Talk:Social dominance theory

I have made a start at wikifying this interesting article. This is work in progress by a non-specialist. Comments and additions welcome.--Henri 23:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC) There are still errors in the references. The links to Duckitt and RWA are weak. The article would still benefit from some real expertise!--Henri 19:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

other definitions of 'social dominance'

This article covers the racist, oppressive side of Social Dominance Theory. Another use of the term 'social dominance' is when speaking of the animal world, as in the the social dominance of chimps hamsters and many other animals, including humans. Therefore, I feel that this page needs to mention this other use of the words, 'social dominance,' and perhaps then, eventually, for another page on the topic of social dominance across many (all?) animal species be created. Thanks. 65.32.176.165 (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Social dominance orientation be merged into Social dominance theory. It seems like there is a lot of redundancy across these two articles and I can't think of a strong rationale for the separation (if anything I think it limits understanding). I can see that at least one other person thinks this way, but what do others think? Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the merger. SDT is a moderately-developed social theory that touches on social organization, ideology, and power relationships. SDO is a well-developed psychological construct for measuring a certain kind of authoritarian personality. The two theories are logically independent, except that SDO was theorized as a personality likely to be successful in an SDT-type of society. Burressd (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Burressd. That is not my understanding. Instead, following the literature I have always understood SDO to be a part of SDT and therefore not independent theories as you claim. Or in Pratto et al.'s words “Social dominance theory postulates that a significant factor is an individual-difference variable called social dominance orientation” (1994, p. 741, emphasis added). Can you point to some sources that would support your point of view? Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A requirement for authoritative sources explicitly describing a separation of literatures would be unreasonable. For example, I doubt if anyone bothers to state that literature on Republicans is distinct from literature on American conservatives. Instead, observe actual facts.

1. An influential book that compares SDO with Right Wing Authoritarianism never once mentions SDT. (Bob Altemeyer, The Authoritarians, http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf).

2. The original authors of SDT have stated: "the theory is a theory of social dominance, not a theory of social dominance orientation. We view measures of SDO to be a theoretical tool, rather than viewing SDO as a root cause of social hierarchy." (Felicia Pratto, Jim Sidanius, and Shana Levin,"Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward," EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 17, 271 – 320, http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic895260.files/PrattoSidaniusLevin_2006.pdf Burressd (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Burressd. I think you might be misinterpreting the quote that you plucked out. I am pretty sure Pratto et al. (2006) are not trying to claim that SDT is separate to SDO. Their point instead is that SDT is not only SDO. Their concern here, which I think is clear in light of the complete section, is that some view SDO to be a personality explanation of social hierarchy, rather than understanding SDO as only one part of SDT, which is a far broader account of prejudice. This latter interpretation would also be in accord with the remainder of the article, which views SDO as as methodological aspect of SDT (even if this is a slight shift from their earlier statements).

Does this resonate with you? It does, after all, look like we both value the source materials. It seems like Pratto, Sidanius, and collegues' account should be the one that Wikipedia is based on. That is, you can't have SDO without SDT, and to do so risks misinterpreting the theory. I would say that your other source, Altemeyer, does run this risk by not explaining full context of SDO, but he does cite an SDT paper and perhaps that is enough. What do you think? Cheers Andrew (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I continue to disagree. As I read the SDO literature, it has become part of authoritarian and conservative personality research and does not deal at all with social structure. SDT was almost entirely concerned with social structure and hypothesized SDO as an explanation. I do not see the SDO research as especially validating the very complex SDT theory, other than demonstrating the relatively uncontroversial claim that there is a drive for differentiated power and status that differs between individuals. Some SDO research did validate the prediction that SDO tends to be stronger among males than females, but that subject is highly peripheral to current SDO research.

As to the quote, the authors are saying they do not have a theory of the origins of SDO personalities. Such a theory is precisely a core concern of SDO research. Here is great review article comparing SDO and other conservatism constructs that never once mentions SDT: "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, by John T. Jost, Jack Glaser, W. Kruglanski, and Frank J. Sulloway, Psychological Bulletin 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339–375, at http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf.

