PPBS

Social Dominance Orientation [2020]

A Politico-Psychological Analysis

Report generated

March 23, 2026

1 Study Characteristics

1.1 Items: Social Dominance Orientation

1.2 Sample

N=TBD

Sample description for the 2020 PPBS CINT study to be added.

2 Descriptives

2.1 Means, SD, Range, & SE

Table 1: Descriptives
Descriptives for Social Dominance Orientation
mean sd median max range se
Dominance_mean 3.43 1.54 3.50 8.50 7.50 0.03
Antiegalitarianism_mean 3.59 1.66 3.88 9.00 8.00 0.04
SDO 3.51 1.47 3.69 8.25 7.25 0.03
Note:
n = 2000, min = 1
Table 2: Descriptives – Item Level
Descriptives for Social Dominance Orientation at Item Level
mean sd median se
Dominance1 3.70 2.51 3.00 0.06
Dominance2 3.37 2.21 3.00 0.05
Dominance3 3.76 2.27 4.00 0.05
Dominance4 3.16 2.27 2.00 0.05
Dominance5 3.37 2.22 3.00 0.05
Dominance6 2.99 2.02 2.00 0.05
Dominance7 3.37 2.32 3.00 0.05
Dominance8 3.69 2.16 4.00 0.05
Antiegalitarianism1 3.69 2.36 4.00 0.05
Antiegalitarianism2 4.29 2.59 5.00 0.06
Antiegalitarianism3 3.86 2.40 4.00 0.05
Antiegalitarianism4 4.41 2.50 5.00 0.06
Antiegalitarianism5 2.76 1.93 2.00 0.04
Antiegalitarianism6 3.30 2.05 3.00 0.05
Antiegalitarianism7 3.01 1.98 3.00 0.04
Antiegalitarianism8 3.43 2.16 3.00 0.05
SDO 3.51 1.47 3.69 0.03
Dominance_mean 3.43 1.54 3.50 0.03
Antiegalitarianism_mean 3.59 1.66 3.88 0.04
Note:
All items: n = 2000, min = 1, max = 9. SDO: min = 1, max = 8.25. 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 154 0.04 1.01
Lower Middle Class 405 0.00 0.96
Middle Middle Class 786 -0.04 1.01
Upper Middle Class 655 0.04 1.02
(b)
SES N Mean SD
Poor 154 0.08 1.02
Lower Middle Class 405 0.05 0.98
Middle Middle Class 786 -0.05 0.99
Upper Middle Class 655 0.01 1.01
(c)
SES N Mean SD
Poor 154 -0.01 1.00
Lower Middle Class 405 -0.05 0.96
Middle Middle Class 786 -0.02 1.02
Upper Middle Class 655 0.06 1.00

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 1030 -0.08 0.97
Male 970 0.08 1.03
(b)
Gender N Mean SD
Female 1030 -0.07 0.98
Male 970 0.07 1.01
(c)
Gender N Mean SD
Female 1030 -0.07 0.97
Male 970 0.07 1.03

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 233 -0.10 1.02
25-34 years 356 -0.05 1.08
35-44 years 335 0.12 0.99
45-54 years 331 0.01 1.03
55-64 years 332 0.02 0.98
NA 413 -0.02 0.91
(b)
Age N Mean SD
18-24 years 233 -0.03 1.01
25-34 years 356 0.01 1.08
35-44 years 335 0.17 0.98
45-54 years 331 0.00 1.01
55-64 years 332 -0.10 0.98
NA 413 -0.05 0.93
(c)
Age N Mean SD
18-24 years 233 -0.16 1.00
25-34 years 356 -0.10 1.05
35-44 years 335 0.06 0.99
45-54 years 331 0.02 1.03
55-64 years 332 0.12 1.03
NA 413 0.02 0.90

