Intergroup consensus/disagreement in support of group-based hierarchy: An examination of socio-structural and psycho-cultural factors.
Open accessAbstract
A meta-analysis examined the extent to which socio-structural and psycho-cultural characteristics of societies correspond with how much gender and ethnic/racial groups differ on their support of group-based hierarchy. Robustly, women opposed group-based hierarchy more than men did, and members of lower power ethnic/racial groups opposed group-based hierarchy more than members of higher power ethnic/racial groups did. As predicted by social dominance theory, gender differences were larger, more stable, and less variable from sample to sample than differences between ethnic/racial groups. Subordinate gender and ethnic/racial group members disagreed more with dominants in their views of group-based hierarchy in societies that can be considered more liberal and modern (e.g., emphasizing individualism and change from traditions), as well as in societies that enjoyed greater gender equality. The relations between gender and ethnic/racial groups are discussed, and implications are developed for social dominance theory, social role theory, biosocial theory, social identity theory, system justification theory, realistic group conflict theory, and relative deprivation theory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved).
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Harman's single-factor test indicated no common method variance, because the first principal factor explained 32.76% of the variance, less than 40%.
“Harman’s single-factor test was used to assess the possibility of common method bias and found that 32.76% of the variance could be explained by the first principal factor, which is less than 40% [53] indicating that no common method variance was detected.”
From Socioeconomic status impacts Chinese late adolescents’ internalizing problems: risk role of psychological insecurity and cognitive fusion (2025) · cites this paper as [53]
The Method section describes meta-analytic effect sizes, heterogeneity and moderator analyses, not Harman’s single-factor test. Searches for 32.76%, common method bias and a 40% threshold found no passage in our copy addressing the cited claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 263 · Cited by 204
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- Blackledge A 2002 The discursive construction of national identity in multilingual Britain Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 1 67 87
- Blalock K 2005 The effect of ego development, empathy, and social dominance orientation on the multicultural competencies of rehabilitation trainees Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Wisconsin-Madison
- Brewer MB Campbell DT 1976 Ethnocentric and intergroup attitudes: East African evidence Oxford, England Sage
- Eyerman 1981 False consciousness and ideology in Marxist theory Atlantic Highlands, NJ Humanities Press
- Hailey H 2005 Self-enhancement and ingroup bias: How and why they intertwine Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of California
- Hedges LV Olkin I 1985 Statistical methods for meta-analysis Orlando, FL Academic Press
- Howard KA 2003 Interracial attitudes and their relationship to social dominance orientation Unpublished doctoral dissertation Alliant International University
- Islam G 2005 Explaining organizational mistreatment: An integration of identity and dominance perspectives Unpublished doctoral dissertation Tulane University
- Jackson JW 1993 Realistic group conflict theory: A review and evaluation of the theoretical and empirical literature Psychological Record 43 395 413
- Johnson BK 2007 Understanding racial inequality in the American workplace: The persistence of the principle-implementation gap and its relationship to social dominance orientation and modern racism (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 2007) Dissertation Abstracts International 68 4176
- Jost JT Kivetz Y Rubini M Guermandi G Mosso C 2005 System-justifying functions of complementary regional stereotypes: Cross-national evidence Social Justice Research 18 305 333 10.1007/s11211–005–6827-z · DOI
- Larsen LFC 1997 Parental beliefs concerning racism and sexism Unpublished doctoral dissertation Saint Louis University MO
- Riley BD 2007 Symbolic racism, legal authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation: An investigation of correlates and predictors of attitudes regarding police use of force (Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University) Dissertation Abstracts International 68 1319
- Sabir WS 2007 An examination of social characteristics and attitudes in a sample of police officers in a Southwestern city (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University, 2006) Dissertation Abstracts International 67 3177
- Sanday PR 1981 Female power and male dominance Cambridge, United Kingdom Cambridge University Press
- Sidanius J Levin S Federico CM Pratto F Jost JT Major B 2001 Legitimizing ideologies: A social dominance approach The psychology of legitimacy 307 331 New York, NY Cambridge University Press
- Turner E 2003 A study of racial profiling through diverse cultural perspectives Unpublished doctoral dissertation Alliant International University CA
- Authors
- Lee, I.-C., Pratto, F., & Johnson, B. T.
- Affiliations
- National Chengchi University (TW)
- University of Connecticut (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2011-11
- Volume
- 137
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1029-1064
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- PMC
- PMC3205474
- OpenAlex
- W2030684694
- Cited by
- 204
- References
- 263
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 29.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (BCS-0820657)
- US Public Health Service (K18-AI094581)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
- Keywords
- social dominance, social dominance orientation, gender differences, social dominance theory, social role theory, biosocial theory, social identity theory, system justification theory, realistic group conflict theory, relative deprivation theory, gender equality, individualism, modernity, intergroup relations
- MeSH terms
- Cross-Cultural Comparison, Cultural Characteristics, Ethnicity, Female, Group Processes, Hierarchy, Social, Humans, Male, Politics, Psychological Theory, Sex Factors, Social Change, Social Identification, Socioeconomic Factors, Consensus, Dissent and Disputes, Racial Groups
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
