The Interactive Nature of Patriarchy and Arbitrary-set Hierarchy: The Dynamics of Sexism and Racism from An Evolutionary
and Social Dominance Perspective
Psychology Live Lecture
October 7th, 2009
Jim Sidanius
Harvard University
Basic Observation
Human social systems are structured as group-based social hierarchies.
Two Most Basic Assumptions of Social Dominance Theory
Human social systems are predisposed to be organized as group-based social hierarchies.
The common forms of social oppression (e.g., racism, slavery, sexism, nationalism, classism, etc.) are the specific instantiations of this tendency to create, maintain, and re-create some form of group-based social hierarchies.
Primary Goal of Social Dominance Theory
To identify the precise Multi-leveled mechanisms responsible to the creation, maintenance and re-creation of group-based social hierarchy. These mechanisms include:
Individual differences Situational constraints Institutional behaviors Social and group identities Socio-political ideologies.
Three Systems of Group-based Social Hierarchy
The Age System-Older individuals dominate younger individuals.
The Gender or Patriarchical System-Males dominate females. The Arbitrary-set System:
“Racial”-hierarchies Ethnic-hierarchies Class-hierarchies Religious-hierarchies Nationality-hierarchies Etc.
Bipolar Reproductive Strategies(Trivers’ Parental Investment Theory, 1972)
Parental effort (female emphasis)
Mating effort(male emphasis)
Bipolar Reproductive Strategies
Parental effort (female emphasis)
Mating effort(male emphasis)
Behavioral Consequences
Among females Among males
1. Relatively high offspring investment.2. Relatively high mate choosiness.3. Select high-status/high-provisioning mates.
1. Relatively low offspring investment.2. High striving for status, power
& resource control.3. High sexual jealousy & mate-guarding.4. High male-v-male competition.
Bipolar Reproductive Strategies
Parental effort (female emphasis)
Mating effort(male emphasis)
Behavioral Consequences
Among females Among males
1. Relatively high offspring investment.2. Relatively high mate choosiness.3. Select high-status/high-provisioning mates.
1. Relatively low offspring investment.2. High striving for status, power
& resource control.3. High sexual jealousy & mate-guarding.4. High male-v-male competition.
Political Consequences
Patriarchy1. Male political & coercive
dominance over females.
Arbitrary-set Hierarchy1. Dominance hierarchies among males.2. Extractive male-v-male coalitions.
Dominance/Aggression
Rep
rodu
ctiv
e F
itne
ss
Males
Females
Four Basic Distinctions Between Patriarchy vs. Arbitrary-set Hierarchy
Co-dependency. Context dependence vs. context independence
Gender is a fundamental category of mind, while “race” and “ethnicity” are not (see Kurzban, Tooby & Cosmides, 2001).
Ubiquitousness. Exceptions: Bonobos, Spotted Hyenas, & Muriqui.
Focus.
Focus of Patriarchy
Patriarchy is primarily a project of paternalism, and not misogyny: Patriarchy is primarily directed at male control
of the sexual, economic, and political prerogatives of women.
Focus of Arbitrary-set Hierarchy
While patriarchy is male control over females, arbitrary-set hierarchy is primarily focused on the male control of other males. Arbitrary-set hierarchy is not just a project of control, but also a
project of usurpation and aggression.
In its most developed forms, arbitrary set hierarchy manifests itself in extractive coalitions of ingroup males against coalitions of outgroup males. Thus, it is a form of male-on-male aggression.
Four Hypotheses from SD-Theory (Strong & Weak Versions)
Hypothesis # 1: Invariance hypothesis/context insensitivity hypothesis
Xenophobia and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) will be greater among males than among females, all else being equal!
Selected Items from the Social Dominance Scale
“To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups.”
“Inferior groups should stay in their place.” “Superior groups should dominate inferior
groups.” “All groups should be given an equal chance
in life.”
Hypothesis #2SDO/Mating Asymmetry
Hypothesis If SDO is conceived of as part of a male
mating strategy, then it might be related to other male mating strategies, and differentially so for males as opposed to females.
Hypothesis #2SDO/Mating Asymmetry
HypothesisLet us define ρ as male mating strategy
regressed upon SDO.
Then
ρ Males > ρ Females
Hypothesis # 3: Outgroup Male Target Hypothesis (OMTH).
