Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality variable reflecting preference for group-based hierarchy and inequality. Individuals high in SDO support hierarchical arrangements between groups, endorse hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies that rationalize inequality, and oppose policies promoting greater equality. SDO predicts prejudice against multiple outgroups and support for intergroup aggression.
Examine how SDO and right-wing authoritarianism independently predict prejudice—sometimes in opposing directions for specific targets—to understand that different ideological personality dimensions drive prejudice through different mechanisms.
Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality variable measuring how much an individual prefers group-based social hierarchies — arrangements where some groups sit above others in status, wealth, and power. From your prerequisite study of prejudice and discrimination, you know that prejudice involves negative attitudes toward outgroup members. SDO explains *why* some individuals show generalized prejudice across many different outgroups simultaneously: they prefer that certain groups be subordinate, and they endorse whatever outgroups happen to occupy low-status positions in their social context.
The mechanism runs through hierarchy-legitimizing myths — ideologies that justify why dominant groups deserve their position and subordinate groups deserve theirs. Racism, sexism, nationalism, and economic ideologies that naturalize inequality all function as hierarchy-legitimizing myths. People high in SDO preferentially seek out and endorse these beliefs because they rationalize the hierarchical arrangements SDO-high individuals already prefer. This is where the connection to system justification (your soft prerequisite) becomes clear: system justification describes passive acceptance of existing arrangements; SDO describes active preference for hierarchy itself, not just tolerance of it.
Comparing SDO to right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) sharpens what SDO is. Both predict prejudice, but through different psychological mechanisms. RWA individuals are submissive to established authority and hostile to those who violate conventional norms — they target "deviants." SDO individuals prefer dominance hierarchies — they target low-status groups. These diverge for specific targets: RWA predicts more prejudice toward LGBTQ people and religious minorities (norm violators), while SDO predicts more prejudice toward homeless people and economically disadvantaged groups (low-status targets). Where both align — as with racial minorities who are both low-status and cast as norm-violators — their effects compound, producing the strongest prejudice.
Group membership itself moderates SDO: members of dominant groups tend to score higher in SDO than members of subordinate groups, a pattern consistent with the theory — hierarchy benefits the dominant, so they prefer it. This also means SDO is not merely a personality quirk but is embedded in social structure. High-SDO individuals preferentially enter and are retained in hierarchy-reinforcing institutions (law enforcement, military, certain business sectors), which raises a question about whether SDO shapes institutions or institutions attract and cultivate SDO — likely both, in a mutually reinforcing cycle.
No topics depend on this one yet.