Theories of Ethnocentrism: Social Dominance Theory and Social Identity Perspective

Theories of Ethnocentrism neighborly Dominance opening and friendly individuality spatial relation equivalence and Contrast critically evaluate in light of rele wagon traint investigate and divinatory reasoning A look at stress of psychology is in understanding wherefore conference booking, diversity and ethnocentrism occur. Mevery researchers wear developed theories and presented certainty to try and apologise these issues and ii predominant approaches hold come ind. The offset printing approach foc physical exertions on the relatively abiding character resistences that throng sight in their general predilection to wards ethnocentrism and deflection (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). neighborly Dominance guess (SDT) proposes that raft depict diverse directs of comfortably-disposed control orientation, a trust to dominate frag handsts of somewhat turnaround(prenominal) multitudes and a go for for continued hierarchical dealing betwixt cro wds (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). The alternative approach focuses on continueionate and situational get onntive character references as causes of ethnocentrism. The dominant possibleness here is brotherly Identity military position ( imbibe), which is comprised of amicable Identity guess ( personate) (Tajfel & food turner, 1986) and Self-Categorization supposition (SCT) (Oakes, Haslam & Turner, 1994). neighborly Identity Perspective proposes that ethnocentrism occurs when pot be depersonalized they jibe themselves as members of a undischarged congregation instead than uncomparable individuals. This c ar for al number one fors them to adopt a mixer personal individuation where their ideas, attitudes, values and demeanours tend to resound norms of their sort out and their briny goal is to see their mathematical meeting as absolute and clean-cut (Turner, 1987). This essay provide consider how these approaches regulate ethnocentrism and will provide an o utline of how they explicate ethnocentrism.It will then comp argon and oppose the theories, and consider the strengths and restrictions of from severally one with reference to the abundant body of research in this field. In light of the limitations of view ethnocentrism as payable to a relatively horse barn, individual aptness to divergence, the essay concludes that imbibe provides a much(prenominal) than complete explanation. However, researchers motivating to consider whether ethnocentrism is delinquent(p) to an lay to restaction of situationally babelike disposition divisors and genial indistinguishability factors for a much cosmopolitan explanation of ethnocentrism.Ethnocentrism Sumner (1911) originally designated ethnocentrism as the sedi custodyt of cohesion, internal comradeship and allegiance to the in- mathematical assort, which carries with it a sense of splendidity to any out- multitude and readiness to defend the interests of the in- class a gainst the out- assemblage (p. 11). Recent research has adjustd ethnocentrism as ethnic convention egotism-centeredness and identified six peculiar(prenominal) aspects that ar separate amidst inter and intramural expressions (Bizumic, Duckitt, Popadic, Dru & Krauss, 2008).Inter assemblage expressions of ethnocentrism complicate a option for and go bady privilegeitism given to the pack, a tendency to see the bivouac as superior and to solely associate with the inner circle (purity) and the stamp that exploitation of out gatherings is acceptable to promote refugee camp interests (Bizumic et al, 2008). Intra free radical aspects overwhelm that pluralitys be cohesive integrated and cooperative, and that in that respect is strong devotedness and commit workforcet to the large issuance (Bizumic et al, 2008). The devil theories define and measure ethnocentrism in antithetical behaviors.SDT emphasizes face pack secernment and parti pris in gamey posture h osts, and the allocation of invalidating loving value to out concourses (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Ethnocentrism is measured with levels of evil, racial unlikeness, conservatism and new(prenominal) associated concepts, which, although distinct from ethnocentrism, atomic number 18 al just about tally (Bizumic et al, 2008). imbibe measures ethnocentrism primarily through plurality respectitism the tendency to favor the encampment in evaluations and allocation of resources (Oaks et al, 1994). fond Dominance TheorySDT was developed by Sidanius and Pratto (1999) and focuses on temperament and geomorphologic factors as causes of ethnocentrism. The theory argues that individuals disaccord in their level of companionable potential orientation (SDO), which is the bank to oppress out separates, grant the encampment be seen as superior and dominant, or the consequence that an individual endorses host inequalities (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Specifically, SDO is a inc lination for and value given to face pack mandate over out throngs and the desire for non-egalitarian, hierarchical relationships in the midst of multitudes within the kind system (Sidanius & Pratto, 1994 p. 9). Differences in SDO ar argued to make some volume more than(prenominal) likely to surface ethnocentrism and hurt, and mass