Let’s define ASD as arbitrary-set discrimination. Then:
μASD outgroup male > μASD outgroup female ≥ 0
OMTH vs. Double-jeopardy Hypothesis (DJ)
OMTH directly contradicts double-jeopardy hypothesis (DJ).
Hypothesis # 4: Outgroup Bias Motive Differential
Outgroup bias against arbitrary-sets among males will be primarily motivated by aggression and SDO.
Outgroup bias against arbitrary-sets among females will be primarily motivated by fear, especially vulnerability to sexual coercion.
Test of the Invariance Hypothesis
µSDOMales> µSDOFemales
First, Let’s look at Classical racismItems in Classical Racism
University of Texas Sample (N=5,655; α = .83)
Racial equality. White superiority. Black President of the USA. Each ethnic group should stay in its own
place. There are too many blacks students on
campus.
F (cons. 4,5439) = 187.42; η=.35F (sex 1,5439) = 12.83.42; η=.07
Estimated Marginal Means of CRACISM
RACE2
FOREIGNOTHERSASIANSLATINOSBLACKSWHITES
Estim
ate
d M
arg
ina
l M
ea
ns
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
STUDSEX
MALE
FEMALE
Classical Racism as a Function of EthnicityAnd Gender (Texas sample, N=5,590; controlling for education)
F (ethn. 5,5577) = 36.28; η=.18F (sex 1,5577) = 26.84.42; η=.07
F (X 4,5577) = 1.58
Estimated Marginal Means of NRACISM
OLDPPP
FASCISTSCONSERVATIVESLIBERALSSDCOMMUNISTS
Estim
ate
d M
arg
ina
l M
ea
ns
30
20
10
KON
MEN
WOMEN
Classical Racism as a Function of Political ConservatismAnd Gender
(Swedish sample, N=524; controlling for SES)
F (cons. 4,513) = 11.76; η=.29F (sex 1,513) = 10.52; η=.14F (X, 4,513) < 1
Estimated Marginal Means of RACISM
NATION
aussiesamericansswedes
Estim
ate
d M
arg
ina
l M
ea
ns
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
SEX
MALE
FEMALE
Classical Racism as a Function of three NationsAnd Gender (Sample, N=1,537)
F (nation 2,1531) = 6.44; η=.09F (sex 1, 1531) = 35.03.42; η=.15F (X 1,1531) = 7.50; η=.10
n = 772 n = 491 n =274
Overall Male/Female Differences in SDO
55 Samples used: 23,100 respondents. 12 countries, including:
Australia Canada Dominican Republic Cuba USSR Israel Mexico New Zealand Palestine PRC Sweden USA
0
Men > WomenMen = Women
Men < Women
0
1E+01
2E+01
3E+01
4E+01
5E+01
Overall Male/Female Differences in SDO
55 Samples used: 23,100 respondents. 12 countries, including:
Australia Canada Dominican Republic Cuba USSR Israel Mexico New Zealand Palestine PRC Sweden USA
7
0
Men > WomenMen = Women
Men < Women
0
10
20
30
40
50
Overall Male/Female Differences in SDO
55 Samples used: 23,100 respondents. 12 countries, including:
Australia Canada Dominican Republic Cuba USSR Israel Mexico New Zealand Palestine PRC Sweden USA
48
7
0
Men > WomenMen = Women
Men < Women
0
10
20
30
40
50
P<10-12
Interaction or Context Dependency Hypothesis: For
Arbitrary SetsD
egre
e of
SD
O D
iffe
renc
e B
etw
een
Gro
ups
S o c ia l S ta tu s D iffe r e n c e B e tw e e n G r o u p s
Evidence of Context Dependency for Arbitrary-set
Groups2 .4 0
2 .3 0
2 .2 0
2 .1 0
2 .0 0
1 .9 0
1 .8 0
1 .7 0
1 .6 0
1 .5 0
3 .0 0 4 .0 0 5 .0 0 6 .0 0L a tin o s
B la c k sA sia n s W h ite s
S o cia l S ta tus C o ntinuum
SD
O
.6 0
.5 5
.5 0
.4 5
.4 0
.3 5
.3 0
.2 5
.2 0
.1 5
.1 0
.0 0
.0 0 .5 0 1 .0 0 1 .5 0 2 .0 0 2 .5 0 3 .0 0 3 .5 0 4 .0 0
B la c k -L a tin o
W h ite -A sia n
A sia n -B la c k
A sia n -L a tin o
W h ite -L a tino
W h ite -B la c k
SDO
Difference B
etween G
roups
S o c ia l S ta tu s D iffe r e n c e B e tw e e n G r o u ps
Evidence of Context Dependency for Arbitrary-set
Groups
Evidence of Context Dependency for Arbitrary-sets
in Israel
Priming Context
Ethnic ContextNational Context
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Ashkenazic Jews
Sephardic Jews
Evidence of Context Dependency for Arbitrary-sets
in Israel
Priming Context
Ethnic ContextNational Context
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Ashkenazic Jews
Sephardic Jews
Evidence of Context Dependency for Arbitrary-sets
in Israel
Priming Context
Ethnic ContextNational Context
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Ashkenazic Jews
Sephardic JewsCorrelational stabilityr Context = .56
SDO as a Function of Religion & Perceived Relative Status In
Northern Ireland (Levin, 2003)
Large Status Gap Small Status Gap
CatholicsProtestants
SD
O L
evel
p < .02 p<.05 Interaction: p <.003
SDO as a Function of Race & Perceived Relative Status In USA
(Levin, 2003)
Large Status Gap Small Status Gap
BlacksWhites
SD
O L
evel
p < .01 n.s. Interaction: p <. 03
SDO as a Function of Gender & Perceived Relative Status In USA
(Levin, 2003)
Large Status Gap Small Status Gap
WomenMen
SD
O L
evel
p < .04 p<.01 Interaction: p =.40, n.s.
30 Independent Tests of Interaction or Context Dependency Hypothesis
Across 11 DifferentSituational, Cultural, Ideological
and DemographicContingencies
SDO as a Function of Gender and Age
(Cross-sectional Design)
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
SDO
Sco
re
16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 56-75
Age
MenWomen
SDO Scores as a Funtion of Gender
and Tenure
School Exposure
2k99989796
M
ean S
DO
Score
s
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
What is your gender?
Female
Male
UCLA Panel Study
Same Results for Possible Moderators of:
Nationality Ethnicity Religiosity Education Income Child-rearing practices Levels of racism Gender-role attitudes Political ideology
Sidanius & Pratto, 1999
Generalized Gender Equality Across Five Nations
Nation % of women in Ministerial Post
% of Women in Lower Chamber of Legislature
% Rating of Generalized Gender Equality
USA 15 11 87
PRC 6 21 85
New Zealand 8 16 81
Israel 9 9 66
Palestine 6 5 40
Sidanius & Pratto, 1999
SDO as a Function of Gender & Nationality
NationalityAmericans
ChineseNew Zealanders
Israeli JewsIsraeli Arabs
Palestinians
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
Men
Women
Hypothesis #2SDO/Mating Asymmetry
Hypothesis
ρ Males > ρ Females
3 Clusters of Male Mating Strategies
Multiple matings. Resistance to caring for unrelated children. Sexual Jealousy.
Mating Strategy Slope t-test of SlopeDifferences
Multiple Mating Women Men t-test
Prob. Of ownextramaritalaffairs
1.62 8.81** -40.99* * *
% more faithfulthan me
-4.13 -8.00 22.02* *
Multiple Mating Preferences Regressed on SDO For Males &
Females
Pratto & Hegarty, 2000
Mating Strategy Slope t-test of SlopeDifferences
Resistance toCaring forother’s children
Women Men t-test
Comfort levelwith adoption
-.28 -.59* 2.42**
Willingness toadopt if infertile
- .04 -.19** <1
Ideal mate hasnot previouschildren
.00 .21* -2.21**
Comfort withpaternityuncertainty
-.15 -.38* 1.35n.s.
