Construct/Factor Analytic
The original and subsequent papers used SDO as a unidimensional construct. Both exploratory principal-
components analysis (13 original samples, N51932) and confirmatory maximum-likelihood ( N5446) factor
analysis of the 14-item scale inter-correlations favored a single-dimension, while the 16-item scale includes two
sub-dimensions, SDO-Dominance (SDO-D), preferring some groups to dominate, and SDO-Egalitarianism
(SDO-E), preferring (non)egalitarian intergroup structures.
Criterion/Predictive
From the outset, SDO has correlated with endorsing belief systems that support or reject group dominance
structures (respectively, hierarchy-enhancing ideologies or hierarchy-attenuating ideologies; see above and Pratto
et al., 1994 ). High SDO correlates with choosing hierarchy-enhancing roles such as law, policing, politics, and
business, whereas low SDO correlates with choosing hierarchy-attenuating roles such as social work or counsel-
ing ( Pratto et al., 1994 ;Sidanius et al., 1991 ). Meta-analysis across cultures links SDO negatively to hierarchy-
attenuating legitimizing ideologies and gender empowerment ( Fischer et al., 2012 ). In American and Israeli
samples, SDO-D especially relates to old-fashioned racism, zero-sum competition, and aggressive intergroup
attitudes, whereas SDO-E especially predicts less obvious legitimating ideologies, such as opposition to redistrib-
utive social policies ( Ho et al., 2012 ).
Although correlations are causally ambiguous, SDO does guide responses to new social and political attitudes
(Pratto et al., 1994 ), consistent with its status as an enduring individual difference with a causal role. SDO oper-
ates via attitudes toward hierarchy-enhancing assimilation, as well as hierarchy-attenuating multiculturalism and
colorblindness, which mediate its relationship with prejudice. SDO consistently correlates with prejudices, espe-
cially toward immigrants and minorities when assimilation norms are primed ( Levin et al., 2012 ).
Location
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/C0763.
(Appendix C, 16-item version)
For subscales, see:
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Levin, S., Thomsen, L., Kteily, N., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2012). Social dom-
inance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38 (5), 583 /C0606.
Results and Comments
SDO is an established, useful, and distinctive measure embedded in a comprehensive theory of societal struc-
tures that encourage intergroup biases favoring high-status groups. Broader than a simple stereotyping or preju-
dice scale, it nonetheless predicts a variety of ethnocentric and gender biases, as well as overall system
endorsement. SDO is particularly suited to measuring bias caused by perceived intergroup competition, eco-
nomic threat, for example. Its cousin, RWA ( Altemeyer, 2004 ), is more suited to measuring bias caused by per-
ceived intergroup value inconsistency, norm threat, for example. Together, they combine to assess the most
virulent ethnocentrism.
SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION
Instructions: ‘Which of the following objects or state-
ments do you have a positive or negative feeling
towards? Beside each object or statement, place a num-
ber from ‘1’ to ‘7’ which represents the degree of your
positive or negative feeling.’ The scale was labeled very
positive (7),positive (6),slightly positive (5),neither positive
nor negative (4),slightly negative (3),negative (2), and very
negative (1).
1.Some groups of people are simply inferior to other
groups.2.In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary
to use force against other groups.
3.It’s OK if some groups have more of a chance in life
than others.
4.To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to
step on other groups.
5.If certain groups stayed in their place, we would
have fewer problems.
6.It’s probably a good thing that certain groups are at
the top and other groups are at the bottom.687 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT