Social Dominance Orientation: Hierarchy, Group Inequality, Power, and Prejudice
Updated: 3 days ago
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 24, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Social dominance orientation, usually abbreviated SDO, is an individual-difference construct that describes how strongly a person favors group-based hierarchy and inequality rather than equality between social groups. In the most recent major review, Felicia Pratto defines SDO in terms of opposition to group-based equality and support for group-based dominance, and reviews evidence from 2010–2024 on its stability, measurement, cross-cultural reach, prejudice correlates, hierarchy-related behavior, personality correlates, and development. Pratto, 2026
SDO is important in the psychology of power because it concerns the preferred structure of power between groups. It asks whether unequal group relations are acceptable or desirable, not whether a particular person currently has authority, status, influence, or control. A person can score relatively high on SDO while holding little personal power, and a powerful person can score relatively low on SDO. SDO is therefore a psychological orientation toward group hierarchy, not a direct measure of how much power someone possesses.
Research consistently connects higher SDO with stronger support for hierarchy-enhancing beliefs and with greater prejudice toward groups positioned lower in a social hierarchy. At the same time, SDO is neither a clinical diagnosis nor a complete moral or personality profile. A scale score is a research measurement that must be interpreted relative to the instrument, population, context, and study design. It cannot tell you by itself what a person will do in a specific situation.
The scientific literature is also more nuanced than the popular shorthand that SDO is simply a desire to dominate others. The construct was designed to concern relations among social groups, and the original 1994 validation explicitly distinguished SDO from interpersonal dominance, conservatism, and authoritarianism. Pratto et al., 1994
What Is Social Dominance Orientation?
Social dominance orientation is the degree to which a person prefers social systems in which some groups rank above other groups and resources, prestige, security, rights, or opportunities are distributed unequally between them. Contemporary reviews often describe it as a generalized preference for group-based hierarchy and inequality. That definition is intentionally about groups rather than individual ambition. Ho et al., 2025
The word orientation matters. SDO is usually studied as a relatively broad individual difference in social and political attitudes, not as a momentary opinion about one policy and not as a psychiatric trait. People can vary continuously from stronger egalitarian preferences to stronger hierarchy preferences. Researchers normally analyze these differences statistically rather than treating SDO as a categorical type.
The word social also matters. In this literature, dominance means group-based dominance: the structuring of relations in which some socially defined groups occupy superior positions to others. Those groups may be defined by ethnicity, nationality, class, gender, religion, caste, or other socially meaningful categories. Social Dominance Theory was developed to explain the persistence of such group-based hierarchies at multiple levels, while SDO is the individual-difference construct within that broader theoretical program. Sidanius & Pratto, 1999
A person can therefore endorse SDO-relevant hierarchy even when the hierarchy does not obviously maximize that person's immediate material advantage. Later measurement work deliberately tried to separate a general preference for group hierarchy from simple support for whatever arrangement benefits one's own ingroup. Ho et al., 2015
Social Dominance Orientation and Social Dominance Theory Are Not the Same Thing
Social Dominance Theory, developed principally by Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto, is a broad theory of how group-based social hierarchy is produced and maintained through interactions among institutions, group processes, legitimizing ideologies, discrimination, and individual psychology. SDO is one psychological variable inside that theory. Treating the two as synonyms creates confusion because evidence about an individual-difference scale does not automatically validate every proposition of a multilevel social theory.
The modern SDO literature has expanded beyond the boundaries of Social Dominance Theory itself. Researchers study SDO in personality psychology, political psychology, prejudice research, organizational psychology, cross-cultural psychology, and behavioral genetics. The construct can therefore be empirically useful even when researchers disagree about some broader claims of Social Dominance Theory.
This distinction is especially important when reading criticism. Turner and Reynolds argued in 2003 that central claims of Social Dominance Theory, including behavioral asymmetry, had serious conceptual and empirical problems and that some subordinate-group behavior was better explained by Social Identity Theory. Turner & Reynolds, 2003 Sidanius, Pratto, van Laar, and Levin responded to several recurrent critiques in a 2004 statement of the theory's agenda and method. Sidanius et al., 2004 The debate concerns the larger theory; it should not be misrepresented as evidence that SDO cannot be measured or has no empirical correlates.
How Is SDO Measured?
