You’re inferior and not worth our concern: Sex and the reciprocal relationship
between empathy and social dominance orientation
Jim Sidanius
Nour Kteily
Jennifer Sheehy-Skeffington
Arnold K. Ho
Department of Psychology, Harvard University, USA
Chris G. Sibley
Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Bart Duriez
Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium
Under review
Please address editorial comments to:
Jim Sidanius
Department of Psychology
Department of African and African American Studies
Harvard University
33 Kirkland Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Email: Sidanius@wjh.harvard.edu
Tel: (617) 495-3804
Keywords: social dominance orientation, empathy, gender, dual process model
Collection of the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study 2009 (NZAVS-09) data analyzed
in this paper was funded by University of Auckland FRDF (#3624435/9853) and ECREA
(#3626075) grants awarded to Chris G. Sibley.
1
Abstract
Using a large sample of Belgian university students and a very large national probability
sample of New Zealand adults, we employed cross-lag panel analyses to explore the
possibility of reciprocal causative relationships between trait empathy and social dominance
orientation (SDO). The analytic results were consistent with the notion of mutual causation
between SDO and trait empathy. Net of the earlier effects of both sex and SDO, trait
empathy had a negative influence on SDO across time. Furthermore, net of earlier effects of
both sex and trait empathy, SDO appeared to have a negative influence on trait empathy
across time. There was also some evidence that the relationship between sex and SDO was
partially mediated by trait empathy and that the relationship between sex and trait empathy
was partially mediated by SDO. The theoretical implications of these findings for the status
of SDO as a causal variable with trait components are discussed.
Keywords: social dominance orientation, empathy, sex differences
2
Social dominance orientation (SDO) is one of the most widely studied constructs in
intergroup relations (e.g., Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin, 2006; Sidanius & Pratto, in press). SDO
— an index of individuals’ predisposition for hierarchical relationships between groups in
society (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994) — has been shown to predict a vast
range of group-relevant attitudes and behaviors, in studies using cross-sectional, longitudinal,
and experimental methodologies (e.g. Altemeyer, 1998; Duriez, Vansteenkiste, Soenens, &
De Witte, 2007; Kteily, Sidanius, & Levin, 2010; McFarland & Adelson, 1996; Meeus,
Duriez, Vanbeselaere, Phalet, & Kuppens, 2009; Sibley & Liu, 2010; Sidanius, & Levin,
2007; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Sidanius, Pratto, & Mitchell, 1994; for a review, see Pratto et
al., 2006). However, despite this impressive volume of research attesting to the predictive
power of SDO, there remains some debate concerning how SDO should best be
conceptualized. While some have argued that SDO is, in part, a personality trait (Pratto et al.,
1994), others have maintained that it is better seen purely as a ideological variable, itself
predicted by underlying values (Duriez, Van Hiel, & Kossowska, 2005) and personality traits
(e.g. Duckitt, Wagner, du Plessis, & Birum, 2002; Duriez & Soenens, 2006). Still others have
argued that SDO is little more than a ‘mere effect’ of prior intergroup attitudes (Schmitt,
Branscombe, & Kappen, 2003; Turner & Reynolds, 2003), and have questioned its role as a
causal variable altogether. In this paper we attempt to engage this debate by investigating
cross-lagged relationships between empathy, a widely accepted component of personality,
and SDO.
Antecedents of social dominance orientation
Sidanius and Pratto (1999; Pratto et al., 1994) have suggested that there are three
major influences on a person’s level of social dominance orientation. First, SDO is
influenced by aspects of an individual’s social environment, such as parental and peer
socialization and membership in particular status relevant social groups. In line with this,
3
research has revealed that both parenting styles and the goals these styles promote affect
adolescent SDO (Duriez, Soenens, & Vansteenkiste, 2007). Similarly, peer groups have been
found to exert a socialization effect on individuals’ levels of SDO (Poteat, Espelage, &
Green, 2007). Finally, members of high status ethnic groups have consistently been found to
have higher levels of SDO than members of low status groups, everything else being equal
(e.g., Levin, 2004). The second factor influencing SDO is its sensitivity to changes in the
immediate social context, such as the salience of one intergroup situation as compared to
another (see Pratto, et al., 2006; Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov, & Duarte, 2003). Third, a
significant portion of one’s level of SDO is tied to more stable and fundamental dispositions
and traits of individuals. One such characteristic is sex. While the reason for the sex
difference in SDO is still under intense debate (see e.g., Dambrun, Duarte & Guimond, 2004;
Foels & Pappas, 2004; McDonald, Sidanius & Navarrete, in press; Navarrete, McDonald,
Molina, & Sidanius, 2010; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999, pp. 267-282; Wilson & Liu, 2003), the
fact that males have been consistently shown to have higher levels of SDO than females is
perhaps the most well-established finding in the social dominance literature (e.g., Sidanius &
Pratto, 1999; Sidanius, Pratto & Brief, 1995; Sidanius, Pratto & Bobo, 1996; Sidanius,
Sinclair & Pratto, 2006). In the most comprehensive study of this relationship to date, Lee,
Pratto, and Johnson (2009) performed a meta-analysis of the relationship between sex and
SDO using 52 reports of 101 independent samples, and employing 28,353 participants across
15 nations and 12 languages. The results showed an average effect size for the sex difference
on SDO of d = .42. Notably, this effect size was substantially larger than the average effect
size for differences between high- and low-powered social groups more broadly defined (d =
.24).
SDO and Personality
Besides the socialization, situational and gender effects on SDO, Sidanius and Pratto
(1999) theorized that a substantial influence on SDO was to be found in one’s temperament,
4
or personality. Most of the subsequent research on the relationship between personality and
SDO has focused on broad aspects of personality (Sibley & Duckitt, 2010), derived from
major personality frameworks, including the “Big Five” (John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008), the
HEXACO Personality Inventory (Lee, Ashton, Ogunfowora, Bourdage, & Shin, 2010), and
the “dark triad” traits of machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy (Hodson, Hogg, &
MacInnis, 2009). In particular, a meta-analysis conducted by Sibley and Duckitt (2008)
established a moderate relationship between SDO and agreeableness (r = -.29 across 31
studies), and a weak relationship between SDO and openness to experience (r = -.16 across
30 studies; see also see also Duriez, & Soenens, 2006; Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje, &
Zakrisson, 2004; Van Hiel, Cornelis, & Roets, 2007; Roth & von Collani, 2007). The
honesty/humility component of the HEXACO model, which indexes one’s orientation toward
fairness and sincerity in social relations, was also found to be negatively related to SDO
(Sibley, Harding, Peery, Asbrock, & Duckitt, 2010; Lee, Ashton, Ogunfowora, Bourdage, &
Shin, 2010).
