Psychology Live Lecture October 7 th , 2009 Jim Sidanius Harvard University

1. The Interactive Nature of Patriarchy and Arbitrary-set Hierarchy: The Dynamics of Sexism and Racism from An Evolutionary and Social Dominance Perspective Psychology Live Lecture October 7th, 2009 Jim Sidanius Harvard University

2. Basic Observation • Human social systems are structured as group-based social hierarchies.

3. Two Most Basic Assumptions of Social Dominance Theory • Human social systems are predisposed to be organized as group-based social hierarchies. • The common forms of social oppression (e.g., racism, slavery, sexism, nationalism, classism, etc.) are the specific instantiations of this tendency to create, maintain, and re-create some form of group-based social hierarchies.

4. Primary Goal of Social Dominance Theory • To identify the precise Multi-leveledmechanisms responsible to the creation, maintenance and re-creation of group-based social hierarchy. • These mechanisms include: • Individual differences • Situational constraints • Institutional behaviors • Social and group identities • Socio-political ideologies.

5. Three Systems of Group-based Social Hierarchy • The Age System-Older individuals dominate younger individuals. • The Gender or Patriarchical System-Males dominate females. • The Arbitrary-set System: • “Racial”-hierarchies • Ethnic-hierarchies • Class-hierarchies • Religious-hierarchies • Nationality-hierarchies • Etc.

6. Bipolar Reproductive Strategies (Trivers’ Parental Investment Theory, 1972) Parental effort (female emphasis) Mating effort (male emphasis)

7. Bipolar Reproductive Strategies Parental effort (female emphasis) Mating effort (male emphasis) Behavioral Consequences Among males Among females • Relatively high offspring investment. • Relatively high mate choosiness. • Select high-status/high-provisioning mates. • Relatively low offspring investment. • High striving for status, power • & resource control. • High sexual jealousy & mate-guarding. • High male-v-male competition.

8. Bipolar Reproductive Strategies Parental effort (female emphasis) Mating effort (male emphasis) Behavioral Consequences Among males Among females • Relatively high offspring investment. • Relatively high mate choosiness. • Select high-status/high-provisioning mates. • Relatively low offspring investment. • High striving for status, power • & resource control. • High sexual jealousy & mate-guarding. • High male-v-male competition. Political Consequences Patriarchy Arbitrary-set Hierarchy • Male political & coercive • dominance over females. • Dominance hierarchies among males. • Extractive male-v-male coalitions.

9. Males Reproductive Fitness Females Dominance/Aggression

10. Four Basic Distinctions Between Patriarchy vs. Arbitrary-set Hierarchy • Co-dependency. • Context dependence vs. context independence • Gender is a fundamental category of mind, while “race” and “ethnicity” are not (see Kurzban, Tooby & Cosmides, 2001). • Ubiquitousness. • Exceptions: Bonobos, Spotted Hyenas, & Muriqui. • Focus.

11. Focus of Patriarchy • Patriarchy is primarily a project of paternalism, and not misogyny: • Patriarchy is primarily directed at male control of the sexual, economic, and political prerogatives of women.

12. Focus of Arbitrary-set Hierarchy • While patriarchy is male control over females, arbitrary-set hierarchy is primarily focused on the male control of other males. • Arbitrary-set hierarchy is not just a project of control, but also a project of usurpation and aggression. • In its most developed forms, arbitrary set hierarchy manifests itself in extractive coalitions of ingroup males against coalitions of outgroup males. • Thus, it is a form of male-on-male aggression.

13. Four Hypotheses from SD-Theory (Strong & Weak Versions) • Hypothesis # 1: Invariance hypothesis/context insensitivity hypothesis Xenophobia and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) will be greater among males than among females, all else being equal!

14. Selected Items from the Social Dominance Scale • “To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups.” • “Inferior groups should stay in their place.” • “Superior groups should dominate inferior groups.” • “All groups should be given an equal chance in life.”

15. Hypothesis #2SDO/Mating Asymmetry Hypothesis • If SDO is conceived of as part of a male mating strategy, then it might be related to other male mating strategies, and differentially so for males as opposed to females.

16. Hypothesis #2SDO/Mating Asymmetry Hypothesis Let us define ρ as male mating strategy regressed upon SDO. Then ρ Males > ρ Females

17. Hypothesis # 3: Outgroup Male Target Hypothesis (OMTH). • Let’s define ASD as arbitrary-set discrimination. Then: μASD outgroup male > μASD outgroup female ≥ 0

18. OMTH vs. Double-jeopardy Hypothesis (DJ) • OMTH directly contradicts double-jeopardy hypothesis (DJ).

19. Hypothesis # 4: Outgroup Bias Motive Differential • Outgroup bias against arbitrary-sets among males will be primarily motivated by aggression and SDO. • Outgroup bias against arbitrary-sets among females will be primarily motivated by fear, especially vulnerability to sexual coercion.

