Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Social dominance and motivation

Social dominance and motivation:
What drives social dominance motivation, and how does it influence behaviour?

Multimedia presentation (3 min)

Overview

Scenario Wendy walks into the boardroom, commanding attention with her authoritative presence. Colleagues fall silent, aware of her dominance. Some quietly compete for influence, while others remain submissive, unwilling to challenge her power. Wendy’s rise reflects how social dominance motivation shapes behavior and hierarchy in everyday social settings.

Imagine a workplace where certain individuals consistently rise to the top, not just because of skill, but due to a deep-seated drive for power and control. This drive, known as social dominance motivation, shapes behaviour and reinforces social hierarchies in all aspects of life—from politics to professional settings. The problem is that these hierarchies often result in inequality, marginalising subordinate groups and maintaining power imbalances. Understanding what motivates individuals to seek dominance is crucial for addressing these systemic inequalities. Psychological science, through frameworks like social dominance theory (SDT), provides insight into the forces driving dominance—ranging from personality traits and childhood experiences to societal and evolutionary pressures.

Focus Questions

Focus questions

- What drives social dominance motivation?

- How does social dominance influence behaviour?

- How can we use this understanding to create more egalitarian social structures and reduce inequality?

Social dominance theory

Definition and concepts of social dominance theory

Social dominance theory) (SDT) is a social psychological theory that examines how group-based social hierarchies form and persist in societies. Developed by Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto in 1992, SDT aims to explain the ubiquity and stability of group-based inequalities. SDT is a framework for understanding how societies are organised around group-based hierarchies, where dominant groups maintain disproportionate power and access the resources compared to subordinate groups. According to SDT, human societies are inherently hierarchical, with social groups classified by factors such as age, gender, race, or class. These hierarchies ensure that dominant groups benefit from institutional power and societal resources, while subordinate groups experience systematic disadvantage and marginalisation. A key element of SDT is social dominance orientation, which measures an individuals preference for group inequality and hierarchical structures. Those with high SDO are more likely to support ideologies and systems that justify and maintain these power imbalances. Furthermore, SDT suggests that group hierarchies are perpetuated through both individual-level behaviours and institutional forces, with dominant groups utilising legitimising myths (cultural beliefs that justify inequalities) to maintain their privileged positions in society (Pratto & Stewart, 2012).

The role of social dominance orientation (SDO)

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a key component of SDT, reflecting an individual's preference of hierarchical relationships between social groups rather than egalitarian ones. Individuals with high SDO are motivated to maintain and justify existing social hierarchies, often showing tendencies toward prejudice, discrimintionm and the endorsement of in=deologies that support inequality. This psychological predisposition leads them to favor policies and systems that protect the interests of dominant groups, such as resistance to social welfare programs or affirmative action. Additionally, people with high SDO are more likely to hold are more likely to hold conservative views on social issues, displaying bias in intergroup relations, particularly regarding race, gender and class. These individuals are also prone to endorse legitimising myths, such as meritocracy or nationalism, which rationalise inequality and further reinforce their preference for dominance-based social structures. Thus, SDO plays a critical role in shaping attitudes toward inequality and social justice (Ho et al., 2012).

Group-based hierarchies and institutional power

SDT asserts that group hierarchies are maintained through both individual and systemic factors, with institutional power playing a central role. Institutions such as education, the legal system, and the economy disproportionately benefit dominant groups, allowing them to consolidate their power while marginalising subordinate groups. For instance, dominant groups often influence laws and policies to maintain their privileged status, such as shaping economic systmens that favour wealth concentration amon the elite. In education, curricula can reflect and reinforce dominant ideologies, subtly perpetuating inequality by limiting access to resources or representation for minority groups. Moreover, these hierarchies are supported by legitimising myths and ideologies, such as meritocracy or nationalism, that justify the existing social order and normalise inequality (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001). By embedding dominance into societal structures, these myths perpetuate systemic inequalities, allowing dominant groups to maintain power and suppress challenges to the status quo.

SDT in the workplace: Study

Personality traits as motivators of social dominance

Figure 2: The Dark Triad

The dark triad

The dark triad refers to a group of three closely related, socially aversive personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Together, these traits drive individuals to seek power and control in social hierarchies, often through exploitative or unethical behaviours, making the dark triad a key factor in understanding dominance-seeking motivations.