However, these personality constructs are themselves composed of more specific
facets, which may relate differentially to SDO. Examining the content of items used to
measure agreeableness, we would expect statements such as “I am interested in people” to be
weakly related to SDO, and items such as “I feel little concern for others”, to be more
relevant to individuals’ willingness to endorse the domination of some groups over others.
Consistent with this reasoning, research examining specific facets of the Big Five traits found
that SDO is strongly and uniquely related to facets of agreeableness relating to sympathy and
compassion, as compared to other facets such as politeness, morality, cooperation, and trust
(Heaven & Bucci, 2001; Sibley & Duckitt, in press).
Does SDO Influence Core Personality Traits?
Although previous work has established substantial links between SDO and
personality, the causal relationship between them has been the subject of debate. In contrast
5
to the view that SDO itself contains personality components (Pratto, et al., 1994; Sidanius &
Pratto, 1999), and as such, may predict other personality traits, Duckitt (2001) proposed a
“dual process model”, which argues that SDO functions more like a “motivational goal”. In
this model, SDO is considered a sociopolitical variable which is predicted by “core
personality traits” such as “tough mindedness”, itself closely related to the Big Five
agreeableness dimension (Duckitt, & Sibley, 2010; Sibley & Duckitt, 2008). Although this
view has considered SDO as an ideological rather than a personality variable (see e.g.,
Duckitt, Wagner, du Plessis, & Birum. 2002), it is important to note that, unlike scholars
using a social identity/self-categorization framework (e.g., Kriendler, 2005; Schmittet al.,
2003; Turner & Reynolds, 2003), the dual process model does assign SDO a causal role,
itself predicting downstream consequences such as intergroup prejudice (see also Kteily et
al., 2011). Two cross-sectional studies seem to support the view that core personality traits
influence SDO rather than the reverse. Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje, and Zakrisson (2004)
found that use of a structural equation model in which Big-Five personality traits predicted
SDO and RWA, which subsequently predicted generalized prejudice, provided a superior fit
to the data than one in which the causal structure between the Big Five and SDO/RWA was
reversed. Duriez and Soenens (2006) arrived at similar conclusions in a cross-sectional
structural equation analysis of Flemish-Belgian adolescents.
SDO and Empathy
As with SDO, consistent sex differences in empathy have been observed, with males
typically displaying lower levels of trait empathy than females (Baron-Cohen, 2002; Lennon
& Eisenberg, 1987; Miklikowska, Duriez, & Soenens, in press; Rueckert & Naybar, 2008;
Wakabayashi, Baron-Cohen, Uchiyama, Yoshida, Kuroda & Weelwright, 2007; van Loon;
unpublished; but see Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983; Klein & Hodges, 2001).
Moreover, research on the “dark triad” of personality traits suggest that the “callous
affect” dimension of psychopathy, the inverse of concern for others, is the most closely
6
related to SDO. This would then lead us to suspect that the strongest and most interesting
SDO-personality link should involve trait levels of empathy and concern for others.
Consistent with Sidanius and Pratto’s (1999) early theorizing, there has been a fairly
consistent and growing body of research evidence showing a negative correlation between
SDO and trait empathy, such that the lower one’s level of empathy, the higher one’s level of
SDO (e.g., Bäckström & Björklund, 2007; Chiao, Mathur, Harada & Lipke, 2009;
McFarland, 2010; Pratto et al., 1994). Furthermore, recent work by Chiao, Mathur, Harada,
& Lipke (2009) revealed that preference for social dominance (as measured by use of the
SDO scale), was associated with neural functioning within brain regions which are associated
“with the ability to both share and feel concern for other people’s emotional welfare” (Chiao
et al., 2009, p.175).
Despite this consistent and growing body of evidence attesting to the inverse
relationship between trait empathy and SDO, there seems to be a lack of consensus as to
causal structure underlying this relationship. Consistent with Sidanius and Pratto’s original
theorizing, Bäckström & Björklund, (2007) performed structural equation modeling and
concluded that trait empathy appears to come prior to, and is thus a cause of, one’s level of
SDO. In contrast to these conclusions, McFarland (2010) used the same approach on a
different dataset to show that positing SDO as a cause of trait empathy provided a superior fit
to the data than the reverse causal structure.
One could imagine scenarios in which both of these causal directions might hold.
Thus, low dispositional empathy might cause individuals to be more supportive of
hierarchical relationships between groups, for instance, by reducing concern with the
suffering and humiliation generated in the subordination of low status groups (see Dovidio, et
al., 2004). On the other hand, SDO could also influence empathy through mechanisms such
as “empathy avoidance” (e.g., McFarland, 2010; see Shaw, Batson, & Todd, 1994). That is,
individuals supporting hierarchical relationships between groups in society could seek to
7
avoid information that would provoke empathic responses, or seek out information justifying
the suffering imposed by group-based disadvantage. Over time, one might expect such
processes to result in decreased dispositional empathy.
