Motivation and emotion/Book/2026/Social dominance and power motivation

Social dominance and power motivation:
What is the relationship between social dominance and power motivation?

Edit the wording (and casing) above so that it matches the topic list.
Seek approval for any changes.
Do not add your name; authorship is shown in the page history.

Overview

Scenario: Raising up vs. pushing down.

Two graduates start the same week at a large firm. One quickly puts their hand up to lead every project going, coordinating people, chasing decisions, and making sure things get done — and uses that influence to actively mentor junior colleagues and push for flatter, fairer pay structures. The other has no interest in leading projects or managing anyone, yet defends the firm's steep hierarchy (see Figure 1) as natural and fair: "some people are just better suited to being in charge, and the system reflects that." They also actively lobbies against a new scheme providing staff from under-represented backgrounds with better access to mentoring, training, and development opportunities, arguing certain groups should stay in junior roles "where they belong" and pushing to have the scheme scrapped. Both are equally competent. Why does one seem driven to personally influence the people around them, while the other — without wanting any personal authority — is instead driven to keep entire groups beneath others?

Power motivation and social dominance are two distinct yet related constructs that explain different aspects of hierarchy seeking: social dominance orientation (SDO) — a preference for one's group to dominate other groups viewed as lesser — and power motivation — a personal drive to influence, control, or impact specific individuals.
While these constructs are closely related and often operate interchangeably, they operate at different levels, that being group-based ideology vs. interpersonal drive, and can occur independently of one another. The clarification of these constructs is important as both constructs can be used to predict real world outcomes, such as an individuals likelihood to emerge as a leader, support for discriminatory policy, and how power is exercised when it is gained.
Psychological theories such as social dominance theory and need theory, as well as measurement tools such as SDO scales and implicit motive coding that allow us to examine an individuals drive to influence others and what motivates them to do this.

Focus questions

What is social dominance orientation, and how does it relate to broader group hierarchies?
What is power motivation, and how is it expressed differently across different demographics (gender, culture, class, etc)?
How do legitimising myths sustain or challenge social hierarchies?
How do these constructs shape political attitudes, leadership styles, and intergroup behaviours?

Social dominance orientation

Intro paragraph plan: define SDO briefly then continue to theoretical origins and how it factors into predictions.

Origins in social dominance theory

Social dominance theory (SDT) identifies three specific types of group-based social hierarchy: the age system (adults over youth), patriarchy (males over females), and the arbitrary-set system (culturally defined groups like ethnicity, religion, class, etc).
Social dominance orientation (SDO) is defined as a measurable individual difference in the preference for group-based hierarchy, the degree to which a person prefers their own group to dominate and hold power over other groups.
SDT states that social institution, including legal systems, organised religions, schools, and workplaces contribute to maintaining group-based inequality by disproportionately alllocating resources such as healthcare, wealth, and access to opportunities to dominant groups, while directing undesirable happenings towards subordinate groups such as imprisonment or dangerous work.
Key references: (Pratto et al., 1994), (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001)

Measuring social dominance orientation and what it predicts

The SD07 scale distinguished between two sub-dimensions: SDO-Dominance (SDO-D) which involves support for active group oppression and SDO-Egalitarianism (SDO-E) which reflects a preference for group inequality and is linked to more subtle forms of prejudice and inequality as well as opposition to equality-promoting policies.
SDO is a strong predictor of prejudice, ethnocentrism, and support for discriminatory or hierarchy based policies (verified empirically rhtough multiple studies across cultures and countries)
High-SDO individuals show strong preference for hierarchy-enhancing roles for example police officers, criminal prosecutors, CEO's, while low-SDO individuals prefer hierarchy-attenuating roles such as human rights advocates, public defenders, and social workers.
Key references: (Ho et al., 2015), (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001)

Power motivation

Introduce nPower and unpack the theory and measurement.