The best-known contemporary instrument is the Social Dominance Orientation-7 Scale, or SDO7, introduced by Ho and colleagues in 2015. The full scale contains 16 items and the original paper also introduced an eight-item short form. The items are designed to capture generalized preferences concerning group-based dominance and group equality rather than attitudes toward one named group. Ho et al., 2015 The APA PsycTests record describes both the full and short versions and their development. APA PsycTests: SDO-7
The scale is normally scored so that higher values indicate stronger preference for group-based hierarchy and stronger opposition to group equality. A score is not a clinical threshold. There is no diagnostic cutoff separating 'social dominators' from everyone else, and the scale was not designed to diagnose a mental disorder. Researchers typically compare scores within samples, model them as continuous variables, or examine associations with other constructs.
Researchers also use shorter SDO instruments when survey space is limited. Aichholzer and Lechner evaluated a four-item Short Social Dominance Orientation scale across seven European countries and reported adequate reliability plus partial or full forms of measurement invariance depending on the parameter tested. Aichholzer & Lechner, 2021 Such findings support efficient measurement while also reminding readers that a short scale and the 16-item SDO7 are not interchangeable in every psychometric respect.
Cross-language validation continues. A 2026 preregistered French validation of SDO7 adds recent evidence that the construct can be measured beyond English-language samples, while contemporary reviews summarize a much wider international literature. Ferreira & Nugier, 2026 Cross-cultural use does not mean that national or group mean differences are timeless facts; translation quality, sampling, social context, response styles, and measurement equivalence all matter.
SDO-Dominance and SDO-Anti-Egalitarianism: One Construct or Two?
The SDO7 was designed around two proposed facets. SDO-Dominance, often abbreviated SDO-D, was intended to capture preference for relatively overt group dominance. SDO-Egalitarianism, usually abbreviated SDO-E in the literature, is scored in the direction of anti-egalitarianism and was intended to capture opposition to equality between groups and support for inequality maintained through ideologies and policy arrangements. Earlier work had already proposed related two-dimensional interpretations. Ho et al., 2012
The 2015 SDO7 paper reported evidence that these facets could show different relationships with some outcomes and presented them as theoretically distinct. Ho et al., 2015 This two-facet interpretation became common, especially in research that wanted to distinguish relatively overt dominance from anti-egalitarian hierarchy maintenance.
A major 2023 meta-analysis by Christopher Berry challenged the strength of that distinction. Across the accumulated literature, the two facets correlated very highly on average, with a meta-analytic mean correlation of about .83, and showed highly similar patterns of relationships with other variables. Berry concluded that SDO7 is a useful, reliable, and valid measure of overall SDO, while the evidence did not support routinely treating SDO-D and SDO-E as meaningfully distinct constructs. Berry, 2023
The current evidence therefore supports a careful formulation: the two-facet model remains an influential theoretical and measurement framework, but the empirical separability of the facets is contested. Studies using SDO-D and SDO-E should justify why facet-level interpretation is needed rather than assuming that two subscale labels establish two independent psychological systems.
How SDO Relates to Power, Status, Dominance, Prestige, and Authority
SDO belongs in the psychology of power because group hierarchies distribute power asymmetrically, but SDO should not be collapsed into power itself. Social power concerns the capacity to affect outcomes, behavior, or access to valued resources. SDO concerns whether group-based hierarchy and inequality are preferred. One is a relational or structural capacity; the other is an orientation toward how relations among groups should be organized.
SDO is also different from status. Status concerns social standing, respect, or prestige; a hierarchy of status can exist without the same pattern of resource control, and a person can seek recognition without endorsing broad group inequality. The distinction between these concepts is developed further in Power vs Status: Social Power, Prestige, Dominance, and Hierarchy.
Interpersonal dominance is another separate construct. A person may be assertive, controlling, forceful, or dominant in face-to-face relationships without endorsing inequality between social groups. Conversely, a person may endorse group hierarchy while behaving quietly or deferentially in individual interactions. The original SDO research explicitly tested discriminant validity against interpersonal dominance. Pratto et al., 1994
Prestige describes influence or rank that rests substantially on respect, recognized competence, or valued contribution. Authority concerns a recognized claim to guide or decide within a domain. Neither is equivalent to SDO. For the authority distinction, see Authority in Psychology: Legitimacy, Expertise, Trust, and Obedience and Power vs Authority: Weber, Legitimacy, Influence, and Obedience.
