MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evidence that Gender Differences in Social Dominance Orientation Result from Gendered Self-Stereotyping and Group-Interested Responses to Patriarchy

2009· article· en· W2116538415 on OpenAlexaff
Michael T. Schmitt, James H. Wirth

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology of Women Quarterly · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial dominance orientationPsychologyDominance (genetics)PatriarchySocial psychologyIngroups and outgroupsGender identitySocial identity theoryDevelopmental psychologySocial groupGender studiesSociologyAuthoritarianismPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous studies have found that, compared to women, men express higher levels of social dominance orientation (SDO), an individual difference variable reflecting support for unequal, hierarchical relationships between groups. Recent research suggests that the often-observed gender difference in SDO results from processes related to gender group identity. We hypothesized that two aspects of gender group identity could account for men's higher SDO relative to women's: responses to patriarchy that reflect the interests of the gender ingroup (as measured by hostile and benevolent sexism) and self-stereotyping in gendered terms. We found the gender difference in SDO was fully mediated by gender differences in feminine self-stereotyping, hostile sexism, and benevolent sexism. The discussion addresses implications for social dominance theory's treatment of gender and the complexity of social-contextual forces that produce gender differences in SDO.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology of Women QuarterlySame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207