A Critical Examination and Meta-Analysis of the Distinction Between the Dominance and Antiegalitarianism Facets of Social Dominance Orientation

Social dominance orientation (SDO) holds a central position in social dominance theory. Since the development, validation, and publication of the SDO7 scale in 2015, which was designed to distinguish between the dominance (SDO-D) and (anti-)egalitarianism (SDO-E) facets of SDO, it has become common in the literature to distinguish between these facets using the SDO7. This is based on the theoretical proposition that SDO-D and SDO-E meaningfully differ and have different relationships with other constructs. However, the present study critically reviews the original validity evidence provided for the SDO7's distinction between SDO-D and SDO-E and notes conceptual and empirical reasons to question this distinction. Because a sizable number of studies have used the SDO7 since the presentation of that original validity evidence, the present study uses meta-analysis to leverage this burgeoning literature to determine whether there has since been more convincing empirical evidence for the distinction between these facets. The meta-analysis finds that SDO-D and SDO-E have a magnitude of intercorrelation that would often be considered adequate for a reliability coefficient (mean rho = .83), have extremely similar patterns and magnitudes of relationships with the variables in their nomological network, and have nearly identical means and standard deviations. Although the SDO7 is a useful, reliable, and valid measure of overall SDO, its use to distinguish between SDO-D and SDO-E is not empirically supported. The present meta-analysis also provides insights into the nomological network of SDO-D, SDO-E, and overall SDO and the distributional characteristics of study participants' SDO scale scores.

Automated summary

This study critically examines the distinction between dominance and egalitarianism facets of social dominance orientation (SDO) and finds that the empirical evidence does not support this distinction.