Actual power relations also depend on mutual dependence, alternatives, resources, institutions, and social roles. Those relational mechanisms belong to Power Dynamics: Psychology of Influence, Dependence, Status, and Control. SDO can help explain preferences and interpretations within such systems, but it does not substitute for analyzing the structure of the relationship itself.
SDO and Prejudice
The association between SDO and prejudice is one of the most replicated parts of the literature. Pratto's 2026 review summarizes evidence across numerous cultures, languages, measures of stereotypes, and forms of group prejudice, finding that SDO is consistently related to prejudice that favors dominant groups over subordinate groups. The association is often stronger among members of relatively dominant groups than among members of subordinate groups. Pratto, 2026
A meta-analysis of personality, SDO, right-wing authoritarianism, and prejudice by Sibley and Duckitt synthesized 71 studies with 22,068 participants. It found that SDO and authoritarianism were major psychological predictors in this literature, while the personality correlates of the two constructs differed. SDO was especially associated with lower Agreeableness and, more weakly, lower Openness to Experience. Sibley & Duckitt, 2008
Generalized prejudice should not be reduced to SDO alone. McFarland found that SDO and authoritarianism contributed to generalized prejudice, while empathy and principled moral reasoning added further explanatory variance. McFarland, 2010 That broader result matters because prejudice is multiply determined by social identities, norms, histories, threats, institutions, intergroup contact, personality, ideology, and situational cues.
Causal language requires care. Much of the SDO literature is correlational, so a cross-sectional association cannot establish that SDO caused prejudice. However, longitudinal evidence has tested temporal ordering more directly. Kteily, Sidanius, and Levin followed university students over time and reported evidence consistent with SDO predicting later prejudice and discrimination rather than functioning only as a reflection of them. Kteily et al., 2011 This strengthens causal interpretation for some pathways without establishing one universal cause of prejudice.
The practical implication is precise: higher SDO is a robust risk marker for hierarchy-supporting and prejudicial intergroup attitudes at the group level of analysis used in research. It is not a mind-reading device for judging one person's motives from a political opinion, profession, demographic category, or isolated statement.
SDO and Right-Wing Authoritarianism
Social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism, or RWA, are related but distinct constructs in political and social psychology. Dual-process models describe SDO as more closely linked to competitive, hierarchy-focused motives and RWA as more closely linked to threat, security, social conformity, and submission to established authority. Duckitt & Sibley, 2010
A meta-analysis of 46 studies with 12,939 participants found a strong cross-sectional association between a competitive-jungle worldview and SDO after accounting for relevant overlap, while a dangerous-world worldview was more strongly associated with RWA. Perry et al., 2013 These findings support distinct motivational emphases, although they do not prove that worldview beliefs are simple one-way causes.
SDO and RWA can both predict prejudice, and their effects are often additive rather than dependent on a large statistical interaction. Across 16 New Zealand samples, Sibley, Robertson, and Wilson found that interactions between SDO and RWA added extremely little variance across several prejudice-related outcomes beyond their linear combination. Sibley et al., 2006
The constructs should therefore not be treated as two names for the same ideology or personality type. They can correlate, and the size of that correlation varies across cultural and political contexts, but the research tradition distinguishes preference for hierarchy from authoritarian submission, conventionalism, and threat-oriented social control.
SDO, System Justification, Conservatism, and Other Neighboring Constructs
SDO versus system justification
System justification concerns the motivation or tendency to defend, legitimize, or rationalize an existing social system. SDO concerns preference for group-based hierarchy more generally. A person could in principle prefer hierarchy while opposing a particular status quo that is seen as insufficiently hierarchical, or could defend an existing system for reasons other than a generalized preference for group inequality. Cross-national research has directly compared predictions derived from Social Dominance Theory and System Justification Theory rather than treating the constructs as interchangeable. Vargas-Salfate et al., 2018
SDO versus political conservatism
SDO often correlates with conservative political attitudes in many samples, but the constructs are not identical. Political labels bundle changing positions on economics, institutions, culture, foreign policy, religion, and social issues, and their meaning differs across countries and historical periods. SDO isolates a narrower psychological dimension: preference for group-based hierarchy and inequality. The original 1994 work explicitly distinguished SDO from conservatism, and later work has examined when SDO and authoritarianism jointly relate to ideological self-placement. Pratto et al., 1994
SDO versus Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism is a personality construct involving manipulative, strategic, and cynical interpersonal tendencies. SDO is an intergroup hierarchy orientation. They may correlate in some studies, but neither construct can be inferred from the other, and Machiavellianism is not a clinical diagnosis. The distinction matters because interpersonal strategy and group-hierarchy preferences operate at different levels of analysis.
