PPBS

Social Dominance Orientation [2016]

A Politico-Psychological Analysis

Report generated

March 23, 2026

1 Study Characteristics

1.1 Items: Social Dominance Orientation

1.2 Sample

N=1500

To conduct a exploratory and a confirmatory large surveys during the general election, we hired a professional survey firm (SSI, a US-based market research company that recruits participants from a panel of 7,139,027 American citizens; more information can be found at www.surveysampling.com (now https://www.dynata.com/) to recruit a nationally representative sample of 1,500 Americans (50.7% women) who completed study materials during the general election from August 16-September 9, 2016. (Information about sampling and exclusion criteria is included in the Supplement). The age distribution was as follows: 18-24 (12.9%), 25-34 (17.6%), 35-44 (17.5%), 45-54 (19.5%), 55-65 (15.6%) and older than 65 (16.9%). The ethnic breakdown was: White/European American (82.5%), Black/African American (7.7%), Latino (5.9%) and “Other” (4.0%). Concerning religion, 67.6% identified as Christian, 17.1% as religiously affiliated but not Christian, and 15.3% as Atheist/Agnostic. With respect to education 35.1% indicated “high school only or lower,” 31.4 % indicated “some college,” and 33.6% indicated having received a “Bachelor” or “Graduate” degree. 2424 participants were directed to the survey, 1885 of which finished the survey (attrition rate 22%).

We followed recommendations to minimize the problem of careless responding in online studies. Specifically, we employed 10 random attention questions and time controls to check for data quality. There were 385 participants who failed more than one attention check or finished the survey in under ~22 minutes and were therefore excluded from the sample. For the 1500 participants who successfully finished the survey, completion time was 67 minutes on average (MD: 51min).

2 Descriptives

2.1 Means, SD, Range, & SE

Table 1: Descriptives
Descriptives for Social Dominance Orientation
mean sd median max range se
Dominance_mean 3.52 1.49 3.62 8.50 7.50 0.04
Antiegalitarianism_mean 3.97 1.75 4.25 9.00 8.00 0.05
SDO 3.74 1.44 4.00 8.75 7.75 0.04
Note:
n = 1500, min = 1
Table 2: Descriptives – Item Level
Descriptives for Social Dominance Orientation at Item Level
mean sd median se
Dominance1 3.60 2.30 3.00 0.06
Dominance2 3.30 2.09 3.00 0.05
Dominance3 3.73 2.19 4.00 0.06
Dominance4 3.27 2.25 3.00 0.06
Dominance5 3.72 2.30 3.00 0.06
Dominance6 3.23 2.30 3.00 0.06
Dominance7 3.56 2.36 3.00 0.06
Dominance8 3.76 2.23 4.00 0.06
Antiegalitarianism1 3.90 2.41 4.00 0.06
Antiegalitarianism2 4.53 2.66 5.00 0.07
Antiegalitarianism3 4.05 2.46 4.00 0.06
Antiegalitarianism4 4.61 2.58 5.00 0.07
Antiegalitarianism5 3.32 2.07 3.00 0.05
Antiegalitarianism6 3.83 2.18 4.00 0.06
Antiegalitarianism7 3.53 2.17 3.00 0.06
Antiegalitarianism8 3.97 2.37 4.00 0.06
SDO 3.74 1.44 4.00 0.04
Dominance_mean 3.52 1.49 3.62 0.04
Antiegalitarianism_mean 3.97 1.75 4.25 0.05
Note:
All items: n = 1500, min = 1, max = 9. SDO: min = 1, max = 8.75. Dominance_mean: min = 1, max = 8.5. Antiegalitarianism_mean: min = 1, max = 9

2.2 Response Distribution

Figure 1: Proportion of each facet of Social Dominance Orientation at item level: Dominance
Figure 2: Proportion of each facet of Social Dominance Orientation at item level: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 3: Dominance
Figure 4: Antiegalitarianism

2.3 Correlations

2.3.1 Correlation Plots

Figure 5: Bivariate Spearman correlations: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 6: Bivariate Spearman correlations: Dominance
Figure 7: Bivariate Spearman correlations: Antiegalitarianism

Note. Upper triangle shows Spearman’s rank-order correlations. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.