Resistance to Investment in Other’s Children Regressed on SDO For Males
& Females
Pratto & Hegarty, 2000
Mating Strategy Slope t-test of SlopeDifferences
Sexual J ealousy Women Men t-test
Willingness togrant divorce tounfaithful spouse
.24 -2.51 28.62* * *
Likelihood idealmate will haveaffair
-1.46 5.28** -43.67* * *
Faithfulnesspercentile ofideal mate
-3.92 -7.76** 3.93** *
Sexual Jealousy Regressed on SDO For Males & Females
Pratto & Hegarty, 2000
Hypothesis # 3Outgroup Male-Target
Hypothesis
μASD outgroup male > μASD outgroup female ≥ 0
Nature of the Evidence Supporting SMTH
Survey evidence Archival evidence Experimental evidence
Survey Evidence
Perceptions of Discrimination Among Blacks by Domain
25%
19% 19%17%
8%
26%
15% 14%
9%
3%
B lac k Re spondents
Shopping
Dining out
At work
With pol ic e
Pub. tra nsport
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Men 35+ Wom en 35+
Gallup, 1996
Experience of Racial Discrimination by UCLA Students-1996
5.85
4.72 4.83
4.21
5.69
4.28
4.86
3.13
Ethnic Group
Afro-Americ ans
La tino-Americ ans
Asia n-Ame ri ca ns
Euro-Ame ri ca ns
1
2
3
4
5
6
Men Wom en
Experienced of Housing Discrimination in the U.K. (1976)
21%
12%
8%6%
17%
4%2% 1%
Ethnic GroupWest Indians
African-AsiansIndians
Pakistanis/Banglaseh
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Men Women
% Experiencing Racial Discrimination Within Last Five Years in Sweden (1996).
33%
21.8%
18.2%
13.9%
22.8%
15.8%
18.9%
10.1%
Ethnic GroupAfricans Arabs Asians Yugoslavs
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Men Women
Archival Evidence
Hate Crimes in USA between 7/2000 – 12/2003
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, N= 210,000)
Chi-square(2)=38.91, p<.001
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Male victim Female victim
Male perpFemale perpboth
Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf
90% committed by males
Hate Crimes against Gays(N=1,070; 2007)
86.20%
13.70%
0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%
40.00%50.00%60.00%
70.00%80.00%90.00%
Gay men Gay women
Source: U.S. Department of Justice- FBI http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_01.htm
1994 Earnings by “Race” and Gender (US Census)
$30,555
Ge nd erM ales Fem ale s
$0
$5 ,00 0
$1 0,0 00
$1 5,0 00
$2 0,0 00
$2 5,0 00
$3 0,0 00
$3 5,0 00
Wh ites Black s
1994 Earnings by “Race” and Gender (US Census)
$30,555
$21,224
Ge nd erM ales Fem ale s
$0
$5 ,00 0
$1 0,0 00
$1 5,0 00
$2 0,0 00
$2 5,0 00
$3 0,0 00
$3 5,0 00
Wh ites Black s
1994 Earnings by “Race” and Gender (US Census)
$30,555
$21,224
$17,294
Ge nd erM ales Fem ale s
$0
$5 ,00 0
$1 0,0 00
$1 5,0 00
$2 0,0 00
$2 5,0 00
$3 0,0 00
$3 5,0 00
Wh ites Black s
1994 Earnings by “Race” and Gender (US Census)
$30,555
$21,224
$17,294$16,110
Ge nd erM ales Fem ale s
$0
$5 ,00 0
$1 0,0 00
$1 5,0 00
$2 0,0 00
$2 5,0 00
$3 0,0 00
$3 5,0 00
Wh ites Black s
Value of One Additional Year of Advanced Education for Hourly Wage
Men Wom en
$0
$0.2
$0.4
$0.6
$0.8
$1
Whites-1960 B lacks-1960
Whites-1980 B lacks-1980
Source: Farley & Allen,1987
Value of One Additional Year of Advanced Education for Hourly Wage
$0.78
$0.56
Men Wom en
$0
$0.2
$0.4
$0.6
$0.8
$1
Whites-1960 B lacks-1960
Whites-1980 B lacks-1980
Source: Farley & Allen,1987
Value of One Additional Year of Advanced Education for Hourly Wage
$0.78
$0.56
$0.96
$0.69
Men Wom en
$0
$0.2
$0.4
$0.6
$0.8
$1
Whites-1960 B lacks-1960
Whites-1980 B lacks-1980
Source: Farley & Allen,1987
Value of One Additional Year of Advanced Education for Hourly Wage
$0.78
$0.59$0.56$0.62
$0.96
$0.69
Men Wom en
$0
$0.2
$0.4
$0.6
$0.8
$1
Whites-1960 B lacks-1960
Whites-1980 B lacks-1980
Source: Farley & Allen,1987
Value of One Additional Year of Advanced Education for Hourly Wage
$0.78
$0.59$0.56$0.62
$0.96
$0.64$0.69
$0.79
Men Wom en
$0
$0.2
$0.4
$0.6
$0.8
$1
Whites-1960 B lacks-1960
Whites-1980 B lacks-1980
Source: Farley & Allen,1987
1994 Income as a Function of Race, Education and Gender
Educational AchievementNo HS
HS GradSome college
College gradAdvanced degree
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
White men Latino men
Black men White women
Latino women Black women
1994 Income as a Function of Race, Education and Gender
Educational AchievementNo HS
HS GradSome college
College gradAdvanced degree
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
White men Latino men
Black men White women
Latino women Black women
Bowen & Bok’s 1976 Entering Class
MenWomen
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
Whites(Unadj.) Blacks(Unadj.)