SDO versus prejudice
Prejudice is an attitude toward a person or group based on group membership or social categorization. SDO is broader and more structural: it concerns preferred relations among groups. Higher SDO predicts many forms of prejudice, but prejudice can arise through mechanisms other than hierarchy preference, including perceived threat, norm learning, identity conflict, stereotype activation, or historical intergroup narratives.
Why Do People Differ in SDO?
There is no single established cause of social dominance orientation. Contemporary evidence points to a combination of relatively stable individual differences, social learning, group position, institutional context, developmental processes, and broader cultural conditions. The strongest scientific account is therefore multilevel rather than a story in which one gene, one childhood experience, or one ideology creates SDO.
Personality
The 2008 meta-analysis by Sibley and Duckitt found that SDO was associated most consistently with lower Agreeableness and more weakly with lower Openness to Experience. Sibley & Duckitt, 2008 Pratto's 2026 review extends the personality picture by summarizing links with lower honesty-humility, lower other-oriented concern, and more closed cognitive styles in parts of the literature. Pratto, 2026 These are probabilistic associations, not a definition of SDO.
Competitive worldviews
Dual-process models propose that seeing the social world as a competitive struggle can be associated with stronger hierarchy motivation. Perry, Sibley, and Duckitt's meta-analysis found a substantial association between competitive worldview and SDO across 46 studies. Perry et al., 2013 Because the underlying studies were predominantly correlational, the association should not be simplified into a single causal arrow.
Development and social learning
Pratto's 2026 review draws on adult and child development studies to outline two developmental processes under current investigation: learning to categorize social groups and rank categories as superior or inferior, and learning status-oriented values through parental approval and socialization. Pratto, 2026 These are evidence-informed developmental pathways, not a claim that a specific parenting style inevitably produces high SDO.
Genetic and environmental influences
Behavioral-genetic research indicates that individual differences in SDO reflect both genetic and environmental sources of variance. A 2025 multi-cohort twin-family study examined RWA and SDO from adolescence to adulthood and reported age-related patterns in genetic and environmental contributions. Kandler et al., 2025 Heritability is a population statistic under particular environmental conditions; it does not mean that an individual's SDO is biologically fixed, genetically predetermined, or resistant to social influence.
Social and institutional context
Mean SDO levels vary across social contexts. Fischer, Hanke, and Sibley's three-level meta-analysis used data from 50,971 people in 95 samples across 27 societies and found that institutional and cultural conditions were associated with national differences in SDO. Fischer et al., 2012 This is strong evidence against treating SDO as a context-free essence.
Kunst and colleagues combined data across 27 countries and 30 U.S. states and found that macro-level inequality, instability, and violence were associated with stronger support for group dominance, which in turn was statistically linked to hierarchy-supporting attitudes and behavior. Kunst et al., 2017 The multilevel design is important, but mediation in observational data should still be interpreted as a modeled pathway rather than definitive proof of a single causal sequence.
Is SDO Stable, or Can It Change?
Both ideas are partly true. SDO shows meaningful rank-order stability: people who score higher than peers at one point often remain relatively higher later. Pratto's 2026 review describes evidence for cross-time stability and measurement integrity. Pratto, 2026 That stability is one reason researchers treat SDO as more than a fleeting opinion.
Stability does not imply immutability. Group position, institutions, social norms, education, major social events, and perceived competition can alter the contexts in which hierarchy preferences are learned, expressed, or measured. Cross-national and multilevel studies show systematic contextual variation. Fischer et al., 2012
A useful way to reconcile the evidence is to treat SDO as a relatively durable orientation that is embedded in changing social environments. Individuals bring stable differences into situations, while situations and institutions shape the meaning, expression, reinforcement, and consequences of those differences.