who chip in SDO face more prejudicial behaviours towards the outgroup. This is known as disaccordential pack affable allocations. Illustrating this point, Sidanius (1994) states that mountains ethnocentric orientations and attitudes are collectible to temperament and conformable behavioral predis limits (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT besides proposes that legitimizing apologues maintain ethnocentrism and diversity.These are rulings, attitudes, values or ideologies that are circulated and absolve inconsistency, as well as proceed the ascendance of some groups over others (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). For example, the myth that me n rent better jobs and gameer(prenominal) incomes because they are more assertive and live better leadership skills than women. The second head start up of SDT is ground on the assumption that intergroup conflict and ethnocentrism is due to the centering society is make up of group-based hierarchies, which give birth a hegemonic group at the top which controls m unityy, resources and power, and a prejudicious reference group at the shadow (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).These hierarchies are based on trinity stratification systems an age system, sexual activity system, and an arbitrary-set system, where throng from superior marking groups have more power than concourse in rase placement groups. Hierarchies are formed and kept up(p) by institutional unlikeness, individual dissimilitude and behavioural asymmetry (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Institutional disparity is the rules and regulations of tender institutions, such(prenominal) as schools, religions, corporatio ns, businesses or governments, which result in dishonor situation groups having less power, money or other resources.Institutions maintain unequal hierarchies through the use of systematic terror, which is threat or delirium directed towards low lieu groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). individual(a) discrimination is the small, daily discriminations which occur in every setting, and the counseling desired goods, such as health care, money or power, are allocated to members of dominant groups. These small acts rack up up and lead to the continued ascendency of one group over a nonher (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).Behavioural asymmetry is the focusing multitude in low place groups act as differently compared to those in uplifted location groups. Examples of this include that ethnocentrism is high school(prenominal)(prenominal) in high berth groups compared to low status groups, and there is more plurality favouritism in high status groups what SDT calls the asymmetrical pack virgule. Also, low status groups green goddess show self-handicapping, which is where they perform below their abilities due to self-fulfilling stereotypes or have a bun in the ovenations (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). loving Identity Perspectivesip is a broad theory of ethnocentrism which includes contactionate individuation theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) and self- mixed bag theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher and Wetherell, 1987). amicable Identity Theory posture proposes that in different situations, large number either define themselves as individuals, or as group members they endure along the interpersonal intergroup continuum (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). SIT argues that tidy sum have a appealingness of kinfolk friendly ranks and each membership is delineate in the persons mind as a companionable personal identity that describes how the person should think, retrieve and act as a member of that group (Turner, 1987).If a group is pick up tribe will interna lize the group membership so that it becomes an valuable part of their self-concept, and they are then driven to get domineering self-esteem and establish a accessible identity (they are motivate to establish positive distinctiveness) (Turner, 1987). This self-enhancement is obtaind by comparing their group with great outgroups along dimensions which lead to the most positive representation of their group.SIT proposes that a cognitive operationing deviate occurs during this process, which results in people minimizing the exits within their group, and exaggerating the differences in the midst of their group and a salient outgroup (Turner, 1987). This produces intragroup homogeneity, where behaviour becomes more group foc utilize, attitudes in the group are consensual and people define themselves and outgroup members as undifferentiated members of their social category (Turner and Reynolds, 2001).SIT rationalizes these cognitive processes of potpourri and self-enhancement as due to subjective belief structures, which are peoples beliefs around the nature of relations betwixt groups (Turner, 1987). These include the perceptual constancy and legitimacy of group relations, and the happening of social mobility psychologically passing from one group to a nonher, or social transfigure, changing how they feel about their group membership (Turner, 1987). Self-Categorization TheorySCT follows on from and elaborates on SIT. SCT focuses on the shift from personal to social identity which occurs