001). However, when this thought began to be challenged, people began to realize the existence of inequality, and found courage to fight for equality. The beginning of movements striving for equality between groups began to take rise in the late 20th century within the realm of . After the suffrage movement found its success in the 1920s there was a period of marginalization, in which women felt they had little to no outlet to fight for equal rights. During the time period of the late 20th century, however, came waves of women working towards equality. This consisted of a group fighting to improve working conditions for women, a group advocating for women involvement in politics and policy-making, and the National Women’s Party advocating for the passing of the ERA (Taylor,

1989). To this day, feminist groups continue to coalesce and use outlets such as social media or street protests to fight for their cause and equal rights in regard to issue such as health care, abortion, and equal pay. SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 9 A desire to break down a system of hierarchy in order to establish a more egalitarian

society is also seen with respect to race. For example, the Black Lives Matter movement of the

21st century was highly promoted amongst social media and had a large involvement throughout

the US. In response to the killings of numerous African Americans, the movement elevated

awareness for the Black community and gave people courage to fight against such

(Mineo, 2015).

However, despite the growing number of movements centered on equality, many

ideologies within groups or individuals today still are centered on the concept of hierarchy and

status inequality. Humans remain “status-seeking social animals” who, across cultures, respect

and strive for power. Status competition and hierarchies are found “under all systems of

governance and in all types of society” (Simons, 2017, p. 61). Traditional values of and

racism still find their place within policy-making in societies around the world. In our

contemporary society, the fight for equality continues to meet the dominant groups desiring a

status-quo and hierarchy-enhancing perspective. Hierarchy has thus influenced ideology and actions resulting from such ideology, which continues to shape our modern society and the ways in which we view people.

What is Social Dominance Theory?

The idea of hierarchy influencing our ideologies and perceptions was of interest to Jim

Sindanius and Felicia Pratto, who developed the Social Dominance Theory. Through their personal experiences of understanding social differences based on uncontrollable variables, the two joined forces in order to look at developing a theory that would be unique in the way it personified feelings of preference for rank-order and organizational hierarchy. The basis of the theory that became known as Social Dominance Theory is that it “begins with the basic SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 10 observation that all human societies tend to be structured as systems of group-based social hierarchies…the dominant group on top has possession of a disproportionately large share of positive social value, and subordinate groups possess a disproportionately large share of negative social value.” (Sindanius & Pratto, 1999. p. 32) The theory, therefore, goes on to model “various mechanisms that produce and maintain these group-based social hierarchies and how these mechanisms interact” (p. 32). Their work was highly influenced by Pierre Van den Berghe, whose studies on sociology and anthropology allowed the conception of his text, The Ethnic

Phenomenon. In this text, he argues that “hierarchy or dominance establishes an order of access to resources and typically inequality of access as well,” and provides insight on social-group hierarchies that are maintained by various stratification systems (Berghe, 1987, p. 39). Sindanius and Pratto, in their text Social Dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression, use his framework to cut down the stratification systems of sustaining hierarchy to three: “age systems… gender… and arbitrary set systems, filled with socially constructed groups like ethnicity, race, regional group, or any socially relevant group” (Sindanius & Pratto, 1999, p.

33). The theory highlights the concept of hierarchy as being something that is organized in a way that provides for one group over another and challenges the “why” to the notion of

“…systematically distributing whatever people value… and whatever they devalue… more in favor of the dominant arbitrary group than subordinate group” (Levine & Hogg, 2010, p. 2).

Social Dominance Theory and its Relation to Communication

Social Dominance Theory itself is rooted in understanding the “psychology of prejudice” and how it works with “cultural ideologies and institutional ” (Pratto & Stewart,

2011, p. 1). Through the lens of psychology, the theory attempts “combine social psychological theories of with wider social process of ideology and the legitimization of SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 11 social inequalities” (Islam, 2014, p. 1779). However, research on the theory has thus far avoided

application to communication studies.