Although there are plausible mechanisms which can be generated for each of the
posited directional relationships between SDO and dispositional empathy, the structural
equation models tested by McFarland (2010) and Bäckström & Björklund (2007), due to their
cross-sectional nature, were not strongly suited to disentangling cause from effect. In order to
be able to draw more convincing causal conclusions when using non-experimental, survey
data, it is necessary to employ cross-lagged, panel approaches. To our knowledge, only one
previous study has addressed the relationship between SDO and empathy-related personality
traits using such cross-lagged longitudinal data. Sibley and Duckitt (2010) found that initial
levels of agreeableness (of which empathy is one facet) predicted SDO one year later, even
after controlling for participants’ original SDO scores. Thus, these authors provided
reasonably strong evidence that a personality disposition could influence SDO, a fact they
argue is consistent with the dual process model. Importantly, however, by failing to measure
agreeableness levels at the second time-point, the authors could not conduct a fully crosslagged design. That is, although they tested the possible effect of a personality variable
conceptually linked to empathy, on changes in SDO over time, they were not able to consider
the possibility that SDO might itself exert long-term effects on personality. As the authors
themselves note:
“If for example, SDO and RWA are shown to predict personality over time, and these
effects are of a comparable magnitude to the causal effects of personality on SDO and
RWA, then this would require a substantial revision of the Dual Process Model.” (p.
553).
Our study was intended to address this gap in the literature. Using a fully cross-lagged
design, we aimed to investigate possible reciprocality in the causal relationship between SDO
8
and a core personality variable. As past research has suggested that dispositional empathy is
the key component of personality relating to SDO (Pratto, 1996), we decided to center our
attention on trait or dispositional empathy, and in particular, its affective component, known
as “empathic concern”. In addition, we also included the factor of sex in our analyses. This
was done not only to further confirm the relationship between sex, on the one hand, and SDO
and empathy on the other hand, but more importantly, to enable the possibility of examining
whether or not SDO mediates the well-established relationship between sex and empathy, and
whether empathy might possibly mediate the relationship between sex and SDO.
Hypotheses
Given the literature on the origins of empathy and SDO, we expected sex to predict
participants’ reported levels of empathy and SDO (H1). Second, based upon the limited
cross-sectional work and social dominance theorizing (e.g., Sidanius & Pratto, 1999, pp. 76),
we expected empathic concern to predict SDO over time (H2). Because of SDO’s assumed
role as a contributor to the subjugation of subordinate groups, with the attendant lack of
concern for the welfare of these subordinates, we have reason to believe that SDO will also
predict empathic concern over time (H3). Finally, based on expectations that sex would
predict both empathy and SDO, and that these latter two variables would reciprocally predict
one another over time, we tested two mediational pathways: that SDO would partially
mediate the relationship between sex and empathy (H4a); and that empathy would partially
mediate the relationship between sex and SDO (H4b).
To explore these hypotheses we deployed cross-lag panel analyses on two large and
independent samples from Belgium (Study 1) and New Zealand (Study 2).
Study 1
Method
Participants
A total of 530 first-year psychology students at a large university in the Dutch
9
speaking section of Belgium were invited to participate in two measurement waves (i.e.,
Time 1 and 2), 6 months apart. One week prior to Time 1, participants signed a standard
consent form in which participants were informed that they could refuse or discontinue
participation at any time. Students were assigned a unique code number to protect their
confidentiality. The first data wave (Time 1) was collected during a course at the beginning
of the first semester and included 458 students (Mean age = 18.60, SD = 2.47; 83% female).
Six months later, 389 of them participated at Time 2, along with a number of students that did
not participate at Time 1. Because of the relatively large drop-out (N = 33) and drop-in (N =
67), analyses were restricted to people taking part in both measurement occasions (N = 389).
Measures
All items were administered in Dutch, and accompanied by 5-point Likert scales
anchored by Completely disagree and Completely agree. Social dominance orientation (SDO)
was measured using the 14 item SDO5 Scale (see Sidanius & Pratto, 1999, p. 67). At Time 1
and Time 2, respectively, Cronbach's alpha was .88 (M = 2.31, SD = 0.59) and .89 (M = 2.35,
SD = 0.63). Empathic concern was measured using the 7 items of the empathic concern
subscale (EC) of Davis’ (1979) empathy inventory (see also Davis, 1989, 1983). Cronbach’s
alpha was .74, both at Time 1 (M = 3.82, SD = 0.57) and Time 2 (M = 3.67, SD = 0.56).
Results
Not surprisingly, SDO and empathic concern were significantly related at both time
point (rs = -.35 and -.44, p < .001, respectively). In addition, between-time correlations
showed substantial rank-order stability in both SDO and empathic concern (rs = .75 and .64,
p < .001, respectively). As expected, SDO at Time 1 was also significantly related to
empathic concern at Time 2, and empathic concern at Time 1 was also significantly related to
SDO at Time 2 (rs = -.34 and -.36, p < .001, respectively). Consistent with the extant
literature regarding the relationship between sex and both empathy and SDO, and consistent
with hypothesis 1, there were sex differences in SDO at Time 1 and Time 2 (F (1, 387) =
10
12.41, η = .18, p < .001, and 20.68, η = .23, p < .001, respectively), with men scoring higher
(M = 2.58 and 2.71; SD = 0.68 and 0.73) than women (M = 2.27 and 2.29; SD = 0.57 and =
0.60). There was also a sex difference in empathic concern at Times 1 and 2 (F (1, 387) =
27.38, η = .26, and 29.87, η = .27. p < .001), with men scoring lower (M = 3.45 and 3.28; SD
= 0.59 and 0.59) than women (M = 3.88 and 3.73; SD = 0.54 and = 0.54).
In order to explore the cross-lagged relationships between SDO and empathic concern,
we used LISREL 8.8 to analyze a manifest variables structural equation model (SEM),
employing maximum likelihood parameter estimates throughout (See Figure 1). To start,
inspection of this model shows even stronger support for hypothesis 1. Not only were there
statistically significant sex differences in SDO and empathic concern across both waves (see
above), but sex assessed at wave 1 was also found to affect both SDO and empathic concern
at wave 2, even after the effects of SDO and empathic concern at Wave 1 were accounted for
(i.e., γ = -.08, p = .01 and γ =.10, p = .006) respectively; see Figure 1).
