Social Dominance Orientation: How Do Social Workers Fare and What Predicts It?

Background and Purpose: Social Dominance Theory (SDT) posits that social hierarchies are the combined effects of intergroup processes and discrimination perpetrated by individuals and institutions. Social dominance orientation (SDO) reflects an individual’s inclination for hierarchies and inequalities, and propensity to discriminate. SDT posits that social workers are low in SDO and populate hierarchy-attenuating professions like social work. Individuals low in SDO are more willing to offer help to outgroups and more likely to offer help that fosters independence rather than dependency. However, some scholars have alleged that the profession maintains status quo and social control. Research shows that the profession may not be meeting its ethical obligations towards racial and ethnic minorities. Moreover, some social work faculty, students, and practitioners struggle in practicing ethically when faced with differences in ideology and religious affiliation. Thus, SDO has the potential to offer insight into social workers’ helping attitudes and behaviors, including their adherence to the core values and standards of the profession, yet it is rarely included in social work studies. This exploratory study aims to bridge this gap, while also examining its relationship with ideology, religious affiliation, political party affiliation, and other variables.

Methods: This online study utilized a cross-sectional design, Qualtrics for data collection, and hierarchical multiple regression to identify predictors of SDO. The sampling frame consisted of social workers certified, registered, or licensed with the Oregon Board of Licensed Social Workers. SDO was measured using the SDO₅ scale. General economic ideology and general social ideology were assessed using single-item questions. The two subscales of the Social Economic and Conservatism Scale (SECS) were used to measure issue-based economic ideology and issue-based social ideology. All other variables including demographic and practice-related variables were measured using single-item questions.

Results: Analysis of data collected from 480 respondents showed that 94% of respondents were very low in SDO. Ethnicity, gender, political party affiliation, political ideology, and social desirability predicted SDO. More specifically, being non-Hispanic/Latino, female, not a strong Democrat, more liberal on general social ideology and issue-based economic ideology, and higher social desirability predicted lower SDO. The overall regression model accounted for 32.4% of the total variance in SDO.

Conclusions and Implications: The finding of low SDO in nearly all study respondents suggests that the profession may indeed be a hierarchy-attenuating profession populated by individuals with a strong belief in or adherence to the profession’s values and mission, and possessing highly desirable helping attitudes and behaviors. However, respondents’ SDO was influenced by their social desirability. More importantly, SDO can increase under perceptions of threat, which may explain the unethical conduct noted in prior social work studies. Similar to studies that have examined changes in SDO, future studies should prime social workers with threatening scenarios about race, religion, and ideology to better gauge their SDO. There is also a need to recognize, debate, and address the benefits and challenges posed by ethnic identity, gender, and political and ideological preferences on social workers’ helping attitudes and behaviors.