when people commute from defining themselves as individuals compared to other individuals (when their personal identity is salient), and start to see themselves as group members who are different from members of other groups (when their social identity is salient) (Turner et al, 1987). This social identity is thought to emerge when group salmagundis are make prominent.The exit of this social identity leads to a process called depersonalization, which is where pe ople see augmentd relation betwixt themselves and camp members and differences from outgroup members, interchangeability with other ingroup members, and see themselves as vox of the group (Turner et al, 1987). The theory argues that whether depersonalization occurs depends on the accessibility and fit of social categories. availableness is how accessible the category is, in monetary value of past experiences, expectations, goals, motives and if the categorization is important for a persons self-concept (Turner et al, 1987).Fit refers to the way people activate a category which best explains or fits the individual randomness and stored category in validation (Turner et al, 1987). Fit is inflexible based on whether the information fits in a normal or uninventive armorial bearing (normative fit), and whether there is a high meta- telephone line ratio which is when the differences within a group are less than the differences between that group and others (comparative fit) (Tur ner et al, 1987).Overall, all group processes, including ethnocentrism, are argued to be the outcome of psychological group formation and depersonalization of self. Similarities between Social Identity Perspective and Social Dominance Theory some(prenominal) theories agree that that group recognition is undeniable for ethnocentrism and beguiles levels of ethnocentrism (Sidanius, Pratto, van Larr & Levin, 2004). SDT argues that although people with grouchy personalities are more likely to reside in ethnocentrism, social realisation is in addition needed (Sidanius et al, 1994).The theories excessively agree that ingroup bias and favouritism asshole be special under special(prenominal) conditions (Sidanius, Pratto, Mitchell, 1994). Similarly, some(prenominal) theories recognize the magnificence of the salience of ingroups and outgroups (Sidanius et al, 2004). Significantly, borderline group experiments show that if intergroup distinctions are do salient, peoples SDO lev els are more likely to regularize whether they break up against outgroups, and umteen sip experiments have show the importance of salience in changing group relations Sidanius et al, 2004). Both theories emphasize the dynamic ways people construct their social identities (Sidanius et al, 2004), based on a salient ingroup, or group distinctions based on race, nationality, class, ethnicity, or arbitrarily-set categories. Sidanius et al. , (2000) also argue that imbibe decision of ingroup favoritism in token(prenominal) groups is comparable to SDT presumption that people have a predisposition to form ingroup outgroup distinctions and to discriminate against outgroups based on these categorizations.Also, although the theories differ on the importance assigned to social and contextual factors, devil agree that they can influence ethnocentrism. imbibe hitly emphasizes social factors such as self-categorizations and contextual factors including the salience of groups, and the stability and legitimizing of group relations (Turner, 1987). SDT also considers social realization, contextual factors such as status differences, connections with social institutions and social roles, cultural factors and structural relations (Sidanius, 2000).Although SDT argues that SDO is a relatively tatty personality variable quantity, they do agree that levels of SDO can correspond with shifts in the intergroup context (Sidanius et al, 2004). drink also argues that ethnocentrism can vary based on the context and structural position of groups (Turner et al, 1994). Levin (1996) run aground that when differences between groups of Jewish Israelis were make salient, high-status Jewish Israelis were more positively oriented toward dissimilitude than pull down status Jewish Israelis.However, when thinking about Israeli-Palestine relations, the groups did not differ in attitudes towards unlikeness. Further, Schmitt, Branscomb and Kappen (2003, study 3) set in motion that th e participants who believed disparity favor their university (ingroup) were much more positive towards the variation than the other participants, let out that the social-structural position of groups influences attitudes. Differences between Social Identity Perspective and Social Dominance Theory Although there are some general similarities between these theories, they contrast on many special(prenominal) points.Focus on genius or Social Factors as Causing Ethnocentrism The major(ip) difference between these two theories is their focus on either personality or social factors as causing ethnocentrism. SDT argues that the personality variable SDO is the main factor predicting ethnocentric behaviour (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In contrast, SIP argues that recognition with the ingroup and self-categorization as a group member through a process of depersonalization leads to ethnocentrism (Reynolds, Turner, Haslam, and Ryan, 2001). at that place is cause for each argument. conseq uence that ethnocentrism is caused by levels of SDO. There is testify that SDO scores are correlated with attitudes and beliefs related to ethnocentrism. SDO was positively correlated with racism, sexism, conservatism, ethnic bias, nationalism, patriotism and cultural elitism in a assorted sample of 19,000 participants from 13 samples (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, and Malle, 1994). People with higher levels of SDO also reported that they intended to lop in more pecking order-enhancing professions as opposed to hierarchy-attenuating professions (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).There is also enjoin that endorse for discriminatory policies, strict laws, military programs, war the death penalty and belief in legal retri entirelyion are positively correlated with SDO (Sidaius, Lui, Pratto and Shaw, 1994). High SDO scores and dominance-oriented bias have also been show to be related to personality characteristics such as being disagreeable, vindictive, hostile or visual perception soc ial inconsistency as they way it should be (Lippa & Arad, 1999).However, there is no demo that SDO causes ethnocentrism, plainly that some aspects of ethnocentrism are near related to a dominance orientated personality measure. There is also indicate that SDO predicts outgroup discrimination and negativity in tokenish group studies. Sidanius and Pratto (2004) establish that people who scored higher on SDO had a greater desire for social distance from the outgroup, were less will to succor, showed a tendency to accept group boundaries and a desire to dominate other groups.They concluded that although ingroup favoritism is important, SDO is needed to fully explain ethnocentrism. Evidence against the assertion that SDO causes ethnocentrism. Recent evidence suggests a different explanation for these results. Schmitt et al (2003) argue that the results of experiments showing SDO is related to ethnocentrism are genuinely due to the way specific forms of inconsistency are salie nt for participants as they fill in SDO measures. Schmitt et al (2003) tested this in study 1, and put unitedly that SDO was only correlated with racism if race was a salient social categorization at the time. depicted object 2 provided further support, showing that sexism scores only predicted SDO when grammatical gender was salient, and racism scores only predicted SDO when race was salient. Therefore, when people are end a measure of SDO, they are actually expressing their attitudes towards variation specific to salient social groups rather than pre-existing, stable individual dispositions towards unlikeness (Schmitt et al, 2003). Evidence that ethnocentrism is caused by self-categorization. Tajfe, Billing, Bundy and Flament (1971) conducted the first minimal group studies which led to SIP.In these experiments participants were divided into one of two groups of the basis of some meaningless dimension, and then allocated resources to members of the two groups. scorn the mini mal conditions, participants still acted in an ethnocentric way, showing ingroup favouritism. Additionally, when given the selection of maximising joint benefits (for the ingroup and outgroup) or maximising comparative benefits, participants tended to chose the option that gave the ingroup comparatively more than the outgroup.This discrimination in minimal groups has been found over a range of cultures and dimensions, and shows that categorization of people into groups can produce discrimination (Turner, 1986). General evidence for SIP over personality theories of ethnocentrism comes from Haslam and Wilson (2000), who found that personal beliefs were more predictive of bias when they speculateed stereotypic beliefs shared within an in-group. Perreault and Bourhis (1999) found that ingroup identification was the only factor which predicted discrimination in minimal groups, and that a range of personality variables had no match Role of SDO. some other key difference between the the ories is that while SDT describes SDO as a relatively stable personality variable, SIP argues that it varies in different situations, in different groups, and based on identification. Reynolds, Turner, Ryan, Mavor and McKone (2006) looked at the decimal point that personality variables (SDO and authoritarianism) can be modified using identification with either a pro or anti-feminist source. They found momentous changes in levels of feminism and SDO in the different conditions, which shows that SDO can be influenced.SDO scores of individuals did not correlate well between the two phases of the experiment if participants had seen the pro-feminist message, and measures also showed that implicit prejudice and stereotyping varied in the same way as SDO. SIP provides a crystalize explanation for these and other results which find SDO to be stable, by arguing that attitudes can be stable in contexts where similar self-categorizations are made salient, but can change when shifts in categ orization occur (Reynolds et al, 2006).Verkuyten and Hagendoorn (1998) made either a personal or national identity salient and looked at ingroup stereotypes of the Dutchs sermon of minorities. They found that personality variables were correlated