20. Test of the Invariance Hypothesis

21. First, Let’s look at Classical racismItems in Classical RacismUniversity of Texas Sample(N=5,655; α = .83) • Racial equality. • White superiority. • Black President of the USA. • Each ethnic group should stay in its own place. • There are too many blacks students on campus.

22. Classical Racism as a Function of Ethnicity And Gender (Texas sample, N=5,590; controlling for education) F (cons. 4,5439) = 187.42; η=.35 F (sex 1,5439) = 12.83.42; η=.07 F (ethn. 5,5577) = 36.28; η=.18 F (sex 1,5577) = 26.84.42; η=.07 F (X 4,5577) = 1.58

23. Classical Racism as a Function of Political Conservatism And Gender (Swedish sample, N=524; controlling for SES) F (cons. 4,513) = 11.76; η=.29 F (sex 1,513) = 10.52; η=.14 F (X, 4,513) < 1

24. Classical Racism as a Function of three Nations And Gender (Sample, N=1,537) F (nation 2,1531) = 6.44; η=.09 F (sex 1, 1531) = 35.03.42; η=.15 F (X 1,1531) = 7.50; η=.10 n = 772 n = 491 n =274

25. Overall Male/Female Differences in SDO • 55 Samples used: • 23,100 respondents. • 12 countries, including: • Australia • Canada • Dominican Republic • Cuba • USSR • Israel • Mexico • New Zealand • Palestine • PRC • Sweden • USA

26. Overall Male/Female Differences in SDO • 55 Samples used: • 23,100 respondents. • 12 countries, including: • Australia • Canada • Dominican Republic • Cuba • USSR • Israel • Mexico • New Zealand • Palestine • PRC • Sweden • USA

27. Overall Male/Female Differences in SDO • 55 Samples used: • 23,100 respondents. • 12 countries, including: • Australia • Canada • Dominican Republic • Cuba • USSR • Israel • Mexico • New Zealand • Palestine • PRC • Sweden • USA P<10-12

28. Interaction or Context Dependency Hypothesis: For Arbitrary Sets

29. Evidence of Context Dependency for Arbitrary-set Groups

30. Evidence of Context Dependency for Arbitrary-set Groups

31. Evidence of Context Dependency for Arbitrary-sets in Israel

32. Evidence of Context Dependency for Arbitrary-sets in Israel

33. Evidence of Context Dependency for Arbitrary-sets in Israel Correlational stability r Context = .56

34. SDO as a Function of Religion & Perceived Relative Status In Northern Ireland(Levin, 2003) SDO Level p < .02 p<.05 Interaction: p <.003

35. SDO as a Function of Race & Perceived Relative Status In USA (Levin, 2003) SDO Level p < .01 n.s. Interaction: p <. 03

36. SDO as a Function of Gender & Perceived Relative Status In USA(Levin, 2003) SDO Level p < .04 p<.01 Interaction: p =.40, n.s.

37. 30 Independent Tests of Interaction or Context Dependency Hypothesis Across 11 DifferentSituational, Cultural, Ideological and DemographicContingencies

38. SDO as a Function of Gender and Age(Cross-sectional Design)

39. UCLA Panel Study

40. Same Results for Possible Moderators of: • Nationality • Ethnicity • Religiosity • Education • Income • Child-rearing practices • Levels of racism • Gender-role attitudes • Political ideology Sidanius & Pratto, 1999

41. Generalized Gender Equality Across Five Nations Sidanius & Pratto, 1999

42. SDO as a Function of Gender & Nationality

43. Hypothesis #2SDO/Mating Asymmetry Hypothesis ρ Males > ρ Females

44. 3 Clusters of Male Mating Strategies • Multiple matings. • Resistance to caring for unrelated children. • Sexual Jealousy.

45. Multiple Mating Preferences Regressed on SDO For Males & Females Pratto & Hegarty, 2000

46. Resistance to Investment in Other’s Children Regressed on SDO For Males & Females Pratto & Hegarty, 2000

47. Sexual Jealousy Regressed on SDO For Males & Females Pratto & Hegarty, 2000

48. Hypothesis # 3Outgroup Male-Target Hypothesis μASD outgroup male > μASD outgroup female ≥ 0

49. Nature of the Evidence Supporting SMTH • Survey evidence • Archival evidence • Experimental evidence

50. Survey Evidence