Current Social Domination Theory: Is It Still Relevant?
Abstract
Social dominance theory (SDT) often used to explain intergroups conflict and discrimination phenomenon. SDT argues that society lives in a social system where hierarchy of social groups exist. In such conditions, violence, and pressure on one group is a manifestation of the dominant group maintaining its status over the subordinate group. At the beginning of its emergence, SDT received quite a lot of criticism for its theoretical premises. However, in recent years there has been no literature that attempted to re-examine or criticize SDT in current condition. Meanwhile, SDT researchers have developed many studies to address theoretical weaknesses, especially in the last 10 years. This study aims to review and provide critics of SDT referring to the current development and condition of SDT. The research method used in this study is a literature review on the development of SDT. The results showed that to date SDT still has several unsolved weaknesses despite the massive development of its research, including the inconsistency of claims to the universality of social hierarchy, inconsistency on SDO constructs, lack of empirical evidence on social stratification groupings, and weaknesses in the SDT research methodology. However, SDT still has strength and potential that makes it survive and relevant in social scientific studies, especially on how it looks at intergroup conflict in terms of social hierarchy, social dominance, and power.
Teori dominasi sosial atau social dominance theory merupakan salah satu teori dalam psikologi sosial yang cukup sering digunakan untuk menjelaskan perilaku antarkelompok, khususnya terkait konflik dan diskriminasi antarkelompok. Teori ini menjelaskan bahwa masyarakat hidup dalam sistem sosial dimana terdapat hierarki atas kelompok-kelompok sosial. Dalam kondisi seperti itu, kekerasan dan tekanan pada suatu kelompok adalah bentuk kelompok dominan mempertahankan statusnya atas kelompok subordinat. Selama tiga dekade eksistensinya, teori dominasi sosial cukup banyak mendapatkan kritik atas premis-premis teorinya. Namun, teori ini tetap eksis bahkan dalam 10 tahun terakhir penerapan teori ini meluas hingga ranah politik dan komunikasi. Meskipun teori dominasi sosial cukup berkembang, nyatanya masih terdapat beberapa kritik yang belum terjawab hingga saat ini yang menjadi kelemahan teori. Review ini akan menyoroti kelemahan-kelemahan teori yang belum terjawab, antara lain ketidakkonsistenan teori atas klaim universalitas hierarki sosial dan konstruk SDO, kurangnya bukti empiris atas pengelompokan stratifikasi sosial, serta kelemahan metodologi penelitian SDT. Review juga akan membahas mengapa teori ini tetap bertahan di tengah-tengah kelemahan yang ada, terutama karena keunikan teori yang melihat konflik antarkelompok dari sisi hierarki sosial, dominasi sosial, dan power.
Keywords
Full Text:
FULL TEXTReferences
Ajibade Adisa, T., Mordi, C., Simpson, R., & Iwowo, V. (2021). Social dominance, hypermasculinity, and career barriers in Nigeria. Gender, Work & Organization, 28(1), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12537
BBC News Indonesia. (2019, September 23). Asrama Papua: Cek fakta kasus bendera merah putih dan makian rasialisme di Surabaya. BBC News Indonesia. https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/indonesia-49446765
Brunarska, Z. (2019). Anti-immigrant Attitudes in Russia: The Group Position Model Reconsidered. Europe-Asia Studies, 71(9), 1508–1531. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2019.1618791
Fitriyanto, W., & Sulandari, S. (2021). Berpikir Kreatif pada Pengguna Game Online Ditinjau dari Jenis Kelamin, Status Ekonomi, dan Kategori Permainan. Psikostudia : Jurnal Psikologi, 10(2), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.30872/psikostudia.v10i2.4640
Fraser, G., Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2015). “We want you in the Workplace, but only in a Skirt!” Social Dominance Orientation, Gender-Based Affirmative Action and the Moderating Role of Benevolent Sexism. Sex Roles, 73(5–6), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0515-8
Guimond, S., Crisp, R. J., De Oliveira, P., Kamiejski, R., Kteily, N., Kuepper, B., Lalonde, R. N., Levin, S., Pratto, F., Tougas, F., Sidanius, J., & Zick, A. (2013). Diversity policy, social dominance, and intergroup relations: Predicting prejudice in changing social and political contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(6), 941–958. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032069
Heering, M. S., & Leone, L. (2019). Power Moderates the Effects of Social Dominance Orientation on Punishment: An Experimental Analysis. Psychological Reports, 122(1), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118755095
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., 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
Hoyt, C. L., B. Forsyth, R., & Burnette, J. L. (2018). Social dominance orientation moderates the effectiveness of mindset messages. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(2), 448–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12238
Istiqomah, I., Shadiqi, M. A., Takwin, B., & Muluk, H. (2021). Efek mediasi totalisme Islam pada hubungan antara Social Dominance Orientation dan Right-Wing Authoritarianism terhadap sikap politik konservatisme Islam. Jurnal Psikologi Sosial, 19(3), 180–192. https://doi.org/10.7454/jps.2021.21
Jetten, J., & Iyer, A. (2010). Different meanings of the social dominance orientation concept: Predicting political attitudes over time. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X435723
Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-Based Dominance and Opposition to Equality as Independent Predictors of Self-Esteem, Ethnocentrism, and Social Policy Attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1403
Kaynak Malatyalı, M., Kaynak, B. D., & Hasta, D. (2017). A Social Dominance Theory Perspective on Attitudes Toward Girl Child Marriages in Turkey: The Legitimizing Role of Ambivalent Sexism. Sex Roles, 77(9–10), 687–696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0750-2