However, the central question addressed by these analyses concerned the cross-lagged
effects between SDO and empathic concern. Consistent with hypothesis 2, the results of the
SEM analyses showed that empathic concern at wave 1 exerted an effect on SDO at Wave 2,
even after controlling for earlier levels of SDO and sex (i.e., β = -.09, p = .02). More
interestingly, there was also support found for hypothesis 3. Inspection of Figure 1 shows that
SDO appeared to have at least as strong an effect on empathic concern as empathic concern
had on SDO (i.e., β = -.12, p = .002). In other words, even after controlling for the effects of
both sex and empathic concern at Wave 1, SDO at Wave 1 still appeared to exert an effect
upon empathic concern six months later; the higher one’s level of SDO, the lower one’s
subsequent level of empathic concern for others.
We then examined whether the reciprocal paths between SDO and empathic concern
were of equal strength by applying equality constraints to these two parameter estimates. The
results showed that these equality constraints did not result in significant model deterioration
11
(χ2 (1) = 0.09, p = .76). In other words, these two paths appeared to be essentially of equal
strength (See Figure 1).
Finally, we also found evidence consistent with hypotheses 4a and 4b. Given the
relatively strong and consistent relationships between sex on the one hand, and SDO and
empathic concern on the other hand, we explored the possibility that SDO at Wave 1 might,
at least partially, mediate the relationship between sex at Wave 1 and empathic concern at
Wave 2 (H4a). In turn we also explored the possibility that empathic concern at Wave 1
might at least partially mediate the relationship between sex at Wave 1 and SDO at wave 2
(H4b). To explore these mediational hypotheses, we employed LISREL’s parameter
extension capabilities (see Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2001, pp. 347-348). The use of these
parameter extension procedures provided support for both of the mediations. There was
indeed a very small, yet statistically reliable indirect effect of sex on empathic concern via
SDO (indirect effect = .04, p = .02). In addition there was an equally small, yet statistically
reliable indirect effect of sex on SDO via empathic concern for others SDO (indirect effect =
- .04, p = .01)1.
Discussion
Altogether, the results of Study 1 were consistent with expectations. Most
importantly, there seemed to be reciprocal causation between SDO and empathic concern for
others, a core personality trait. Furthermore, rather than the effect of SDO on empathic
concern being of smaller magnitude than the reverse, there was, if anything, a small, yet nonsignificant tendency for it to be larger. Furthermore, there was evidence of the mediational
roles for both SDO and empathy. Thus, we now have some evidence that part of the
connection between sex and empathy appears to be mediated by SDO, and part of the
connection between sex and SDO appears to be mediated by empathy. While both of these
mediational paths were very small, they were both statistically reliable.
However, despite the clarity of these results, there are two limitations which must be
12
considered. First, as with many studies in psychology, all respondents consisted of university
students. The results would obviously be more convincing if they could be replicated within a
general population. Second, while the time interval between waves 1 and 2 was considerable
(i.e., six months), the conclusions reached in Study 1 could be further strengthened if the time
interval between waves was extended considerably. We conducted Study 2 to correct for
these two limitations.
Study 2
Method
Participants
The initial pool of respondents consisted of 6,507 members of the New Zealand
population, who responded to a national postal sample (The New Zealand Attitudes and
Values Study, NZAVS-09). The NZAVS-09 was posted to 40,500 participants from the 2009
New Zealand electoral roll. Roughly 1.36% of all people registered to vote in New Zealand
were contacted and invited to participate. The overall response rate for the Time 1 assessment
was 16.6%. Data were available for 2,927 participants who completed the follow-up postal
questionnaire administered one year later. The sample analyzed contained 1,088 males and
1,839 females, with an average age of 50.54 years (SD = 15.31). In terms of ethnicity, 76.8%
identified as New Zealand European, 14.2% identified as Maori, 2.9% identified as Pacific
Nations, 3.3% identified as Asian, and 2.8% identified with another ethnic group or did not
report their ethnicity.
Measures
SDO was measured using six balanced items from the SDO6 Scale (see Sidanius &
Pratto, 1999, pp. 67; α = .71 at both waves). Empathy was assessed using three items from
the compassion facet of Agreeableness, developed by DeYoung, Quilty and Peterson (2007)
from the analysis of items from the International Personality Item Pool (α = .61 at wave 1 and
.56 at wave 2). The items defining empathy were similar in content to those indexing
13
empathic concern in Study 1, and consisted of: “Sympathize with others' feelings”, “Am not
interested in other people's problems”, and “Feel others' emotions.”
Results
As with Study 1, SDO and empathy were significantly related at both time point (r = -.28 and
-.26, p < .001, respectively). In addition, between-time correlations showed substantial
stability in both SDO and empathy (r = .65 and .58, p < .001, respectively). As in Study 1,
SDO at Time 1 was also significantly related to empathy at Time 2 and empathy at Time 1
was also significantly related to SDO at Time 2 (r = -.27 and -.22, p < .001, respectively; see
Table 2).
Also consistent with both the results from Study 1, the extant literature and hypothesis
1, sex was found to be related to SDO at both Times 1 and 2 (F(1,2925) = 96.97, η = .18, p <
.001, and F(1,2925) = 91.21, η = .17, p < .001, respectively), with men scoring higher (M =
2.81 and 2.76; SD = 0.93 and 0.97) than women (M = 2.45 and 2.42; SD = 0.93 and = 0.89).
There were also sex differences in empathy at Times 1 and 2 (F (1, 2925) = 234.25, η = .26,
and F(1,2925) = 241.68, η = .28, p < .001, respectively), with men scoring lower (M = 4.88
and 4.90; SD = 1.03 and 0.96) than women (M = 5.46 and 5.46; SD = 0.98 and = 0.93).
In order to explore possible causal relationships among the variables in Study 2, we
used the same type of manifest variables SEM as employed in Study 1. The results using this
probability sample of New Zealand adults (Study 2) were remarkably similar to those found
among Belgian university students in Study 1. As with Study 1, sex appeared to have
significant effects on both SDO and empathy one year later, even after the effects of earlier
levels of SDO and empathy were controlled for (γ = -.05, p = 10-3 and γ = .12, , p = 10-12
respectively; see Figure 2).