SDO in Organizations and Hierarchy-Regulating Roles
One influential Social Dominance Theory proposal is that people partly self-select into social roles that differ in whether they tend to maintain or reduce group hierarchy. The original 1994 SDO research reported associations between SDO and preferences for hierarchy-enhancing versus hierarchy-attenuating professional roles. Pratto et al., 1994
Pratto's 2026 review concludes that the later evidence continues to connect higher SDO with hierarchy-enhancing roles and behavior in organizational settings. Pratto, 2026 The claim should be read statistically: institutions contain diverse people, roles change over time, and occupational choice reflects opportunity, training, class, labor markets, family constraints, values, identity, and many other factors.
The psychology of power here is reciprocal. People with stronger hierarchy preferences may be more attracted to settings where unequal group relations can be reinforced, while institutions may socialize participants, reward particular behaviors, or normalize specific conceptions of rank. The evidence does not justify labeling an entire profession or organization as 'high SDO' from its social function alone.
Can Members of Lower-Status Groups Have High SDO?
Yes. SDO is an individual-difference construct, so members of both relatively advantaged and relatively disadvantaged groups can vary in their preference for group hierarchy. Social Dominance Theory never requires every subordinate-group member to oppose hierarchy or every dominant-group member to support it.
Group position does, however, matter for how SDO relates to identity and prejudice. In the SDO7 validation work, endorsement of SDO among Black American participants was inversely related to ingroup identification, a finding used to support the claim that SDO7 was measuring generalized hierarchy preference rather than merely desire for one's own group to dominate. Ho et al., 2015
Pratto's 2026 review likewise reports that SDO's association with prejudice favoring dominant over subordinate groups is often stronger among dominant-group members. Pratto, 2026 The size and direction of specific effects still depend on which groups, societies, historical periods, and outcomes are being studied.
Sex and Gender Differences in SDO
Many studies have reported higher average SDO scores among men than women, and early Social Dominance Theory proposed an 'invariance hypothesis' according to which this sex difference should be robust across contexts. The claim became one of the best-known—and most debated—parts of the theory.
A 2023 systematic review of 21 studies reported substantial evidence that challenges a simple invariant interpretation. Age, academic major, gender identification, gender roles and stereotypes, and intergroup status all appeared as alternative or moderating explanations in the literature. Üzümçeker, 2023
The scientifically defensible summary is therefore that average sex/gender differences have been repeatedly observed, while their size, causes, and invariance across social contexts remain contested. An average difference between groups also says little about any specific individual because score distributions overlap.
Major Scientific Debates and Limitations
How general is the orientation?
A central question has been whether SDO truly captures a general orientation toward group hierarchy or merely reflects whichever groups respondents happen to imagine while answering. Kteily, Ho, and Sidanius tested this issue across varied contexts and concluded that SDO behaved as a generalized hierarchy orientation without requiring special instructions to think only about groups in general. Kteily et al., 2012 This supports generality, while leaving room for contextual effects on specific attitudes.
How distinct are the two SDO7 facets?
As discussed above, the SDO-D versus SDO-E distinction has theoretical appeal but a 2023 meta-analysis found the facets extremely highly correlated and very similar in their external relationships. Berry, 2023 Overall SDO is therefore currently on firmer empirical ground than strong claims about two separate psychological systems.
Does SDO explain too much?
Broad constructs can become circular if researchers define hierarchy preference by the very outcomes they then claim it explains. Good SDO research avoids this by using independently measured outcomes, longitudinal designs where possible, discriminant-validity tests, and explicit comparisons with competing constructs such as RWA, system justification, social identity, and personality.
Are self-report scales enough?
No. SDO measures depend on self-report, so responses can be influenced by interpretation, social desirability, response styles, translation, sampling, and political context. Stronger studies combine measurement validation with behavioral, longitudinal, organizational, or cross-cultural evidence. The 2026 review's emphasis on measurement integrity and cross-cultural replication reflects this broader evidential standard. Pratto, 2026
Does criticism of Social Dominance Theory invalidate SDO?