Many psychological or sociological perspectives on issues such as prejudice and

discrimination make social scientists or theorists less likely to look at such problems from a lens

of interaction of various elements. A combination of “psychological, socio-structural, ideological, and institutional forces jointly contribute to the production and reproduction of social oppression” (Sindanius et. al., 2004, p. 846). Social Dominance Theory, then, is not merely focused on one singular perspective or field of study in order to advance its claims, but finds its propositions and research rooted in the experiences of “everyday life” of discrimination that people feel, and “interactions between psychological and social-contextual processes, and the subtle yet important similarities and differences between various types of group-based oppression” (Sindanius et. Al, 2004, p. 847). In turn, the theory is devoted to understanding how different analysis fields combine together in order to explain the prejudice and hierarchy-based ideologies that people and institutions obtain.

If this theory is based on a combination of analyses, then this begs the question of whether it relates to the realm of communication studies. Ruben (1984) says that communication is any “information related behavior.” Dale (1969) defines it as the “sharing of ideas and feelings in a mood of mutuality.” Other definitions emphasize the significance of symbols, as in Berelson and Steiner (1964): “The transmission of information, ideas, emotions and skills…by the use of symbols,” and Theodorson and Theodorson (1969): “the transmission of information, ideas, attitudes, or emotion from one person or group to another…primarily through symbols.” (Kuzio,

2014, p. 9). A communication theory, then, can be defined as a “systematic summary about the nature of the communication process,” with functions such as predicting communication SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 12 behavior and observing or making sense of patterns in communication (Dainton & Zelley, 2015, p. 7). With this definition of communication theory, we can begin to consider the potential contributions of a social dominance approach

Social Dominance Theory argues that group-based hierarchies and discrimination against an out-group is able to be sustained due to the progression of social ideologies, which influences the actions of institutions and people. This supports the idea that people “share knowledge and beliefs that legitimize discrimination, and most often they behave as if they endorsed these ideologies” (Sindanius, Pratto, Laar, & Levin, 2004, p. 847). If we understand communication as the transmission of information, then this theory is grounded in studying communication patterns because it explains how people transmit ideological information to one another in order to support legitimizing myths and hierarchy-enhancement. The fact that this theory takes firm root in studying how hierarchy is maintained and supported through legitimizing myths that support such practices of hierarchy and discrimination is something that should not limit the study to the field of psychology but should be of interest to communication scholars around the world. The theory and the research it engenders of it can allow one to make sense of the information that people give and receive.

Social Dominance Orientation: A Scale at the Heart of Social Dominance Theory

Social Dominance Orientation is a measurement that can be used in tests of Social

Dominance Theory. SDO is “the extent to which one desires that one’s in-group dominate and be superior to the out-group” (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994, p. 742). People who have high levels of SDO seem to find ways to justify behavior that is in support of the superior social group. Those who argue in favor of domination and superiority given to a specific group or type of person tend to justify such ideology through theories of in-group superiority. People SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 13 with low levels of SDO find ways to challenge such justifiable behavior and challenge the

inequalities in the status quo. They desire to see equality and change in order to dismantle

hierarchies.

Individual levels of SDO have been studied across many situations, and the link between

experiences of SDO has been studied to see its potential influence on people. Relevant to the

study of social hierarchy, studies and measures on levels of SDO in individuals have been found

to have direct links to expressions and feelings of anti-black racism, nationalism, sexism, patriotism, and conservatism (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), the support for assimilation and dissatisfaction with (Levin et. Al., 2012, p. 207), low levels of self-compassion and ability to cope with failure (Martin et. Al, 2015), and strong preference for group-based inequality and hierarchies in general (Ho et. Al, 2015).

High levels of SDO are normally held among members of groups that are already considered superior. For example, support the idea that adult men are more likely to express desire for dominance and group-based hierarchy than adult women (Pula, McPherson, & Parks,

2012, p. 386). White supremacy, as a modern and also historical phenomenon, exemplifies the disproportionate amount of power and dominance given to and sustained by whites, and used in ways that favor in-group superiority and out-group discrimination. By association, many whites report high levels of SDO and support policies or institutions that align with their desire to

“protect the racial status quo” that gives them advantages (Chow & Knowles, 2015, p. 26).

