The article «Group domination and the political psychology of gender: a cross-cultural comparison» written by Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., and Brief, D., in 1995 explores the relationship between group domination and the way in which gender it affects political psychology in different cultures.

Group domination refers to the tendency of dominant groups to maintain their position of power through the oppression and exploitation of subordinate groups. In this article, the authors analyze how gender dominance is present in different cultures, and how this dominance influences the political and social psychology of the individuals involved. The study highlights that gender-based group domination is not homogeneous across cultures. In some cultures, such as the North American, male dominance is evident, while in other cultures, such as the Spanish and Chilean, the gender division is less evident and more flexible. The authors point out that the variability in cultural differences is largely due to the way in which cultural identities are constructed in different societies.

The article also argues that gender dominance influences political psychology, that is, how people perceive and respond to social and political organization. The authors highlight that gender dominance fosters division and competition between individuals and groups, and that this can have important political and social implications. Specifically, the diversity of gender domination in different cultures and its influence on political psychology is examined. The authors point out that a deeper understanding of these issues is essential to address group dominance and move towards a more just and equal society.

In the first place, it is necessary to be clear about each developed context, such as Transcultural Psychology, which has presented great advances in research, showing in the field the importance of cultural factors in psychological and social processes that do not appear unless they are immersed in a culture and history. The function of culture in our lives is the result of how groups adapt to their environment. In situations like floods, a culture may build houses on stilts or tents that can be easily transported if it is a nomadic culture. Since culture is based on adaptation, it is constantly changing to cope with events such as wars, natural disasters or technological advances. Agree with this,

J. Berry and his collaborators carried out numerous studies in the field of Cross-Cultural Psychology (Berry, Poortinga, & Pandey, 1996; Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992; Lonner & Berry, 1986), which gave rise to the creation of the Acculturation Model (Berry, 1990; Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989). This model is an important foundation in both theoretical and empirical research in the field of cross-cultural psychology. Acculturation refers to the learning process of a specific culture and implies knowledge, internalization, valuation, identification and the dynamic management of one’s own values ​​and those of other cultures in contact (Osuna & Rodríguez, 2008). Psychological acculturation occurs when people change based on contact with another culture,

There is a tendency to consider the existence of psychological characteristics common to all





people, without taking into account the ability of human behavior to adapt to different contexts and the importance of these contexts in the appearance of behaviors and processes. Psychology faces the challenge of in-depth research into psychological processes and their variability depending on the social and cultural environment. Cross-cultural research has provided valuable information on cultural differences and the existence of universal personality traits (Triandis, 1994).

In an evaluation of cross-cultural research carried out in the last 30 years and published in the Inter-American Journal of Psychology, it is pointed out that the most recurring themes are Social Psychology, followed by Psychometrics (Salazar, 1997). In the latter, the focus was on the creation and adaptation of appropriate psychological tools for each country.

Hofstede, (1980) has established four cultural dimensions disparity of power, acceptance of uncertainty, masculinity-femininity and individualism-collectivism, which can be used as a starting point to compare cultures with each other. The individualism-collectivism dimension is especially useful for understanding what holds people together in a society. In all cultures, individualistic and collectivistic cognitions coexist and can be more or less emphasized depending on the situation. Individualistic societies value individual autonomy and independence, while collectivist societies focus on group identity and the duties and obligations of group members. To understand cultural differences in complex psychological phenomena, new constructs are being introduced into cross-cultural research. In our region, Cross-Cultural Psychology has been used in research such as the one that investigates risk perception.

On the other hand, through the years, different concepts have been used to try to understand the individual differences that give rise to prejudiced and discriminatory attitudes. One of these concepts is Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), which, together with Right-wing Authoritarianism (RWA), offers a solid foundation for theoretical models that seek to explain the roots of prejudice. More generally, the SDO and RWA are relevant indicators of two main dimensions of social conservatism (economic/material and social/values, respectively) that underlie a wide variety of political attitudes and behaviors.

Social Dominance Theory (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994) proposes that social conflict is an inevitable dimension of social life, which means that societies will be prone to conflicts between different groups. . To reduce these conflicts and ensure societal survival, societies create legitimizing myths that emphasize the superiority of one group over another, such as ethnic prejudice, nationalism, sexism, meritocracy, and economic-political conservatism. These legitimation myths vary in two ways: (a) increasing the social hierarchy, which implies the justification of the increase in inequality between groups; and (b) attenuating the social hierarchy, which implies an increase in equality between social groups (Federico, 1999).

According to the theory of Social Dominance, it is the institutions that mainly sustain discrimination systematically because they have the power to create, maintain and reinforce ideologies that favor social hierarchies (Sidanius, Pratto, van Laar and Levin, 2004).





Social Dominance Theory has a personality variable called social dominance orientation, which measures people’s preference for hierarchical relationships between groups and the desire for their own group to be superior to other groups. According to a 2006 review by Pratto, Sidanius, and Levin, SDO was defined as a pervasive orientation toward dominant-subordinate and unequal relationships in salient social groups, regardless of whether this implies intergroup dominance or subordination. People with high SDO are more prejudiced towards disadvantaged groups and support legitimizing ideologies or myths that maintain social inequality.