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
High School or less 761 0.06 0.98
Some College 565 -0.10 1.00
Bachelor or higher 674 0.02 1.02
(b)
Education N Mean SD
High School or less 761 0.08 1.00
Some College 565 -0.10 0.98
Bachelor or higher 674 -0.01 1.01
(c)
Education N Mean SD
High School or less 761 0.02 0.97
Some College 565 -0.09 1.03
Bachelor or higher 674 0.05 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 $15,000 229 0.05 1.00
$15,000-$24,999 188 0.13 0.92
$25,000-$34,999 187 -0.11 0.95
$35,000-$49,999 255 -0.02 0.98
$50,000-$74,999 357 -0.09 1.05
$75,000-$99,999 243 0.03 1.00
$100,000-$149,999 290 -0.01 1.02
$150,000 + 251 0.08 1.02
(b)
Income Levels N Mean SD
Less than $15,000 229 0.12 1.01
$15,000-$24,999 188 0.17 0.94
$25,000-$34,999 187 -0.13 0.97
$35,000-$49,999 255 -0.03 0.99
$50,000-$74,999 357 -0.08 1.02
$75,000-$99,999 243 -0.01 0.99
$100,000-$149,999 290 -0.03 1.00
$150,000 + 251 0.04 1.03
(c)
Income Levels N Mean SD
Less than $15,000 229 -0.01 0.98
$15,000-$24,999 188 0.06 0.96
$25,000-$34,999 187 -0.08 0.95
$35,000-$49,999 255 -0.01 0.98
$50,000-$74,999 357 -0.08 1.06
$75,000-$99,999 243 0.06 1.03
$100,000-$149,999 290 0.00 1.02
$150,000 + 251 0.10 0.97

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
Black/African American 255 -0.19 0.99
Asian/Pacific Islander 99 -0.02 0.93
Native American 13 -0.22 1.16
Other 27 0.03 0.99
NA 1516 0.05 1.00
NA 88 -0.19 1.01
NA 2 0.01 0.15
(b)
Ethnicity N Mean SD
Black/African American 255 -0.06 1.04
Asian/Pacific Islander 99 0.06 0.90
Native American 13 -0.47 0.97
Other 27 -0.02 0.94
NA 1516 0.02 1.00
NA 88 -0.23 1.00
NA 2 0.01 1.43
(c)
Ethnicity N Mean SD
Black/African American 255 -0.28 0.97
Asian/Pacific Islander 99 -0.10 0.94
Native American 13 0.05 1.24
Other 27 0.07 1.04
NA 1516 0.06 1.00
NA 88 -0.13 1.01
NA 2 0.02 1.60

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 994 0.06 1.03
Retired 420 -0.07 0.90
Unemployed 241 -0.08 1.01
Parent 71 0.24 0.89
Disabled 114 -0.06 1.02
Student 123 -0.25 0.99
Full-time caregiver 37 0.18 1.11
(b)
Occupation N Mean SD
Employed 994 0.06 1.03
Retired 420 -0.12 0.92
Unemployed 241 -0.03 1.00
Parent 71 0.24 0.91
Disabled 114 0.02 1.03
Student 123 -0.20 0.98
Full-time caregiver 37 0.10 1.06
(c)
Occupation N Mean SD
Employed 994 0.05 1.02
Retired 420 -0.01 0.93
Unemployed 241 -0.11 0.99
Parent 71 0.21 1.02
Disabled 114 -0.12 1.01
Student 123 -0.27 0.97
Full-time caregiver 37 0.23 1.08

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 568 -0.02 1.05
Rural 424 0.10 0.97
NA 1008 -0.03 0.98
(b)
Area N Mean SD
Urban 568 0.02 1.05
Rural 424 0.09 0.97
NA 1008 -0.05 0.98
(c)
Area N Mean SD
Urban 568 -0.06 1.04
Rural 424 0.10 1.00
NA 1008 -0.01 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
Catholic 468 0.12 0.97
Protestant 784 0.12 0.93
Jewish 72 -0.13 1.08
Muslim 11 -0.08 1.02
Atheist/Agnostic 328 -0.40 1.05
Don't know / refused 337 -0.03 1.02
(b)
Religious Affiliation N Mean SD
Catholic 468 0.13 0.99
Protestant 784 0.08 0.95
Jewish 72 -0.15 1.05
Muslim 11 0.11 1.00
Atheist/Agnostic 328 -0.36 1.03
Don't know / refused 337 0.01 1.01
(c)
Religious Affiliation N Mean SD
Catholic 468 0.09 0.96
Protestant 784 0.14 0.96
Jewish 72 -0.10 1.09
Muslim 11 -0.25 1.06
Atheist/Agnostic 328 -0.37 1.02
Don't know / refused 337 -0.06 1.01

