دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 35111
عنوان فارسی مقاله

آشنایی تسلط، قدرت جناح راست و رابطه آنها با از خود بیگانگی و حوزه های کنترل

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
35111 2007 9 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید محاسبه نشده
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
Social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and their relation with alienation and spheres of control
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 43, Issue 4, September 2007, Pages 891–899

کلمات کلیدی
گرایش سلطه اجتماعی - استبداد جناح راست - ناتوانی - از خود بیگانگی - حوزه های کنترل -
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله آشنایی تسلط، قدرت جناح راست و رابطه آنها با از خود بیگانگی و حوزه های کنترل

چکیده انگلیسی

This study examined the extent to which Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism were correlated with Alienation and Spheres of Control. The findings demonstrated that Social Dominance Orientation correlated with many of the scales but Right-Wing Authoritarianism correlated with none of them, emphasizing their distinctiveness. Although Social Dominance Orientation correlated negatively with Powerlessness, it correlated positively with numerous other Alienation subscales and with Sociopolitical Spheres of Control suggesting that those scoring high on Social Dominance Orientation also have greater feelings of alienation and less perceived control over political and social affairs.

مقدمه انگلیسی

Social Dominance Orientation is a measure that was first developed by Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, and Malle (1994). It is based on Social Dominance Theory, which argues that groups and societies are organized into various hierarchies of dominance. What benefits and advantages (or disadvantages) a group gets depends upon their position within this hierarchy (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Social Dominance Orientation measures the extent to which a person accepts group-based dominance. Research has shown Social Dominance Orientation to be a strong predictor of prejudice. Social Dominance Orientation is correlated with sexism and ethnic prejudice indices (Altemeyer, 1998, Bates and Heaven, 2001, Duriez and Van Hiel, 2002, Pratto et al., 2000, Pratto et al., 1994 and Snellman and Ekehammar, 2005). For instance, Heaven, Organ, Supavadeeprasit, and Leeson (2006) found in an Australian sample that Social Dominance Orientation was negatively correlated with attitudes toward people from the Middle East. Those scoring high on Social Dominance Orientation are less likely to support equality between men and women (Lippa & Arad, 1999) or empowerment for immigrants (Jackson & Esses, 2000). Negative attitudes are expressed particularly toward those groups of people that occupy low power and status within society (Duckitt, 2006). Right-Wing Authoritarianism is another indicator of prejudice, frequently compared with Social Dominance Orientation. Although the construct authoritarianism has its roots in psychoanalytic theory (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950), the newly devised measure (Altemeyer, 1988 and Altemeyer, 1998) is believed to have its origins in social learning theory (Altemeyer, 1998). The instrument is supposed to capture a person’s attitudes toward following established authority, attitudes toward accepting and following aggressive acts and policies that are supported by established authority figures, and acceptance of existing social conventions (Altemeyer, 1988). Research with Right-Wing Authoritarianism has shown that those scoring high on authoritarianism have negative attitudes regarding homosexuality and gender equality (Altemeyer, 1988 and Lippa and Arad, 1999) and negative attitudes to minority groups (e.g., Altemeyer, 1998 and Heaven et al., 2006). Although Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism are correlated (Altemeyer, 1998), construct- and criterion-related validity studies have revealed that both instruments measure distinct constructs. Altemeyer (1998) suggested that Social Dominance Orientation is the “other authoritarian personality;” those scoring high on Social Dominance Orientation are not submissive to authority. Duckitt (2006) promotes a model by which attitudes to outgroups are differentially influenced by Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism such that Social Dominance Orientation is based upon tough-mindedness and the view that the world is a place in which we must compete for valuable resources, while Right-Wing Authoritarianism is based upon fear of a dangerous world, thus perceiving certain outgroups as threats. Research has shown that Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism correlate differently with personality traits (Heaven & Connors, 2001) and values (Heaven & Bucci, 2001). For instance, Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje, and Zakrisson (2004) found Social Dominance Orientation correlated negatively with Agreeableness while Right-Wing Authoritarianism correlated negatively with Neuroticism and Openness to Experience and positively with Extraversion and Conscientiousness. Duriez and Van Hiel (2002) found that Social Dominance Orientation correlated negatively with the values universalism, benevolence, and tradition, and positively with power, achievement, hedonism, and stimulation. Right-Wing Authoritarianism was negatively correlated with the values of hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction and positively with tradition, conformity, and security. Little research has been conducted examining the relation of either Social Dominance Orientation or Right-Wing Authoritarianism with alienation and social control. Alienation refers to an individual’s sense of not being part of their social and cultural environment (Hajda, 1961). Specifically, Maddi, Kobasa, and Hoover (1979) defined various aspects of alienation: “powerlessness …, or despair of any influence over social or personal affairs; adventurousness …, or the inability to experience vitality unless one is engaged in extreme and dangerous activities; nihilism …, or the insistent attempt to discredit anything that appears to have meaning; and vegetativeness …, or the inability to believe in the truth, importance, or interest value of anything one is doing,” (p. 73). Spheres of Control, as Paulhus (1983) has described, involves controlling three aspects: personal (dealing with personal issues and goals), interpersonal (dealing with other people) and sociopolitical (dealing with political and social issues).Alienation and Spheres of Control are theoretically important factors in people’s interactions with others and with their environment (e.g., Hirschfeld, 2002, Mavropoulou and Padeliadu, 2002 and Noor, 2002) and are therefore potentially important for explaining how people may relate to others in society. Given that those scoring high on Social Dominance Orientation prefer group-based hierarchy and the domination of certain groups in society, can we also expect that they would experience a greater sense of control over personal events and events external to them? Would they feel more or less connected with the people and events surrounding them? Because Social Dominance Orientation is based upon a theory that describes how people are interconnected, a relation with Alienation and Spheres of Control can be expected. Right-Wing Authoritarianism is based upon social learning theory so no relations with either Alienation or Spheres of Control are expected. This study will help in gaining an understanding of these two latter constructs as not only will this research provide information as to differences between Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism, but also how these variables relate to people’s perception of their relation with others in society. Two measures were included to study different aspects of alienation, the Maddi et al. (1979) scale and the Jessor and Jessor (1977) scale. The Maddi et al. (1979) instrument assesses powerlessness, adventurousness, nihilism, and vegetativeness in two separate contexts: social institutions and interpersonal. The second alienation measure developed by Jessor and Jessor (1977) provides a single total alienation score and assesses “generalized alienation in terms of uncertainty about the meaningfulness of daily roles and activities and a belief that one is isolated from others” (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991, p. 359). For the Maddi et al. (1979) scale, Social Dominance Orientation is expected to be negatively correlated with the powerlessness component and it is not expected to be correlated with adventurousness. It is uncertain how Social Dominance Orientation should correlate with nihilism and vegetativeness. It is also unclear how Social Dominance Orientation will correlate with Alienation as measured using the Jessor and Jessor (1977) scale. On the one hand, those with high Social Dominance Orientation scores are frequently the dominants of society and consequently may not have feelings of helplessness, social isolation, or normlessness, all essential components of alienation (Dean, 1961). On the other hand, research examining the personality correlates of Social Dominance Orientation has shown it to be significantly negatively correlated with dutifulness, morality, cooperativeness, sympathy, and artistic interests (Heaven & Bucci, 2001), suggesting that Social Dominance Orientation may be positively correlated with nihilism, vegetativeness, and an overall measure of alienation. This would support Duckitt’s (2006) work that suggests that those scoring high on Social Dominance Orientation view the world as a competitive place and are toughminded and in this sense are possibly more alienated from the people around them. Although researchers have suggested that Alienation may be correlated with Authoritarianism (Dean, 1961 and Knapp, 1976), this is Authoritarianism in its older form (the F scale, Adorno et al., 1950). Alienation and its subcomponents are not expected to correlate significantly with Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Powerlessness is a form of alienation and refers to “A low expectancy for control over the outcomes of events,” (Neal & Groat, 1974, p. 551). Although Powerlessness is a component of alienation, another measure of this component of Alienation was included due to the different operationalizations of this construct. Research has been conducted examining the relation between power, as conceptualized as a value, with Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Indeed, Altemeyer, 1998 and Duriez and Van Hiel, 2002 found Social Dominance Orientation to be correlated with the value of power. It would be expected that because those individuals who score high on Social Dominance Orientation are generally the dominants of society, that they would also have a lower sense of powerlessness. Therefore, Social Dominance Orientation may be negatively correlated with powerlessness. Research has shown that Right-Wing Authoritarianism correlates poorly with the value of power (Altemeyer, 1998). Having a positive attitude to existing authority figures and the use of socially sanctioned aggressive acts are not expected to be related with power. Thus, the correlation between Right-Wing Authoritarianism and powerlessness should be low. Social Dominance Orientation is expected to be significantly positively correlated with Spheres of Control, particularly, interpersonal and sociopolitical Spheres of Control. If individuals having a high Social Dominance Orientation score prefer group-based hierarchy and the domination of certain groups in society, perhaps they have a greater sense of control over others, as well. Right-Wing Authoritarianism is not expected to correlate significantly with Spheres of Control.

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.