Social dominance theory
Social Dominance Theory is a framework that seeks to explain the hierarchies that form within stable societies, often based on factors such as race, gender, religion, and economic status. Proposed by researchers Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto in 1999, the theory posits that societies tend to organize themselves into groups where a dominant group enjoys greater privileges and resources, while subordinate groups face disadvantages. This social stratification is typically maintained through subtle mechanisms, such as discrimination, rather than overt force.
The concept of "legitimizing myths" plays a key role in the theory, encompassing widely held beliefs or stereotypes that reinforce dominance. While some myths may perpetuate inequality, others can promote equality and challenge existing hierarchies. The theory also introduces two forces influencing these hierarchies: hierarchy-enhancing, which support existing power structures, and hierarchy-attenuating, which aim to distribute resources more equitably.
Understanding one's position in this social hierarchy is referred to as social dominance orientation, with individuals categorized as either accepting or rejecting these power dynamics. As social dominance hierarchies are influenced by cultural norms, they manifest differently across societies, showcasing the complexity of social interactions and equality efforts. The ongoing study of Social Dominance Theory continues to explore its implications for issues of oppression and social justice worldwide.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Social dominance theory
The social dominance theory is an attempt to identify and explain the social group hierarchies that stable societies create to organize themselves, particularly as it relates to status, power, and economic opportunity. With roots in discrimination and oppression, social dominance hierarchies disproportionately favor the people at the highest level of the hierarchy, while disadvantaging the subordinate groups. This type of social stratification of society appears to be nearly universal, although the factors that lead to social dominance in any given society are not. As a relatively new theory, the study of social dominance hierarchies and their impact on society is ongoing, particularly in an attempt to understand cycles of violence and oppression that continue to occur in the United States and around the world.
Background
As a theory of the social sciences, social dominance was first proposed in 1999 by researchers Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto, with the goal of explaining how and why people appear to systematically divide themselves, or be divided by society, into hierarchical groups—particularly since these hierarchies are rarely, if ever, verbally or consciously acknowledged. Their research attempted to identify how these hierarchies of social dominance influence existing social structures in society. For instance, social dominance benefits one group while acting as a detriment to another, such as in the distribution of limited resources. Common factors that influence social dominance hierarchies include race, economic status, sexuality, religion, gender, or age. The hierarchies can then influence opportunities an individual may or may not be presented with, as well as their wealth or perceived power or status in society.
Except in rare cases, social dominance is not maintained by force. In fact, attempts to maintain social dominance by force often facilitate liberation movements—the opposite of its intended effect. Instead, hierarchies and dominance are often established in subtler, yet equally destructive, ways. Racism, sexism, and ageism are all examples of ways that social hierarchies may be established or reinforced through discrimination. In addition, researchers have also identified a theory of social dominance referred to as legitimizing myths. Legitimizing myths are cultural ideologies that are often based on stereotypes, which are widely held and oversimplified beliefs about a certain group of people. These stereotypes are then used to establish dominance over a particular group of people in what appears to be a culturally accepted way. However, legitimizing myths are not inherently negative or harmful. They can also be positive and inclusive—such as a cultural ideal that promises that all people are created equal. These types of myths tend to break down, rather than reinforce, social dominance hierarchies.
Within the theory of social dominance, researchers refer to two different forces that either reinforce or break down the social dominance hierarchy. These are hierarchy-enhancing, which reinforce, or hierarchy-attenuating, which attempt to more fairly distribute resources or provide opportunities to the subordinate groups. The criminal justice system is an example of an institution that reinforces the social dominance hierarchy, while other groups—such as many nonprofit organizations, aid groups, and civil rights organizations—are examples of institutions that are hierarchy-attenuating.
Overview
Researchers Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto ultimately determined that most stable societies appear to be governed by group-based dominance hierarchies, which means that one group typically holds the most power and privileges—so there are usually one or more groups that have very little power or privilege. These social groups are generally established around ethnicity, religion, or race. In every society, there are great advantages to being a member of a dominant group in a social hierarchy. Generally, economic success, educational opportunities, and healthcare are all superior for those who dominate compared to the people living in the lower levels of the hierarchy. These advantages are referred to as social value. People in the dominant group are also often simply perceived to be more powerful, more successful, and even more virtuous—as though they represent the ideal way to live in the society. Conversely, for the people who are not in the dominant group, the hierarchy may be a form of oppression. In some cases, people in the perceived lower levels of the hierarchy may even be stigmatized, or receive what is referred to as negative social value, including poor health care, unhealthy food, unsafe or undesirable living conditions, and occupations that come with a high level of risk and a low status. Once an individual has become entrenched as part of a certain hierarchal level in society, it becomes very difficult for that person to move up in social dominance.
An example often used to demonstrate the impact of social dominance hierarchies is that of two children, equal in skill, knowledge, and ability, coming from two different families. One child is Caucasian and comes from a wealthy family; the other child is African American and comes from a poorer family. It is likely, given the current social hierarchy, that the first child will have access to better schools, better healthcare, more nutritious food, and more opportunities than the second child. As a result, the first child is more likely to experience a greater level of success in life and therefore continue to reinforce the existing social hierarchy.
Although social dominance hierarchies appear to exist around the world, cultural beliefs and social norms influence the particular factors that lead to the social dominance of a particular social group. For example, in Western societies, middle-aged men often appear to be the dominant age and gender—a patriarchal society—but in some African societies, women are the dominant gender. In addition, in many Eastern societies, an individual's status in society continues to increase as he or she ages, which is not the case in the United States or most Western societies.
An individual's response to a social dominance hierarchy is referred to as his or her social dominance orientation. People are typically identified as being either high in social dominance orientation (which correlates to acceptance of social dominance hierarchies) or low in social dominance orientation, which correlates to the rejection of these hierarchies. A low social dominance orientation appears to correlate with greater tolerance and a belief in universal human rights. Even children can be tested for their social dominance orientation, using tests of perceived fairness among the treatment of people in a group.
Researchers agree that the social dominance theory is continuing to evolve, just as social dominance group hierarchies continue to evolve along with the societies that created them. Research into the theory is ongoing.
Bibliography
Hawks, Douglas. "Social Dominance Theory: Definition and Examples." Study.com, 21 Nov. 2023, study.com/academy/lesson/social-dominance-theory-definition-examples.html. Accessed 28 Jan. 2025.
Maestripieri, Dario. "Social Dominance Explained Part I." Psychology Today, www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201203/social-dominance-explained-part-i, 2012. Accessed 28 Jan. 2025.
Pratto, Felicia, and Andrew L. Stewart. "Social Dominance Theory." The Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology. Blackwell Publishing, 2012.
Sidanius, Jim, and Felicia Pratto. Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge UP, 2001.
Sidanius, Jim, and Felicia Pratto. "Social Dominance Theory." Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. SAGE Publications, 2012.
Stanley, Samantha K., et al. "Dimensions of Social Dominance and Their Associations with Environmentalism." Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 107, 1 Mar. 2017, pp. 228–36.
Tagar, Michal Reifen, et al. "On the Path to Social Dominance? Individual Differences in Sensitivity to Intergroup Fairness Violations in Early Childhood." Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 113, 15 July 2017, pp. 246–50.