However, once again, the central question was whether or not the one year cross-lagged
analyses could provide any evidence of reciprocal causation between SDO and empathy, a
core personality trait. Consistent with the results of Study 1 and hypothesis 2, the results of
14
the SEM analyses showed that empathy at wave 1 appeared to exert a slight effect on SDO
one year later, even after the effects of SDO and sex at wave 1 were controlled (i.e., β = -.03,
p = .02). Also consistent with the results of Study 1, and hypothesis 3, there was evidence of
a cross-lag effect of SDO on empathy one year later (β = -.10, p = 10-9).
Furthermore, as with the results from Study 1, inspection of Figure 2 appears to
indicate that the cross-lag effect of SDO on empathy was larger than the cross-lag effect of
empathy on SDO. As before, to test this difference we applied equality constraints to these
two parameters, and then looked to see if this constraint significantly decreased model fit.
The results of this model constraint did indeed indicate a statistically significant deterioration
of model fit (χ2 (1) = 12.25, p = .001), indicating that the effect of SDO on empathy was
reliably larger than the effect of empathy on SDO (see Figure 2).
Finally, the inclusion of the sex variable at wave 1 once again enabled us to test
whether or not the effect of sex on empathy was partially mediated by SDO (H4a), and
whether the effect of sex on SDO was partially mediated by empathy (H4b). As in Study 1,
we explored these mediational hypotheses by use of LISREL’s parameter extension
capabilities. Also as with Study 1, the results showed that SDO partially mediated the effect
of sex on empathy (indirect effect = .04, p = 10-6), and empathy partially mediated the effect
of sex on SDO (indirect effect = - .02, p = .02). However, as in Study 1, while both of these
mediated effects were statistically reliable, they were also very small.
General Discussion
Although the few cross-sectional studies that have addressed the relationship between
empathy (and related personality constructs) and SDO (Bäckström & Björklund, 2007;
McFarland, 2010) have suggested opposing causal structures, our results indicate that both
views have some merit: empathy and SDO both appear to influence one another over time.
These findings are important for a number of reasons.
15
To begin, the studies reported here represent the first time the reciprocal relationships
between SDO and empathy, a core personality construct, have been investigated using a fully
cross-lagged design on large samples. While our cross-lagged design does not allow us to
make definitive causal claims, it does allow for substantially greater confidence in the validity
of causal conclusions than has been possible in the past.
Second, evidence for reciprocity in the relationship between SDO and empathy
speaks directly to challenges posed in the intergroup relations literature. While we found
clear and consistent evidence for reciprocal causation between SDO and trait empathy, we
also obtained evidence that SDO has a stronger influence on empathy than empathy has on
SDO. This finding held across two large samples with differing compositions, from two
countries very far apart geographically. While Sibley and Duckitt (2010) did find longitudinal
support for the personality factor of agreeableness (a variable closely related to empathy, as
we have defined it here) predicting subsequent levels of SDO, they did not test the reverse
possibility. Indeed, the authors explicitly stated that evidence for this reverse causal pathway,
especially if it were equal in strength to the pathway from personality to SDO, would require
a substantial revision of their dual process model. In fact, our findings consistently reflect
exactly this outcome. We demonstrated, using two large samples, how SDO predicts an
established personality variable just as powerfully (and perhaps even more powerfully), as
that same personality variable predicted SDO.
Third, the fact that SDO appears to influence empathic concern for others is of
particular theoretical importance. Specifically, given that empathy is thought of as a
personality trait, the fact that it shows signs of being affected by SDO provides the first piece
of empirical evidence that SDO not only has personality components, but might be a causal
predictor of a personality trait. The traditional approach within political and social
psychology has always been to regard personality traits as relatively stable ‘upstream’ (i.e.,
relatively exogenous) predictors of endogenous socio-political attitudes, perceptions, and
16
behaviors (e.g., Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levin & Sanford, 1950; Jaensch, 1933;
Lasswell, 1930; Fleeson, 2004; Wilson, 1973). As such, our findings have important
implications for the debate concerning SDO’s status as a purely ideological variable. Sibley
and Duckitt (2010), proponents of the ‘dual process model’ of prejudice, argue that SDO is
best thought of as an “ideological” variable, downstream to more ‘basic’ personality
predictors such as “tough-mindedness” and the general perceptions of the world as a
competitive, dog-eat-dog environment (see also Duckitt, 2001). Thus, their model explicitly
argues that SDO is not itself a personality variable, but is best viewed as a sociopolitical or
ideological construct dimension in itself (see Duckitt & Sibley, 2010, p. 1866). Yet the notion
of SDO as purely an ideological variable is hard to reconcile with the evidence presented here
for its causal effect on an important personality facet, unless one were to posit that
ideological variables could ‘back-regulate’ upstream personality characteristics. In contrast,
social dominance theorists would argue that SDO is not simply a “downstream” social
ideology resulting from more fundamental personality dynamics. Rather, social dominance
theorists argue that SDO is itself a behavioral predisposition with components that are every
bit as stable and fundamental as is the personality dimension of “agreeableness”, and one
which also influences human choice across a wide range of social situations. Defending this
claim does not entail a claim for absolute stability in SDO: while a person’s absolute level of
SDO may shift as a function of social context, that person’s relative level of SDO, compared
to others in the same social context, may remain relatively stable (see e.g., Sidanius, Sinclair
& Pratto, 2006, pp. 79 - 81).
The fourth point worth noting is that while empathy, or rather the lack thereof, has
long been assumed to be one of several sources of SDO (i.e., Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius &
Pratto, 1999), the idea that SDO might be a source of dispositional empathy has not often
been considered. One of the few exceptions to this is the recent work of McFarland (2010),
who found stronger empirical support for the notion that empathy was an effect of SDO,
17
rather than a cause of the latter. We feel that this is both the more novel and the more
theoretically consequential of these two findings. The reasons for this effect of SDO on
empathy are somewhat less intuitive than for the reverse, and are worthy of further research.