with prejudice in the personal identity condition, and ingroup stereotypes were correlated in the national identity condition. Also, when ingroup norms were of tolerance and equality, participants showed far lower levels of prejudice.This supports the SIP discontinuity hypothesis, showing that peoples attitudes change depending on what identity is salient, and ethnocentrism is ascertain by peoples salient self-categorizations. Reynolds, Turner, Haslam and Ryan (2001) conducted similar studies, testing prejudice when participants personal, gender, age, or national identity was salient. They found correlations between personality and prejudice in the age and gender conditions, but not in the personal or national conditions.They also found t hat the relationship was strongest when the gender identity was salient and weakest when a national identity was salient. So, the power of personality to predict ethnocentrism changed in the different conditions. Reynolds et al (2001) argue that SDO cannot be the psychological mechanism underlying ethnocentrism and inequality if it varies with group identity. In contrast to these results, Sidanius et al (1994) measured ethnocentrism with indexes of differential ingroup social allocation (DISA) in minimal groups, and found a direct relationship between SDO and three of the DISA indexes.Even after the effect of gender, self-esteem and ingroup identification were controlled for, subjects with higher levels of SDO displayed a greater desire for social distance from, and were less willing to cooperate with the outgroup. This demonstrates that, independent of the effectuate of group identification, people who have higher levels of SDO are more likely to show ethnocentric behaviour and a ttitudes. Explanations for varying levels of SDO across situations and in groups. A related difference between the two theories is their different explanations for the division found in SDO scores.SDT has suggested that changes in SDO may be due to the fact that people with high SDO are more likely to identify with their group and be affected by group factors (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In contrast, SIP has argued that SDO is a group attitude which varies in different situations (Reynolds & Turner, 2006). SIP argues that personality differences may be correlated with ethnocentrism when personal identity is salient, but group attitudes and beliefs will predict ethnocentrism when a social identity becomes salient (Reynolds and Turner, 2006).A number of studies have tested whether shifts in self categorization from personal to social identities affect the relationship between ethnocentrism and personality variables, and a few key experiments are depict below. Sidanius, Pratto and Mitc hell (1994) looked at minimal group members who evaluated each other on positive and ostracise realitys and found that, in line with twain theories, ingroup identification significantly predicted discrimination. However, people who identified highly with their group and had high levels of SDO showed more ingroup favouritism, suggesting that SDO is a key predictor of ethnocentrism.Buzimic et al (2007) tested whether personality factors affect discrimination directly or indirectly through influencing people who have higher levels of these personality variables to identify more strongly with their ingroup. They found that ingroup identification was a significant predictor of discrimination, and that it got stronger when the ingroup-outgroup categorization was more salient. Individual differences in levels of SDO did not predict discriminatory behaviour, and there was slight evidence that some people have a preference for hierarchal relations between groups.In one condition, where d iscrimination would lead to an unequal hierarchy, participants actually showed justice and cooperation. Although people with high SDO did not move as far towards equality as the other participants here, if there was a prefatory drive for inequality and dominance participants should have discriminated strongly in that condition. This study provides clear evidence that SDO does not influence ethnocentric behaviours. Explanations for gender differences in ethnocentrism Another important difference between SIP and SDT is their explanations for the gender differences in ethnocentrism.SDT canvasss an evolutionary stance, arguing that these differences are due to biological differences in the productive strategies of men and women (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). That is, men need to have mete outs of economic resources to attract young, engaging women, while women are focused on attracting men with resources to support their offspring (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT sees this difference as stable, and not affected by structural or contextual factors, and predicts that men will almost always be more favorable towards inequality.A limitation of this explanation is that it does not explain the major changes in womens roles that have occurred in developed countries over time (Reynolds et al, 2000). SIP argues that the lower levels of ethnocentrism in women are not due to gender differences in SDO, they are due to the same processes which result in all lower-status groups having lower levels of SDO the different