The dual model of cognitive-motivational processing (DPM, Duckitt, 2001) suggests that social dominance orientation (SDO) reflects a motivational purpose for group-structured dominance, which is evidenced by schematized perceptions of the social world as a place. competitive. This is produced by the combination of sociocultural characteristics of the situation, such as resource scarcity and zero-sum competitive intergroup relationships, together with stable differences in personality, such as mental rigidity, closed-mindedness, or low agreeableness.

The Social Dominance Theory establishes that there are two types of relationships between the SDO construct and social categories. In the first, called the gender invariance hypothesis, men are expected to have higher levels of SDO than women, as long as the same conditions hold. In the second relationship, there are culturally constructed social categories, such as race, social class and educational level, which do not respond to an evolutionary and cultural differentiation such as gender. Invariants from cultural differences are not expected. People belonging to groups of higher social status tend to have higher levels of SDO, since they support anti-egalitarian ideologies that justify inequality in social distribution, thus maintaining their social privilege. Besides, as the social hierarchy within the system increases, the SDO differences between the higher and lower status groups will also increase. This is called the interaction hypothesis.

Several investigations have found a correlation between high values ​​of orientation towards social dominance and high levels of right-wing authoritarianism (Cárdenas et al., 2010; Rabinowitz, 1999), greater support for militarization (Quist and Resendez, 2002; Rabinowitz, 1999 ), conservative politics (Pratto et al., 1994; Rabinowitz, 1999) and male gender (Cárdenas et al., 2010; Castillo Mayén and Montes Berges, 2008; Levin, 2004; Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius, Sinclair, and Pratto, 2006). It has also been related to greater social prejudices (Pratto and Shih, 2000; Sibley and Duckitt, 2010) and a right-wing political orientation (Cárdenas et al., 2010; Roccato, Gattino, and Patris, 2000). In addition, the orientation towards social dominance has been associated with individualistic policies of progress or meritocracy (Sibley and Duckitt, 2010), social hierarchy within a group (Sidanius and Levin, 1999; Sidanius et al., 2000), opposition to terrorism, in the case of high-status groups that seek to exercise social control (Henry, Sidanius, Levin, and Pratto, 2005), choice of professional careers such as law, economics or engineering (Dambrun, et al., 2009; Jetten & Iyer, 2010) and activation of a sense of danger when a lack of control is perceived (Cozzolino & Snyder, 2008). On the other hand, low levels of social dominance orientation have been associated with social inclusion, greater concern for others, and rejection of segregation (Pratto et al., 2012). choice of professional careers such as law, economics or engineering (Dambrun, et al., 2009; Jetten & Iyer, 2010) and activation of a sense of danger when a lack of control is perceived (Cozzolino & Snyder,





2008). On the other hand, low levels of social dominance orientation have been associated with social inclusion, greater concern for others, and rejection of segregation (Pratto et al., 2012). choice of professional careers such as law, economics or engineering (Dambrun, et al., 2009; Jetten & Iyer, 2010) and activation of a sense of danger when a lack of control is perceived (Cozzolino & Snyder, 2008). On the other hand, low levels of social dominance orientation have been associated with social inclusion, greater concern for others, and rejection of segregation (Pratto et al., 2012).

On the other hand, when referring to sex and gender, a difference between the two terms is that the latter refers to non-biological characteristics such as traits and roles that are differentially assigned to men and women. Gender serves as a social categorization scheme, and an individual’s gender identity refers to their psychological relationship to these categorization schemes. This implies knowledge of the gender categorization scheme by the individual, as well as their evaluative reactions such as acceptance or rejection of it. The categorization of masculine and feminine is based on a clear sexual dimorphism, and most cultures have established different roles for each sex, often antithetical to each other. Research shows that there is a large cross-cultural consensus in assigning instrumental and agent traits to men, such as aggressiveness, independence, and competitiveness, and expressive and communal traits to women, such as warmth, submissiveness, and caring. However, there are also differences between groups that hold different values ​​or belong to different religions, and within each social group such as different occupational age groups, there are individual differences in gender schemata, the result of autobiographical socialization processes that have taken place. through reciprocal interactions between the individual and his immediate social environment.

The differences between gender schemas are maintained both when applying them to oneself and to other people. To measure these differences in individual gender differentiation, measurement instruments such as the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) by Bem (1981) and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) by Spence, Helmreich and Stapp (1979) are used. These questionnaires consist of two scales, one for Femininity and the other for Masculinity, which assess traits culturally associated with men or women. The scores on these scales allow the subjects to be classified as feminine, masculine, androgynous or undifferentiated, depending on whether they obtain a high or low score in masculinity or femininity in relation to the group average. In addition, high correlations have been found between the parallel scales of both instruments.


Bem, S. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing source. Psychological Review, 88 (4), 354-364.

Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of Acculturation. En: J. Berman (Ed.). Cross-cultural perspectives. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 37, 201-234.

