Jakob Sverre Løvstad
CTO, Seema
16 April 2025
Today's programme in the series "Snippets from Social Psychology" (TM) is about social dominance theory ("Social Dominance Theory"; SDT), an idea with accompanying empirical evidence that first saw the light of day in 1992 under the auspices of psychology researchers Jim Sidanius, Erik Devereux, and Felicia Pratto.
The fundamental observation here is that humans organise themselves in hierarchies, just as other mammals often do, and that the tendency is something very basic about us as a social being. When you look at organisational charts and social structures, even in our self-proclaimed "flat Norway", it's clear that we have hierarchies everywhere.
What the SDT team came up with as a starting point for researching the phenomenon was a scale to measure the extent to which people had an orientation towards such hierarchies, called social dominance orientation ("Social Dominance Orientation"; SDO). This scale is so interesting that I might as well include it in its full form (you score the extent to which you agree with each item):
SDO-6
- Some groups of people are just more worthy than others.
- In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups.
- It's OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than others.
- To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups.
- If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems.
- It's probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom.
- Inferior groups should stay in their place.
- Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.
- It would be good if groups could be equal. (reverse-scored)
- Group equality should be our ideal. (reverse-scored)
- All groups should be given an equal chance in life. (reverse-scored)
- We should do what we can to equalise conditions for different groups. (reverse-scored)
- Increased social equality is beneficial to society. (reverse-scored)
- We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally. (reverse-scored)
- We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible. (reverse-scored)
- No group should dominate in society. (reverse-scored)
By extension, an important reason why we organise ourselves into hierarchies is that it is about resources. It is conceivable that a chosen division of society into groups with higher or lower status is primarily about competition for finances in the broadest sense of the word (access to life's goods, so to speak). And that's the way it is, objectively speaking: The leadership group, regardless of whether it's in a school class or an organisation or a country, usually has access to more of everything. To the envy of those who are not in the good company.
By extension, SDT describes a number of narratives or myths that we use to justify structural differences - such as karma, that wealth always comes from hard work, that a priesthood is entitled to its benefits by virtue of being divine, that more responsibility should be paid for, that a certain social group is particularly good and deserves more, and so on.
One example that we know particularly affects diversity in Norway (and much of the West) is so-called paternalistic myths: That the dominant groups are the ones who serve and build society, while minorities should be looked after in much the same way as children (hence "paternalistic"). In practice, this means that we are happy to help those with diversity based on a sympathetic: "We're so 'nice' to welcome and support diverse groups, but we don't provide access to advancement. Classic examples are organisations that claim great diversity, but where all the "others" work on the floor rather than in management positions or key professional roles. Or when you provide food and shelter for refugees, but don't ensure a good entry into the labour market and recognition of education from their home country. In other words, a bit of "welcome to us, but know your place".
Of course, part of the story is also sensitivity to the availability of resources - i.e. the context in which you find yourself and the wealth there. If there is an abundance, the effects of SDT will usually be somewhat smaller. But in today's society, with increasing scarcity of resources globally, wars in important food-producing countries and so on, we will probably be more concerned than before with hierarchies and ensuring that our in-group is as high as possible - at the expense of whatever we define as the out-groups. And interestingly enough, we can also consider sustainability and climate challenges as a topic related to diversity - something perhaps not everyone has thought about so carefully (until now, that is).
A little dark, but very interesting.
English 
Norwegian