2.3.2 PIDF

Figure 8: Bivariate Spearman correlations by party identity: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 9: Bivariate Spearman correlations by party identity: Dominance
Figure 10: Bivariate Spearman correlations by party identity: Antiegalitarianism

Note. Upper triangle shows Spearman’s rank-order correlations by party identity. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.

2.3.3 Correlation Matrix

3 Demographics

3.1 Social Class

Figure 11: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 12: Dominance
Figure 13: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 14: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 15: Dominance
Figure 16: Antiegalitarianism

Note on the Raincloud Plots

  • Statistical summary (top): Welch’s t-test (or ANOVA) results, effect size, confidence intervals, p-values, and sample sizes are shown above each plot.
  • Bayesian analysis (bottom): Log Bayes factor and credible intervals are reported below each plot.
Table 3
Table 4: Antiegalitarianism as grouped by SES
(a)
SES N Mean SD
Poor 38 -0.09 1.03
Lower Middle Class 298 -0.11 1.01
Middle Middle Class 679 0.01 1.01
Upper Middle Class 395 0.03 0.98
Rich 90 0.17 0.99
(b)
SES N Mean SD
Poor 38 -0.09 0.90
Lower Middle Class 298 -0.02 1.01
Middle Middle Class 679 0.03 1.00
Upper Middle Class 395 -0.03 1.00
Rich 90 -0.02 1.03
(c)
SES N Mean SD
Poor 38 -0.06 1.08
Lower Middle Class 298 -0.16 0.95
Middle Middle Class 679 0.00 1.00
Upper Middle Class 395 0.07 1.00
Rich 90 0.29 1.03

3.2 Gender

Figure 17: Social Dominance Orientation Facets, as grouped by Gender: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 18: Social Dominance Orientation Facets, as grouped by Gender: Dominance
Figure 19: Social Dominance Orientation Facets, as grouped by Gender: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 20: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 21: Dominance
Figure 22: Antiegalitarianism
Table 5
Table 6: Antiegalitarianism as grouped by Gender
(a)
Gender N Mean SD
Female 760 -0.15 1.01
Male 740 0.16 0.96
(b)
Gender N Mean SD
Female 760 -0.09 1.02
Male 740 0.09 0.98
(c)
Gender N Mean SD
Female 760 -0.17 0.98
Male 740 0.18 0.99

3.3 Age

Figure 23: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 24: Dominance
Figure 25: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 26: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 27: Dominance
Figure 28: Antiegalitarianism
Table 7
Table 8: Antiegalitarianism as grouped by Age
(a)
Age N Mean SD
18-24 years 193 0.11 1.04
25-34 years 264 -0.17 1.07
35-44 years 263 0.02 1.07
45-54 years 292 -0.08 0.95
55-64 years 234 -0.08 0.94
65+ 254 0.25 0.87
(b)
Age N Mean SD
18-24 years 193 0.22 0.97
25-34 years 264 -0.06 1.09
35-44 years 263 0.04 1.10
45-54 years 292 -0.09 0.95
55-64 years 234 -0.16 0.91
65+ 254 0.10 0.93
(c)
Age N Mean SD
18-24 years 193 -0.01 1.00
25-34 years 264 -0.23 1.00
35-44 years 263 -0.01 1.06
45-54 years 292 -0.05 0.98
55-64 years 234 -0.01 1.01
65+ 254 0.32 0.88

3.4 Education

Figure 29: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 30: Dominance
Figure 31: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 32: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 33: Dominance
Figure 34: Antiegalitarianism
Table 9
Table 10: Antiegalitarianism as grouped by Education
(a)
Education N Mean SD
Less than High School 51 -0.08 0.93
High School 475 0.07 0.96
Some College 471 -0.11 1.04
Bachelor 310 0.06 0.99
Graduate 193 0.02 1.00
(b)
Education N Mean SD
Less than High School 51 -0.07 1.01
High School 475 0.14 0.98
Some College 471 -0.09 0.98
Bachelor 310 -0.01 1.03
Graduate 193 -0.08 1.04
(c)
Education N Mean SD
Less than High School 51 -0.07 0.98
High School 475 0.00 0.94
Some College 471 -0.10 1.05
Bachelor 310 0.11 0.99
Graduate 193 0.10 1.01

