Core Principles of Social Dominance Theory

Social dominance theory rests on several core principles that elucidate the nature of social hierarchies. These principles include the following:

Group-Based Hierarchies

Inherent to all societies is different categories. Human nature drives individual to form groups around these categories. SDT posits that human societies are structured around group-based hierarchies. Sidanius and Pratto explain that most forms of group conflict and oppression (e.g. racism, ethnocentrism, sexism, nationalism, classism, regionalism) can “be regarded as different manifestations of the same basic human predisposition to form group-based social hierarchies” (Tunçgenç, 2010).

These hierarchies categorize individuals into dominant and subordinate groups based on characteristics such as race, gender, age, and class. Dominant groups enjoy disproportionate access to resources, power, and status, while subordinate groups face systemic disadvantages and discrimination. These hierarchies are relatively stable.

History supports the stability of the stubbornness of these divisive structures. When a society makes progress in dissolving some of the hierarchical structure, the changes mobilize growing opposition, which eventually leads to dismantling the changes. We see this occurring in the United States and across Europe now.

Legitimizing Myths

ADT argues that one reason group-based dominance hierarchies are stable is that legitimizing ideologies help “coordinate beliefs, actions, and institutional practices that maintain hierarchy” (Vargas-Salfate et al., 2018).

Legitimizing myths are socially constructed narratives that justify and reinforce group-based hierarchies. These myths can be broadly categorized into two types: hierarchy-enhancing myths and hierarchy-attenuating myths. Hierarchy-enhancing myths support and legitimize social inequality, often by promoting ideologies such as meritocracy, individualism, and natural differences. Conversely, hierarchy-attenuating myths challenge and seek to reduce social inequality by advocating for egalitarianism, social justice, and human rights.

Here are some brief examples of myths propagated about social dominance:

• Meritocracy: The belief that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, regardless of their social background, race, or gender. This myth ignores systemic inequalities that create barriers for marginalized groups.
• The “Bootstrap Myth”: The idea that anyone can achieve success through hard work and determination alone, disregarding the significant impact of social and economic factors.
• Biological Determinism: The belief that differences between groups are due to inherent biological or genetic factors, rather than social and environmental influences.  
• Cultural Superiority: The belief that one’s own culture is inherently superior to others, often used to justify discrimination and prejudice (Pratto et al., 1994).

These myths serve to justify and maintain existing social hierarchies by obscuring the realities of systemic inequality and downplaying the impact of social structures on individual outcomes.

An Example of the Reciprocal Role of a Myth

A myth supports the errant belief, creating stability in an unjust system that keeps a dominant group in power. Salvador Vargas-Salfate, Dario Paez and their colleagues cite an example of meritocracy in the united states, explaining that belief in equal opportunity leads “people to assume that people who are not doing well economically are there because of their own lack of effort.” Therefore, it is widely believed in the United States that “inequality is not a matter of injustice but failure to take advantage of equal opportunity” (Vargas-Salfate et al., 2018).

Any good myths relies on some truth. In this case, the truth that effort does matter. The myth, however, adds additional concepts such as equal opportunity which gets integrated into the truth. Propagation of myths such as these short-circuit noble efforts to create equal opportunity, suggesting it already exists.

Social Dominance Orientation

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is a psychological construct that measures an individual’s preference for group-based hierarchies. Essentially, it reflects the extent to which someone desires their own group to be dominant over other groups. People high in SDO tend to believe that some groups are inherently superior to others and that these hierarchies are natural and just. This belief system often translates into support for policies and ideologies that maintain and even exacerbate social inequalities.

Basically, social dominance orientation refers to the person. It is a measurement of a personality trait.

Pratto and her colleagues wrote:

“We consider SDO to be a general attitudinal orientation toward intergroup relations, reflecting whether one generally prefers such relations to be equal, versus hierarchical, that is, ordered along a superior-inferior dimension. The theory postulates that people who are more social-dominance oriented will tend to favor hierarchy-enhancing ideologies and policies, whereas those lower on SDO will tend to favor hierarchy-attenuating ideologies and policies” (Pratto et al., 1994).

The internet provides a mechanism for those high in SDO to group together, reigniting a strong movement towards a more hierarchical society as evidenced by the recent presidential election.

