CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 78Social and Intergroup PsychologyCultural Differences and ValuesSouth Asian Studies and Diaspora

Ideological Support for the Indian Caste System: Social Dominance Orientation, Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Karma

Open access
Cotterill, Sarah, Sidanius, James, Bhardwaj, Arjun, Kumar, Vivek·2014·Journal of Social and Political Psychology
DOI 10.5964/jspp.v2i1.171
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper extends the social dominance perspective to the Indian context by examining the role of belief in Karma (sanchita) in the justification of the Indian caste system. Using social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) and the dual process model (Duckitt, 2001) as guiding theoretical frameworks, we tested four related hypotheses within a sample of 385 Indian university students. In particular we expected that social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) would both make relatively strong and independent contributions to participants’ endorsement of Karma (H1), as well as their support for antiegalitarian social policies and conventions (H2). We also predicted that endorsement of Karma, itself, would be strongly related to support for these policies, net of the influence of SDO, RWA, as well as generalized prejudice (H3). Finally, and consistent with the notion that Karma functions as a legitimizing ideology, we hypothesized that it would at least partially mediate, net of generalized prejudice, the relationships between SDO and RWA, on the one hand, and antiegalitarian and conventional social policies, on the other (H4). Results of latent variable structural equation modeling provided support for all four hypotheses. The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5964/jspp.v2i1.171

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Indians who more strongly endorse belief in karma were also more likely to endorse the perception that inequalities due to the social caste people are born into are more legitimate.

    “For example, Cotterill et al. (2014) documented that Indians who more strongly endorse belief in karma were also more likely to endorse the perception that inequalities due to the social caste people are born into are more legitimate, and karma believers were less supportive of policies to alleviate caste-based discrimination, consistent with other evidence that religious systems can legitimate”

    From Victim blaming and belief in karma (2024) · cites this paper as Cotterill et al. (2014)

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says Karmic beliefs make caste-based differences seem legitimate, and the Results (page unavailable) link stronger Karmic beliefs to greater support for hierarchy-enhancing policies. The study sampled 385 Indian university students and did not report a separate measure showing that stronger believers were more likely to perceive caste inequality as legitimate; that part is an interpretation of its findings. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Karma believers were less supportive of policies to alleviate caste-based discrimination.

    “For example, Cotterill et al. (2014) documented that Indians who more strongly endorse belief in karma were also more likely to endorse the perception that inequalities due to the social caste people are born into are more legitimate, and karma believers were less supportive of policies to alleviate caste-based discrimination, consistent with other evidence that religious systems can legitimate”

    From Victim blaming and belief in karma (2024) · cites this paper as Cotterill et al. (2014)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 64

