Guest  

 
Search: 
Search By: SubjectAbstractAuthorTitleFull-Text

 

Showing 1 through 5 of 983 records.
Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 197 - Next  Jump:
2011 - ISPP 34th Annual Scientific Meeting Pages: unavailable || Words: 4179 words || 
Info
1. Zubieta, Elena., Delfino, Gisela. and Valencia, Jose. "Authoritarianism, social dominance and social values: Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent factors" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISPP 34th Annual Scientific Meeting, Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey, Jul 09, 2011 Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2018-10-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p510490_index.html>
Publication Type: Paper (prepared oral presentation)
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Several authors have studied the relationship between SDO and RWA (Altemeyer, 1998; Pratto et al., 1994; Roccato & Ricolfi, 2005; Weber & Federico, 2007), as well as their relation with values (Cohrs et al., 2005; Duriez, et al., 2005; Heaven & Connors, 2001). As far as SDO is concerned, recent research has shown the existence of a bidimensional structure: opposition to equality (OEQ) and group-based dominance (GBD) (Jost & Thompson, 2000; Sidanius & Peña, 2002; Silvan-Ferrero & Bustillos, 2007). The aim of this study is to deepen into the relationship between RWA and the dimensions of SDO, as well as their relation to values. 463 subjects took part in the study and measures of values (Schwartz, 1992), RWA (Zakrisson, 2005), and SDO (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) were used. Significant correlations between RWA and SDO as well as the relationship among the SDO dimensions were found. The SEM showed that the bidimensional model had a better fit than the unidimensional one. Entering the values as covariates, and RWA, SDO and its dimensions as dependent variables, several GLM analyses were performed, showing that the model was significant for RWA, SDO, BDG, and OEQ. Results also showed that RWA was better predicted by the value dimension of conservation while SDO by the dimensions of self-enhance and self-transcendence. Moreover, while the BDG and OEQ were similar in self-transcendence, BDG had a higher level of self-enhance and conservation. Finally, the relevance of the results to the theoretical and applied dimensions is discussed.

2008 - APSA 2008 Annual Meeting Pages: 33 pages || Words: 17161 words || 
Info
2. Hale, Henry. "What Makes Dominant Parties Dominant in Hybrid Regimes? The Unlikely Importance of Ideas in the Case of United Russia" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the APSA 2008 Annual Meeting, Hynes Convention Center, Boston, Massachusetts, Aug 28, 2008 Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2018-10-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p278703_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Dominant parties are widely seen as stabilizing hybrid regimes, but there is less agreement on how these parties emerge and serve their stabilizing function. This paper draws on a logic of elite and mass collective action to argue that ideas and other sources of genuine popular support are likely to be crucial in underpinning the initial emergence and subsequent success of dominant parties in ways not usually recognized. In particular, such support can be crucial to the successful functioning of even the most coercive sources of party and regime power. Russia provides a rare opportunity in the world of comparative scholarship to study the initial emergence of a hybrid regime dominant party at the micro level, using mass opinion surveys. This paper demonstrates the important role of ideas and other forms of popular support (most notably economic assessments) using the Russian Election Studies series of surveys that span the emergence of Russia's increasingly dominant United Russia Party as well as the election cycle before that party first appeared (that is, 1995-2008). The most recent survey wave, conducted in spring 2008, includes embedded experiments and other items specially designed to identify more precisely the bases of United Russia’s power. This includes the party’s relationship to Putin, which turns out to be more complicated and less one-sided than previously thought.

2014 - Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology Words: 234 words || 
Info
3. Aiello, Antonio., Morselli, Davide., Prati, Francesca., Serino, Carmencita., Bou Zeineddine, Fouad., Stewart, Andrew L.. and Pratto, Felicia. "The social psychology of dominance and counter-dominance: The role of political complexity evaluation in legitimizing moral vs. hegemonic intervention in protests against Authoritarian government." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Ergife Palace Hotel, Rome, Italy, Jul 04, 2014 <Not Available>. 2018-10-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p730399_index.html>
Publication Type: Paper (prepared oral presentation)
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The present communication aims at framing the social dominance orientation and its articulation with political complexity evaluations in legitimizing the international intervention in support for the Arab uprising,). In addition, this study contrasts the role of social dominance orientation against its theoretical opposite, the counter-dominance construct (Pratto et al., 2013a) defined as a psychological response to oppressive hierarchical systems. This new construct is driven by a collective relational “need for social inclusion” toward myths and ideologies to fight group hierarchies. This study relies on a preliminary version of a Counter-Dominance Orientation (CDO) developed by Pratto and colleagues, as well as the new short version of the social dominance orientation scale (Sorth-SDO; Pratto et al, 2013b). Political complexity was measured testing the different degree participants have in framing “political issues” as a complex entity to manage. Path analysis was used to test the relationship between perception of political complexity, the two dominance constructs (SDO and CDO), and their connection with legitimizing myths in supporting international intervention in the Arab countries touched by the uprising movements. Results show that two different types of interventions (moral and hegemonic) were supported by counter-dominant and social-dominant respectively, through specific legitimizing myths. In addition, social-dominance and counter-dominance orientations reflected opposite readings of the complexity of political reality: SDO was partially explained by a simplistic view of the political dynamics, and CDO was associated to a complex view.