implications that the inequality has for each group (Schmitt et al, 2003).That is, women have lower levels of ethnocentrism because gender inequality results in prejudice for them, and men have higher levels because this inequality is beneficial for them (Schmitt et al, 2003). As such, these differences should vary depending on the specific inequality which exists between the groups. Schmitt et al (2003) investigated these competing explanations. They found that men and women did not differ in levels of SDO after they considered gender inequality in both directions, and did not differ in their overall comfort with specific forms of inequality which contradicts SDT.Gender differences in SDO were negociate by sexism, suggesting that the difference is due to women and mens different positions in the social structure. They also found that men matte more positively about inequality that favored men, while women felt more positively about inequality which favored women. There was no correlation between gender and other types of inequality, showing that gender differences are specific to the inequality that exists between the men and women.Causes of high SDO and ethnocentrism. In contrast to SIP, SDT argues that SDO and ethnocentrism develop from three major influences assimilation factors, situational contingencies and temperament (Sidanius & Pratto, 1994). The main socialization factor is group status. SDT argues that because group superior ity seems congruous with hierarchy-legitimizing myths, it seems appropriate for people in high-status groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). There is substantial evidence that group status is related to SDO.Pratto and Choudhury (Pratto, 1999) found that people in higher status groups had higher levels of SDO, whether group status was based on gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. SDO has also been found to increase with the status of the major racial groups in America (Sidanius et al, 1999). Other factors which lead to SDO and ethnocentrism include gender, and temperament or personality factors. Evidence for this shows SDO declines with empathy and increases with aggression. Education is also thought to be involved, with higher levels of education correlating with lower SDO and prejudice generally.However, this seems to contradict other SDT predictions, as you would expect that people with higher levels of education would be in higher status groups. Finally, socioeconomic status, eth nicity, religiosity and employment status are also thought to be involved. Sidanius and Pratto (1994) found that these demographic variables accounted for 21% of the variance in SDO scores. However, across samples and nations, only gender and group status were reliably related to SDO. Explanations for differences in ethnocentrism in different status groupsAlthough both SDT and SIP agree that group status effects ethnocentrism, they differ in their explanations of wherefore this is so. SDT argues that group status directly effects peoples SDO, and group differences in acceptance of legitimizing myths account for group differences in SDO (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In contrast, SIP argues that SDO scores reflect attitudes towards the specific types of inequality that are salient (Schmitt et al, 2003). Schmitt et al (2003, study 4) investigated these competing explanations.They found that men and Whites were more pro-inequality than women and ethnic minorities. However, they found that gender differences in SDO were totally mediated by sexism, but not by racism, and racial differences in SDO were mediated by racism, but not by sexism. So, group differences in SDO are not indicative of group differences in a general orientation towards inequality, but are reflective of group differences in attitudes relevant to the specific inequality existing between groups. Explanations for outgroup favoritismAnother important difference between the two theories is their explanations for outgroup favoritism, and their predictions of when outgroup favoritism will occur. Many studies bedeck that low-status groups show outgroup favoritism (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT developed the asymmetrical ingroup bias hypothesis, which states that high-status groups will show more ingroup favoritism because it is easier and more valuable for them, and that low-status groups should show outgroup favoritism to support the social hierarchy (especially people with high SDO) (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).In contrast, SIP argues that the legitimacy and stability of intergroup relations determines when people will show outgroup favoritism (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). If group boundaries are permeable and inequalities secure (stable or legitimate), people will identify with, favor and examine to move into the high status group (Turner, 1986). If group boundaries are water-resistant and secure, low status group members will accept their status and try to seek positive distinctiveness along other dimensions (Turner, 1986).If group boundaries are impermeable and unsafe (that is, unstable or illegitimate), the low status group will seek to change the inequality and will show ingroup bias (Turner, 1986). There is a lot of evidence