Whites(Adj.) Blacks(Adj.)
1995 dollars, in thousands
Mean Earned Income
Bowen & Bok’s 1976 Entering Class
MenWomen
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
Whites(Unadj.) Blacks(Unadj.)
Whites(Adj.) Blacks(Adj.)
1995 dollars, in thousands
Mean Earned Income
Bowen & Bok’s 1976 Entering Class
MenWomen
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
Whites(Unadj.) Blacks(Unadj.)
Whites(Adj.) Blacks(Adj.)
1995 dollars, in thousands
Mean Earned Income
Bowen & Bok’s 1976 Entering Class
MenWomen
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
Whites(Unadj.) Blacks(Unadj.)
Whites(Adj.) Blacks(Adj.)
1995 dollars, in thousands
Mean Earned Income
Proportion of Doctoral Awards to White & Black Women
Year1979
19801981
19821983
19841985
19861987
19881989
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
White females Black females
Proportion of Doctoral Awards to White & Black Women
Year1979
19801981
19821983
19841985
19861987
19881989
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
White females Black females
Ratio Black/White Incarceration Rates in State and Federal Prisons
as a Function of Sex
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2000 2005 2006
MaleFemale
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p06.pdf
Ratio Latino/White Incarceration Rates in State and Federal Prisons
as a Function of Sex
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2000 2005 2006
MaleFemale
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p06.pdf
Imprisonment Rate For Males During One’s Lifetime (State or
Federal Prison).
32%
17%
5.90%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Black males Latino males White males
Source: Fedstats Source: Fedstats
Hood & Cordovil, 1992
Race and sentencing: A study in the Crown Court-A report for the
Commission for Racial Equality.
Experimental Evidence
Employment Audit Studies
19 studies conducted in five different countries: Britain Netherlands Germany USA Canada
Types of audits Correspondence Telephone In-person
Dominant/Subordinate Contrasts
Whites vs. West Indians Whites vs. East-Indians Native Whites vs. Greek immigrants Whites vs. Blacks Whites vs. Latinos Germans vs. Turks Dutch vs. Surinamese Dutch vs. Moroccans
Net Employment Discrimination by Audit Technique
Audit TechniqueCorrespondence audits
Telephone auditsIn-person audits
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Employment Discrimination by Gender
Unadjusted DiscrimiationAdjusted Discrimination
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Subordinate males
Subordinate females
Employment Discrimination by Gender
Unadjusted DiscrimiationAdjusted Discrimination
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Subordinate males
Subordinate females
Ayres Car Audit Study:Cost in Comparison to White
Males
Subordinate Groups
White wom en
B lack wom en
B lack men
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$1200
Ini tial offers Final of fers
Ayres Car Audit Study:Cost in Comparison to White
Males
$209.6$215.7
Subordinate Groups
White wom en
B lack wom en
B lack men
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$1200
Ini tial offers Final of fers
Ayres Car Audit Study:Cost in Comparison to White
Males
$209.6$215.7
$470.1$446.3
Subordinate Groups
White wom en
B lack wom en
B lack men
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$1200
Ini tial offers Final of fers
Ayres Car Audit Study:Cost in Comparison to White
Males
$209.6$215.7
$470.1$446.3
$962.3
$1133.6
Subordinate Groups
White wom en
B lack wom en
B lack men
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1000
$1200
Ini tial offers Final of fers
Discrimination Motives
Salespersons appeared to discriminate against female customers for economic motives (e.g., higher perceived reservation price).