3.10 Section Summary

  Social Dominance Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 3.19 2.92 – 3.46 <.001
Age 0.02 -0.02 – 0.06 .335
Income 0.00 -0.03 – 0.04 .880
Education -0.07 -0.15 – 0.02 .133
Gender (Male) 0.25 0.12 – 0.38 <.001
Observations 2000
R2 / R2 adjusted .008 / .006

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) 51.70 50.51 – 52.90 <.001 50.03 48.77 – 51.30 <.001 54.38 53.14 – 55.63 <.001 52.04 50.88 – 53.20 <.001
Social Dominance Orientation 13.45 12.25 – 14.64 <.001 14.22 12.96 – 15.48 <.001 13.53 12.29 – 14.78 <.001 13.73 12.57 – 14.89 <.001
Observations 2000 2000 2000 2000
R2 / R2 adjusted .196 / .195 .196 / .196 .185 / .184 .213 / .213
  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) 51.70 50.46 – 52.95 <.001 50.03 48.72 – 51.35 <.001 54.38 53.09 – 55.68 <.001 52.04 50.83 – 53.25 <.001
Dominance 10.86 9.61 – 12.10 <.001 11.41 10.10 – 12.73 <.001 10.71 9.41 – 12.01 <.001 10.99 9.78 – 12.21 <.001
Observations 2000 2000 2000 2000
R2 / R2 adjusted .128 / .127 .126 / .126 .116 / .115 .136 / .136
  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) 51.70 50.52 – 52.89 <.001 50.03 48.78 – 51.29 <.001 54.38 53.15 – 55.62 <.001 52.04 50.89 – 53.19 <.001
Antiegalitarianism 13.73 12.54 – 14.92 <.001 14.59 13.33 – 15.84 <.001 14.02 12.78 – 15.26 <.001 14.11 12.96 – 15.26 <.001
Observations 2000 2000 2000 2000
R2 / R2 adjusted .204 / .204 .206 / .206 .198 / .198 .225 / .225
Table 22: Social Dominance Orientation models and Demographics
  Political Orientation Social Political Orientation Economic Political Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 13.42 7.81 – 19.03 <.001 12.18 6.26 – 18.09 <.001 9.49 3.64 – 15.33 .001
SDO 9.11 8.30 – 9.92 <.001 9.60 8.75 – 10.45 <.001 9.15 8.31 – 10.00 <.001
Age 2.57 1.86 – 3.28 <.001 2.67 1.91 – 3.42 <.001 2.55 1.81 – 3.30 <.001
Income -0.47 -1.07 – 0.13 .122 -0.61 -1.24 – 0.02 .059 0.18 -0.44 – 0.81 .568
Education -0.21 -1.82 – 1.40 .795 -1.71 -3.41 – -0.01 .048 0.71 -0.97 – 2.38 .408
Gender (Male) -0.37 -2.79 – 2.05 .764 0.35 -2.21 – 2.90 .790 0.72 -1.80 – 3.24 .576
Observations 2000 2000 2000
R2 / R2 adjusted .216 / .214 .218 / .216 .206 / .204