Narcissism

Narcissism is characterised by an inflated sense of self-importance and a constant need for admiration, driving individuals to seek dominance in social hierarchies. Narcissists are motivated by the pursuit of status, often striving to place themselves at the top of social and professional ladders. This desire for superiority leads them to engage in behaviours that promote their self-image, including manipulation, self-promotion, and exploitation of others (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Narcissists are often drawn to leadership roles where they can command attention and reinforce their perceived importance. Their need for dominance is fueled by their fragile self-esteem, requiring continuous validation from others (Reijntjes et al., 2015). As a result, narcissists often display arrogance, entitlement, and a lack of empathy, prioritising their success over the well-being of others. This relentless pursuit of status and recognition makes narcissists highly effective at maintaining and enhancing social hierarchies, reinforcing their dominance over subordinate groups.

Machiavellianism

Figure 3: Niccolò Machiavelli

Machiavellianism has its roots in the political philosophy of Niccolò Machiavelli, a 16th-century Italian diplomat whose work, The Prince, advocated for cunning and pragmatism in maintaining political power. Machiavellianism refers to a personality trait characterised by manipulation, strategic thinking, and a cynical view of human nature. Individuals high in Machiavellianism are motivated by a desire for power and control, often using deception and cunning to achieve their goals. Machiavellians are primarily driven by the desire for social gain and dominance over others (Anderson & Cheers, 2017). Their behaviours are typically calculated and goal-oriented, making them adept at navigating social structures to their advantage. In social dominance contexts, Machiavellians may exploit relationships, manipulate systems, and deceive others to maintain their position in hierarchies. Their strategic approach allows them to exercise power effectively while avoiding the overt displays of dominance seen in authoritarianism or narcissism. By manipulating others and using institutions to their advantage, Machiavellians can reinforce social hierarchies and ensure their continued dominance in both interpersonal and organisational settings.

Psychopathy

Psychopathy, a key trait in the dark triad, has significant implications for social dominance behaviours. Individuals with high psychopathic traits often exhibit manipulative, callous, and antisocial behaviours, which drive their pursuit of dominance and control within social hierarchies. (Grossi et al., 2023) study highlights that those with elevated psychopathic traits display higher levels of Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), indicating a preference for unequal social relationships. The findings suggest that psychopathic individuals are more likely to engage in externalising behaviours such as aggression and reduced prosocial actions, driven by their desire to maintain dominance over others. These behaviours are often employed strategically to reinforce their superior status, with little regard for the well-being of others. Thus, psychopathy contributes to dominance-seeking behaviours that perpetuate social inequalities, as individuals prioritise their self-interest and power over cooperation and prosociality.​

Personality traits

Personality traits are a key driver of social dominance behaviour, as they shape how individuals navigate social hierarchies and power dynamics. Research has shown that certain traits, such as low honesty-humility and low agreeableness, are closely associated with a preference for hierarchical social structures and dominance-seeking behaviours (Ekehammar et al., 2004). Individuals who score low in honesty-humility tend to perceive the world as highly competitive and are more willing to manipulate or exploit others to maintain or enhance their social position (Volk et al., 2019). In contrast, traits like conscientiousness and emotionality are linked to more cooperative and prosocial behaviours, reducing the likelihood of dominance-driven actions. However, these traits can vary across cultural contexts, influencing how dominance is pursued and maintained. Overall, personality traits play a significant role in determining whether individuals seek power through coercive or prosocial means, and they provide insight into the psychological drivers of dominance behaviour in different environments​.

Motivational roots of social dominance

Biological and evolutionary drives of dominance

Biological and evolutionary factors play a foundational role in driving social dominance motivation. From an evolutionary perspective, dominance-seeking behaviours have historically been advantageous for survival, resource acquisition, and reproductive success (Sinn & Hayes, 2018). In early human societies, individuals who were able to secure resources such as food, territory, and mates were more likely to pass on their genes, making dominance a biologically advantageous trait. Modern dominance behaviours can be traced back to these evolutionary roots (Qu et al., 2017). Hormonal influences, particularly testosterone, are also linked to dominance motivation. Higher levels of testosterone have been associated with increased aggression, competitiveness, and status-seeking behaviors (Mazur & Booth, 1998). These biological factors continue to influence behaviour in contemporary settings, where dominance often manifests through competition for leadership roles, social status, and control over resources. While modern societies no longer require nearly as much physical dominance for survival, the evolutionary drive for status and power persists, motivating individuals to seek positions of influence. This evolutionary framework helps explain why individuals with strong biological predispositions toward dominance often engage in aggressive or competitive behaviours to secure and maintain social hierarchies, reinforcing the notion that dominance-seeking is deeply ingrained in human behaviour.

