Adaptation and Validation of the New Social Dominance Orientation Scale (SDO7) To European-Portuguese
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17575/psicologia.1919Palavras-chave:
Social dominance orientation, intergroup relations, psychometric properties, scale validationResumo
Understanding why hierarchical social systems thrive and persist has been an important issue for the social sciences. Social dominance orientation (SDO) is considered one of the most important measures to study intergroup attitudes and behavior and how hierarchical social systems are maintained. In this study (N = 313) we assessed the psychometric proprieties of the European-Portuguese version of the SDO7 scale and examined the proposed two-factor solution corresponding to the two SDO subdimensions (SDO-D and SDO-E). Results of the confirmatory factor analysis showed that both the one-factor (full scale) and the two-factor solution model have good indicators of model fit. Nevertheless, results also showed that, although the SDO full scale was positively correlated with all the related constructs (e.g., right-wing authoritarianism, meritocracy), each subdimension correlated with them differently. Thus, considering and examining the two subdimensions separately should allow to understand and predict, with more precision, intergroup attitudes, and behaviors.
Downloads
Referências
Aiello, A., Passini, S., Tesi, A., Morselli, D., & Pratto, F. (2019). Measuring Support For Intergroup Hierarchies: Assessing The Psychometric Proprieties of The Italian Social Dominance Orientation 7 Scale. TPM: Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 26(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.4473/TPM26.3.4
Altemeyer, R. A., & Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Harvard University Press.
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
American Psychological Association, APA Task Force on Psychological Assessment and Evaluation Guidelines. (2020). APA Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-psychological-assessment-evaluation.pdf
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
Carvalho, C. L., Pinto, I. R., Costa-Lopes, R., Paéz, D., & Marques, J. M. (2021). Support for group-based inequality among members of low-status groups as an ingroup status-enhancement strategy. Social Psychological Bulletin, 16(2), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.5451
Carvalho, C. L., Pinto, I. R., Costa-Lopes, R., & Páez, D. (2023). “I Have Nothing to Complain About!”: System Justification Tendencies Undermines Collective Action Through Adherence to Hierarchy-Legitimizing Ideologies. International Journal of Social Psychology.
Carvalho, C. L., Pinto, I. R., Páez, D., Costa-Lopes, R., & Marques, J. M., (2022). “We will Show Our Strength!”: The Independentists’ Support for Group-based Hierarchy to Guarantee and Legitimate Ingroup Status-enhancement. International Journal of Social Psychology, 37(2), 271–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2022.2038420
Castillo, J. C., Torres, A., Atria, J., & Maldonado, L. (2019). Meritocracia y desigualdad económica: Percepciones, preferencias e implicancias. Revista Internacional De Sociología, 77(1), e117. https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2019.77.1.17.114
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
Fenn, J., Tan, C. S., & George, S. (2020). Development, validation and translation of psychological tests. BJPsych Advances, 26(5), 306-315. https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2020.33
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1984). On the meaning of within-factor correlated measurement errors. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 572-580.
https://doi.org/10.1086/208993
Giger, J.-C., Orgambídez-Ramos, A., Gonçalves, G., Santos, J., & Gomes, A. (2015). Evidências métricas da adaptação da Escala de Dominância Social numa amostra portuguesa. Avaliação Psicológica, 14(1), 143-151. https://doi.org/10.15689/ap.2015.1401.16
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., Foels, R. & Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003-1028. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033
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(5), 583-606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167211432765
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Sage Publications, Inc.
International Test Commission. (2017). The ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (Second edition). [www.InTestCom.org]
Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 260-265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x
Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 209-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1403
Kang, H., & Ahn, J. W. (2021). Model setting and interpretation of results in research using structural equation modeling: A checklist with guiding questions for reporting. Asian Nursing Research, 15(3), 157-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2021.06.001
Kay, A. C., & Jost, J. T. (2003). Complementary justice: effects of "poor but happy" and "poor but honest" stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 823-837. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford publications.
Kugler, M. B., Cooper, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2010). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality correspond to different psychological motives. Social Justice Research, 23(2-3), 117-155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-010-0112-5
Levin, S. (2004). Perceived group status differences and the effects of gender, ethnicity, and religion on social dominance orientation. Political Psychology, 25(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00355.x
Levin, S., & Sidanius, J. (1999). Social dominance and social identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup favoritism or outgroup derogation? Political Psychology, 20(1), 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00138
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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(3), 369-409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031003005
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(4), 741-763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
Pratto, F., Stewart, A. L., & Bou Zeineddine, F. (2013). When inequality fails: Power, group dominance, and societal change. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 1(1), 132–160. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v1i1.97
Roccato. M.. & Ricolfi. L. (2005). On the correlation between right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 27(3). 187-200. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2703_1
Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & Kappen, D. M. (2003). Attitudes toward group-based inequality: Social dominance or social identity?. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322127166
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1993). The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of social dominance. In P. M. Sniderman, P. E. Tetlock, & E. G. Carmines (Eds.), Prejudice, politics, and the American dilemma (p. 173–211). Stanford University Press.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2012). Social dominance theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 418–438). Sage Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222
Sidanius, J., Cotterill, S., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Kteily, N., & Carvacho, H. (2017). Social dominance theory: Explorations in the psychology of oppression. In C. G. Sibley & F. K. Barlow (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 149–187). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.008
Sidanius, J., Levin, S., & Pratto, F. (1996). Consensual social dominance orientation and its correlates within the hierarchical structure of American society. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(3-4), 385-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(96)00025-9
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Mitchell, M. (1994a). In-Group identification, social dominance orientation, and differential intergroup social allocation. Journal of Social Psychology, 134(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1994.9711378
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Mitchell, M. (1994a). In-Group identification, social dominance orientation, and differential intergroup social allocation. Journal of Social Psychology, 134(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1994.9711378
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Rabinowitz, J. (1994b). Gender, ethnic status, ingroup attachment and social dominance orientation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 194-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022194252003
Silván-Ferrero, M. D. P., & Bustillos, A. (2007). Adaptación de la escala de Orientación a la Dominancia Social al castellano: validación de la Dominancia Grupal y la Oposición a la Igualdad como factores subyacentes. Revista de Psicología Social, 22(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347407779697485
Terhune, K. W. (1964). Nationalism among foreign and American students: An exploratory study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 8(3), 256-270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002764008003
Vilanova, F., Almeida-Segundo, D. S. D., Duarte, M. D. Q., & Costa, Â. B. (2022). Evidências de Validade da Escala de Orientação à Dominância Social no Brasil. Psico-USF, 27, 437-449. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712024270303
West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). The Guilford Press.
Whittaker, T. A. (2012). Using the modification index and standardized expected parameter change for model modification. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(1), 26-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2010.531299
Whittaker, T. A. & Schumacker, R. E. (2022). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Routledge.
Zakrisson, I. (2005). Construction of a short version of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(5), 863-872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.026