Political Impact of a Growing Population of SDO individuals

Individuals with high SDO are more likely to endorse discriminatory attitudes and behaviors towards out-groups. They may support policies that disadvantage marginalized groups, such as stricter immigration laws, reduced social welfare programs, and limited access to education and healthcare. Conversely, individuals low in SDO tend to favor egalitarian societies where all groups have equal opportunities and rights. They are more likely to support policies that promote social justice, such as affirmative action and programs that address systemic inequalities.

SDO is a significant predictor of various social and political attitudes. It has been linked to support for right-wing political ideologies, prejudice against minority groups, and opposition to social change. Understanding SDO is crucial for understanding the psychological underpinnings of prejudice and discrimination, as well as for developing interventions to promote social justice and reduce intergroup conflict.

Behavioral Asymmetry

Behavioral asymmetry refers to the tendency of dominant and subordinate group members to exhibit different behaviors that sustain social hierarchies. Dominant group members are more likely to engage in discriminatory behaviors to maintain their privileged status, while subordinate group members may internalize negative stereotypes and exhibit behaviors that perpetuate their subordination.

The behavioral asymmetry element of SDT draws significant opposition. The hypothesis that oppressed groups support their own oppression is distasteful to consider. However, there are other theories and some research that support this theory. This issue is far from decided and remains a topic of hot contention, as well as, an air of political incorrectness.

See System Justification Theory for more on this concept

Implications of Social Dominance Theory

Understanding social dominance theory has profound implications for various aspects of society, including intergroup relations, social policies, and individual behavior. Here are some key implications:

Prejudice and Discrimination

SDT provides a framework for understanding the roots of prejudice and discrimination. By highlighting the role of legitimizing myths and social dominance orientation, the theory explains why certain individuals and groups are more likely to hold and act on prejudiced beliefs. It also underscores the importance of challenging hierarchy-enhancing myths to reduce discrimination.

Social Policies and Interventions

Social dominance theory informs the design and implementation of social policies and interventions aimed at reducing inequality. Policies that promote hierarchy-attenuating myths, such as affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws, can help dismantle systemic barriers and create more equitable societies. Understanding the dynamics of social dominance can also aid in crafting interventions that address the root causes of inequality rather than merely treating its symptoms.

See Community Psychology for more on this field of psychology

Organizational Dynamics

Within organizations, SDT sheds light on power dynamics and the persistence of workplace inequality. By examining the role of social dominance orientation among employees and leaders, organizations can develop strategies to foster inclusive environments. For instance, diversity training programs and inclusive leadership practices can help mitigate the impact of hierarchy-enhancing myths and promote a culture of equality.

See Organizational Psychology for more on this field of psychology

Applications of Social Dominance Theory

Social dominance theory has been applied to various domains to elucidate the mechanisms of social hierarchies and inform efforts to address inequality. Here are a few notable applications:

Education

In the educational context, SDT helps explain disparities in access to resources and opportunities among different social groups. Researchers have used the theory to examine how school policies, curricula, and teacher attitudes contribute to the maintenance or reduction of educational inequalities. Interventions aimed at promoting inclusive education and challenging hierarchy-enhancing myths can enhance educational equity.

Healthcare

SDT has been employed to understand health disparities across different social groups. The theory highlights how social hierarchies influence access to healthcare, quality of care, and health outcomes. Efforts to address health inequalities can benefit from integrating SDT principles, such as promoting hierarchy-attenuating myths and addressing the biases of healthcare providers.

See Health Psychology for more on this field of psychology

Criminal Justice

The criminal justice system is another domain where social dominance theory has been applied. Researchers have used SDT to examine how racial and socioeconomic hierarchies influence policing practices, sentencing, and incarceration rates. Understanding the role of social dominance in the criminal justice system can inform reforms aimed at reducing systemic biases and promoting fairness.

Criticisms and Limitations

While social dominance theory offers valuable insights into the dynamics of social hierarchies, it is not without criticisms and limitations. A common practice, I have found with my own writing, is that many individuals criticize without taking time to comprehend the theory they are criticizing. Basically, the faulty practice is to make grand assumptions based on the title and a two sentence description of a complex theory. Then they go about finding reasons to discredit their own faulty assumption.

It appears that the basis of many of the criticisms of social dominance theory subscribes to this pattern of intellectual sloth. However, there are legitimate arguments and criticism of this theory (Turner & Reynolds, 2003).

Determinism

Critics argue that SDT may be overly deterministic. The critics argue that SDT suggests that social hierarchies are inevitable and unchangeable. They argue that this perspective overlooks the potential for social change and the agency of individuals and groups to challenge and transform existing hierarchies.