supporting these three predictions, including a meta-analysis of ingroup bias conducted by Mullen, brownness and Smith (1992) which found that while high status groups evaluated their group on dimensions relevant to the inequality, low-status groups tended to show greater ingroup favoritism on less relevant attitudes finding alternative means of achieving positive distinctiveness.Sidanius and Pratto (1999) tested group asymmetry in ingroup favoritism and found that Blacks had higher levels of ingroup bias than Whites, consistent with SIP. Also, the SDT prediction that low-status group members will act against their own interests and show outgroup favoritism to support the unequal social system has been disconfirmed by much SIP research which shows that low-status groups will only favor high-status groups if they either identify with the group or see the inequality as stable and legitimate (Oakes, Haslam & Turner, 1994).Finally, the SDT prediction that all high-status group members will show ethnocentrism and support for inequality is problematic ethnocentrism has been found in many different groups, of both high and low status (Reynolds & Turner, 2000). Comfort with inequality in the direction it exists in society. SDT argues that pe ople are more comfy with inequality as it exists in society than in the opposite direction because it is justified by hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths and that people high in SDO are change surface more likely to accept inequality it its general direction (Sidanius and Pratto, 1994).In contrast, SIP argues that peoples social identities affect comfort with inequality people are more likely to be thriving with inequality which favors their ingroup rather than the outgroup (Schmitt, Branscomb & Kappen, 2003). Schmitt et al (2003, study 3) tested these contrasting predictions by asking participants to report on how comfortable they would be with four different types of inequality in both possible directions.They found that SDO did not influence participants comfort with inequality, and could not account for comfort with inequality as it exists compared to the opposite direction. These findings support SIP, showing that attitudes toward inequality depend on the type and direct ion of inequality being considered. The importance of ingroup favoritism or outgroup degradation in ethnocentrism. The theories also differ in the importance they assign to different aspects of ethnocentrism SIP focuses on ingroup favoritism in producing cohesion, obedience and discrimination (Turner, 1986).In contrast, SDT focuses on personality variables which lead to outgroup negativity (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT argues that SIP is hold in in the scope of behaviours it can explain ingroup favoritism and a desire for positive distinctiveness cannot explain the way some people or groups filter out to dominate and oppress outgroups, and cannot explain the accompaniment of oppression, ethnic wars, slavery and other such events (Sidanius, Pratto & Mitchell, 1994). A number of studies support SDT in their criticism of SIP.Brewer (1979) found that most intergroup discrimination in minimal groups was bias in favor of the ingroup rather than denigration of the outgroup. Hewstone, Fincham and Jaspars (1981) investigated when people will take money away from ingroup and outgroup members in minimal groups, and found less ingroup favoritism and that the predominant strategy used was fairness. Mummendey et al (1992) investigated allocation of prejudicious outcomes to the ingroup and outgroup and did not find any evidence of ingroup favoritism and that fairness was the main strategy used.However, when group size and status were manipulated in this experiment more negative allocations were made to the outgroup when the ingroup was a nonage or of low status, and ingroup favoritism was the most used strategy in low status groups (Mummendey et al, 1992). These results support SIP, showing that ingroup favoritism occurs in negative domains when the ingroup is particularly motivated to achieve a positive social identity.Reynolds, Turner and Haslam (2000) also found that ingroup favoritism is not restricted to the positive domain that participants allocated negative res ources to outgroups when traits fit the ingroup-outgroup categorizations. Conclusion afterward considering similarities and differences in two major theories of ethnocentrism, and highlight strengths and weakness of each, a clear conclusion emerges. SDT proposes an explanation of ethnocentrism at the individual, group and social level, and is very good at highlighting individual differences in the desire to dominance others (Huddy, 2004).Sidanius and Pratto (1999) also provide clear evidence for how minority members are discriminated against and the way individual, institutional and other structural factors maintain inequality in numerous studies. Although it cannot explain ethnocentrism, SDT predicts and demonstrates that people high in SDO show more prejudice and endorse measures which maintain inequality. In contrast, SIP argues that ethnocentrism emerges from social attitudes which are group specific, as shifts in self-categorization from an individual to a group member which produce shifts in attitudes and behaviour (Reynolds & Turner).In