  1. Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  2. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other "authoritarian personality." In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47-92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  3. Ambedkar, B. R. (1989a). Essays on untouchables and untouchability -I. In Education Department, Government of Maharashtra (Ed.): Writings and speeches (Vol. 5, n.p.). Bombay, India: Editor. (Original work published 1925)
  4. Ambedkar, B. R. (1989b). Essays on untouchables and untouchability -II. In Education Department, Government of Maharashtra (Ed.): Writings and speeches (Vol. 5, n.p.). Bombay, India: Editor. (Original work published 1925)
  5. Chao, M. M., Chen, J., Roisman, G. I., & Hong, Y.-y. (2007). Essentializing race: Implications for bicultural individuals' cognition and physiological reactivity. Psychological Science, 18(4), 341-348. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01901.x Journal of Social and Political Psychology 2014, Vol. 2(1), 98-116 doi:10.5964/jspp.v2i1.171 · DOI
  6. Coffman, D. L., & MacCallum, R. C. (2005). Using parcels to convert path analysis models into latent variable models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 235-259. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr4002_4 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41-113). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  8. Duckitt, J. (2004). The cultural bases of ethnocentrism and prejudice. In Y.-T. Lee, C. McCauley, F. Moghaddam, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The psychology of ethnic and cultural conflict: Looking through American and global chaos or harmony (pp. 155-174).
  9. Duckitt, J. (2006). Differential effects of Right Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 684-696. doi:10.1177/0146167205284282 · DOI
  10. Duckitt, J., & Fisher, K. (2003). The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24, 199-222. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00322 · DOI
  11. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009a). A dual process model of ideological attitudes and system justification. In J. Jost, A. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 292-313). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  12. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009b). A dual-process motivational model of ideology, politics, and prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 98-109. doi:10.1080/10478400903028540 · DOI
  13. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861-1894. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x · DOI
  14. Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological basis of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 75-93. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.75 · DOI
  15. Dumont, L. (1980). Homo Hierarchicus: The caste system and its implications (G. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, Ltd., Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1966)
  16. Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430-457. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Fang, C. Y., Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1998). Romance across the social status continuum: Interracial marriage and the ideological asymmetry effect. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 290-305. doi:10.1177/0022022198292002 · DOI
  18. Federico, C. M., & Sidanius, J. (2002). Racism, ideology, and affirmative action, revisited: The antecedents and consequences of 'principled objections' to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 488-502. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.488 · DOI
  19. Furnham, A., & Procter, E. (1989). Belief in a just world: Review and critique of the individual difference literature. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 28(4), 365-384. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1989.tb00880.x · DOI
  20. Furnham, A., & Rajamanickam, R. (1992). The Protestant work ethic and just world beliefs in Great Britain and India. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 401-416. doi:10.1080/00207599208246905 Journal of Social and Political Psychology 2014, Vol. 2(1), 98-116 doi:10.5964/jspp.v2i1.171 · DOI
  21. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent stereotypes as legitimizing ideologies: Differentiating paternalistic and envious prejudice. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 278-306). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
  22. Gupta, D. (2005). Caste and politics: Identity over system. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 409-427. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120649 · DOI
  23. Henry, P. J., Sidanius, J., Levin, S., & Pratto, F. (2005). Social dominance orientation, authoritarianism, and support for intergroup violence between the Middle East and America. Political Psychology, 26, 569-583. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00432.x · DOI
  24. 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, 583-606. doi:10.1177/0146167211432765 · DOI
  25. Hunt, M. O. (2000). Status, religion, and the "belief in a just world": Comparing African Americans, Latinos, and Whites. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 325-343.
  26. Jackman, M. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  27. James, E. H., Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., & Cohen, R. R. (2001). Prejudice matters: Job attitudes as function of the perceived implementation of policies to advance disadvantaged groups. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1120-1128. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1120 · DOI
  28. Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-27. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x · DOI
  29. Jost, J. T., & Major, B. (2001). Emerging perspectives on the psychology of legitimacy. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 3-30). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Kalghatgi, T. G. (1965). The doctrine of Karma in Jaina philosophy. Philosophy East and West, 15, 229-242. doi:10.2307/1397062 · DOI
  31. Katti, M., & Saroja, K. (1989). Parents' opinion towards intercaste marriage and their preference in mate selection for their children. Indian Journal of Behaviour, 13, 28-34.
  32. Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1990). Mimicking political debate within survey questions: The case of White opinion on affirmative action for Blacks. Social Cognition, 8, 73-103. doi:10.1521/soco.1990.8.1.73 · DOI
  33. Krysan, M. (2000). Prejudice, politics, and public opinion: Understanding the sources of racial policy attitudes. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 135-168. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.135 · DOI
  34. Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Rabinowitz, J. L., & Federico, C. (1998). Ethnic identity, legitimizing ideologies, and social status: A matter of ideological asymmetry. Political Psychology, 19(2), 373-404. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00109 · DOI