Berry, J.W.; Kim, U.; Power, S.; Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989) Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38 (2), 185-206.





Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., & Pandey, J. (Ed), (1996). Handbook of Cross-Cultural psychology: volume 1, Theory and Method. Publisher: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cárdenas, M., Meza, P., Lagues, K, & Yañez, S. (2010). Adaptación y validación de la Escala de Orientación a la Dominancia Social (SDO) en una muestra chilena. Universitas Psychologica, 9(1), 161-168. doi: 10.5354/0719-0581.2010.17098.

Castillo Mayén, M. R. & Montes Berges, B. (2008). Aportaciones de la teoría de la dominancia social al análisis de la discriminación del género. Departamento de Psicología, Universidad de Jaén, España.

Cozzolino, P. & Snyder, M. (2008). Good Times, Bad Times: How Personal Disadvantage Moderates the Relationship Between Social Dominance and Efforts to Win. Personality and Social Psychology Buleetinl, 34, 1420-1433. doi: 10.1177/0146167208321595.

Dambrun, M., Kamiejski, R., Haddadi, N., & Duarte, S. (2009). Why does social dominance orientation decrease with university exposure to the social sciences? The impact of institutional socialization and the mediating role of ‘geneticism’. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 88-100. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.498.

Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 41–113. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2601(01)80004-6.

Federico, C. (1999). The Interactive Effects of Social Dominance Orientation, Group Status, and Perceived Stability on Favoritism for High-Status Groups. Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 2(2), 119-143. doi: 10.1177/1368430299022002.

Henry, P. J., Sidanius, J., Levin, S., & Pratto, F. (2005). Social Dominance Orientation, Authoritarianism, and Support for Intergroup Violence between the Middle East and America. Political Psychology, 26(4), 569-583. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00432.x.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture´s consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Jetten, J. & Iyer, A. (2010). Different meanings of the social dominance orientation concept: predicting political attitudes over time. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 385-404. doi: 10.1348/014466609×435723.

Levin, S. (2004). Perceived Group Status Differences and the Effects of Gender, Ethnicity, and





Religion on Social Dominance Orientation. Political Psychology, 25(1), 31-48. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00355.x

Levin, D. & Pratto, F. (2005). Political Participation as a Function of Social Dominance Orientation: How SDO Turns Out Majority Groups and Turns Off Minority Groups. Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott Wardman Park, Omni Shoreham, Washington Hilton, Washington, DC.

Lonner, W.J. & Berry, J.W. (1986). field methods in cross-cultural research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Osuna, R. & Rodríguez Navarro, H. (2008). Inmigración, estrategias de aculturación y valores laborales: un estudio exploratorio. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 24 (2) 187-202.

Pratto, F. & Shih, M. (2000). Social Dominance Orientation and group context in implicit group prejudice. Psychological Science, 11(6), 525-518. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00299.

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, 271-320. doi: 10.1080/10463280601055772

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. (1994). Social Dominance Orientation: A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741.

Pratto, F., Stewart, A., Foels, R., Henkel, K., Bou Zeineddine, F., & Morselli, D. (2012). Beyond Me and Mine: Low Social Dominance Orientation and Inclusiveness. The 35th Annual Meetings of the International Society of Political Psychology, Chicago.

Quist, R. M. & Resendez, M.G. (2002). Social dominance threat: examining social dominance theory’s explanation of prejudice as legitimizing myths. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24(4), 287-293. doi: 10.1207/s15324834basp2404_4.

Rabinowitz, J. L. (1999). Go with the flow or fight the power? The interactive effects of social dominance orientation and perceived injustice on support for the status quo. Political Psychology, 20(1), 1-24. doi: 10.1111/0162-895x.00135.

Roccato, M., Gattino, S. & Patris, E. (2000). Personalidad, Valores y Orientación Política. Psicología Política, 21, 73-97.

Salazar, J.M. (1997). La investigación transcultural en 30 años, Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 31, 2, 169-184.





Sibley, C. G. & Duckitt, J. (2010). The personality bases of ideology: A one-year longitudinal study. Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 540-559.

Sidanius, J. & Levin, S. (1999). Social Dominance and Social Identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup Favoritism or Outgroup Derogation. Political Psychology, 20(1), 99-126. doi: 10.1111/0162-895x.00138.

Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Liu, J., & Pratto, F. (2000). Social dominance orientation, anti-egalitarianism and the political psychology of gender: an extension and cross-cultural replication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 41-67. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200001/02)30:1<41::AID-EJSP976>3.0.CO;2-O.

Sidanius, J., Pratto, F. & Brief, D. (1995). Group dominance and the political psychology of gender: A cross cultural comparison. Political Psychology, 16, 381-396.

Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2004). Social Dominance Theory: Its Agenda and Method. Political Psychology, 25(6), 845-880.

Helmreich, R.L., Spence, J.T., & Holahan, C.K. (1991). Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) 1979.

Triandis, H.C. (1994). Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of collectivism and individualism. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, Ç. Kâgitçibasi, S. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism (pp. 41-51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


En que podemos ayudarte?