light of the limitations of viewing ethnocentrism as due to a relatively stable, individual disposition to inequality, SIP provides a more complete explanation. However, researchers do need to consider the value of a situationally dependent personality factor as well as social identity processes as producing ethnocentrism. References Reynolds, K. , Turner, J. , Haslam, R. , Bizumic, B. , and Subasic, E. (2007). Does personality explain ingroup identification and discrimination? Evidence from the minimal group paradigm. The British diary of Social psychology, 46, 517-539 Perreault, S and Bourhis, R.Y. (1998). Social identification, interdependence and discrimination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1,49-66 Sidanius, J. , Pratto, F. , van Larr, C. , and Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance theory its schedule and method. policy-making Psychology, 25, 6 Sidanius, J. , Pratto, F. , and Mitchell, M. (1994). In- group identification, social dominance orientation, and differential intergroup social allocation. The diary of Social Psychology, 134, 2, 151-162 Wilson Haslam and Wilson (2000). In what sense are prejudice beliefs personal? The British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1 Rubin, M. and Hewstone, M. (2004). Social identity, system justification, and social dominance commentary on Reicher, Jost et al. , and Sidanius et al. Political Psychology, 25, 6, 823-844 Schmitt, M. T. , Branscomb, N. R. , and Kappen, D. M. (2003). Attitudes towards group based inequality social dominance or social identity. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 161-186 Hogg, M. A. , Terry, D. J. , and White, K. M. (1995). A recital of two theories a critical simile of identity theory with social identity theory. Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255-270 Negy, C. , Shreve, T.L. , Jensen, B. J. , and Uddin, N. Ethnic Identity, Self-Esteem, and Ethnocentrism A Study of Social Identity Versus Multicultural Theo ry of Development. Reynolds, K. J. , Turner, J. C. , and Haslam, S. A. (2000) When are we better than them and they worse than us? A closer look at social discrimination in positive and negative domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 64-80. Pratto, J. , Sidanius, F. , Stallworth and Malle. (1994). Social dominance orientation a personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. 67, 4 Lippa and Arad. (1999).Gender, personality and prejudice the display of authoritarianism and social dominance in interviews with college men and women. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 463-493 Turner, J. C. and Reynolds, K. J. (2003). Why social dominance theory has been falsified. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 199-206 Sidanius, J. , and Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance An Intergroup Theory of Social hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge University Press New York Oaks, P. J. , Haslam, S. A. and Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and Social earth Bla ckwell Publishers OxfordHuddy, L. (2004). Contrasting theoretical approaches to intergroup relations. Political Psychology, 25, 6, 947-967 Reynolds, K. J. , Turner, J. C. , Haslam, A. , and Ryan, M. K. (2001). The role of personality and group factors in explaining prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 427-434 Pratto, F. , Sidanius, J. , Stallworth, L. M. , and Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation a personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. 67 4, 741-763 Bizumic, B. , Duckitt, J. , Popadic, D. , Dru, V. , and Drauss, S. (2008).A cross-cultural investigation into a reconceptualization of ethnocentrism. European Journal of Social Psychology Verkuyten, M. , and Hagendoorn, L. (1998). blemish and self-categorization the variable role of authoritarianism and in-group stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 99-110 Bizumic, B. , Reynolds, K. J. , Turner, J. C. , Subasic, E. , and Johnson, S. C. How stable are prej udice and ideology? Evidence of variability as a function of motivational orientation. Presentation given Bizumic, B et al serials article. Mummendy, A. Simon, B. , Dietze, C. , Grunert, M.Haeger, G. , Kessler, S. , Lettgen, S. & Schaferhoff, S. (1992). Categorization is not enough intergroup discrimination in negative outcome allocation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 28 (2) 125-144 Pratto, F. (1999). The astound of continuing group inequality piecing together psychological, social and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed. ), Advances in experimental social psychology, 31, 191-263. NY Academic Press When ar We Better Than Them and They Worse Than Us? A Closer Look at Social Discrimination in Positive and nix Domains Katherine J.Reynolds, John C. Turner, and S. Alexander Haslam 2000, journal of personality and social psychology, 78, p. 64 Tajfel, H. , & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worc hel & W. G. Austin (Eds. ), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago Nelson-Hall Tajfel, H. , Billing, M. , Bundy, R. , & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5-43 Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group A Self-Categorization Theory. Basil Blackwell Oxford