Historically, groups of white men have been the ones with the power, whether that be noted through the creation of the constitution or institutions in history and at present. Thus, these groups of people see division and power going to such superior groups as a good thing. SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 14 While the argument stands that SDO is mainly prevalent in superior groups, such as

white, upper-class males, the experiences of SDO can be expanded beyond that. Consider, for

example, that some low status group members may buy into hierarchy-enhancing ideology

because they need to cooperate with high status groups if they don’t want to feel excluded or left

out of a policy or proposition (Kupper, Wolf, & Zick, 2010). Any sense of resistance will

ultimately turn the groups against the superior groups, leaving themselves in the midst of

policies, actions, and words that are rooted in prejudice and discrimination. Another perspective

is that of lower income individuals. Regardless of race or gender, lower income individuals tend

to feel higher in SDO, or specifically feelings against immigrants, because they feel competition

towards immigrants within the job sector, which leads to conflict between the out-groups. There

are various reasons for supporting hierarchy depending on the individual circumstance or

ideology.

Social Dominance Orientation and Politics

Politics, political agenda, and public policy rooted in political ideology are things that

people in societies are constantly exposed to. One’s response to politics or political measure can

be a direct result of their worldviews and attitudes or opinions on the way the world works.

Studies have found that variables like “conscientiousness, fear of threat, death anxiety, epistemic

motivations (such as intolerance of ambiguity, closed mindedness, personal needs for structure)

are positively related to a more right-wing ideological orientation,” whereas more left-wing orientation is associated with one’s “openness to experience… cognitive complexity, tolerance of uncertainty…” (Chirumbolo, Leone, & Desimoni, 2015, p. 144). SDO and right-wing beliefs tend to concern themselves with one’s level of social and tough mindedness (Duckitt,

Wagner, du Plessis, & Birum, 2002). SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 15 Studies of SDO have found a strong link between the belief in group hierarchy and one’s

projected political ideology. Those high in SDO often have been linked to holding a standard of

conservative values. They tend to adhere strictly to norms and authority and tend to disengage

with or disregard people or actions that advance the needs of disadvantaged groups (Chirumbolo,

Leone, & Desimoni, 2015). A study on college students’ level of SDO resulted in the support of

the idea that the more biased towards specific race or social groups that students were in their

responses, the more conservative their ideologies were. Also, facets of SDO were contributors to

their perception on political agenda and policy decisions (Sidanius et. Al, 2017, p. 711).

SDO has been highly linked to ideologies supported by the Republican Party. The

election of President Barack Obama in 2008 caused a shift in US politics from a white,

republican dominated government to one that was democratic and witnessed the election of the

first black president. People high in SDO witnessed this election as a huge loss, as his win

“changes the historical dominance of white men,” whereas people low in SDO saw his win as a

victory, as they “reject… and… even want to dismantle the existing hierarchy” (Trawalter et. Al,

2011, p. 334). Thus, SDO can be an influential factor when understanding how people react to

politically-based events.

Hierarchy Attenuating and Enhancing Legitimizing Myths

Social Dominance Theory argues that society develops ideologies that “promote, or to the contrary, attenuate group inequality.” Such specific beliefs are called “legitimizing myths”

(Dambrum, Guimond, & Duarte, 2002, p. 117). These legitimizing myths are a way of understanding prejudice, beliefs, ideologies, and attributions in a way that justifies the mistreatment of subordinate or out-groups and support the dominance and preference of high status groups (Kupper, Wolf, & Zick, 2010). The hope of legitimizing myths is that they can SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 16 reduce conflict by creating “consensus on ideology,” in which the status quo’s ideology would

be one in favor of hierarchy. Legitimizing myths work when they are widely accepted as self-

apparent truths (Pratto et. Al, 1994).

There are two specific types of legitimizing myths- which are ones that maintain the

degree of social inequality, and ones that promote greater . One is a hierarchy-

enhancing myth, which enhance social inequality and hierarchy, and one is the hierarchy-

attenuating myth, which attenuate the inequalities (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). These myths serve

as ideologies that allow for the endorsement of such social dominance or stronger equality.

