Social Dominance Style Test

The Social Dominance Style Test is a research-informed self-report profile about hierarchy, competition, equality, and protective leadership in everyday power situations. The sections below summarize the academic background and the main social-power patterns in the test.

Academic Background

This profile is based on research on social dominance orientation by Felicia Pratto and Jim Sidanius, on dual pathways to social status by Joseph Henrich and colleagues, and on agency and communion by Andrea Abele and Bogdan Wojciszke.

Hierarchy

Hierarchy Comfort is the degree to which structured ranks, clear authority, and status differences feel acceptable or useful. High scorers tend to see hierarchy as a normal way to organize decisions and responsibilities, even if they do not personally need to be at the top. Low scorers are more uneasy with power gaps and prefer flatter arrangements. This facet contributes to social dominance orientation because it reflects comfort with unequal influence.

Competition

Competitive Edge is the tendency to approach social situations as contests for position, recognition, or influence. High scorers are more comfortable asserting themselves, pushing to win, and treating rank as something to be earned through direct competition. Low scorers place less value on outperforming others and may prefer cooperation or shared standing. This facet reflects the more personally assertive side of social dominance orientation.

Equality

Equality Pull is the preference for fair voice, shared standing, and reduced power gaps in groups. High scorers notice imbalances and want decisions to include people with less influence. Low scorers are less bothered by unequal status or may see it as an unavoidable part of social life. In this test, Equality Pull counts against the total social dominance orientation because it represents a lower-dominance, more egalitarian way to organize power.

Leadership

Protective Leadership is the desire to use influence by guiding, supporting, and safeguarding others rather than dominating them. High scorers seek respect through responsibility, care, and competence; low scorers are less drawn to this protective route to influence. This facet can still involve leadership, but it points away from social dominance orientation because the emphasis is on stewardship rather than unequal control.

Limitations

Educational self-report only. Not a clinical diagnosis or a measure of moral worth.

References

• Snyder, M. & Deaux, K. (2012). Personality and Social Psychology: Crossing Boundaries and Integrating Perspectives. The Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, 2-10.
• Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103-125.
• Pratto, F., Liu, J. H., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih, M., Bachrach, H., & Hegarty, P. (2000). Social Dominance Orientation and the Legitimization of Inequality Across Cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(3), 369-409.
• Stewart, A. L. & Pratto, F. (2015). Social Dominance Orientation. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier.
• Abele, A. E. & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 751-763.