  35. Mahalingam, R. (2003). Essentialism, culture, and power: Representations of social class. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 733-749. doi:10.1046/j.0022-4537.2003.00087.x · DOI
  36. Mahar, P. M. (1958). Changing caste ideology in a north Indian village. Journal of Social Issues, 14, 51-65. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1958.tb01426.x · DOI
  37. Matsunaga, M. (2008). Item parceling in structural equation modeling: A primer. Communication Methods and Measures, 2, 260-293. doi:10.1080/19312450802458935 · DOI
  38. McFarland, S. (2010). Authoritarianism, social dominance, and other roots of generalized prejudice. Political Psychology, 31(3), 453-477. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00765.x · DOI
  39. Pick, D., & Dayaram, K. (2006). Modernity and tradition in a global era: The re-invention of caste in India. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 26, 284-294. doi:10.1108/01443330610680380 · DOI
  40. Potter, K. H. (1980). The Karma theory and its interpretations in some Indian philosophical systems. In W. D. O'Flaherty (Ed.), Karma and rebirth in classical Indian traditions (pp. 241-267). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  41. Pratto, F., Liu, J. H., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih, M., Bachrach, H., & Hegarty, P. (2000). Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of inequality across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 369-409. doi:10.1177/0022022100031003005 · DOI
  42. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271-320. doi:10.1080/10463280601055772 · DOI
  43. 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, 741-763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741 · DOI
  44. Reichenbach, B. R. (1988). The law of Karma and the principle of causation. Philosophy East and West, 38, 399-410. doi:10.2307/1399118 · DOI
  45. Reichenbach, B. R. (1989). Karma, causation, and divine intervention. Philosophy East and West, 39, 135-149. doi:10.2307/1399374 · DOI
  46. Roccato, M., & Ricolfi, L. (2005). On the correlation between right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 187-200. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2703_1 · DOI
  47. Sears, D. O., & Henry, P. J. (2003). The origins of symbolic racism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 259-275. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.259 · DOI
  48. Sheth, D. L. (1987). Reservations policy revisited. Economic and Political Weekly, 22(46), 1957-1962.
  49. Sibley, C. G., Liu, J. H., Duckitt, J., & Khan, S. S. (2008). Social representations of history and the legitimation of social inequality: The form and function of historical negation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 542-565. doi:10.1002/ejsp.449 · DOI
  50. Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Effects of dangerous and competitive worldviews on right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation over a five-month period. Political Psychology, 28(3), 357-371. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00572.x · DOI
  51. Sidanius, J. (1993). The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: A social dominance perspective. In S. Iyengar & W. J. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 183-219). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Journal of Social and Political Psychology 2014, Vol. 2(1), 98-116 doi:10.5964/jspp.v2i1.171
  52. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 476-490. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.476 · DOI
  53. Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Federico, C., & Pratto, F. (2001). Legitimizing ideologies: The social dominance approach. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 307-331). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
  54. Sidanius, J., Mitchell, M., Haley, H., & Navarrete, C. D. (2006). Support for harsh criminal sanctions and criminal justice beliefs: A social dominance perspective. Social Justice Research, 19, 433-449. doi:10.1007/s11211-006-0026-4 · DOI
  55. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1993). The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of social dominance. In P. Sniderman, P. Tetlock, & E. Carmines (Eds.), Prejudice, politics, and the American dilemma (pp. 173-221). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  56. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  57. Srinivas, M. N. (1966). Social change in modern India. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  58. Srinivas, M. N. (2009). The Oxford India Srinivas. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
  59. Tadmor, C. T., Chao, M. M., Hong, Y.-y., & Polzer, J. T. (2013). Not just for stereotyping anymore: Racial essentialism reduces domain-general creativity. Psychological Science, 24, 99-105. doi:10.1177/0956797612452570 · DOI
  60. Thomsen, L., Green, E. G. T., & Sidanius, J. (2008). We will hunt them down: How social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism fuel ethnic persecution of immigrants in fundamentally different ways. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1455-1464. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.06.011 · DOI
  61. Varshney, A. (2000). Is India becoming more democratic? The Journal of Asian Studies, 59(1), 3-25. doi:10.2307/2658582 · DOI
  62. Whitley, B. E., Jr. (2001). Gender-role variables and attitudes toward homosexuality. Sex Roles, 45, 691-721. doi:10.1023/A:1015640318045 · DOI
  63. Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Aegisdottir, S. (2000). The gender belief system, authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Sex Roles, 42, 947-967. doi:10.1023/A:1007026016001 · DOI
  64. Zelditch, M. (2001). Theories of legitimacy. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 3-30). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cotterill, S., Sidanius, J., Bhardwaj, A., & Kumar, V.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus (CA)
  • Jawaharlal Nehru University (IN)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Social and Political Psychology
Publisher
Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID)
Published
2014-06-10
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
98-116
ISSN
2195-3325 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.5964/jspp.v2i1.171
OpenAlex
W1988903021
Cited by
78
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
18.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Social and Political Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe’s Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • PschyOpen (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Psychology Archives (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › South Asian Studies and Diaspora
Keywords
Indian caste system, karma, social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance theory, dual-process models, social conventions, generalized prejudice, ideology, legitimation

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