These myths can be promoted in either hierarchy-attenuating environments or hierarchy-

enhancing environments, which would be environments that promote ideologies embedded in the

legitimizing myths. Studies on SDO have demonstrated that those who are strongly involved in a

hierarchy-enhancing environment are more “anti egalitarian” and more likely to be “intolerant

toward disadvantaged groups than members of HA normative environments” (Pierre, Guimond,

& Dambrun, 2012, p. 869). Hierarchy-enhancing ideologies, therefore, support the status quo that is heavily reliant on hierarchies in order to operate. When engaged in societies where ideologies of patriarchy, hierarchy-organized companies and institutions, and acts of racism or

supremacy due to a belief in supporting one group over another exist, it can be seen that those

high in SDO would be supporters in maintaining status quo hierarchies (Rabinowitz, 1999).

Those opposed to hierarchy and those who hold the value of equality would be prone to

supporting hierarchy-attenuating messages that challenge the status quo and seek to change it.

SDO thus predicts endorsement of hierarchy-legitimizing, or hierarchy-enhancing, myths, which

lead to feelings of anti-black racism, nationalism, and other feelings of dominance,

discrimination, or prejudice as described before (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 17 As SDO is related to the support of maintaining hierarchy, it also is related to maintaining

messages strong in upholding such hierarchy. Because of this, the question arises as to whether

or not SDO will influence the perception people have toward specific political messages that are

high or low in content supporting hierarchy. In this study, we hypothesize that participants who

receive different messages rooted in hierarchy-enhancement or hierarchy-attenuation will vary in their preference depending on their measured levels of SDO. We hypothesize that those who are shown to have high levels of SDO will support the hierarchy-enhancement messages, and those low in SDO will support the hierarchy-attenuating messages.

H1A: There should be a positive correlation between SDO and perceived message

favorability for issue-based campaign advertisements with a (HE) hierarchy-enhancing message.

H1B: There should be a negative correlation between SDO and perceived message

favorability for issue-based campaign advertisements with a (HA) hierarchy-attenuating

message.

Methods

Participants were 245 adults residing in the United States who were recruited through

Amazon’s mTurk service. They were recruited to take part in the study in exchange for a

payment after their completion of the survey. Study protocol was approved through the

university’s Institutional Review Board. Participation took place online and was administered

through Qualtrics software. The sample included 130 males and 111 females (4 “no response”),

were on average 34.59 (SD=10.16) years old, and were predominately White (169 Caucasian, 19

Hispanic, 25 Asian, 26 African American, 5 “other”, and 1 “no response”). Eleven participants

failed at least one of the two attention checks and were eliminated; thus, the final sample size was 234. SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 18 Participants completed informed consent before beginning the survey. Prior to any

treatment, participants completed three scales. This included the social dominance 7 scale (Ho,

Sidanius, Kteily, Sheehy-Skeffinton, Pratto, Henkel, Foels, & Stewart, 2015), the political

ideollogy scale (Poteat & Mereish, 2012), and the political engagement scale (Brooks & Greer,

2007). Participants initially completed was the social dominance 7 scale (SDO7).

After completing these scales, the treatment began with participants randomly assigned

one of six possible message conditions, one ostensibly given by a political candidate who was

running for Congress. Each participant only viewed and evaluated one message. Participants

viewed the statement next to a photo of the candidate in what appeared to be a social media

political advertisement on Facebook. The messages varied in their content and wording style.

The messages were crafted to be either be hierarchy-enhancing messages (ie, those supporting existing hierarchies) or hierarchy-attenuating messages (ie, those that denote existing hierarchies and call for equality and change). Although messages also varied in their degree of civility,

message civility was not a variable considered in the present study. Thus, only the main effect of

hierarchy enhancing-attenuating messages was analyzed here (see Appendix A for a complete

description of all messages used in the study).

Participants read their assigned message and responded to follow-up questions. Initially,

participants were asked questions based off of their perception of the message they had read.

They ranked their agreement (1) or disagreement (4) with questions from Brooks and Geer

(2007) that measured the perception of fairness, importance, and informational value of the

candidate’s message. Following this, participants were asked about their perception of the

candidate himself. Participants rated their level of disagreement (1) or agreement (7) of SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 19 statements regarding the candidate’s character, leadership skills, and political abilities based off

of the political ads scenario survey by Marks, Manning, & Ajzen’s (2012).