I would suggest, however, that the discussion of SDT in the SDO article ought to be abbreviated as it is decreasingly relevant to the SDO research. A reference to the SDT article would then be sufficient.

Another point floating around here is that the SDT theory as such seems to be sadly underesearched. There have apparently not been a lot of tests at the macro or crosscultural level (however I'm not an expert).

Burressd (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Burressd. I have exhausted my wiki-time for today and will reply to you properly tomorrow (with a little luck). In the meantime though, when you say "Here is great review article comparing SDO and other conservatism constructs that never once mentions SDT", did you actually mean to say "Here is great review article comparing SDO and other conservatism constructs that mentions SDT by name six times and devotes a section to explaining SDT and SDO concurrently"? Cheers Andrew (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I had relied on memory and carelessly searched for SDT, which wasn't there. Nevertheless, nothing in Jost discusses the social structural questions that I see as at the heart of SDT--discriminatory institutions as personality selectors, interactions of ideology and roles. Conversely nothing in Pratto discusses the conservative personality question, which seems to be at the heart of current SDO research Burressd (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Burressd. I am happy to leave the discussion there until we have some other editors weigh in. You seem to have a particular take on the literature and make a lot of uncited claims about the state of the field. I suspect this might be your own original research and thus not a valid basis for structuring wikipedia, but maybe some other editors will come along who can provide some sources that support your perspective. In the meantime it might be worth pointing out two areas where there does seem to be agreement between us:

• SDO was developed as a part of SDT.
• SDO is still discussed as part of SDT (e.g. in the review article you provided and by the original architects of the theoretical perspective, which you also provided)

For me, in the absence of reputable sources suggesting otherwise, this is enough to justify strongly the merge.

I am happy to keep discussing your particular perspective and interpretations if you like, as maybe there is a chance that we may come to be on the same page. Really though, you seem a bit "out there". The fact that, when looking to demonstrate the independence of SDO and SDT, you somehow blinded yourself to an entire section on SDT is a bit of a worry. You also have just recently claimed that "authors are saying they do not have a theory of the origins of SDO personalities", despite this statement in that same paper:

we have posited that [SDO] is influenced by at least five broad forces: (1) group position, (2) social context, (3) stable individual differences in temperament and personality, (4) gender, and (5) socialisation

Absent mindedness, or willful blindness? Either way, you will have to forgive me if I don't take your word on the current scientific consensus. Anyway, I am happy to hear your thoughts if you feel like responding. Cheers Andrew (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Andrew-1.you have have a point about S&P having model of the nature of SDO. My point (and I think P&S's point) was that their SDO model is an assumption of SDT used to predict social structure. It is not a direct contribution to personality theory as such because it was not placed in the context of other personality types. SDO research does what SDT research didn't intend to do, namely place SDO within broader personality theory.

2. You continue to insist on a unstated principle that seems to be something like this: topics that reference each other ought to be in the same Wikipedia article unless a reputable source says they are distinct topics. In other words you place the burden of proof on the separatists. Why? Can you cite one single source that says the two articles should be combined? Also, can you cite even one single example where your approach actually was followed in a positive sense, i.e where a Wikipedia article was split because reputable sources said it ought to be?

3. For me, the presence of a detailed review article like Jost which covers SDO but not SDT (and there are others) constitutes definitive proof that the topics are seen by personality researchers as separate. (Mentioning SDT is not the same as covering it. SDO appears in the summary tables, and SDT does not. There is no discussion whatsoever of social structure, which is the main topic of SDT.)

4. Your speculations as to my character are ad hominem and irrelevant. I was asking people to respond to my arguments, not my authority. Note that I have admitted error and shown some flexibility. Can you say the same?

5. Unless you introduce seriously new arguments I will let you have the last word. My silence will indicate continued disagreement.

Burressd (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)