Kugler, M., Jost, J. T., & Noorbaloochi, S. (2014). Another Look at Moral Foundations Theory: Do Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Explain Liberal-Conservative Differences in “Moral” Intuitions? Social Justice Research, 27(4), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0223-5
Lee, I.-C., Pratto, F., & Johnson, B. T. (2011). Intergroup consensus/disagreement in support of group-based hierarchy: An examination of socio-structural and psycho-cultural factors. Psychological Bulletin, 137(6), 1029–1064. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025410
Metin-Orta, I. (2021). The relationship between social dominance orientation, gender role orientation and attitudes toward gay men and lesbians in a Turkish sample. Current Psychology, 40(7), 3425–3439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00293-y
Milfont, T. L., Richter, I., Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Fischer, R. (2013). Environmental Consequences of the Desire to Dominate and Be Superior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(9), 1127–1138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213490805
Milfont, T. L., & Sibley, C. G. (2014). The hierarchy enforcement hypothesis of environmental exploitation: A social dominance perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 188–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.07.006
Milojev, P., Sengupta, N. K., & Sibley, C. G. (2014). Majority group opposition to minority political entitlements: The Social Dominance Paradox. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 39, 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.10.001
Nawir, M., & Mukramin, S. (2019). Identitas Etnis Dalam Ranah Politik. Phinisi Integration Review, 2(2), 348–354. https://doi.org/10.26858/pir.v2i2.10090
Pehrson, S., Carvacho, H., & Sibley, C. G. (2017). Group differences in the legitimization of inequality: Questioning the role of social dominance orientation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56(1), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12167
Pratto, F. (2016). On power and empowerment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12135
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., 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., Stewart, A. L., & Bou Zeineddine, F. (2013). When Inequality Fails: Power, Group Dominance, and Societal Change. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 1(1), 132–160. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v1i1.97
Romm, N. R. A. (2013). Revisiting Social Dominance Theory: Invoking a More Retroductively-Oriented Approach to Systemic Theorizing. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 26(2), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-012-9245-9
Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (2004). Social Identity, System Justification, and Social Dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et al., and Sidanius et al. Political Psychology, 25(6), 823–844. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00400.x
Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & Kappen, D. M. (2003). Attitudes toward group-based inequality: Social dominance or social identity? British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322127166
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance. Cambridge University Press.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2012). Social Dominance Theory. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 418–438). Sage Publication.
Sofia, L., Rosyida, A. H., Sholikhatin, N. H., Ariyanti, N. S., & Muhliansyah, M. (2019). Gelar Kebangsawanan Kesultanan Kutai Kartanegara Sebagai Status Sosial. Psikostudia : Jurnal Psikologi, 6(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.30872/psikostudia.v6i2.2371
Soylu, S., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2015). Asymmetric intergroup bullying: The enactment and maintenance of societal inequality at work. Human Relations, 68(7), 1099–1129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726714552001
Stewart, A. L., & Tran, J. (2018). Protesting Racial Hierarchy: Testing a Social Dominance Theory Model of Collective Action among White Americans: Protesting Racial Hierarchy. Journal of Social Issues, 74(2), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12270
Trounson, J. S., Critchley, C., & Pfeifer, J. E. (2015). Australian Attitudes Toward Asylum Seekers: Roles of Dehumanization and Social Dominance Theory. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 43(10), 1641–1655. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.10.1641
Tunçgenç, B. (2010). Towards a Comprehensive Socio-Psychological Perspective: Journal of European Psychology Students, 2, 1–8.
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/10.1348/014466603322127166
Wilson, M. S., & Liu, J. H. (2003). Social dominance orientation and gender: The moderating role of gender identity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322127175
Wirawan, M. K. (2020, May 30). Polisi Derek Chauvin yang Tindih George Floyd Dijerat Pasal Pembunuhan Berlapis. Kompas. https://www.kompas.com/global/read/2020/05/30/110811670/polisi-derek-chauvin-yang-tindih-george-floyd-dijerat-pasal-pembunuhan?page=all
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30872/psikostudia.v11i2.7614
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2022 Psikostudia : Jurnal Psikologi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Indexing by :
_________________________________________
PSIKOSTUDIA: Jurnal Psikologi Published by Faculty of Social and Political Siences, University of Mulawarman, Samarinda, East Kalimantan and This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
_________________________________________
PSIKOSTUDIA: Jurnal Psikologi
Department of Psychology
Faculty of Social and Political Siences, University of Mulawarman
Jl. Muara Muntai Kampus Gn. Kelua Samarinda 75411
Phone: +62 813 35350368
E-Mail: psikostudia@fisip.unmul.ac.id