Salespersons appear to discriminate against Black males for reasons of “consequential animus.”
Tajfel Negative Allocation Task
Allocation Task Given to Participants Assume that the Regents of the University of California have decided to assess a yearly
fee of an unspecified amount of money to each of the various ethnic student organizations because of a budget crisis. Some of these
organizations consist of predominantly White male students, while others consist of primarily minority male students.
By checking off the alternative below, please indicate which combination you honestly feel should be fined to each of the
student organizations.
Money from predominantly White Male organizations
$19,000 $18,000 $17,000 $16,000 $15,000 $14,000 $13,000 $12,000 $11,000 $10,000 $9,000 $8,000 $7,000
Money from predominantly Minority Male organizations
$25,000 $23,000 $21,000 $19,000 $17,000 $15,000 $13,000 $11,000 $9,000 $7,000 $5,000 $3,000 $1,000
Navarrete, McDonald, Molina & Sidanius, in press at JPSP
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6
Negative Intergroup Bias as a Function of Respondent & Target
Gender (Between subjects design)
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Relative Degree of Negative Outgroup Allocation
Male Targets Female Targets
Male respondentsFemale respondents
Target sex=*; Respondent sex=*, Interaction =**
‘Prepared’ fear of an outgroup
‘unprepared’
‘prepared’
Olsson, Ebert, Banaji, & Phelps (2005). Science.
Navarrete, Olsson, Ho, Mendes, Thomsen, & Sidanius (2009). Psychological Science
Fear Extinction as a Function ofTarget Gender & Group Membership
Hypothesis # 4: Outgroup Bias Motive Differential
Outgroup bias against arbitrary-sets among males will be primarily motivated by aggression and SDO.
Outgroup bias against arbitrary-sets among females will be primarily motivated by fear, especially vulnerability to sexual coercion.
Extinction Bias toward Male Target as a Function of Participant Gender and
Vulnerability to Sexual Coercion
Navarrete, McDonald, Molina & Sidanius, in press at JPSP
Fear Extinction Bias Towards Male Targets as a Function of
Participant Gender, Aggression and SDO
Navarrete, McDonald, Molina & Sidanius, in press at JPSP
Explicit Bias as an Interactive Function of Gender, Aggression andSDO
Navarrete, McDonald, Molina & Sidanius, in press at JPSP
Five Broad Conclusions
Conclusion # 1: The double-jeopardy hypothesis is fundamentally incorrect. While subordinate females suffer from the direct effects
of patriarchy, there is little evidence that they suffer from the direct effects of both patriarchy AND arbitrary-set discrimination.
To the extent subordinate females suffer from direct arbitrary-set discrimination, this discrimination tends to be substantially milder than that suffered by sub.males.
Caveat to Conclusion # 1:
However, this does NOT mean that women do not suffer from the INDIRECT effects of arbitrary-set discrimination. These deleterious effects do occur, but primarily
by virtue of their connection to subordinate males in their roles as wives, lovers, daughters, sisters, etc.
Conclusion # 2
The social-psychology of gender is incomplete without the inclusion of the social-psychology of arbitrary-set hierarchy. This is to say that both mild and extreme forms of
arbitrary-set aggression are more likely to be committed by males rather than females.
This applies across the Hominoid Clade (i.e.,Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Orangutans, & Humans).
Conclusion # 3
The social-psychology of intergroup, arbitrary-set hierarchy and aggression is incomplete without an appreciation of the fact that it is a gendered phenomenon. This is to say that not only are males the primary
instigators of arbitrary-set aggression and discrimination, but they are also the primary targets of aggression and discrimination.
Conclusion # 4
Outgroup bias against arbitrary-sets among males is primarily generated by SDO and outgroup aggression.
Outgroup bias against arbitrary-sets among females is primarily generated by fear, in particular, fear of sexual coersion.
Conclusion # 5
There is at least some evidence that the differential pattern of intergroup bias for males and females is consistent with the differential fitness strategies of the two sexes.
THE END