psychology live lecture october 7 th , 2009 jim sidanius harvard university

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



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



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.


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




7

0


Men < Women

0

10

20

30

40

50




48

7

0


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 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)


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)


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

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


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



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


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

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/index.html

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


$30,555

$21,224


$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


$30,555

$21,224

$17,294


$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


$30,555

$21,224

$17,294$16,110


$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


Source: Farley & Allen,1987


$0.78

$0.56

Men Wom en

$0

$0.2

$0.4

$0.6

$0.8

$1





$0.78

$0.56

$0.96

$0.69

Men Wom en

$0

$0.2

$0.4

$0.6

$0.8

$1





$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





$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




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

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

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


Males

$209.6$215.7

Subordinate Groups

White wom en

B lack wom en

B lack men

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

$1200



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



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


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


Fear Extinction Bias Towards Male Targets as a Function of

Participant Gender, Aggression and SDO


Explicit Bias as an Interactive Function of Gender, Aggression andSDO


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

psychology live lecture october 7 th , 2009 jim sidanius harvard university

Documents