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
Democrat 772 2.93 1.43
Republican 657 4.19 1.28
Don't Know/Other 72 3.67 1.42
Independent/Moderate 499 3.50 1.39
Table 24: Mean Dominance by Party Identity (raw means)
Party Identity N Mean SD
Democrat 772 2.96 1.52
Republican 657 3.97 1.44
Don't Know/Other 72 3.55 1.43
Independent/Moderate 499 3.42 1.48
Table 25: Mean Antiegalitarianism by Party Identity (raw means)
Party Identity N Mean SD
Democrat 772 2.89 1.55
Republican 657 4.40 1.46
Don't Know/Other 72 3.80 1.65
Independent/Moderate 499 3.58 1.58
Table 26: Social Dominance Orientation & Party Identity (7-point)
  Social Dominance Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.30 2.14 – 2.45 <.001
Party Identity (7-point) 0.31 0.28 – 0.35 <.001
Observations 1429
R2 / R2 adjusted .176 / .175
  Dominance
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.46 2.29 – 2.62 <.001
Party Identity (7-point) 0.25 0.21 – 0.29 <.001
Observations 1429
R2 / R2 adjusted .102 / .102
  Antiegalitarianism
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.14 1.97 – 2.31 <.001
Party Identity (7-point) 0.38 0.34 – 0.42 <.001
Observations 1429
R2 / R2 adjusted .200 / .200
Table 27: Social Dominance Orientation & Party Identity with Controls
  Social Dominance Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.13 1.80 – 2.45 <.001
Party Identity (7-point) 0.32 0.28 – 0.35 <.001
Age -0.03 -0.07 – 0.01 .164
Income -0.01 -0.04 – 0.03 .736
Education -0.03 -0.12 – 0.07 .543
Gender (Male) 0.24 0.10 – 0.39 .001
Observations 1429
R2 / R2 adjusted .184 / .181
  Dominance
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.53 2.17 – 2.88 <.001
Party Identity (7-point) 0.26 0.22 – 0.30 <.001
Age -0.07 -0.11 – -0.02 .005
Income -0.02 -0.06 – 0.02 .287
Education -0.04 -0.15 – 0.06 .412
Gender (Male) 0.23 0.07 – 0.39 .004
Observations 1429
R2 / R2 adjusted .114 / .111
  Antiegalitarianism
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 1.73 1.37 – 2.09 <.001
Party Identity (7-point) 0.38 0.34 – 0.42 <.001
Age 0.01 -0.04 – 0.05 .817
Income 0.01 -0.03 – 0.05 .661
Education -0.02 -0.12 – 0.09 .772
Gender (Male) 0.26 0.10 – 0.42 .002
Observations 1429
R2 / R2 adjusted .206 / .203