3.5 Income Levels

Figure 35: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 36: Dominance
Figure 37: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 38: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 39: Dominance
Figure 40: Antiegalitarianism
Table 11
Table 12: Antiegalitarianism as grouped by Income Levels
(a)
Income Levels N Mean SD
Less than $15,000 178 -0.12 0.98
$15,000-$24,999 180 -0.02 1.01
$25,000-$34,999 176 -0.04 1.02
$35,000-$49,999 227 -0.03 1.01
$50,000-$74,999 292 -0.02 0.98
$75,000-$99,999 192 0.08 1.04
$100,000-$149,999 160 0.02 0.94
$150,000 + 95 0.26 1.01
(b)
Income Levels N Mean SD
Less than $15,000 178 -0.05 0.96
$15,000-$24,999 180 0.04 0.98
$25,000-$34,999 176 -0.03 1.03
$35,000-$49,999 227 -0.03 0.98
$50,000-$74,999 292 0.02 1.00
$75,000-$99,999 192 0.05 1.06
$100,000-$149,999 160 -0.05 0.99
$150,000 + 95 0.09 0.98
(c)
Income Levels N Mean SD
Less than $15,000 178 -0.16 0.94
$15,000-$24,999 180 -0.07 0.97
$25,000-$34,999 176 -0.04 0.99
$35,000-$49,999 227 -0.01 1.02
$50,000-$74,999 292 -0.05 0.99
$75,000-$99,999 192 0.09 1.02
$100,000-$149,999 160 0.08 0.99
$150,000 + 95 0.35 1.07

3.6 Ethnicity

Figure 41: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 42: Dominance
Figure 43: Antiegalitarianism

Note on the Okabe-Ito color palette. The Okabe-Ito color palette (seen above) is a set of colorblind-friendly categorical colors available in R. We are using this palette for graphs with non-ordered variables (e.g., groups, categories) for accessibility.

Figure 44: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 45: Dominance
Figure 46: Antiegalitarianism
Table 13
Table 14: Antiegalitarianism as grouped by Ethnicity
(a)
Ethnicity N Mean SD
Caucasian/European origin 1237 0.07 0.98
Black/African American 115 -0.56 0.95
Latino 88 -0.12 0.96
Asian/Pacific Islander 29 0.04 1.05
Native American 13 -0.06 1.00
Other 18 -0.51 1.23
(b)
Ethnicity N Mean SD
Caucasian/European origin 1237 0.03 0.99
Black/African American 115 -0.36 0.99
Latino 88 0.01 1.01
Asian/Pacific Islander 29 0.24 1.08
Native American 13 0.02 0.83
Other 18 -0.44 1.18
(c)
Ethnicity N Mean SD
Caucasian/European origin 1237 0.08 0.99
Black/African American 115 -0.62 0.88
Latino 88 -0.21 0.92
Asian/Pacific Islander 29 -0.13 0.89
Native American 13 -0.11 1.04
Other 18 -0.46 1.19

3.7 Occupation

Figure 47: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 48: Dominance
Figure 49: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 50: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 51: Dominance
Figure 52: Antiegalitarianism
Table 15
Table 16: Antiegalitarianism as grouped by Occupation
(a)
Occupation N Mean SD
Employed 768 0.00 1.01
Retired 268 0.16 0.89
Unemployed 146 -0.24 0.99
Parent 104 0.08 1.05
Disabled 98 -0.05 0.99
Student 85 -0.14 1.17
Full-time caregiver 31 0.09 0.94
(b)
Occupation N Mean SD
Employed 768 -0.01 1.00
Retired 268 0.06 0.92
Unemployed 146 -0.16 1.02
Parent 104 0.14 1.11
Disabled 98 -0.07 0.94
Student 85 0.02 1.12
Full-time caregiver 31 0.23 0.94
(c)
Occupation N Mean SD
Employed 768 0.01 1.02
Retired 268 0.20 0.89
Unemployed 146 -0.25 0.95
Parent 104 0.02 1.02
Disabled 98 -0.03 1.01
Student 85 -0.24 1.09
Full-time caregiver 31 -0.05 0.92