Results

A correlation test between participant levels of SDO and message perception was

conducted in order to test the level of association between the two variables. For those

participants randomly assigned to a hierarchy-enhancing message condition, the measured level of SDO and participant message perception was significantly and positively correlated, r(x)=.238, p= .012. Thus, as SDO increased, message favorability also increased. This supports the first hypothesis that suggests that there would be a positive correlation between SDO and message perception of hierarchy-enhancing messages.

A second correlation coefficient was calculated between participant levels of SDO and message perception, but among those assigned the condition of hierarchy-attenuating messages.

Under this condition, it was found that there was a significant and negative correlation between

SDO and message perception, r(x)= -.249, p= .018. That is, as the measured level of SDO in participants decreased, their favorability for messages rooted in hierarchy-attenuation also increased. This supports the second hypothesis by providing evidence of a negative correlation between SDO and message perception of attenuating messages.

Discussion

This study primarily focused on participants’ level of SDO and its potential influence on message perception. Traditionally, SDO is attributed to groups of people that already belong within a social hierarchy. It has been associated with beliefs of sexism and male dominance

(Rosenthal, Levy, & Earnshaw 2014), as well as right-wing authoritarianism and conservatism

(Wilson & Sibley, 2012). SDO has primarily been attributed to impacts within the psychological SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 20 realm of study but has been looked over in regard to communication impacts. In this study, it

was hypothesized that there would be a positive correlation between a participants’ level of SDO

and their message favorability of hierarchy-enhancing messages. It was also hypothesized that there would be a negative correlation between the tested level of SDO and message favorability under conditions of hierarchy-attenuating messages. The results concluded that both hypotheses were supported in that there was an indicated correlation and statistical significance between

SDO and message perception under conditions of hierarchy-enhancing messages (r(x)=.238, p=

.012) and hierarchy-attenuating messages (r(x)= -.249, p= .018).

Despite the fact that the data was found to support the study hypotheses, it is important to note that SDO alone only accounted for approximately 5% of the influence on message in this study. While statistically significant, this indicates that there are other variables influencing the

message perception. Further analysis of data collected in this study could investigate the

influence of other variables such as ethnicity, political affiliation, or gender on one’s level of

message perception. This could build a foundation for future research, including questions as to

whether or not one’s sex or ethnicity has any effect on one’s perception or favorability of

messages, specifically political campaign advertisements. Another area of potential future study

would be to analyze the effect of SDO on the candidate perception. This can open up potential

studies that allow deeper understanding of how SDO impacts the way people perceive others,

specifically political candidates, based off of the messages they put forward.

This study was centered around literature pertaining to hierarchy and its relationship to

ones’ ideology. The concept of hierarchy, or the organization of society and people, has existed

since the formation of people groups. Hierarchies have shifted and grown since but are

nevertheless still prevalent in the 21st century. One aspect of hierarchy is that it influences the SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 21 ideologies that people attach themselves to. Ideologies influence the way that individuals view

themselves, others, and what is happening around them, while also influence the actions that

individuals will take in order to uphold such ideologies. With the influence of hierarchy on

ideologies comes ideologies such as patriotism, racism, or sexism. These ideologies are centered

on the idea that one group of people should be dominant over another group, and thus, are

centered on upholding hierarchy.

Social dominance theory highlights this relationship between hierarchy and ideology, as

it is described as being a study of various mechanisms that create and sustain group-based hierarchies (Sindanius & Pratto, 1999). This theory has been primarily studied by psychology scholars in order to understand the psychological reasoning of why people abide by specific ideologies supporting or denoting hierarchy. However, the theory has been set aside by communication scholars and theorists. As this theory studies the way people communicate their ideologies to one another or to the messages they support, it is imperative that this theory is studied in the context of its communicative impacts.