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 614 0.54 0.83
Joe Biden 326 -0.11 0.95
Bernie Sanders 326 -0.53 0.95
Elizabeth Warren 86 -0.91 0.82
Kamala Harris 30 -0.16 0.81
Pete Buttigieg 75 -0.39 0.94
Rand Paul 24 0.19 1.08
None/Not listed 217 0.09 0.92
Michael Bloomberg 43 -0.18 1.04
Jeb Bush 29 0.18 1.02
Beto O'Rourke 13 -0.48 1.07
Ted Cruz 46 0.42 0.87
Hillary Clinton 78 -0.39 0.94
Mitt Romney 28 -0.02 0.94
Amy Klobuchar 23 -0.53 0.68
Marco Rubio 26 0.21 0.77
Gary Johnson 10 0.06 0.75
Jill Stein 6 -0.79 0.80
Table 29: Candidate Preference and Dominance [centered]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 614 0.47 0.90
Joe Biden 326 -0.02 0.99
Bernie Sanders 326 -0.42 0.95
Elizabeth Warren 86 -0.79 0.89
Kamala Harris 30 -0.06 0.82
Pete Buttigieg 75 -0.33 0.93
Rand Paul 24 -0.06 0.82
None/Not listed 217 0.01 0.95
Michael Bloomberg 43 -0.10 1.01
Jeb Bush 29 0.03 1.06
Beto O'Rourke 13 -0.40 1.07
Ted Cruz 46 0.17 0.88
Hillary Clinton 78 -0.33 0.92
Mitt Romney 28 -0.21 0.99
Amy Klobuchar 23 -0.59 0.68
Marco Rubio 26 0.00 0.83
Gary Johnson 10 0.02 0.86
Jill Stein 6 -0.89 0.70
Table 30: Candidate Preference and Antiegalitarianism [centered]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 614 0.52 0.85
Joe Biden 326 -0.18 0.91
Bernie Sanders 326 -0.55 0.92
Elizabeth Warren 86 -0.88 0.74
Kamala Harris 30 -0.22 0.80
Pete Buttigieg 75 -0.39 0.94
Rand Paul 24 0.40 1.32
None/Not listed 217 0.14 0.91
Michael Bloomberg 43 -0.22 1.03
Jeb Bush 29 0.29 0.98
Beto O'Rourke 13 -0.47 0.99
Ted Cruz 46 0.58 1.08
Hillary Clinton 78 -0.38 0.93
Mitt Romney 28 0.16 0.90
Amy Klobuchar 23 -0.39 0.71
Marco Rubio 26 0.37 0.72
Gary Johnson 10 0.09 0.77
Jill Stein 6 -0.58 0.80
Table 31: Candidate Preference and Social Dominance Orientation [raw means]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 614 4.30 1.22
Joe Biden 326 3.34 1.39
Bernie Sanders 326 2.74 1.40
Elizabeth Warren 86 2.18 1.20
Kamala Harris 30 3.28 1.19
Pete Buttigieg 75 2.93 1.38
Rand Paul 24 3.79 1.59
None/Not listed 217 3.64 1.35
Michael Bloomberg 43 3.25 1.53
Jeb Bush 29 3.77 1.50
Beto O'Rourke 13 2.81 1.57
Ted Cruz 46 4.12 1.28
Hillary Clinton 78 2.94 1.38
Mitt Romney 28 3.49 1.38
Amy Klobuchar 23 2.73 1.00
Marco Rubio 26 3.81 1.13
Gary Johnson 10 3.59 1.11
Jill Stein 6 2.34 1.17
Table 32: Candidate Preference and Dominance [raw means]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 614 4.15 1.38
Joe Biden 326 3.39 1.53
Bernie Sanders 326 2.78 1.46
Elizabeth Warren 86 2.22 1.37
Kamala Harris 30 3.33 1.27
Pete Buttigieg 75 2.92 1.44
Rand Paul 24 3.34 1.26
None/Not listed 217 3.44 1.47
Michael Bloomberg 43 3.27 1.55
Jeb Bush 29 3.47 1.64
Beto O'Rourke 13 2.81 1.64
Ted Cruz 46 3.68 1.36
Hillary Clinton 78 2.92 1.42
Mitt Romney 28 3.11 1.53
Amy Klobuchar 23 2.52 1.05
Marco Rubio 26 3.42 1.28
Gary Johnson 10 3.45 1.32
Jill Stein 6 2.06 1.08
Table 33: Candidate Preference and Antiegalitarianism [raw means]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 614 4.45 1.41
Joe Biden 326 3.29 1.52
Bernie Sanders 326 2.69 1.52
Elizabeth Warren 86 2.14 1.23
Kamala Harris 30 3.22 1.32
Pete Buttigieg 75 2.94 1.56
Rand Paul 24 4.25 2.19
None/Not listed 217 3.83 1.51
Michael Bloomberg 43 3.23 1.71
Jeb Bush 29 4.08 1.63
Beto O'Rourke 13 2.81 1.63
Ted Cruz 46 4.56 1.79
Hillary Clinton 78 2.96 1.54
Mitt Romney 28 3.87 1.49
Amy Klobuchar 23 2.95 1.17
Marco Rubio 26 4.21 1.19
Gary Johnson 10 3.74 1.28
Jill Stein 6 2.62 1.33