3.8 Area

Figure 53: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 54: Dominance
Figure 55: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 56: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 57: Dominance
Figure 58: Antiegalitarianism
Table 17
Table 18: Antiegalitarianism as grouped by Area
(a)
Area N Mean SD
Urban 955 -0.09 1.00
Rural 545 0.16 0.97
(b)
Area N Mean SD
Urban 955 -0.07 1.02
Rural 545 0.13 0.96
(c)
Area N Mean SD
Urban 955 -0.09 1.00
Rural 545 0.16 0.98

3.9 Religious Affiliation

Figure 59: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 60: Dominance
Figure 61: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 62: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 63: Dominance
Figure 64: Antiegalitarianism
Table 19
Table 20: Antiegalitarianism as grouped by Religious Affiliation
(a)
Religious Affiliation N Mean SD
Christian 1014 0.09 0.94
Muslim 9 0.12 0.72
Jewish 52 -0.15 1.08
Atheist/Agnostic 230 -0.36 1.15
Not listed, No religion 195 -0.04 0.99
(b)
Religious Affiliation N Mean SD
Christian 1014 0.05 0.96
Muslim 9 0.30 0.67
Jewish 52 -0.17 1.01
Atheist/Agnostic 230 -0.30 1.12
Not listed, No religion 195 0.11 1.00
(c)
Religious Affiliation N Mean SD
Christian 1014 0.11 0.97
Muslim 9 -0.07 0.76
Jewish 52 -0.09 1.15
Atheist/Agnostic 230 -0.33 1.07
Not listed, No religion 195 -0.15 0.96

3.10 Section Summary

  Social Dominance Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 3.04 2.73 – 3.35 <.001
Age 0.01 -0.03 – 0.06 .565
Income 0.05 0.01 – 0.09 .008
Education -0.07 -0.15 – 0.01 .073
Gender (Male) 0.43 0.28 – 0.57 <.001
Observations 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted .029 / .026

4 Political Behavior

4.1 Political Orientation

Correlation with General Conservatism, Economic Conservatism, Social Conservatism

Figure 65: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 66: Dominance
Figure 67: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 68: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 69: Dominance
Figure 70: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 71: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 72: Dominance
Figure 73: Antiegalitarianism

Note. The y-axis shows residuals after regressing the outcome on demographics (Age, Income, Education, Gender). This illustrates how much the focal construct explains beyond demographic factors.

Table 21: Social Dominance Orientation and Political Orientation
  Political Orientation Social Political Orientation Economic Political Orientation Composite Political Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.31 5.20 – 5.42 <.001 4.93 4.80 – 5.06 <.001 5.48 5.36 – 5.60 <.001 5.24 5.13 – 5.35 <.001
Social Dominance Orientation 1.14 1.03 – 1.25 <.001 1.17 1.04 – 1.30 <.001 1.17 1.05 – 1.29 <.001 1.16 1.05 – 1.27 <.001
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted .216 / .216 .179 / .179 .197 / .196 .229 / .228
  Political Orientation Social Political Orientation Economic Political Orientation Composite Political Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.31 5.19 – 5.42 <.001 4.93 4.80 – 5.06 <.001 5.48 5.35 – 5.61 <.001 5.24 5.12 – 5.35 <.001
Dominance 0.79 0.67 – 0.91 <.001 0.81 0.68 – 0.95 <.001 0.75 0.62 – 0.88 <.001 0.78 0.67 – 0.90 <.001
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted .103 / .103 .086 / .086 .081 / .081 .104 / .104
  Political Orientation Social Political Orientation Economic Political Orientation Composite Political Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.31 5.20 – 5.41 <.001 4.93 4.80 – 5.05 <.001 5.48 5.36 – 5.60 <.001 5.24 5.13 – 5.34 <.001
Antiegalitarianism 1.20 1.09 – 1.31 <.001 1.23 1.10 – 1.35 <.001 1.28 1.16 – 1.39 <.001 1.24 1.13 – 1.34 <.001
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted .240 / .240 .198 / .197 .236 / .235 .260 / .260
Table 22: Social Dominance Orientation models and Demographics
  Political Orientation Social Political Orientation Economic Political Orientation Composite Political Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 1.08 0.57 – 1.59 <.001 0.97 0.38 – 1.56 .001 0.52 -0.03 – 1.07 .062 0.86 0.36 – 1.36 .001
SDO 0.75 0.68 – 0.83 <.001 0.78 0.69 – 0.86 <.001 0.77 0.68 – 0.85 <.001 0.76 0.69 – 0.84 <.001
Age 0.31 0.24 – 0.37 <.001 0.34 0.26 – 0.42 <.001 0.29 0.22 – 0.37 <.001 0.31 0.25 – 0.38 <.001
Income 0.03 -0.02 – 0.09 .251 -0.06 -0.13 – 0.01 .102 0.08 0.02 – 0.15 .012 0.02 -0.04 – 0.08 .494
Education -0.14 -0.25 – -0.02 .018 -0.19 -0.32 – -0.06 .005 0.03 -0.09 – 0.15 .639 -0.10 -0.21 – 0.01 .080
Gender (Male) 0.39 0.17 – 0.61 .001 0.44 0.19 – 0.70 .001 0.39 0.16 – 0.63 .001 0.41 0.19 – 0.62 <.001
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted .271 / .268 .232 / .229 .254 / .251 .286 / .284

