10 The Psychology of Inequity Henry, Sidanius, Levin, & Pratto, 2005 Levin, Henry, Pratto, & Sidanius, 2009) and criminal justice (e.g., Gerber & Jackson, 2013 Kteily, Cotterill, Sidanius, Sheehy-Skeffington, & Bergh, 2014), and indirectly, through processes such as legitimizing myths (e.g., Cotterill et al., 2014 Kteily, Sidanius, & Levin, 2011). Moreover, additional research has shown that although SDO itself is construed primarily as an individual difference variable, it nevertheless is subject to “cross-level processes” (Sidanius et al., 2016, p. 170)—that is, it mutually constitutes institutional forces in that people who are high in SDO tend to seek out occupations or industries whose work matches their own preferences for dominance. The quintessential example of this is Sidanius, Liu, Shaw, and Pratto’s (1994) work on how police officers and public defenders had divergent SDO scores, with the former scoring higher than the latter. In other words, police officers tended to be high in SDO, and public defenders tended to be low, and these differences cor- responded with their jobs, which involved displays of dominance or dis- plays of equality/service for the underserved. Although this finding could be due to a number of factors that the authors outlined—including self- selection, institutional selection, institutional socialization, institutional reward, and attrition (Sidanius et al., 2016)—the overall consensus is that person-level differences in ideology can feed into system-wide practices that promote—or challenge—inequity. A related construct is right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), which often goes hand in hand with SDO to promote attitudes and behaviors that fur- ther inequity. As an individual difference, RWA reflects the tendency to defer to authority (authoritarian submission) and act hostile to those who violate social norms (authoritarian aggression and conventionalism Alte- meyer, 1988). To illustrate, Cotterill et al. (2014) found that both SDO and RWA predicted endorsement of the notion of karma and anti-egalitarian policies in India—most notably, the caste system, including opposition to intercaste romantic relationship and government aid to low-status groups. In a related vein, RWA is often linked to higher prejudice. For example, it predicted anti-Black prejudice among South Africans (Duckitt & Farre, 1994) and sexist attitudes across cultures (e.g., Lee, 2013 Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007). In other words, people who are more right-wing authori- tarians also tend to be more likely to discriminate on the basis of race or gender. Interestingly, some studies have shown that individuals high on this dimension prefer more inclusiveness in certain contexts such as education—in this case, supporting the idea that gifted education should not be separated from nongifted education (Cross, Cross, & Finch, 2010). These individual differences in SDO and RWA are part of a broader group of ideologies or beliefs that can contribute to HE versus HA envi- ronments (e.g., see De Oliveira, Guimond, & Dambrun, 2012). For exam- ple, De Oliveira et al. (2012) found that being in an HE environment (such as a consulting firm for big companies) compared to being in an HA
Previous Page Next Page