As one possibility, it could be reasoned that since SDO is known to be related to support for
violent and aggressive behaviors and social policies directed against subordinate groups
(Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Thomsen, Green & Sidanius, 2008), it may be the case that
individuals high in SDO strategically seek to avoid encounters with individuals at the
receiving end of these policies, thus distancing themselves from the potential empathy these
encounters might provoke. Over time, avoiding such potentially ‘softening’ encounters could
‘harden’ one’s personality, increase ‘tough-mindedness’ (e.g., Duckitt, 2001), and decrease
concern for others. One is reminded of the way in which averting one’s gaze from a beggar
modulates the empathy that could otherwise have been aroused and — perhaps conveniently
— the altruism that those feelings of empathy may have aroused (see Batson & Oleson,
1991). Future work could investigate the cross-lagged relationships between SDO, empathy,
and contact with members of disadvantaged social groups for evidence that decreased contact
mediates the causal relationship from SDO to decreased concern others.
Fifth, we argue that the evidence reviewed here, together with recent evidence
attesting to SDO’s prior effects of intergroup prejudice (e.g., McFarland, 2010), also speaks
powerfully against those who have argued that SDO is a “mere effect” of prior intergroup
attitudes (i.e., those who view SDO as a fully endogenous variable; e.g., Schmitt et al., 2003;
Kreindler, 2005). Evidence contradicting this epiphenomenal view of SDO can be found in
other recent work using cross-lag methodology, revealing that SDO appears to have a causal
connection to prejudice and intergroup hostility rather than merely being a reflection of prior
prejudice or policy commitments (see Duriez, Vansteenkiste, et al., 2007; Kteily et al., 2011;
Thomsen, et al., 2010). This study takes previous work one step further by showing that
SDO can affect personality variables, which are widely viewed to be “basic” dispositions
18
arising well before more specific intergroup attitudes can be thought to have crystallized.
Finally, it is worth noting the mediational pathways from sex to empathy and SDO
within both samples. Given that we had hypothesized that sex would predict both empathy
and SDO, and that, in turn, these two variables would exert reciprocal causal effects upon one
another, we assessed whether SDO might, indeed, mediate the sex difference in empathy,
and, similarly, whether empathy might mediate the sex difference in SDO. Our results offer
consistent support for both of these mediational pathways. This suggests that part of the
reason why men have higher levels of SDO than women — a question that has aroused much
debate in the literature as to its etiology (e.g., Dambrun, Duarte, & Guimond, 2004; Foels &
Pappas, 2004; McDonald, et al., in press; Navarette et al., 2010; Wilson & Liu, 2003) — is,
in part, due to their lower levels of empathic concern for others. Similarly, our findings also
suggest that the consistently observed sex differences in empathy might be partly due to sex
differences in SDO. Thus, part of the reason that men are lower in empathic concern than
women seems to be a result of the fact that men are also more likely than women to support
non-egalitarian group-based dominance hierarchies.
Limitations and future directions
It is important to note some of the limitations of our studies. First, although our
findings cast doubt on the assumption that SDO is purely ideological, and are suggestive of
the notion that SDO might be on a similar causative level to trait empathy, our findings
cannot provide definitive evidence of a trait basis to SDO. Longitudinal evidence that young
children show preferences on non-verbal measures that correlate strongly with adult measures
of SDO would provide stronger and more direct support for the notion that individuals’
preferences for group-based dominance hierarchies are, at least in part, ‘basic’, appearing far
before the development of socio-political ideologies, or prejudice against specific outgroups
within specific contexts. Some recent work suggestive of such early influences can be found
in research by Thomsen and her colleagues (Thomsen, Frankenhuis, Ingold-Smith, & Carey,
19
2011). This group of researchers has found that infants as young as 10- to 13-months have
mental representations of social dominance and cues of dominance hierarchies guiding their
expectations of the social behaviors of others. There has also been some recent progress in
developing non-verbal measures of SDO, raising the possibility of assessing early
preferences for group-based hierarchy among pre-verbal children (Thomsen et al., 2009).
Another line of research that might support a view of SDO as a basic personality trait
is behavioral genetics. Just as the use of monozygotic and dizygotic twins have shown that a
substantial portion of the variance of empathic concern appears to the heritable (h2 = 28%);
see Davis, Luce & Kraus, 1994), the use of twin methodology could be employed to assess
the proportion of SDO’s variance that is due to genetic (as compared to shared
environmental) factors. This line of work promises to be fruitful given the fact that
conceptually and empirically related constructs such as right-wing authoritarianism and
political conservatism have also been found to have large degrees of heritability (e.g., Alford,
Funk, and Hibbing, 2005; McCourt, Bouchard, Lykken, Tellegen, & Keyes, 1999).
While the consistency in results across two large samples from different countries and
substantially different types of populations (undergraduate vs. a nationally representative
sample) is quite impressive, there is still reason to extend the generalizibility of these findings
across an even wider range of countries and cultures (e.g., Western Europe vs. sub-Saharan
Africa) before one can regard these findings as fully established. Thus far, we are encouraged
by the range of cultures and populations in which evidence of SDO’s causal role in predicting
other important phenomena have been found.
Conclusion
Despite the widespread acceptance of the notion that SDO is purely a downstream,
ideological variable predicted by more ‘basic’ personality characteristics, the present work
suggests that this conclusion may be premature. It may well be that SDO possesses a number
20
of characteristics that align it with other personality traits. However, more work is needed in
order to definitively settle the consequential debate concerning the nature of one of the most
potent variables in the study of intergroup relations.
21
References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The
authoritarian personality. New York: Norton.Ashbrook, F., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt,
J. (2010). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation and the
dimensions of generalized prejudice: A longitudinal test. European Journal of
Personality, 24, 324-340.
Alford, J.R., Funk, C., & Hibbing, J.R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically
transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99, 153-157.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “Authoritarian Personality.” Mark P. Zanna (Ed.), In
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 30. New York: Academic Press,
pp. 48-92.
Baron-Cohen, S. 2002. The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 6, 248–254.
Batson, C. D., & Oleson, K. C. (1991). Current status of the empathy-altruism hypothesis.
In M. S. Clark (Ed.), prosocial behavior: Review of Personality and Social
Psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 62-85). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar,
L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a
member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105-118.
Bäckström, M. & Björklund, F. (2007). Structural Modeling of Generalized Prejudice: The
Role of Social Dominance, Authoritarianism, and Empathy. Journal of Individual
Differences, 28, 10-17.