4.2 Partisanship

Figure 74: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 75: Dominance
Figure 76: Antiegalitarianism
Table 23: Mean Social Dominance Orientation by Party Identity (raw means)
Party Identity N Mean SD
Strong Democrat 351 2.79 1.40
Democrat 223 3.45 1.32
Leaning Democrat 124 3.19 1.30
Independent 84 3.88 1.53
Leaning Republican 111 4.20 1.31
Republican 255 4.32 1.11
Strong Republican 318 4.51 1.09
Table 24: Mean Dominance by Party Identity (raw means)
Party Identity N Mean SD
Strong Democrat 351 2.77 1.53
Democrat 223 3.43 1.40
Leaning Democrat 124 3.26 1.51
Independent 84 3.78 1.61
Leaning Republican 111 3.74 1.52
Republican 255 3.98 1.25
Strong Republican 318 3.99 1.29
Table 25: Mean Antiegalitarianism by Party Identity (raw means)
Party Identity N Mean SD
Strong Democrat 351 2.82 1.53
Democrat 223 3.47 1.50
Leaning Democrat 124 3.13 1.44
Independent 84 3.98 1.71
Leaning Republican 111 4.66 1.56
Republican 255 4.66 1.46
Strong Republican 318 5.03 1.49
Table 26: Social Dominance Orientation & Party Identity (7-point)
  Social Dominance Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.63 2.50 – 2.76 <.001
Party Identity (7-point) 0.28 0.25 – 0.31 <.001
Observations 1466
R2 / R2 adjusted .209 / .209
  Dominance
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.76 2.61 – 2.90 <.001
Party Identity (7-point) 0.19 0.16 – 0.22 <.001
Observations 1466
R2 / R2 adjusted .092 / .092
  Antiegalitarianism
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.50 2.35 – 2.65 <.001
Party Identity (7-point) 0.37 0.33 – 0.40 <.001
Observations 1466
R2 / R2 adjusted .243 / .243
Table 27: Social Dominance Orientation & Party Identity with Controls
  Social Dominance Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.46 2.17 – 2.74 <.001
Party Identity (7-point) 0.28 0.25 – 0.30 <.001
Age -0.06 -0.10 – -0.02 .007
Income 0.03 -0.01 – 0.07 .096
Education -0.02 -0.09 – 0.05 .598
Gender (Male) 0.21 0.08 – 0.35 .002
Observations 1466
R2 / R2 adjusted .218 / .216
  Dominance
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.96 2.64 – 3.27 <.001
Party Identity (7-point) 0.20 0.17 – 0.23 <.001
Age -0.10 -0.15 – -0.05 <.001
Income 0.02 -0.02 – 0.07 .234
Education -0.07 -0.15 – 0.01 .086
Gender (Male) 0.16 0.01 – 0.31 .037
Observations 1466
R2 / R2 adjusted .108 / .105
  Antiegalitarianism
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 1.95 1.61 – 2.29 <.001
Party Identity (7-point) 0.35 0.32 – 0.39 <.001
Age -0.01 -0.07 – 0.04 .567
Income 0.04 -0.01 – 0.08 .091
Education 0.03 -0.05 – 0.11 .472
Gender (Male) 0.27 0.10 – 0.43 .001
Observations 1466
R2 / R2 adjusted .252 / .250

4.3 Religiosity

Figure 77: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 78: Dominance
Figure 79: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 80: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 81: Dominance
Figure 82: Antiegalitarianism

Note. The y-axis shows residuals after regressing the outcome on demographics (Age, Income, Education, Gender). This illustrates how much the focal construct explains beyond demographic factors.

