The Gulf War and the Rodney King Beating: Implications of the General Conservatism and Social Dominance Perspectives
Abstract
Both general conservatism and social dominance theory require relatively strong and significant relationships among indicators of racism, support for the Persian Gulf War, and approval of police actions in the Rodney King incident. With a nonprobability sample of 131 adults from Los Angeles, significant relationships were found among these variables as predicted by both theories. However, structural equation analysis disclosed that only social dominance theory was able to give a fully acceptable account of the entire matrix of correlations among the background and attitudinal variables involved. The data indicated that political conservatism, belief in racial superiority, caste-maintenance orientation, support of the Gulf War, and approval of police behavior in the beating of Rodney King were all significantly related to and possibly driven by a person's desire for group dominance (i.e., social dominance orientation). The relatively strong and consistent relationships among these variables were considered as possible evidence of a group-based form of ideological coherence (Converse, 1964).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Conservative-rightist ideology is associated with valuing tradition, social order and maintenance of the status quo, whereas liberal-leftist ideology is associated with a push for egalitarian social change.
“Whereas conservative-rightist ideology is associated with valuing tradition, social order and maintenance of the status quo, liberal-leftist ideology is associated with a push for egalitarian social change.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [163]
Decades of research in political psychology demonstrate that those who embrace more conservative-rightist attitudes, identities and leaders are more authoritarian and social-dominance-oriented than those who embrace more liberal-leftist attitudes, identities and leaders.
“In addition, decades of research in political psychology demonstrate that those who embrace more conservative-rightist attitudes, identities and leaders are more authoritarian and social-dominance-oriented (that is, supportive of group-based hierarchies) than those who embrace more liberal-leftist attitudes, identities and leaders107,149,163–169.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [163]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 15 · Cited by 66
- Authors
- Sidanius, J., & Liu, J. H.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1992-12
- Volume
- 132
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 685-700
- ISSN
- 0022-4545 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-1183
- OpenAlex
- W2012534835
- Cited by
- 66
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 12.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Keywords
- social dominance theory, social dominance orientation, racism, Rodney King incident, police brutality, ideological coherence, group dominance, Los Angeles
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