22
Chiao, J. Y., Mathur, V. A., Harada, T., & Lipke, T. (2009). Values, Empathy, and Fairness
across Social Barriers: Annual New York Academy of Sciences, 1167, 174–181. doi:
10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04508.x
Dambrun, M., Duart, S., & Guimond, S. (2004). Why are men more likely to support groupbased dominance then women? The mediating role of sex identification. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 43, 287-297.
Davis, M. H. (1979). Individual differences in empathy: A multidimensional approach.
Doctoral Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.
Davis, M. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS
Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a
multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–
126.
Davis, M. H., Luce, C., & Kraus, S. J. (1994). The heritability of characteristics associated
with dispositional empathy. Journal of Personality, 62, 369–391.
DeYoung, C.G., Quilty, L.C., & Peterson, J.B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10
aspects of the Big-Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880-896.
Dovidio, J. F., ten Vergert, M., Stewart, T. L., Gaertner, S. L., Johnson, J. D., Esses, V. M.,
Riek, B. M., & Pearson, A. R. (2004). Perspective and prejudice: Antecedents and
mediating mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1537-1549.
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 41–113.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C.G. (2010). Personality, Ideology, Prejudice, and Politics: A DualProcess Motivational Model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861-1893.
23
Duckitt, J., C. Wagner, I. du Plessis, and I. Birum. 2002. The psychological bases of ideology
and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83:75-93.
Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (2006). Personality, Identity Styles, and Authoritarianism: An
integrative study among late adolescents. European Journal of Personality, 20, 397417.
Duriez, B., Soenens, B. & Vansteenkiste, M. (2007). In search of the antecedents of
adolescent authoritarianism: The relative contribution of parental goal promotion and
parenting style dimensions. European Journal of Personality, 21, 507-527.
Duriez, B., Van Hiel, A., & Kossowska, M. (2005). Authoritarianism and social dominance
in Western and Eastern Europe: The importance of the socio-political context and of
political interest and involvement. Political Psychology, 26, 299-320.
Duriez, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & De Witte, H. (2007). The social costs of
extrinsic relative to intrinsic goal pursuits: Their relation with social dominance and
racial and ethnic prejudice. Journal of Personality, 75, 757-782.
Eisenberg, E., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities.
Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100–131.
Finlay, K. A., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). Improving intergroup relations: The effects of
empathy on racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1720-1737.
Foels, R.., & Pappas, C.J. (2004). Learning and unlearning the myths we are taught: Sex and
social dominance orientation. Sex Roles, 50, 743-757.
Geary, D.C. 1998. Male, Female: The evolution of human sex differences. American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 3rd printing 2005.
Guimond, S., Dambrun, M., Michinov, N., & Duarte, S. (2003). Does social dominance
generate prejudice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup
cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 697−721.
24
Heaven, P.C.L., & Bucci, S. (2001). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance
orientation and personality: An analysis using the IPIP measure. European Journal of
Personality, 15, 49-56.
Hodson, G., Hogg, S. M., & MacInnis, C.C. (2009). The role of “dark personalities”
(narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), big five personality factors, and ideology
in explaining prejudice. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 686-690.
Jaensch, E. R. (1938). Der Gegentypus. Leipzig: J. A. Barth.
John, O.P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative bif five
trait taxonomy: History, measurement and conceptual issues. In Handbook of
personality psychology: Tehory and research. (3rd ed.), John, Oliver P (Ed.), Richard
W. (Ed.), Pervin, Lawrence A. (Ed.); New York, NY:Guilford Press, pp.114-158.
Jöreskog, K., Sörbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide. Lincolnwood, Il:
Scientific Software International.
Lasswell, H. D. (1930). Psychopathology and politics. London: University of Chicago Press.
Karniol, R., Gabay, R., Ochion, Y., & Harari, Y. (1998). Is sex or sex-role orientation a better
predictor of empathy in adolescence? Sex Roles, 39, 45–59.
Klein, K. J. K., & Hodges, S. D. (2001). Sex differences, motivation, and empathic accuracy:
when it pays to understand. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 720–730.
Knafo, A., Zahn–Waxler, C., Van Hulle, C., Robinson, J. L., & Rhee, S. H. (2008). The
developmental origins of a disposition toward empathy: Genetic and environmental
contributions. Emotion, 8, 737–752
Koestner, R., Franz, C., & Weinberger, J. (1990). The family origins of empathetic concern:
A 26-year longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 709–
717.
25
Kreindler, S. A. (2005). A dual group processes model of individual differences in prejudice.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 90-107.
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, 208-214.
Lasswell, H. D. (1930, reprinted 1986). Psychopathology and Politics. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Lee, I., Pratto, F., & Johnson, B.T. (2009, June). Support of social hierarchy: Individualistic
cultures, liberal political environments, and decreased power differentials increase
intergroup dissension. Paper presented at the Social Dominance Theory: Taking stock
and Looking Forward conference at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Lennon, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1987). Sex and age differences in empathy and sympathy. In N.
Eisenberg &]. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 195-217). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Levin, S. (2004). Perceived group status differences and the effects of sex, ethnicity, and
religion on social dominance orientation. Political Psychology, 25, 31 – 48.
Levin, S. (1996). A social psychological approach to understanding intergroup attitudes in the
United States and Israel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology,
UCLA.
Matthews, K. A., Batson, C. D., Horn, J., & Rosenman, R. H. (1981). Principles in his nature
which interest him in the fortune of Others: The heritability of empathic concern for
others. Journal of Personality, 49, 237-247.
26
McCourt, K., Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Lykken, D. T., Tellegen, A., & Keyes, K. (1999).
Authoritarianism revisited: Genetic and environmental influences examined in twins
reared apart and together. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 985-1014.
McDonald, M. M., & Sidanius, J., & Navarrete, C.D. (in press). Developing a Theory of
Sexed Prejudice: An Evolutionary and Social Dominance Perspective. In Kramer, R.,
Leonardelli, G., & Livingston, R. (Eds.) Social cognition, social identity, and
intergroup relations: A festschrift in honor of Marilynn Brewer. New York:
Routledge (Taylor and Francis).