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
Democrat Party 841 -0.40 0.96
Republican Party 736 0.47 0.86
Libertarian Party 97 -0.10 0.90
Green Party 22 -0.52 1.01
Tea Party 38 0.44 0.81
None 266 0.00 0.98
Table 35: Party Preference and Dominance [centered]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Democrat Party 841 -0.29 0.97
Republican Party 736 0.39 0.92
Libertarian Party 97 -0.27 0.85
Green Party 22 -0.44 0.92
Tea Party 38 0.19 0.77
None 266 -0.04 1.03
Table 36: Party Preference and Antiegalitarianism [centered]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Democrat Party 841 -0.44 0.92
Republican Party 736 0.47 0.87
Libertarian Party 97 0.07 1.03
Green Party 22 -0.52 1.00
Tea Party 38 0.59 0.95
None 266 0.03 0.93
Table 37: Party Preference and Social Dominance Orientation [raw means]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Democrat Party 841 2.92 1.41
Republican Party 736 4.20 1.26
Libertarian Party 97 3.36 1.33
Green Party 22 2.74 1.48
Tea Party 38 4.15 1.18
None 266 3.50 1.44
Table 38: Party Preference and Dominance [raw means]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Democrat Party 841 2.97 1.50
Republican Party 736 4.02 1.42
Libertarian Party 97 3.01 1.32
Green Party 22 2.76 1.42
Tea Party 38 3.73 1.18
None 266 3.37 1.58
Table 39: Party Preference and Antiegalitarianism [raw means]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Democrat Party 841 2.87 1.53
Republican Party 736 4.37 1.44
Libertarian Party 97 3.71 1.71
Green Party 22 2.73 1.66
Tea Party 38 4.58 1.57
None 266 3.64 1.53

4.6 Voting

Table 40: Social Dominance Orientation Voting Preferences
  2020 [Trump vs. Biden]
Predictors Log-Odds CI p
(Intercept) 2.193 -Inf – Inf <.001
Social Dominance Orientation -0.177 -Inf – Inf .019
Observations 2000
R2 Tjur .003
Figure 92: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 93: Dominance
Figure 94: Antiegalitarianism

4.7 Voting & Party Identity

Table 41
Figure 95: Social Dominance Orientation
Figure 96: Dominance
Figure 97: Antiegalitarianism

4.8 Likeability

5 Politico-Psychological correlates of Social Dominance Orientation


5.1 Ideologies and Partisanship

Figure 98: Social Dominance Orientation (by magnitude)
Figure 99: Dominance
Figure 100: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 101: Social Dominance Orientation (alphabetic)
Figure 102: Dominance
Figure 103: Antiegalitarianism

5.2 Populism, Nationalism, Nativism, and Patriotism

Figure 104: Social Dominance Orientation (by magnitude)
Figure 105: Dominance
Figure 106: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 107: Social Dominance Orientation (alphabetic)
Figure 108: Dominance
Figure 109: Antiegalitarianism



5.3 Political Psychology

Figure 110: Social Dominance Orientation (by magnitude)
Figure 111: Dominance
Figure 112: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 113: Social Dominance Orientation (alphabetic)
Figure 114: Dominance
Figure 115: Antiegalitarianism



5.4 Positive and Negative correlates of Social Dominance Orientation

Figure 116: Social Dominance Orientation (by magnitude)
Figure 117: Dominance
Figure 118: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 119: Social Dominance Orientation (alphabetic)
Figure 120: Dominance
Figure 121: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 122: Social Dominance Orientation (by magnitude)
Figure 123: Dominance
Figure 124: Antiegalitarianism
Figure 125: Social Dominance Orientation (alphabetic)
Figure 126: Dominance
Figure 127: Antiegalitarianism

6 Elastic Net Analysis

Figure 128: Elastic net predicting Social Dominance Orientation: Political Psychology
Figure 129: Elastic net predicting Social Dominance Orientation: Ideology & Partisanship
Figure 130: Elastic net predicting Social Dominance Orientation: Demographics
Figure 131: Elastic net predicting Social Dominance Orientation: Attitudes
Figure 132: Elastic net predicting Social Dominance Orientation: Everything
Table 42: Elastic Net Summary
Elastic Net R² for predicting Social Dominance Orientation
Variable Group # Predictors R²
Political Psychology 3 .425
Ideology & Partisanship 5 .221
Demographics 5 .009
Attitudes 3 .854
Everything 16 .867
PPBS
Psychology of Political Behavior Studies PI: Flavio Azevedo