Throughout the history of the United States, the black-white multiracial people have been defined legally as black, a culture that was perpetuated widely by the Whites and was accepted by the Blacks. According to psychological research, this bias in categorization is referred to as hypodescent. In this rule, the biracials are judged to belong more to the parent group with a lower status. The research has revealed that the categorization persists until today especially among the white social perceivers. As research suggests, even though this categorization bias was started by the Whites for reasons of social stratification, it might have been used by the Blacks too, though for different purposes (Ho et al., 2017). However, there is no clear knowledge concerning if the hypodescent exists for both the white, black and biracial groups. That is, further research has to be conducted to determine the social underpinnings behind hypodescent. This paper, therefore, explains a research that was conducted to determine the relationship between social dominance orientation (SDO) and the whites’ categorization of whites, blacks, and black-white biracials.
SDO does predict intergroup phenomena starting from the support of aggression against the groups of low status and opposition of the policies that can bring social equality. The people high in social dominance orientation endorse various ideologies like engaging in various behaviors which are intended to keep the existing social stratification systems. With the possibility for the hypodescent rule to maintain the existing social boundaries, it is theorized that social dominance orientation can predict the application of hypodescent in the categorization of biracials (Ho etal., 2013).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, it is not in every situation or historical circumstance that requires active group boundary policing. Sociologists argue that there was a time when black-white biracials got tolerated in American history and they were given a special in between social status (Aboud et al., 2003). The rule of hypodescent only came when slavery institutions were threatened. This is when the dominant whites started enforcing the rule. Empirical research has revealed that SDO may also be activated by circumstances where hierarchy is threated and perceived as not stable by the dominant group (Ho et al., 2015). More important, the studies indicated that SDO was not associated with the intergroup system or bias beliefs without intergroup threat. To understand this further, research has to be conducted to determine whether there is a relationship between SDO and the categorization bias of blacks, whites and biracial groups. We, therefore, hypothesize that there is a negative relationship between SDO and the whites’ categorization of blacks and black-white biracials, no correlation between the SDO and the whites’ categorization of whites and, no correlation between the SDO and the whites’ categorization of blacks.
Methods
Participants
The participants were made of 80 undergraduate white Americans. This included 47 females and 33 males. Basically, the age range was between 19 and 70 years with the average age of the participants 39 years; M=39.37. (SD= 13.71). There was no compensation for these students for having participated in the research. The participation was voluntary.
Materials
Data was mainly collected using questionnaires. All the 80 participants were asked to take a 3 minute one-page questionnaire where they provide their responses concerning their demographics and how they viewed individuals from the white race, black race, and black-white biracials. For example, one of the questions asked was “superior groups should dominate inferior groups?” Participants were asked to answer in a liker scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. In the questions of the questionnaires, there were major variables including SDO and group membership.
Procedure
White students from different universities in New York were randomly selected to take part in the study. Participants were selected from outside and were asked to take part of the study. Within the questionnaire the participant chose if they wanted to continue based on a brief description at the beginning of the questionnaire.
Results
There were various tests that were conducted to come up with the research findings. For SDO measure and group membership, Pearson correlation significance test was done. The Pearson product membership test yields the following results. For the white target group, r (25) = .0.1, p>. 0.5. For the black target group, r (25) = -.11, p> .05. For the black-white biracial target group, r (24) =-.54, p<.05.
Discussion
For the white target group, it was hypothesized that there was no correlation between group membership and SDO. This was supported by the Pearson product-moment membership test r (25) = .0.1, p>. 0.5. It was hypothesized that for the black target group, there is no collection between group membership and SDO. This was supported by Pearson’s correlation test of r (25) = -.11, p> .05. For the black-white biracial target group, it was hypothesized that there was a negative correlation between group membership and SDO. The test also supported the hypothesis r (24) =-.54, p<.05.
From the findings, we can conclude that there is no relationship between group membership and SDO for the black target group. Also, there is no relationship between group membership and SDO for the white target group. There is however a negative relationship between group membership and SDO for the black-white biracial target group.
It, therefore, appears that the individuals in high SDO engage in behaviors of boundary maintenance under the situations people engage in boundary maintenance behaviors that are costly (Ho et al., 2017). In other words, when there is a situation that puts the existing social order is under threat. This research has indicated that perceiving threats as realistic may interact with social dominance orientation to further influence the application of hypodescent just as the findings of previous studies (Aboud et al., 2003).
This could mean that SDO alone does not influence hypodescent. Hypodescent may be influenced by social orientation dominance only when it is coupled with other factors such as availability of intergroup threat ( Krosch et al., 2013) . Further research should, therefore, be conducted to include other variables like intergroup hierarchy threat to determine which specific factors when combined with SDO cause hypodescent (Ho et al., 2015).
Different animal studies have indicated that social defeats can affect maladaptive social avoidance, personality inhibition, raised glucocorticoid, and higher susceptibility to dependence anxiety or depression. Epidemiological strategies in human behavior have indicated that the sufferings that people exhibit form a chronically low socioeconomic status tolerating transient status and decreasing the threats in one’s life ease the bodily and the psychiatric disorder. Regrettably, it has long been hard to unscramble the particular contribution of anxiety, and the social dominance on a person’s brain (Krosch et al., 2013). There is little that people understand about the cerebral mechanisms in nonhuman primates established by social dominance. However, it is clear that people exhibit differences due to genetic mechanisms.
The Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) enhances a personal discrepancy within variables end it explains the sociopolitical attitude and prejudice that people exhibit against each other. As a constituent of the social dominance hypothesis, SDO is a personal preference for people based on dissimilarity and supremacy versus impartiality ad inclusion. A person’s Social Dominance Orientation forces them to adopt intergroup philosophies that either enhance people’s divergence such as hierarchy-enhancing factors such as racial discrimination or reduce the intergroup disparity like hierarchy-satisfying principles like feminism (Ho, Kteily & Chen, 2017). Therefore, it attempts to indicate that the psychological and the personal level and the reason as to why people adopt different group attitudes can have a significant impact on society. It is even clear that the general orientation towards the intergroup relations and the SDO is critical in all cultures.
In most researches, the Social Dominance Orientation and Right Wing Authoritarianism are reasonably absolutely connected. In most instances, it is 30 in some nations while it is even lower. It is realistic that the Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation are likely to be averagely related with one another and the advantageous connotation for the forecast of other uneven like outlook towards the minority individuals (Ho, Kteily & Chen, 2017). When the predictors are measured, all of them show a high connection with the variable. Combination of the multiple correlations that appears when the predictors are too high is also identified (Aboud, Mendelson, & Purdy, 2003). The reason for such aspect is that the scale of accounting for some prospect of the standards variable does not appear in all the variables. For instance, some people have a different attitude towards a particular minority group, and they feel that they cannot change the perception that they have. Some of the opinions are not significant since they do not follow any relevant phenomenon; neither are they based on society’s norms and behavior. On the other hand, some people have different perceptions about other people because they feel that they are inferior as compared to their group (Krosch et al., 2013). Therefore, there is a variation between the groups of people since there is that aspect that one group is better than the other.
The Social Dominance Orientation reviews the universal preference for the hierarchy and the two accounts for the significant variation that occurs between ethnic groups of people due to the differences they exhibit since they are the minority groups. Another research indicated that in situations where there are two variables used to identify the attitude towards people due to their sex, such as gays and lesbians, there are always disparities due to the different views that people have (Aboud, Mendelson, & Purdy, 2003). Some people believe that participating in gay activities or lesbianism is an appalling activity that goes against societal customs. However, others believe that it is the sexuality of an individual, and no one should judge that.
The connection between the Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation can be discussed about the groups that people view negatively and the perceptions of the social customs. Most researches have indicated a fascinating disparity between the two aspects. First people high in Right-Wing Authoritarianism suggest that the world is a dangerous place to stay where most of the most critical values in the society are not observed. People do whatever they believe is essential for their own needs without caring about any issues related to other people (Ho et al., 2013). On the other hand, the person’s low in Right-Wing Authoritarianism indicates that the world is a safe place where people value their traditions, and they are still secure in ensuring that they do what they believe is right and leave wrong things.
The Social Dominance Orientation shows that the world is a competitive place. People struggle for resources and power. However, people that have low Social Dominance Orientation tend to believe that the world is a competitive place where people assist and share what they have with one another. The hypothesis indicates that there are no differences among people based on either political, religion, or economic affiliation since all of them have the same orientation in life (Krosch et al., 2013). Therefore, individuals with the most negative mindset towards one another are believed to posses Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation. Such people believe that other individuals are hazardous and intimidating, and they also think that they are opponents in the competitive struggle (Ho, Kteily & Chen, 2017). The two beliefs that people have in society is generally autonomous to one another. One can believe that the world is treacherous, but not unsafe and vice-versa. However, if a person has all the perceptions, then it is clear that he or she is improbably going to have positive views concerning other people in society.
Over the years, there has been a question of whether the Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism are related, and if they can be measured using a universal rule. Such a strategy to identify the correlation between the two determines the underlying variable. Different investigations have indicates that there are correlations between the two. However, the size of these correlations varies depending on the perception of the people (Ho et al., 2013). Also, there are studies which indicate that the two variables represent almost the same thing, and the differences that come up are always depicted by the people who believe that all aspects in life should have differences and similarities.
The fact that Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation are discreetly connected has motivating inference for the forecast of other variables like the thoughts concerning the minority ethnic group. When such factors are considered, all of them indicate that there is a high relationship between each of them and the criterion variable (Aboud, Mendelson, & Purdy, 2003). Also, they are connected to the “multiple correlations” that occurs as a result of the high predictors, and the reason is that the scale in accounting for some prospects of the criterion variable is different from one variable to the other.
In general, the Social Dominance Orientation relates to discrimination in a control condition. People have differences in the way they view one another. For instance, some people see others depending on their ethnic minority while others believe that people are categorized according to their social setting, when a renowned member of a particular group with an attachment to the in-group customs and values, the identification of the prejudice is critical. It ensures that people have to identify the strategies to relate with one another in society. Therefore, it is clear that the circumstances and self-categorization method moderate the Social Dominance Orientation forecasts changes in unfairness and ideologies over the period and the relationship between prejudice and Social Dominance Orientation.
References
Aboud, F., Mendelson, M., & Purdy, K. (2003). Cross-race peer relations and friendship quality. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 27 (2), 165-173.
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Cuddy, A. J., & Banaji, M. R. (2013). Status boundary enforcement and the categorization of black–white biracials. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 49 (5), 940-943.
Ho, A. K., Kteily, N. S., & Chen, J. M. (2017). “You’re one of us”: Black Americans’ use of hypodescent and its association with egalitarianism. Journal of personality and social psychology , 113 (5), 753.
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K., ... & Stewart, A. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Introducing the Social Dominance Orientation-7 Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 109 (6), 1003-28.
Krosch, A. R., Berntsen, L., Amodio, D. M., Jost, J. T., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2013). On the ideology of hypodescent: Political conservatism predicts categorization of racially ambiguous faces as Black. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 49 (6), 1196-1203.