Figure 83: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 84: Dominance
Figure 85: Antiegalitarianism

4.4 Candidate Preferences

Figure 86: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 87: Dominance
Figure 88: Antiegalitarianism
Table 28: Candidate Preference and Social Dominance Orientation [centered]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 0.46 0.83
Hillary Clinton 371 -0.37 0.95
Bernie Sanders 362 -0.52 1.00
Ted Cruz 122 0.42 0.76
Jeb Bush 83 0.37 0.78
Gary Johnson 68 0.15 0.94
Rand Paul 44 0.59 0.72
Table 29: Candidate Preference and Dominance [centered]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 0.36 0.87
Hillary Clinton 371 -0.21 1.00
Bernie Sanders 362 -0.35 1.02
Ted Cruz 122 0.14 0.93
Jeb Bush 83 0.05 0.91
Gary Johnson 68 0.07 1.10
Rand Paul 44 0.45 0.75
Table 30: Candidate Preference and Antiegalitarianism [centered]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 0.45 0.87
Hillary Clinton 371 -0.42 0.88
Bernie Sanders 362 -0.55 0.88
Ted Cruz 122 0.58 0.85
Jeb Bush 83 0.57 0.88
Gary Johnson 68 0.19 0.99
Rand Paul 44 0.59 0.79
Table 31: Candidate Preference and Social Dominance Orientation [raw means]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 4.41 1.19
Hillary Clinton 371 3.21 1.36
Bernie Sanders 362 3.00 1.44
Ted Cruz 122 4.35 1.10
Jeb Bush 83 4.28 1.13
Gary Johnson 68 3.96 1.35
Rand Paul 44 4.60 1.03
Table 32: Candidate Preference and Dominance [raw means]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 4.07 1.30
Hillary Clinton 371 3.21 1.50
Bernie Sanders 362 2.99 1.53
Ted Cruz 122 3.73 1.39
Jeb Bush 83 3.60 1.35
Gary Johnson 68 3.62 1.63
Rand Paul 44 4.20 1.12
Table 33: Candidate Preference and Antiegalitarianism [raw means]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 4.75 1.53
Hillary Clinton 371 3.22 1.54
Bernie Sanders 362 3.01 1.54
Ted Cruz 122 4.98 1.49
Jeb Bush 83 4.96 1.54
Gary Johnson 68 4.30 1.73
Rand Paul 44 4.99 1.39