Testosterone and its Influence on Social Dominance Behaviours Study

Childhood development and environment

Childhood upbringing plays a critical role in shaping social dominance motivation. Early experiences within family dynamics, peer interactions, and educational environments can significantly influence an individual's desire for dominance or submission in social hierarchies. Children raised in competitive or hierarchical family structures may internalise the importance of power and control, learning to seek dominance as a means of gaining approval or status within the family. Additionally, children who experience powerlessness, either through neglect or harsh discipline, may grow up with a heightened need to assert control in adult relationships to compensate for their lack of autonomy during formative years (Bratt et al., 2016). Conversely, children raised in more egalitarian or supportive environments may develop a greater preference for cooperation and equality, showing less inclination toward dominance-driven behaviours. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) suggests that children who witness dominant behaviours in their family, such as parental control or competitive sibling interactions, may model these behaviours in their own social contexts. Thus, childhood experiences serve as a crucial foundation for the development of social dominance motivation, influencing how individuals approach power dynamics in adulthood.

Psychological drives and the need for control

Psychological needs, particularly the desire for control and autonomy, are key drivers of social dominance motivation. According to the self determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), humans have inherent psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When these needs are unmet, individuals may turn to dominance-seeking behaviours as a way to regain control and satisfy their sense of autonomy and competence. The desire for control is particularly relevant in social dominance contexts, as individuals who feel powerless or marginalised may be motivated to seek power over others to assert their autonomy. This need for control can manifest in various ways, such as taking on leadership roles, dominating conversations, or controlling group decision-making processes. Moreover, individuals who have a strong need for competence may seek dominance in professional or social contexts to validate their self-worth and capabilities. This psychological drive for control often leads to behaviors that reinforce social hierarchies, as individuals strive to maintain their position of power. Ultimately, the need for control shapes how individuals interact with others in social settings, often motivating them to seek dominance to fulfil unmet psychological needs.

Fear of inferiority and the need for superiority

The fear of inferiority and the desire for superiority are potent psychological drivers of social dominance motivation. Individuals who feel insecure or inadequate in social situations may seek dominance as a way to compensate for these feelings of inferiority. Alfred Adler’s theory of individual psychology suggests that the drive for superiority stems from feelings of inferiority, motivating individuals to assert dominance to avoid feelings of weakness or vulnerability. This fear of being perceived as inferior can lead to overcompensation, where individuals engage in aggressive, competitive, or controlling behaviours to assert their dominance over others (Gilbert et al., 2007). Such behaviours are often seen in individuals who bully or micromanage in professional or social contexts, using dominance as a defence mechanism against perceived threats to their self-esteem. Additionally, the desire for superiority is closely linked to social comparison processes, where individuals gauge their status relative to others. Those who fear being outperformed or outclassed may engage in dominance-seeking behaviors to secure a higher position in the social hierarchy, reinforcing their sense of superiority (Overbeck et al., 2004). Ultimately, the fear of inferiority and the need for superiority drive individuals to seek power and control, influencing their behaviour in ways that maintain and perpetuate social hierarchies.

Social context and power dynamics

Societal hierarchies and political power

Societal hierarchies and political power significantly drive social dominance motivation, as individuals and groups strive to maintain or enhance their positions within established systems of control. Political areas, in particular, provide a platform for dominance-seeking behaviour, where individuals pursue power not only for personal gain but also to shape societal structures in ways that favour their interests. Political leaders and dominant social groups often manipulate existing hierarchies by influencing laws, policies, and institutional practices, reinforcing their power while marginalising subordinate groups (Pratto et al., 1994). For instance, political leaders may use policy-making as a tool to control resources, maintain social norms, and secure the interests of dominant classes, often by perpetuating inequalities in areas such as healthcare, education, and wealth distribution.

Motivations for dominance in political contexts are often driven by a desire to control resources and shape the distribution of power in ways that ensure long-term stability for dominant groups. Dominant political actors frequently legitimise their power by appealing to narratives of social order and progress, ensuring that the public perceives their leadership as necessary for societal well-being. This dominance is further reinforced by institutional structures that favour those already in power, such as electoral systems, political alliances, and media influence (Laustsen & Petersen, 2017). These dynamics perpetuate a cycle where dominant groups continue to assert control, limiting the opportunities for subordinate groups to challenge or disrupt the established order. Thus, societal hierarchies and political power serve as both a platform and a motivator for individuals seeking to assert dominance, shaping behaviors that maintain inequality and systemic control.

Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism, a personality trait characterised by rigid adherence to to hierarchical structures and an affinity to order and control, is strongly linked to social dominance motivation. Authoritarian individuals typically believe that society should function in a strict, top-down manner, with those in power having the authority to dictate the behaviours of subordinate groups. This trait is driven by a fear of disorder and a preference for conformity, leading autoritarian individuals to support hierarchical systems that suppress dissent and out-groups. Behaviourally, individuals high in authoritarianism tend to seek out leadership positions where they can exert control and maintain social order. They often endorse policies that emphasise law and order, military strength, and punitive measures, reinforcing their belief in dominance as necessary for societal stability (Duckitt & Sibley, 2010). (Roccato & Ricolfi, 2005) study shows that individuals found with high levels of both right-winged authoritarianism and social dominance orientation tend to support and justify group-based inequalities. By maintaining dominance over others, authoriatarian personalities ensure that hierarchies persist, promoting their desire for power and control in both personal and institutional setting.

Historical and cultural contexts of social dominance

Historical and cultural contexts are crucial in understanding the roots of social dominance motivation. Throughout history, dominance has often been tied to survival, wealth accumulation, and social status (Pratto et al., 1994). From monarchies and colonial empires to modern nation-states, hierarchical structures have been reinforced through cultural narratives that legitimise the dominance of certain groups over others. Historical events such as conquests, revolutions, and imperialism highlight how dominant powers used violence, exploitation, and ideological justifications to expand and secure their control (Edmonds & Johnston, 2016). These historical precedents continue to influence modern social dominance behaviours by normalising the pursuit of power and control within social hierarchies.

File:Stolengenerationartwork.jpg

Figure 5: Colonisation example

Case study

Social dominance orientation influencing gender inequalities

SDO is a key driver of gender inequality, as individuals high in SDO are motivated by a preference for hierarchical structures that maintain male dominance (Pratto et al., 1994). This motivation stems from societal norms that reward power and control, particularly in patriarchal cultures. Research has shown that those with high SDO are more likely to endorse traditional gender roles and resist policies promoting gender equality, thereby reinforcing the status quo (Kteily et al., 2017). Such behaviours influence attitudes toward women in leadership, wage disparities, and access to resources, perpetuating systemic inequalities (Sibley et al., 2016). By justifying these inequalities through legitimising myths, individuals with high SDO hinder social progress. To address this, we must challenge hierarchical norms through education and policy changes. Programs promoting gender-neutral socialisation and increasing women's representation in decision-making roles can reduce the impact of SDO on behaviour. Moreover, fostering egalitarian values in workplaces and schools can disrupt dominance-driven motivations, leading to more inclusive environments. Ultimately, addressing SDO is crucial to achieving gender equality and dismantling entrenched power structures.

Quiz yourself! 1. What is a key factor that drives social dominance motivation according to Social Dominance Theory? Economic inequality Biological imperatives Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) Media influence

2. Which of the following personality traits is MOST linked to social dominance behaviors? Extraversion Authoritarianism Conscientiousness Agreeableness

3. How can understanding social dominance motivation help reduce inequality in social hierarchies? By fostering egalitarian values and policies By promoting competition in the workplace By increasing the representation of dominant groups By reinforcing traditional social roles

Conclusion

SDT argues that dominance motivation is driven by a combination of individual psychological factors, biological imperatives, and societal structures. SDO plays a key role in shaping individuals' preferences for hierarchy and inequality, driving behaviours that reinforce group-based power dynamics. Personality traits, particularly those in the dark triad (authoritarianism, narcissism, and Machiavellianism) further motivate individuals to seek power, control, and status within social hierarchies. Additionally, evolutionary drives for resource acquisition, early childhood experiences, and psychological needs for control and superiority fuel dominance-seeking behaviours.

These motivations are amplified by societal and institutional structures that reward dominance. Political and economic systems, cultural traditions, and media representations all normalise and perpetuate dominance-based behaviours, shaping how individuals engage with others and maintain hierarchical systems. Ultimately, social dominance motivation leads individuals to adopt behaviours that prioritise control, competition, and power retention, often reinforcing inequalities and marginalising subordinate groups. Understanding these driving forces is critical for addressing the persistence of social inequality and fostering more equitable social interactions.

