| Social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and social dominance theory (SDT; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) have emerged as two of the leading theories used to predict individual behavior in group settings. Under many circumstances they make similar predictions; however there seem to be certain situations (for example, individual versus intergroup threat) in which each theory makes a different prediction. This research aimed to examine that difference and provide evidence as to which theory is more accurate in predicting human behavior under those circumstances. The underlying hypothesis of this research was that because social dominance orientation (SDO) is presumably a stable personality attribute (Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin, 2006; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), under varying threat conditions one's SDO should remain stable as predicted by SDT. If SIT was a better explanatory mechanism on the other hand, then SDO would be more variable under those different threat situations as SIT suggests behaviors are more situational in nature. Other outcomes were also measured (personal identity, social identity, and protectiveness of the group) to examine differences between the predictive power of each theory. Findings indicate that SDT is a better explanatory mechanism for behavior choice particularly under threat conditions when a group is considered low status. Results of this study are discussed with caveats and strengths.;Keywords: social identity, social dominance, threat, status... |