4.5 Party Preferences

Figure 89: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 90: Dominance
Figure 91: Antiegalitarianism
Table 34: Party Preference and Social Dominance Orientation [centered]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Democratic Party 560 -0.47 0.96
Republican Party 508 0.42 0.80
Libertarian Party 100 -0.01 1.06
Green Party 40 -0.93 0.84
Tea Party 68 0.69 0.80
Constitution Party 14 0.11 0.91
None 120 0.16 0.93
Don't know 90 0.28 0.88
Table 35: Party Preference and Dominance [centered]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Democratic Party 560 -0.31 1.01
Republican Party 508 0.29 0.87
Libertarian Party 100 -0.07 1.04
Green Party 40 -0.77 0.94
Tea Party 68 0.26 0.89
Constitution Party 14 -0.27 0.94
None 120 0.16 0.98
Don't know 90 0.35 0.98
Table 36: Party Preference and Antiegalitarianism [centered]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Democratic Party 560 -0.52 0.88
Republican Party 508 0.44 0.83
Libertarian Party 100 0.05 1.13
Green Party 40 -0.87 0.73
Tea Party 68 0.91 0.88
Constitution Party 14 0.40 1.21
None 120 0.13 0.90
Don't know 90 0.16 0.83
Table 37: Party Preference and Social Dominance Orientation [raw means]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Democratic Party 560 3.06 1.39
Republican Party 508 4.34 1.15
Libertarian Party 100 3.74 1.52
Green Party 40 2.41 1.21
Tea Party 68 4.73 1.16
Constitution Party 14 3.90 1.31
None 120 3.97 1.34
Don't know 90 4.14 1.27
Table 38: Party Preference and Dominance [raw means]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Democratic Party 560 3.06 1.51
Republican Party 508 3.95 1.30
Libertarian Party 100 3.42 1.56
Green Party 40 2.38 1.40
Tea Party 68 3.90 1.33
Constitution Party 14 3.12 1.40
None 120 3.76 1.46
Don't know 90 4.04 1.47
Table 39: Party Preference and Antiegalitarianism [raw means]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Democratic Party 560 3.06 1.54
Republican Party 508 4.73 1.46
Libertarian Party 100 4.06 1.98
Green Party 40 2.44 1.27
Tea Party 68 5.56 1.54
Constitution Party 14 4.67 2.12
None 120 4.19 1.58
Don't know 90 4.25 1.45

4.6 Voting

Table 40: Social Dominance Orientation Voting Preferences
  2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] 2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] + Supporters 2012 [Romney vs. Obama] 2008 [McCain vs. Obama]
Predictors Log-Odds CI p Log-Odds CI p Log-Odds CI p Log-Odds CI p
(Intercept) .025 -Inf – Inf .719 .006 -Inf – Inf .933 .179 -Inf – Inf .005 .212 -Inf – Inf .001
Social Dominance Orientation -1.134 -Inf – Inf <.001 -1.118 -Inf – Inf <.001 -1.036 -Inf – Inf <.001 -0.996 -Inf – Inf <.001
Observations 1103 1148 1236 1206
R2 Tjur .225 .220 .187 .176
Figure 92: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 93: Dominance
Figure 94: Antiegalitarianism

4.7 Voting & Party Identity

Figure 95: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 96: Dominance
Figure 97: Antiegalitarianism
Table 41: Social Dominance Orientation and Party Identity & Voting
Donald Trump Hilary Clinton
Strong Republican 282 7
Republican 166 24
Leaning Republican 58 7
Independent 17 16
Leaning Democrat 10 65
Democrat 27 129
Strong Democrat 4 323
Table 42: Dominance and Party Identity
Donald Trump Hilary Clinton
Strong Republican 282 7
Republican 166 24
Leaning Republican 58 7
Independent 17 16
Leaning Democrat 10 65
Democrat 27 129
Strong Democrat 4 323
Table 43: Antiegalitarianism and Party Identity
Donald Trump Hilary Clinton
Strong Republican 282 7
Republican 166 24
Leaning Republican 58 7
Independent 17 16
Leaning Democrat 10 65
Democrat 27 129
Strong Democrat 4 323
Table 44
  2016 [Clinton vs. Trump] 2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] + Supporters
Predictors Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p
(Intercept) 51.88 25.27 – 112.99 <.001 45.02 23.04 – 92.52 <.001
Party Identity (dichotomous) 0.01 0.00 – 0.01 <.001
Party Identity (dichotomous) 0.68 0.56 – 0.81 <.001 0.67 0.56 – 0.79 <.001
Social Dominance Orientation 0.01 0.01 – 0.01 <.001
Observations 1103 1148
R2 Tjur .751 .725
Figure 98: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 99: Dominance
Figure 100: Antiegalitarianism
  2016 [Clinton vs. Trump] 2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] + Supporters
Predictors Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p
(Intercept) 35.18 18.45 – 70.79 <.001 29.39 16.13 – 56.05 <.001
Scr_PIDFRepublican 0.01 0.00 – 0.01 <.001
facet 0.76 0.64 – 0.89 .001 0.76 0.65 – 0.88 <.001
PIDFRepublican 0.01 0.00 – 0.01 <.001
Observations 1103 1148
R2 Tjur .749 .723
  2016 [Clinton vs. Trump] 2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] + Supporters
Predictors Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p
(Intercept) 39.84 21.21 – 78.66 <.001 35.89 19.88 – 67.67 <.001
Scr_PIDFRepublican 0.01 0.00 – 0.01 <.001
facet 0.73 0.63 – 0.85 <.001 0.72 0.62 – 0.83 <.001
PIDFRepublican 0.01 0.01 – 0.02 <.001
Observations 1103 1148
R2 Tjur .750 .725

