What role does social dominance orientation theory play in explaining anti-immigrant violence in the South African context? Despite its popularity, studies of intergroup conflict in South Africa have tended to ignore the role of social dominance orientation theory in predicting aggression against minority groups. The article explores this role by examining whether a social dominance orientation can act as a determinant of mass opinion on, and personal engagement in, violence against foreign nationals in a large heterogeneous population. The impact of social dominance orientation will be assessed using the SDO7(s) Scale. Data from the 2018 round of the South African Social Attitudes Survey (N = 2885) was utilised for this study. Rejection of group-based dominance and a preference for outgroup inclusion was found to be quite normative among the general public. Social dominance orientation proves to be a valid correlate of hostility against foreign nationals. The present study demonstrated that a social dominance orientation was positively associated with individual participation in anti-immigrant violence. In addition, the study showed that the SDO7(s) was negatively correlated with both positive contact with foreign nationals and a welcoming predisposition towards this group. The research demonstrates the applicability of the SDO7(s) Scale in a South African context.
BartusevičiusH.van LeeuwenF.PetersenM. B. (2020). Dominance-driven autocratic political orientations predict political violence in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) and non-WEIRD samples. Psychological Science, 31(12), 1511–1530. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620922476
2.
BeckerJ. C.TauschN. (2015). A dynamic model of engagement in normative and non-normative collective action: Psychological antecedents, consequences, and barriers. European Review of Social Psychology, 26(1), 43–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.1094265
3.
CohrsC. J.StelzlM. (2010). How ideological attitudes predict host society members’ attitudes toward immigrants: Exploring cross-national differences. Journal of Social Issues, 66(4), 673–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01670.x
4.
CraigM. A.RichesonJ. A. (2014). Discrimination divides across identity dimensions: Perceived racism reduces support for gay rights and increases anti-gay bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.07.008
5.
DhontK.Van HielA.HewstoneM. (2014). Changing the ideological roots of prejudice: Longitudinal effects of ethnic intergroup contact on social dominance orientation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213497064
6.
FischerR.HankeK.SibleyC. G. (2012). Cultural and institutional determinants of social dominance orientation: A cross-cultural meta-analysis of 27 societies. Political Psychology, 33(4), 437–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00884.x
7.
GordonS. L. (2015). Xenophobia across the class divide: South African attitudes towards foreigners 2003–2012. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 33(4), 494–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/02589001.2015.1122870
8.
GordonS. L. (2018). ‘The friends of our friends are our friends’: Determinants of hosts’ contact with international migrants in post-apartheid South Africa. In BakewellO.LandauL. B. (Eds.), Forging African communities (pp. 229–253). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58194-5_10
9.
GordonS. L. (2020). Understanding the attitude–behaviour relationship: A quantitative analysis of public participation in anti-immigrant violence in South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 50(1), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246319831626
10.
HanelP. H. P.VioneK. C. (2016). Do student samples provide an accurate estimate of the general public?PLOS ONE, 11(12), Article e0168354. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168354
11.
HansenK.DovidioJ. F. (2016). Social dominance orientation, non-native accents, and hiring recommendations. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(4), 544–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000101
12.
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.PrattoF.HenkelK. E.FoelsR.StewartA. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033
13.
HudsonS.kieraT. J.CikaraM.SidaniusJ. (2019). Preference for hierarchy is associated with reduced empathy and increased counter-empathy towards others, especially out-group targets. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85, 103871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103871
14.
KemmelmeierM. (2005). The effects of race and social dominance orientation in simulated juror decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(5), 1030–1045. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02158.x
15.
KendeJ.PhaletK.Van den NoortgateW.KaraA.FischerR. (2018). Equality revisited: A cultural meta-analysis of intergroup contact and prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(8), 887–895. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617728993
16.
KerrP.DurrheimK.DixonJ. (2019). Xenophobic violence and struggle discourse in South Africa. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 54(7), 995–1011. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909619851827
17.
KrumpalI. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality and Quantity, 47(4), 2025–2047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9
18.
KteilyN. S.SidaniusJ.LevinS. (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(1), 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.09.009
19.
LarssonM. R.BjörklundF.BäckströmM. (2012). Right-wing authoritarianism is a risk factor of torture-like abuse, but so is social dominance orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(7), 927–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.015
20.
MeyerI. (2012). The reliabilities of an English, Afrikaans and isiXhosa version of the SDO6 scale in South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 42(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124631204200104
21.
ParkinsI. S.FishbeinH. D.RitcheyP. N. (2006). The influence of personality on workplace bullying and discrimination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(10), 2554–2577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00117.x
22.
SidaniusJ.BrubacherM.SilindaF. (2019). Ethnic and national attachment in the rainbow nation: The case of the Republic of South Africa. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50(2), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022118814679
23.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.
24.
VerkuytenM. (2004). The social psychology of ethnic identity. Psychology Press.
25.
WieviorkaM. (2014). The sociological analysis of violence: New perspectives. Sociological Review, 62(Suppl. 2), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12191
26.
WilsonM. S. (2003). Social dominance and ethical ideology: The end justifies the means?Journal of Social Psychology, 143(5), 549–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540309598462