References

Aiello, A., Pratto, F., & Pierro, A. (2013). Framing Social Dominance Orientation and Power in Organizational Context. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(5), 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2013.823614

Aiello, A., Tesi, A., Pratto, F., & Pierro, A. (2017). Social dominance and interpersonal power: Asymmetrical relationships within hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchy-attenuating work environments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12488

Anderson, J., & Cheers, C. (2017). Does the Dark Triad Predict Prejudice?: The Role of Machiavellianism, Psychopathy, and Narcissism in Explaining Negativity Toward Asylum Seekers. Australian Psychologist, 53(3), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12283

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191

Bratt, C., Sidanius, J., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2016). Shaping the Development of Prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(12), 1617–1634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216666267

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6

Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation differentially moderate intergroup effects on prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 24(7), n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.772

Edmonds, P., & Johnston, A. (2016). Empire, Humanitarianism and Violence in the Colonies. Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1353/cch.2016.0013

Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson, I. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big Five personality, Social Dominance Orientation, or Right-Wing Authoritarianism? European Journal of Personality, 18(6), 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.526

Gilbert, P., Broomhead, C., Irons, C., McEwan, K., Bellew, R., Mills, A., Gale, C., & Knibb, R. (2007). Development of a striving to avoid inferiority scale. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(3), 633–648. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466606x157789

Grossi, G., Strappini, F., Iuliano, E., Passiatore, Y., Mancini, F., Levantini, V., Masi, G., Milone, A., Santaguida, E., Salekin, R. T., Muratori, P., & Buonanno, C. (2023). Psychopathic Traits, Externalizing Problems, and Prosocial Behavior: The Role of Social Dominance Orientation. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(10), 3521. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12103521

Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Levin, S., Thomsen, L., Kteily, N., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2012). Social Dominance Orientation: Revisiting the Structure and Function of a Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 583–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211432765

Inoue, Y., Burriss, R. P., Hasegawa, T., & Toko Kiyonari. (2023). Testosterone promotes dominance behaviors in the Ultimatum Game after players’ status increases. Scientific Reports, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45247-4

Laustsen, L., & Petersen, M. B. (2017). Perceived Conflict and Leader Dominance: Individual and Contextual Factors Behind Preferences for Dominant Leaders. Political Psychology, 38(6), 1083–1101. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12403

Mazur, A., & Booth, A. (1998). Testosterone and dominance in men. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(3), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x98001228

O’Donnell, M., Taplin, S., Marriott, R., Lima, F., & Stanley, F. J. (2019). Infant removals: The need to address the over-representation of Aboriginal infants and community concerns of another “stolen generation.” Child Abuse & Neglect, 90(1), 88–98. ScienceDirect. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.01.017

Overbeck, J. R., Jost, J. T., Mosso, C. O., & Flizik, A. (2004). Resistant versus Acquiescent Responses to Ingroup Inferiority as a Function of Social Dominance Orientation in the USA and Italy. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430204039972

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741

Pratto, F., & Stewart, A. (2012). Social Dominance Theory. https://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/elucidations/files/2019/08/Social-Dominance-Theory-by-Pratto-and-Stewart.pdf

Qu, C., Ligneul, R., Van der Henst, J.-B., & Dreher, J.-C. (2017). An Integrative Interdisciplinary Perspective on Social Dominance Hierarchies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(11), 893–908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.08.004

Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.890

Reijntjes, A., Vermande, M., Thomaes, S., Goossens, F., Olthof, T., Aleva, L., & Van der Meulen, M. (2015). Narcissism, Bullying, and Social Dominance in Youth: A Longitudinal Analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-9974-1

Roccato, M., & Ricolfi, L. (2005). On the Correlation Between Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2703_1

Volk A. A., Provenzano, D. A., & Dane, A. V. (2017). Social dominance, bullying, and moral disengagement in emerging adults: Reconsidering the use of aggression as strategic behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 251–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.007

Whitley, B. E. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.126

Zakrisson, I. (2005). Construction of a short version of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(5), 863–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.026

Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. M. (2008). Social psychological face perception: Why appearance matters. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1497–1517. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00109.x

External links

• Social Dominance Theory ｜ Simplified in Short https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xQod2YTN6A
• Social Dominance Orientation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQG-yvaRp6s