The measure of social dominance theory employed in this study is Social Dominance

Orientation (SDO), or the measure of the desire one has for in-group superiority over other out-

groups. SDO has been previously studied in relation to ideologies that people obtain or

personality traits, which have varied from its link to sexism or racism, low levels of empathy or

compassion, and decreased dialogue receptivity. People high in SDO support maintaining

existing group-based hierarchy, and often resonate with hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths

that also promote status quo hierarchy. Those low in SDO argue against existing hierarchy and

resonate with hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing myths that support change and equality. SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 22 This present study bridges the gap between the Social Dominance Theory and communication impacts. It opens up future possibilities for SDO to be studied and hypothesized in regard to phenomena related to communication studies, which makes it unique. Also, the study impacts one’s understanding of variables that affect political favorability, which is primarily studied within psychological studies. Understanding one’s preference for hierarchy and its influence on their political ideology or candidate/message preference leads to a greater understanding of how and why people vote in the particular ways that they do. Merely assuming people will vote a specific way based off of their political party preference creates a misinterpretation of how people truly view politics. “A great deal of work, however, in both political science and psychology suggests that this conceptualization…” of assuming people fall within the realm of liberal to conservative “...may fail to capture significant aspects of ideology and ignores a great deal of heterogeneity in how citizens understand political conflict...This suggests that ideology cannot be reduced to a single value or measure which accurately represents the political beliefs of all citizens. We believe that empirical examinations of liberalism and conservatism that disregard such complexity in meaning and structure fail to detect some important aspects of the determinants of ideology and their ultimate consequences for politics” (Feldman & Johnston, 2014, p. 338). This creates a necessity to study separate variables that influence political preference and decision making such as SDO.

SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 23 References

Ambedkar, B. R. (1989). Essays on untouchables and untouchability – I. In Education

Department, Government of Maharashtra (Ed.): Writings and speeches (5, n.p). Bombay,

India: Editor.

Berghe, P. (1987). The ethnic phenomenon. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Bhardwaj, A., Cotterill, S., Kumar, V., & Sidanius, J. (2014). Ideological support for the indian

caste system: Social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism and karma.

Journal of Social and , 2(1). 89-116.

Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Iyengar, S. (2016). The end of framing as we know

it … and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1). 7–23.

Chirumbolo, A., Leone, L., & Desimoni, M. (2015). The interpersonal roots of politics: Social

value orientation, socio-political attitudes and prejudice. Personality and Individual

Differences, 91.

Chow, R., & Knowles, E. (2016). Taking race off the table: Agenda setting and support for

color-blind public policy. Personality and Bulletin, 42(1). 25-39.

Dainton, M., & Zelley, E. D. (2015). Applying communication theory for professional life: A

practical introduction.

Dambrun, M., Guimond, S., & Duarte, S. (2002). The impact of hierarchy-enhancing vs.

attenuating academic major on stereotyping: The mediating role of perceived social

norm. Current Research in Social Psychology, 7(8). 114-136.

Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. New York, NY. P.F.

Collier & Son. SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 24 De Oliveira, P., Guimond, S. and Dambrun, M. (2012), Power and legitimizing ideologies in

hierarchy-enhancing vs. hierarchy-attenuating environments. Political Psychology, 33:

867–885.

Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of

ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 83. 75–93

Dyson, M. E. (2000). I may not get there with you: The true Martin Luther King, Jr. New York:

Free Press.

Feldman, S., & Johnston, C. (2013). Understanding the detriments of political ideology:

Implications of structural complexity. Politial Psychology, 20(20). 1-22.

Gromet, D., Hartson, K., & Sherman, D. (2015). The politics of luck: Political ideology and the

perceived relationship between luck and success. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 59. 40-46.

Grynaviski, E. & Hsieh, A. (2015). Hierarchy and judicial Institutions: Arbitration and ideology

in the hellenistic world.” International Organization, 69. 697–729.

Hamilton MJ, Milne BT, Walker RS, Burger O, Brown JH. 2007 The complex structure of

hunter–gatherer social networks. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 2195–2203. Retrieved from

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1622/2195

Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., 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), 1003-1028. SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 25 Islam, G. (2014). Social dominance theory. In Teo, T. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Critical

Psychology. 1779-1781.

Knowles, E., & Ditto, P. (2011). Preference, principle, and preference. In Hanson, J. (Ed)

Ideology, psychology, and law. Oxford University Press.