We hear this argument against any theory that cites contributing forces outside of the control of the individual. Instead of considering the complexity of a myriad of biological and social forces behind the development of a person, the simple mind prefers to adopt a legitimizing myth. By overvaluing individual agency, the myth justifies discriminatory and oppressive behaviors.

The argument cites examples of individuals that rose above discrimination and oppression as evidence of group and individual agency to change. However, the authors of social dominance theory do not subscribe to the idea that societies and individuals are stuck. They propose there are solutions.

Sidious and his colleagues explain:

“Rather than being an endorsement of oppression, social dominance theory can be seen as a prerequisite to morally driven intervention. That is, when the processes producing and maintaining group-based social hierarchy are acknowledged and well understood, moral beings can then make informed decisions about how to modify these processes and make them more consistent with their values, whatever those values may be” (Sidious et al, 2004).

Reductionism

SDT’s focus on group-based hierarchies may oversimplify the complexity of social identities and inequalities. Intersectionality, which considers the interconnectedness of various social categories such as race, gender, and class, offers a more nuanced understanding of how multiple forms of oppression intersect and reinforce each other.

James Sidanius, Felicia Pratto, Colette Van Laar, and Shana Levin counter that they designed Social Dominance theory around a multi-factor analysis, exploring the complex cumulative causes of discrimination. They explain that social dominance theory views discriminatory acts as enacted by persons with “particular behavioral predispositions, subgroup loyalties, and social identifications, within specific social contexts.” They continue explaining that often discrimination occurs in “connection with the activities of social institutions and social roles, and embedded within cultures with particular social ideologies and structural relations.”

Sidanius, and his colleagues conclude their argument writing that rather than being “an exercise in psychological reductionism, social dominance theory is explicitly devoted to trying to understand how psychological predispositions, social identities, social context, social institutions, and cultural ideologies all intersect to produce and reproduce group-based social inequality” (Pratto et al., 2004).

See Complex Systems for more on this concept

Empirical Evidence

While SDT has garnered substantial empirical support, some studies have reported mixed findings regarding the theory’s key components, such as social dominance orientation and legitimizing myths. SDT needs further research to refine the theory and address these inconsistencies.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

Social dominance theory provides a robust framework for understanding the formation and persistence of social hierarchies in human societies. By examining the roles of group-based hierarchies, legitimizing myths, social dominance orientation, and behavioral asymmetry, SDT offers valuable insights into the mechanisms of inequality and discrimination. Despite its criticisms, the theory remains a powerful tool for analyzing social dynamics and informing efforts to create more equitable societies.

Unfortunately, like many other theories, some blanket reject it without examining the concepts in details. Others pick and choose elements of the theory to support their own myths of superiority. However, as social scientists continue to explore and refine social dominance theory, it holds the potential to deepen our understanding of social hierarchies and guide meaningful social change, preventing these frightening periodic setbacks, and improving social environments for all.

Last Update: April 21, 2026

Associated Concepts

• Role Congruity Theory: This theory suggests that prejudice against female leaders arises from the perceived incongruity between traditional gender roles and leadership roles. This theory posits that societies perceive women as less suitable for leadership positions because they typically associate leadership roles with masculine traits, such as assertiveness and dominance.
• Belief in a Just World Theory: This theory posits that individuals need to believe that the world is fundamentally just. It influences reactions to injustice, rationalizing suffering, victim blaming, and coping mechanisms.
• Deservingness Heuristic: This heuristic refers to a cognitive process guiding moral judgments about who deserves positive or negative outcomes based on perceived merit and effort. It influences resource sharing in society, workplaces, and relationships, often resulting in biases.
• Group Dynamics: This refers to a field of study that explores the interactions, relationships, and processes that occur within a group of individuals. This includes the study of how people behave and interact within a group setting, the impact of group norms and roles on individual behavior, and the influence of leadership and communication patterns on group performance and cohesion.
• Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT): This theory developed by Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues suggests that intergroup conflict arises from competition over limited resources. When groups perceive that they are competing for scarce resources, such as land, jobs, or social status, hostility and prejudice between the groups can escalate.
• Social Norms: These are the unspoken rules that govern behavior in a group or society. They are the accepted standards of conduct, beliefs, and values. Accordingly, social norms influence how people interact with each other. Individuals learn these norms through observation, interaction, and socialization. Social norms governing behavior often operate unconsciously, shaping our actions.