No single theoretical dispute settles the validity of the construct. Turner and Reynolds offered a forceful critique of Social Dominance Theory's broader predictions. Turner & Reynolds, 2003 Social Dominance theorists responded that some criticisms mischaracterized the theory and its multilevel aims. Sidanius et al., 2004 Meanwhile, later psychometric, longitudinal, meta-analytic, and cross-cultural research continued to test SDO as an individual-difference variable. The appropriate conclusion depends on the claim being evaluated: scale validity, facet structure, causal direction, or the architecture of Social Dominance Theory are separate questions.
What SDO Can—and Cannot—Tell Us About a Person
A relatively high SDO score indicates stronger endorsement of group hierarchy and inequality compared with the scale's lower-scoring end. Across samples, higher scores are associated with hierarchy-enhancing attitudes and a broad range of prejudicial outcomes. This makes SDO scientifically informative for explaining patterns of intergroup attitudes and behavior.
A score does not establish a psychiatric disorder, personality disorder, propensity for violence, intelligence level, moral worth, or inevitable political choice. It also does not establish that a person enjoys interpersonal domination, seeks leadership, wants formal authority, or currently controls resources. Those are different constructs and different empirical questions.
Researchers should also avoid reverse diagnosis from behavior. Observing that someone supports one unequal policy, occupies a powerful role, belongs to a high-status group, or expresses prejudice does not allow an SDO score to be inferred reliably. SDO is measured with validated instruments; it is not a label that can be assigned from a few anecdotes.
At the group level, SDO is most useful as part of a broader explanatory system. Personality, competitive worldviews, group identity, institutional incentives, social norms, perceived threat, historical inequality, and opportunity structures all contribute to how hierarchy is reproduced or challenged.
Why SDO Matters for the Psychology of Power
Power psychology often asks what happens when one actor controls resources or outcomes. SDO asks a different but complementary question: what psychological orientation makes unequal relations among groups seem desirable, natural, efficient, legitimate, or preferable? That moves analysis from possession of power to preferences about the architecture of hierarchy.
This distinction helps explain why power can be supported by people who do not personally hold it. Group hierarchy can be maintained through norms, institutional roles, legitimizing ideologies, policy preferences, and everyday judgments that distribute opportunities or esteem. SDO provides one empirically studied pathway linking individual psychology to those broader hierarchy-regulating processes.
The reverse relationship also matters. Social structures can shape psychology. Cross-cultural meta-analysis and multilevel research show that institutional discrimination, inequality, gender empowerment, instability, and violence are associated with population-level differences in hierarchy orientation. Fischer et al., 2012 Kunst et al., 2017 The evidence therefore fits a reciprocal model in which people help reproduce institutions while institutions also shape people.
For the Psychology of Power cluster, SDO should therefore be understood as the canonical construct for individual differences in preference for group-based hierarchy and inequality. Questions about the capacity to influence others belong to social power; questions about relational dependence belong to power dynamics; questions about esteem and rank belong to status; and questions about legitimate command belong to authority.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does a high SDO score mean?
A higher SDO score means stronger preference for group-based hierarchy and inequality relative to the lower end of the scale. In research, higher SDO is associated with stronger hierarchy-enhancing attitudes and greater prejudice toward subordinate groups. It does not mean that a person has a diagnosis or that a specific behavior is inevitable.
What does a low SDO score mean?
A lower score indicates stronger preference for relatively equal relations among social groups and greater rejection of group-based dominance. Low SDO is still a continuous research measurement rather than a moral certification or clinical category.
Is SDO a personality trait?
The original 1994 paper called SDO a personality variable, while later literature often describes it as an individual-difference orientation or ideological attitude. Evidence shows meaningful stability, but also contextual, developmental, and institutional influences. Calling it an immutable personality trait overstates the evidence.
Is SDO a mental disorder?
No. Social dominance orientation is a research construct in social and political psychology. It is not a DSM or ICD diagnosis, and SDO7 is not a clinical diagnostic test.
Is SDO the same as wanting personal power?
No. Wanting personal power concerns one's own influence, control, status, or impact. SDO concerns preferred inequality between groups. The two can be related in some contexts, but they are conceptually distinct.
Is SDO the same as authoritarianism?
No. Right-wing authoritarianism and SDO are distinct constructs that can both predict prejudice. RWA is generally associated more with threat, conformity, security, and authority-related motives, while SDO is more closely associated with competition, hierarchy, and inequality. Duckitt & Sibley, 2010
Does SDO cause prejudice?