Kupper, B., Wolf, C., & Zick, A. (2010). Social status and anti-immigrant attitudes in europe: An

examination from the perspective of social dominance theory. International Journal of

Conflict and , 4(2). 205-219.

Kuzio, A. (2014). Exploitation of schemata in persuasive and manipulative disource in english,

polish, and Russian. Cambridge Scholars Publ.

Lax, J. (2012). Political constraints on legal doctrine: How hierarchy shapes the law. Columbia

University. 1-35.

Levin, S., Matthews, M., Guimond, S., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Kteily, N., Pitpitan, E., & Dover,

T. (2012). Assimilation, multiculturalism, and colorblindness: Mediated and moderated

relationships between social dominance orientation and prejudice. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 48: 207-212.

Martin, D., Seppala, E., Heineberg, Y., Rossomando, T., Doty, J., Zimbardo, P., Shiue, T.,

Berger, R., & Zhou, Y. (2015). Multiple facets of compassion: The impact of social

dominance orientation and economic systems justification. Journal of Business Ethics,

129(1). 237-249.

Mineo, L. (2015). Background on black lives matter. Retrieved from

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/11/background-on-black-lives-matter/

Neve, J. (2015). Personality, childhood experience, and political ideology. Political Psychology,

36(1). 55-73. SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 26 Pula, K., McPherson, S., & Parks, C. (2012). Invariance of a two-factor model of social

dominance orientation across gender.” Personality and Individual Differences,

52(3). 385–389.

Pratto, F., & Cathey, C. (2002). The role of social ideologies in legitimizing political attitudes

and public policy. In V. Ottati, R.S. Tindale, J. Edwards, F. B. Bryant, L. Heath, D. C.

O’Connell, Y. Suarez Balcazar, & E. J. Posavac (Eds.), The social psychology of politics

(pp. 135-155). New York, NY, USA: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A

personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 67(4). 741-763.

Pratto, F., & Stewart, A. (2011). Social dominance theory. In The Encyclopedia of Peace

Psychology. 1-4

Pula, K., McPherson, S., & Parks, C. (2012). Invariance of a two-factor model of social

dominance orientation across gender, 52(3). 385-389.

Rabinowitz, J. (1999). Go with the flow or fight the power? The interactive effects of social

dominance orientation and perceived injustice on support for the status qup. Political

Psychology, 20(1). 1-14.

Rose, S. (2009). Darwin, race and gender. In Embo Reports, 10(4). 293-413.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2011). Social Dominance Theory. In Lange, P., Kruglanski, A., &

Higgins, E., (Eds.) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. 418-438. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE Pulications.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and

oppression. New York, NY. Cambridge University Press. SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 27 Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance theory: Its agenda and

method. Political Psychology, 25(6). 845-880.

Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Martin, M., & Stallworth, L. (1991). Consensual racism and career track:

Some implications of social dominance theory. International Society of Political

Psychology, 12(4). 691-721.

Simons, A. (2017). 21st century challenges of command: A view from the field. Retrieved from

https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/download.cfm-

q=1353.pdf

Taylor, S. (1989). Social movement continuity: the women’s movement in abeyance. American

Sociological Review, 54(5). 761-775.

Trawalter, S., Chung, V., DeSantis, A., Simon, C., & Adam, E. (2011). Physiological stress

responses to the 2008 US presidential election: The role of policy preferences and social

dominance orientation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(3). 333-345.

Van Dijk, T. A. (19980. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage

Wright, J., Beaver, K., Morgan, M., & Connolly, E. (2016). Political ideology predicts

involvement in crime. Personality and Individual Differences. 1-6.

SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION 28 Appendix A

Survey Questions Used for Data Analysis

Six message groups given in study

1: If elected, I will strengthen border security and defend our country (HE)

2: If elected, I will push for global engagement and open up our country to legal migration (HA)

3: My opponent refuses to defend our country and is calling for open immigrations (HE)

4: My opponent refuses to push for global engagement and to open up our country to legal migration (HA)

5: My opponent is a sleaze who refuses to defend our country and is calling for open immigration (HE)

6: My opponent is a sleaze who refuses to push for global engagement and to open up our country to legal migration (HA)