4.8 Likeability

Figure 101: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 102: Dominance
Figure 103: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 104: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 105: Dominance
Figure 106: Antiegalitarianism

Note. The y-axis shows residuals after regressing the outcome on demographics (Age, Income, Education, Gender). This illustrates how much the focal construct explains beyond demographic factors.

Figure 107: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 108: Dominance
Figure 109: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 110: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 111: Dominance
Figure 112: Antiegalitarianism

Note. The y-axis shows residuals after regressing the outcome on demographics (Age, Income, Education, Gender). This illustrates how much the focal construct explains beyond demographic factors.

Figure 113: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 114: Dominance
Figure 115: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 116: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 117: Dominance
Figure 118: Antiegalitarianism

Note. The y-axis shows residuals after regressing the outcome on demographics (Age, Income, Education, Gender). This illustrates how much the focal construct explains beyond demographic factors.

5 Politico-Psychological correlates of Social Dominance Orientation


5.1 Ideologies and Partisanship

Figure 119: Social Dominance Orientation (by magnitude)
Figure 120: Dominance
Figure 121: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 122: Social Dominance Orientation (alphabetic)
Figure 123: Dominance
Figure 124: Antiegalitarianism

5.2 Populism, Nationalism, Nativism, and Patriotism

Figure 125: Social Dominance Orientation (by magnitude)
Figure 126: Dominance
Figure 127: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 128: Social Dominance Orientation (alphabetic)
Figure 129: Dominance
Figure 130: Antiegalitarianism



5.3 Political Psychology

Figure 131: Social Dominance Orientation (by magnitude)
Figure 132: Dominance
Figure 133: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 134: Social Dominance Orientation (alphabetic)
Figure 135: Dominance
Figure 136: Antiegalitarianism

5.4 Social Justice Concerns, Empathy, and Prejudice

Figure 137: Social Dominance Orientation (by magnitude)
Figure 138: Dominance
Figure 139: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 140: Social Dominance Orientation (alphabetic)
Figure 141: Dominance
Figure 142: Antiegalitarianism



5.5 Values

Figure 143: Social Dominance Orientation (by magnitude)
Figure 144: Dominance
Figure 145: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 146: Social Dominance Orientation (alphabetic)
Figure 147: Dominance
Figure 148: Antiegalitarianism



5.6 Pot-Pourri

Figure 149: Social Dominance Orientation (by magnitude)
Figure 150: Dominance
Figure 151: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 152: Social Dominance Orientation (alphabetic)
Figure 153: Dominance
Figure 154: Antiegalitarianism



5.7 Positive and Negative correlates of Social Dominance Orientation

Figure 155: Social Dominance Orientation (by magnitude)
Figure 156: Dominance
Figure 157: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 158: Social Dominance Orientation (alphabetic)
Figure 159: Dominance
Figure 160: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 161: Social Dominance Orientation (by magnitude)
Figure 162: Dominance
Figure 163: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 164: Social Dominance Orientation (alphabetic)
Figure 165: Dominance
Figure 166: Antiegalitarianism

6 Elastic Net Analysis

Figure 167: Elastic net predicting Social Dominance Orientation: Political Psychology
Figure 168: Elastic net predicting Social Dominance Orientation: Ideology & Partisanship
Figure 169: Elastic net predicting Social Dominance Orientation: Demographics
Figure 170: Elastic net predicting Social Dominance Orientation: Attitudes
Figure 171: Elastic net predicting Social Dominance Orientation: Everything
Table 45: Elastic Net Summary
Elastic Net R² for predicting Social Dominance Orientation
Variable Group # Predictors R²
Political Psychology 4 .400
Ideology & Partisanship 5 .254
Demographics 5 .046
Attitudes 6 .840
Everything 20 .850
PPBS
Psychology of Political Behavior Studies PI: Flavio Azevedo