French Validation of the Social Dominance Orientation Scale7 (SDO7) by Ho et al. (2015): A Two-Dimensional Approach to Social Inequality Support.

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
International Review of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2026-04-09 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.5334/irsp.1075
Sylvain Ferreira, Armelle Nugier
{"title":"French Validation of the Social Dominance Orientation Scale<sub>7</sub> (SDO<sub>7</sub>) by Ho et al. (2015): A Two-Dimensional Approach to Social Inequality Support.","authors":"Sylvain Ferreira, Armelle Nugier","doi":"10.5334/irsp.1075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This pre-registered study presents the French-language validation of the Social Dominance Orientation scale<sub>7</sub> (SDO<sub>7</sub>), originally developed by Ho et al. (2015). The SDO is a key variable in research on intergroup relations. Over the past two decades, a bidimensional conceptualization has emerged, distinguishing between SDO-Dominance (SDO-D) and SDO-Egalitarianism (SDO-E). These subdimensions enhance our understanding of the legitimizing myths that sustain social hierarchy. According to the original work of Ho et al. (2015), and across three independent samples (N = 1121), we found that a four-factor model (SDO-D; SDO-E; Pro-trait; Con-trait) provided the best fit to the data compared to three alternative models. Additionally, we examined the concurrent validity of the subscales using partial correlations. Results indicate that the subscales are differentially associated with attitudes and endorsement of ideological beliefs. Specifically, SDO-D is more strongly associated with attitudes and ideologies that directly oppress disadvantaged groups, whereas SDO-E is more closely linked to subtle legitimizing myths that justify social inequalities. A short version of the scale is provided in the supplementary materials.</p>","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":"39 ","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13068084/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.1075","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This pre-registered study presents the French-language validation of the Social Dominance Orientation scale7 (SDO7), originally developed by Ho et al. (2015). The SDO is a key variable in research on intergroup relations. Over the past two decades, a bidimensional conceptualization has emerged, distinguishing between SDO-Dominance (SDO-D) and SDO-Egalitarianism (SDO-E). These subdimensions enhance our understanding of the legitimizing myths that sustain social hierarchy. According to the original work of Ho et al. (2015), and across three independent samples (N = 1121), we found that a four-factor model (SDO-D; SDO-E; Pro-trait; Con-trait) provided the best fit to the data compared to three alternative models. Additionally, we examined the concurrent validity of the subscales using partial correlations. Results indicate that the subscales are differentially associated with attitudes and endorsement of ideological beliefs. Specifically, SDO-D is more strongly associated with attitudes and ideologies that directly oppress disadvantaged groups, whereas SDO-E is more closely linked to subtle legitimizing myths that justify social inequalities. A short version of the scale is provided in the supplementary materials.

Ho等人(2015)对社会优势取向量表(SDO7)的法国验证:社会不平等支持的二维方法。
这项预先注册的研究提出了社会优势取向量表(SDO7)的法语验证,该量表最初由Ho等人(2015)开发。SDO是群体间关系研究中的一个关键变量。在过去的二十年中,出现了一个二维概念,区分了SDO-Dominance (SDO-D)和SDO-Egalitarianism (SDO-E)。这些子维度增强了我们对维持社会等级制度的合法化神话的理解。根据Ho et al.(2015)的原始工作,在三个独立样本(N = 1121)中,我们发现与三种替代模型相比,四因素模型(SDO-D; SDO-E; Pro-trait; Con-trait)提供了最佳的数据拟合。此外,我们使用部分相关检验了子量表的并发效度。结果表明,各分量表与意识形态信念的态度和认同存在差异。具体来说,SDO-D与直接压迫弱势群体的态度和意识形态联系更紧密,而SDO-E与为社会不平等辩护的微妙的合法化神话联系更紧密。补充材料中提供了该比额表的简短版本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Review of Social Psychology (IRSP) is supported by the Association pour la Diffusion de la Recherche Internationale en Psychologie Sociale (A.D.R.I.P.S.). The International Review of Social Psychology publishes empirical research and theoretical notes in all areas of social psychology. Articles are written preferably in English but can also be written in French. The journal was created to reflect research advances in a field where theoretical and fundamental questions inevitably convey social significance and implications. It emphasizes scientific quality of its publications in every area of social psychology. Any kind of research can be considered, as long as the results significantly enhance the understanding of a general social psychological phenomenon and the methodology is appropriate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书