Higher SDO reliably predicts prejudice, and longitudinal evidence supports directional effects from SDO to later prejudice in some settings. Kteily et al., 2011 But prejudice has multiple causes, and much SDO research is correlational. The strongest conclusion is that SDO is an important causal candidate and robust predictor, not the sole cause of prejudice.
Can SDO change?
Yes, at least to some degree. SDO shows cross-time stability but is also related to developmental and social context. Stable individual differences and environmental change can coexist.
Can someone from a disadvantaged group have high SDO?
Yes. Members of any social group can vary in SDO. Group status influences some relationships between SDO, identity, and prejudice, but it does not mechanically determine an individual's score.
Is SDO7 really two scales?
SDO7 was designed with dominance and anti-egalitarian facets, but a 2023 meta-analysis found them so highly correlated and externally similar that strong facet-level interpretations are not well supported. Berry, 2023 Using overall SDO is currently the more conservative interpretation unless a study has a clear reason to test facet differences.
How is SDO different from social hierarchy itself?
Social hierarchy is a property of a social structure: some individuals or groups occupy higher positions than others. SDO is a psychological orientation toward group-based hierarchy. A society can have strong hierarchy even when many citizens dislike it, and individuals can favor hierarchy even when they personally occupy a low position.
Related Articles
References
Aichholzer, J., & Lechner, C. M. (2021). Refining the Short Social Dominance Orientation Scale (SSDO): A validation in seven European countries. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 9(2), 475–489. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.6919
Berry, C. M. (2023). A critical examination and meta-analysis of the distinction between the dominance and antiegalitarianism facets of social dominance orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(2), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000432
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1861–1894. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x
Ferreira, S., & Nugier, A. (2026). French validation of the Social Dominance Orientation Scale7 (SDO7) by Ho et al. (2015): A two-dimensional approach to social inequality support. International Review of Social Psychology, 39, 4. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.1075
Fischer, R., Hanke, K., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Cultural and institutional determinants of social dominance orientation: A cross-cultural meta-analysis of 27 societies. Political Psychology, 33(4), 437–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00884.x
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Levin, S., Thomsen, L., Kteily, N., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2012). Social dominance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 583–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211432765
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., Foels, R., & Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033
Ho, A. K., Kteily, N. S., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., & Thomsen, L. (2025). Social dominance orientation: The motivational basis of intergroup inequality. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 125–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2025.04.003
Kandler, C., Instinske, J., & Bell, E. (2025). Sources of differences in right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation from adolescence to adulthood: A multi-cohort twin family study. Behavior Genetics, 55(6), 464–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-025-10242-0
Kteily, N. S., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2011). Social dominance orientation: Cause or 'mere effect'? Evidence for SDO as a causal predictor of prejudice and discrimination against ethnic and racial outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.09.009
Kteily, N., Ho, A. K., & Sidanius, J. (2012). Hierarchy in the mind: The predictive power of social dominance orientation across social contexts and domains. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 543–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.11.007
Kunst, J. R., Fischer, R., Sidanius, J., & Thomsen, L. (2017). Preferences for group dominance track and mediate the effects of macro-level social inequality and violence across societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(21), 5407–5412. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616572114
McFarland, S. (2010). Authoritarianism, social dominance, and other roots of generalized prejudice. Political Psychology, 31(3), 453–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00765.x
Perry, R., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013). Dangerous and competitive worldviews: A meta-analysis of their associations with social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.10.004
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), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 271–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280601055772
Pratto, F. (2026). Social dominance orientation. Advances in Political Psychology, 47(Suppl. 1), e70126. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.70126
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2004). Social Dominance Theory: Its agenda and method. Political Psychology, 25(6), 845–880. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00401.x
Sibley, C. G., Robertson, A., & Wilson, M. S. (2006). Social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects. Political Psychology, 27(5), 755–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00531.x
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 248–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308319226
Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003). Why social dominance theory has been falsified. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322127184
Üzümçeker, E. (2023). Research on sex differences in social dominance orientation and the invariance hypothesis: A systematic review. Trends in Psychology, 31(2), 342–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-023-00278-8
Vargas-Salfate, S., Paez, D., Liu, J. H., Pratto, F., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2018). A comparison of Social Dominance Theory and System Justification: The role of social status in 19 nations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(7), 1060–1076. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218757455