2007 - International Society of Political Psychology Words: 244 words || 
Info
4. Henkel, Kristin. and Pearson, Adam. "Social Dominance and Terror Management: Social Dominance Orientation as a Moderator of Mortality Salience Effects" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Classical Chinese Garden, Portland, Oregon USA, <Not Available>. 2018-10-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p204499_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Two experiments examined the relationship between Terror Management Theory and Social Dominance Theory in predicting group prejudice. Substantial research has shown that increasing peopleâ??s awareness of their own mortality (mortality salience) increases prejudice and discrimination against those who violate oneâ??s cultural worldview. Another body of research has shown that social dominance orientation is a robust predictor of group prejudice. Experiment 1 tested whether Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) moderates mortality salience effects on prejudice. Participants who were pre-tested on SDO were randomly assigned to a mortality salience or no-treatment control condition. SDO moderated the effects of mortality salience on attitudes toward social groups that were either marginalized (e.g. Blacks, Latinos) or perceived as non-American (e.g., Arabs, Illegal Immigrants). Participants who scored low on the SDO pre-test showed significantly less favorable attitudes toward these groups in the mortality salience condition as compared to the control group, whereas participants who scored high on SDO showed no significant difference between conditions.The second experiment tested whether different ways of inducing transcendence following mortality salience could reduce prejudice. Following measures of SDO and the mortality salience task, participants were randomly assigned to write an essay either on their future legacy (personal transcendence), future transportation (transportation transcendence), or directions to the post office (control). SDO moderated the effects of the different transcendence manipulations: future orientation reduced prejudice among those low on SDO and personal transcendence reduced prejudice among high SDO participants. Implications for the psychology of meaning and prejudice are discussed.

2012 - ISPP 35th Annual Scientific Meeting Words: 240 words || 
Info
5. Morselli, Davide., Pratto, Felicia., Bou Zeineddine, Fouad., Aranda, Maria., Stewart, Andrew., Cidam, Atilla., Foels, Robert., Durrheim, Kevin., Aiello, Antonio., Eicher, Veronique., Licata, Laurent., Meyer, Ines., Petrovic, Nebojsa., Saab, Rim. and Sweetman, Joseph. "Social Dominance and Counter Dominance Orientation Scales (SDO/CDO): Testing Measurement Invariance" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISPP 35th Annual Scientific Meeting, Mart Plaza, Chicago, IL, <Not Available>. 2018-10-16 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p570521_index.html>
Publication Type: Paper (prepared oral presentation)
Abstract: Social dominance orientation is defined as one’s general approval of group dominance rather than intergroup equality and integration. The new construct of counter-dominance orientation is a measure of psychological response to oppressive hierarchical systems. It is motivated by a collective relational need for inclusion and belonging, a need shaped by the affordances and demands and constraints of the social ecology and the socio-political context within it. The measure has 4 subcomponents: Dominance/Exclusion, Affinity for resistance/Inclusion, Acquiescence to dominance, Egalitarian/Anti-Egalitarian.

This international study tests whether new scales to measure social dominance orientation (SDO) and Counter Dominance Orientation (CDO) comparable across countries? In order to compare the results on SDO and CDO, the two scales must indeed measure identical concepts across the different samples used for comparative or cross-cultural analyses. The equality of the measures may be violated at different levels and for different reasons. For instance, questions and answers may be interpreted in different ways in different countries or languages. For this reasons measurement invariance need to be empirically tested before proceeding to comparative analysis. In this paper, the measurement invariance of SDO/CDO was assessed using multiple group confirmatory factor analysis on a sample of 1809 participants from 18 countries in 7 macro regions (North America, Western Europe, Balkans, Middle-East, Asia, Africa, and Oceania) and in 13 languages. Results show a good fit of the invariance models, when controlled for a few country-specific exceptions. Violations to the invariance model are investigated.

Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 197 - Next  Jump:

©2018 All Academic, Inc.   |   All Academic Privacy Policy