Meeus, J., Duriez, B., Vanbeselaere, N., Phalet, K., & Kuppens, P. (2009). Examining
dispositional and situational effects on outgroup attitudes. European Journal of
Personality, 23, 307-328.
Miklikowska, M., Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (in press). Familial roots of empathy-related
characteristics. The role of perceived maternal and paternal need support.
Developmental Psychology.
McFarland, S. G. (2010). Authoritarianism, social dominance, and other roots of generalized
prejudice. Political Psychology, 31(3), 453-477.
McFarland, S. G., & Adelson, S. (1996). An omnibus study of personality, values and
prejudices. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Society for
Political Psychology, Vancouver, British Columbia, July 1996.
Navarrete, C.D., McDonald, M.M., Molina, L.E., & Sidanius, J. (2010). Prejudice at the
nexas of race and sex: An outgroup male target hypothesis.
Poteat, V. P., Espelage, D. L., & Green, H. D. Jr. (2007). The socialization of dominance:
Peer group contextual effects on homophobic and dominance attitudes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1040-1050.
27
Pratto, F. (1996). Sexual politics: The sex gap in the bedroom, the cupboard and the cabinent.
In D. M. Buss & N. M. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power and conflict: Evolutionary and
feminist perspectives (pp. 179-230). New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A
personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67, 741−763.
Reuckert, L. and Naybar, N. 2008. Sex differences in empathy: the role of the right
hemisphere. Brain and Cognition, 67, 162–167.
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, 161-186.
Shaw, L. L., Batson, C. D., & Todd, R. M. (1994). Empathy avoidance: Forestalling feeling
for another in order to escape the motivational consequences. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 67, 879–887.
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J., (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and
theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 248-279.
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (in press). Personality geneses of Authoritarianism: The form and
function of Openness to Experience. In F. Funke, T. Petzel, J. C. Cohrs, & J. Duckitt
(Eds.), Perspectives on Authoritarianism. Weisbaden, Germany: VS-Verlag.
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The personality bases of ideology: A one-year
longitudinal study. Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 540-559.
28
Sibley, C. G., Harding, J., Perry, R., Asbrock, R., & Duckitt, J. (2010). Personality and
prejudice: Extension to the HEXACO personality model. European Journal of
Personality, 24, 515-534.
Sibley, C. G., & Liu, J. H. (2010). Social dominance orientation: Testing a global individual
difference perspective. Political Psychology, 31(2), 175−207.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy
and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1994). Social dominance orientation and the political
psychology of sex: A case of invariance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
67, 998-1011.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Brief, D. (1995). Group dominance and the political psychology of
sex: A cross-cultural comparison. Political Psychology, 16, 381 – 396.
Sidanius, J., Sinclair, S. & Pratto, F. (2006). Social Dominance Orientation, Sex and
Increasing College Exposure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1640-1653.
Thomsen, L. (2009). Seeing social relations in spatial relations: Ubiquitous, Cross-cultural
mappings maintained under composition. Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University.
Thomsen, L., Frankenhuis, W.E., Ingolg-Smith, M., & Carey, S. (2011). Big and mighty:
Preverbal infants mentally represent social dominance. Science, 331, 477-480.
Thomsen, L., Green, E. G. T., Ho, A. K., Levin, S., van Laar, C., Sinclair, S.,& Sidanius, J.
(2010). Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing: SDO Asymmetrically Predicts Perceived Ethnic
Victimization among White and Latino Students across Three Years. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 225-238.
Thomsen, L., Green, E.G.T., & Sidanius, J. (2008). We will hunt them down: How social
dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism fuel persecution of immigrants
29
in fundamentally different ways. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44,
1455-1464.
Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003). Why social dominance theory has been falsified.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 199-206.
van Loon, M. J. W. (Unpublished). Sex difference in human empathy: Theories on the
Tinbergen four “why’s”. Unpublished master’s thesis, Utrecht University.
Wakabayashi, A., Baron-Cohen, S., Uchiyama, T. Yoshida, Y., Kuroda, M. and Weelwright,
S. (2007). Empathizing and systemizing in adults with and without autism spectrum
conditions: Cross-cultural stability. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
37, 1823 – 1832.
Wilson, G. D. (1973). The psychology of conservatism. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wilson, M. S., & Liu, J.H. (2003). Social dominance orientation and sex: The moderating
role of sex identity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 187-198.
30
Table 1
Correlations Among Variables in Study 1(Belgian Sample, N=389).
Measures
1
2
3
4
5
1. Female
__
2. W1-SDO
-.176***
__
3. W1-EC
.257***
-.351***
__
4. W2-SDO
-.225***
.747***
-.358***
__
5. W2-EC
.269***
-.340***
.641***
-.437***
__
Note. Female (1 = female, 0 = male). W1-SDO = Wave 1 SDO; W1-EC = Wave 1 empathic
Concern; W2-SDO = Wave 2 SDO; W2-EC = Wave 2 empathic concern.
*** p<.001.
31
Figure 1. Cross-lagged path model between SDO and empathic concern (EC) over a six
month interval in an undergraduate Belgian sample (N = 389). All path estimates above are
standardized and statistically significant (p < .05).
32
Table 2
Correlations Among Variables in Study 2 (New Zealand national Probability sample,
N=2,927).
Measures
1
2
3
4
5
1. Female
__
2. W1-SDO
-.176***
__
3. W1-Empathy
.272***
-.279***
__
4. W2-SDO
-.174***
.653***
-.223***
__
5. W2-Empathy
.276***
-.267***
.580***
-.261***
__
Note. Female (1 = female, 0 = male). W1-SDO = Wave 1 SDO; W1-empathy = Wave 1
empathy; W2-SDO = Wave 2 SDO; W2-Empathy = Wave 2 empathy.
***p< 001.
33
Figure 2. Cross-lagged path model between SDO and empathy (EC) over a one year interval
in a national probability sample of New Zealand respondents (N =2,927). All path estimates
above are standardized and statistically significant (p < .05).
34
Notes
1
Note that these extended parameter analyses were calculated using unstandardized coefficients.
35