Why social dominance theory has been falsified

by: JC Turner, KJ Reynolds

British Journal of Social Psychology (June 2003), pp. 199-206.

View FullText article

DOI, IngentaConnect

Reviews [Write a review of this article]

There are no reviews of this article

Find related articles from these CiteULike users

studentx, adriandefroment, maruru

Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

civil_war, conflict, ethnicity, hierarchy, hierarchy-sociology, human, model, psychology, review, status

Abstract

Schmitt, Branscombe and Kappen (2003) and Wilson and Lui (2003) present a persuasive series of studies which raise major problems for the conceptualization of social dominance orientation in social dominance theory. Building on these and other data in the literature, this commentary summarizes six fundamental criticisms which can be made of the theory. We conclude that social dominance theory is flawed by conceptual inconsistencies and has been disconfirmed empirically in relation to its key hypothesis of behavioural asymmetry. The reaction of subordinate groups to the social hierarchy is better explained by social identity theory.

@article{citeulike:2675366, abstract = {Schmitt, Branscombe and Kappen (2003) and Wilson and Lui (2003) present a persuasive series of studies which raise major problems for the conceptualization of social dominance orientation in social dominance theory. Building on these and other data in the literature, this commentary summarizes six fundamental criticisms which can be made of the theory. We conclude that social dominance theory is flawed by conceptual inconsistencies and has been disconfirmed empirically in relation to its key hypothesis of behavioural asymmetry. The reaction of subordinate groups to the social hierarchy is better explained by social identity theory.}, author = {Turner, J. C. and Reynolds, K. J. }, citeulike-article-id = {2675366}, doi = {10.1348/014466603322127184}, issn = {0144-6665}, journal = {British Journal of Social Psychology}, keywords = {human, model, review, status}, month = {June}, pages = {199--206}, posted-at = {2008-05-14 14:34:05}, priority = {2}, publisher = {British Psychological Society}, title = {Why social dominance theory has been falsified}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466603322127184}, year = {2003} }

RIS record

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:2675366 L3 - citeulike-article-id:2675366 TI - Why social dominance theory has been falsified JF - British Journal of Social Psychology SP - 199 EP - 206 PB - British Psychological Society SN - 0144-6665 N2 - Schmitt, Branscombe and Kappen (2003) and Wilson and Lui (2003) present a persuasive series of studies which raise major problems for the conceptualization of social dominance orientation in social dominance theory. Building on these and other data in the literature, this commentary summarizes six fundamental criticisms which can be made of the theory. We conclude that social dominance theory is flawed by conceptual inconsistencies and has been disconfirmed empirically in relation to its key hypothesis of behavioural asymmetry. The reaction of subordinate groups to the social hierarchy is better explained by social identity theory. KW - human KW - model KW - review KW - status AU - Turner, JC AU - Reynolds, KJ PY - 2003/06// UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466603322127184 ER -

RIS BibTeX