Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)

Abstract

The Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale, developed by Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, and Malle in 1994, is a widely used psychological instrument designed to measure an individual’s general preference for hierarchical, unequal relationships between social groups. It is a core component of Social Dominance Theory (SDT). High scores on the SDO scale reflect a strong desire for group dominance and the maintenance of societal inequality, often predicting support for policies and ideologies that reinforce existing group hierarchies and opposing those that promote equality.

Keywords

Social Dominance Orientation, SDO, Social Dominance Theory, group hierarchy, inequality, prejudice, political attitudes, personality variable, group conflict.

Authors

Felicia Pratto, Jim Sidanius, Lisa M. Stallworth, Bertram F. Malle.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the SDO scale is to quantify an individual’s endorsement of hierarchy and dominance among social groups. It serves as a measure of a person’s fundamental orientation toward intergroup relations—specifically, the degree to which they desire their own group to dominate and be superior to other groups. This psychological measurement is crucial for predicting a wide range of social and political attitudes, behaviors, and policy preferences related to equality, discrimination, and intergroup conflict.

The scale was developed to test key tenets of Social Dominance Theory, which posits that societies are organized into group-based hierarchies maintained by legitimizing myths and individual difference variables like SDO. By measuring SDO, researchers can better understand the motivational roots of prejudice and opposition to social equality programs.

Construct

The SDO scale measures Social Dominance Orientation, conceptualized as a stable personality variable reflecting a general attitudinal orientation toward intergroup relations. The construct has two main components, often consolidated into a single score:

• Group-Based Dominance: The desire for one’s own group to be superior to and dominate lower-status groups.
• Opposition to Equality: The rejection of policies and ideas that promote equality among groups.

While early versions (like the SDO-16) often treated SDO as unidimensional, later research, particularly the SDO7 revision, suggested a two-factor structure (SDO-D for Dominance and SDO-E for Egalitarianism), though the core underlying construct remains the motivation to maintain group hierarchy.

Validity

The SDO scale exhibits strong evidence of validity across numerous studies. Construct validity is supported by its consistent correlation with theoretical predictors and outcomes. SDO reliably predicts various forms of prejudice (racism, sexism), support for militarism, opposition to human rights, and conservative political ideologies. The scale demonstrates high discriminant validity, showing that while it correlates with constructs like Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), it measures a distinct motivational basis—SDO measures a preference for group hierarchy, whereas RWA measures a preference for social conformity and submission to authority.

Reliability

The SDO scale is noted for its high internal consistency. Across diverse samples and cultures, the 16-item version typically yields high Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, often ranging from .85 to .92, indicating that the items reliably measure the same underlying construct. Test-retest reliability over periods of several weeks or months also demonstrates the stability of SDO as a personality orientation, confirming its robust psychometric properties for use in academic and applied settings.

Factor Analysis

The original 16-item scale (SDO-16) was generally interpreted as measuring a single, robust factor representing overall Social Dominance Orientation. Subsequent factor analysis, particularly with newer versions of the scale (e.g., SDO7), has sometimes yielded two distinct but highly correlated factors: one focused on the active desire for dominance (Dominance subscale) and one focused on the opposition to equality (Egalitarianism subscale, reverse-scored items). Despite these structural nuances, the total SDO score derived from the scale remains the standard measure of the construct, reflecting a powerful unidimensional predictor of social and political attitudes.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report attitude inventory.

Format: 16 Likert-scale items.

Language Available: Originally English; widely translated into dozens of languages for cross-cultural research.

Population Group: General population; frequently used with university students and nationally representative samples.

Age Group: Adolescents (16+) and Adults.

Population Details: The scale is designed to measure individual differences in attitudes toward group hierarchy, applicable across various demographic and cultural groups where intergroup inequality is relevant.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate their agreement with each statement using a 7-point scale, typically ranging from 1 (Very Negative/Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Very Positive/Strongly Agree). Items 9-16 are reverse scored to maintain consistency in the final SDO score, where higher scores indicate a stronger preference for social dominance.

Keywords

Social hierarchy, intergroup relations, social inequality, psychometrics, dominance motive, group status, Pratto, Sidanius.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided in source; typically associated with academic researchers in social psychology).

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Typically associated with the authors’ university departments, such as the University of California system).

Correspondence Address: N/A (Correspondence generally directed to the primary author, Felicia Pratto, at her affiliated academic institution).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The SDO scale is generally available for non-commercial academic and research use, provided appropriate citation is given to the original 1994 publication. There is typically no fee for academic use. The original version of the SDO scale (SDO-16) was published in 1994, though revised versions (e.g., SDO7) have been developed subsequently.

Reference’s

• Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763.

• Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Levin, S., Thomsen, L., Kteily, N., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2012). Social dominance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 583-606.

The original instrument, titled “Measures of Stereotyping and Prejudice,” which includes the SDO scale, can be downloaded as a PDF here: Measures of Stereotyping and Prejudice.

Items of the Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

The scoring range is typically defined as:

• very positive (7)
• positive (6)
• slightly positive (5)
• neither positive nor negative (4)
• slightly negative (3)
• negative (2)
• very negative (1)

Items 9-16 are reverse scored.

1. Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.
2. In getting what you want‚ it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups.
3. It’s OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than others.
4. To get ahead in life‚ it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups.
5. If certain groups stayed in their place‚ we would have fewer problems.
6. It’s probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom.
7. Inferior groups should stay in their place.
8. Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.
9. It would be good if groups could be equal.
10. Group equality should be our ideal.
11. All groups should be given an equal chance in life.
12. We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups.
13. Increased social equality.
14. We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally.
15. We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible.
16. No one group should dominate in society