McClelland's need theory and measurement

McClelland proposed that humans vary in the relative strength of three learned needs: achievement, affiliation, and power, with nPower reflecting a desire to have an impact on or control over other people.
Power motivation can be measured via coded responses to amiguous picture-story tasks (i will add a picture here)
Implicit power motivation has measurable physiological correlations, such as different cortisol responses to viewing facial expressions reflecting high or low dominance (angry vs surpised) depending on the strength of the individuals implicit power motive
Key references: (McClelland, 1975), (Rybnicek et al., 2017), (Wirth et al., 2006)

Personalised vs socialised power across cultures

There is distinct difference between a personalised power motive (power sought for dominance and social status) and a socialised power motive (influence exercised responsibly on behalf of a group or cause)
Cultural factors shape which expressions of power motivation are normalised and rewarded: Vertical cultural orientations which accept and value hierarchy vs horizontal culture orientation which emphasises equality shape how status and influence are pursued and displayed.
These ideas show that power motivation is not inherently good or bad, its consequences rely heavily on its socialised expression and the cultural context in which it is done
Key references: (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998), (Magee & Galinsky, 2008)

Legitimising myths

Introduce legitimising myths as the ideological idea that sustains or challenges hierarchy, connecting SDO to social behaviour

Hierarchy-enhancing vs hierarchy-attenuating myths

Social dominance theory proposes that legitimising myths (widely shared beliefs or ideologies) justify the distribution of social value between groups
Hierarchy-enhancing myths legitimise existing inequality whereas hierarchy attenuating myths challenge it.
High-SDO individuals selectively endorse hierarchy-enhancing myths
Key references: (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001)

Legitimising narratives in media and institutions

Legitimising myths are transmitted and reinforced through everyday cultural narratives: news media, television, and social media
As legitimising myths operate at a societal/cultural level they help explain my SDO tracks so consistently with broader political and institutional outcomes
Essentially legitimising myths are the ideological mechanism through which SDO translates into support for real policies
Key references: (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001), (Pratto et al., 1994)

The link between social dominance orientation and power motivation

Both constructs concern hierarchy but at different levels, SDO is a group-level ideological preference for inequality whereas power motivation is typically an individual level interpersonal drive
High scores in power motivation does not necessarily mean one will have a high score in SDO
They share theoretical roots in responses to competion for status and resources

Political and social behaviour

Individual disposition like SDO and nPower are often linked into collective political attitudes and behaviours that sustain or challenge group-based social oppression

SDO, right-wing authoritarianism, and political ideology

SDO and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) arise from different wordview based roots however both can connect and predict prejudice and political conservatism
RWA reflects a desire for collective security and conformity whereas SDO reflects a motivation for group-based dominance and intergroup competition. The two are still interconnected however.
Together the two can explain support for hierarchy maintaining policies an opposition to egalitarian social change
Key references: (Duckitt & Sibley, 2010), (Ekehammar et al., 2004), (Ward, 1982)

Power, leadership, and individual differences

Intro paragraph about how motivation can be linked to leadership outcomes and the individual differences that shape these outcomes

Prosocial vs. antisocial leadership

Individuals with high SDO levels gravitate towards hierarchy-enhancing roles and are more likely to engage in unethical decision-making as leaders
The same motive for a desire for influence or power can lead to vastly different social outcomes depending on whether it is channeled through egalitarian or dominating orientations

Case study: power and dominance in cult leadership

Cult leaders often display extreme, personalised power motives combined with high SDO beliefs about their groups superiority, displaying how the two constructs can compound to produce highly coersive social structures

Key references: (Magee & Galinsky, 2008), (Denrich, 2024)

Biological basis, gender differences, and situation triggers

Neuroimaging research suggests the brain processes social rank as a fundamental dimension of interpersonal context, with distinct neural responses to ones position in a status hierarchy
Sex differences are commonly reported in SDO with men scoring higher on average
Situation triggers are also linked with ingroup threat or competition ot resources being able to temporarily heighten both SDO and power-motivated behaviour
Key references: (Zink et al., 2008), (Sidanius et al., 2000), (Sidanius et al., 2000)

Conclusion

Social dominance orientation and power motivation are related but distinct: SDO is a group-level ideological preference for hierarchy sustained by legitimising myths; power motivation is a personal, often implicit, drive to influence specific others.
The two exist separately however, a person can want personal influence without wanting group-based dominance, or vice versa
Both are influenced by biology, personality, culture, and situational triggers, and both feed into real-world outcomes such as political ideology, intergroup conflict, and either coercive or responsible leadership
Recognising which construct is driving a persons behaviour and whether power is being expressed personally or socially has practical value for understanding leadership, workplace dynamics, and social conflict.

Learning features

Learning features help to bring book chapters to life and can be embedded throughout the chapter. Here are some options:

Scenarios

Scenarios, case studies, or examples that illustrate concepts in action
Present using feature boxes; can be split into multiple boxes throughout a chapter (e.g., to illustrate different theories or stages)
Can be real or fictional; if real, provide citation(s)

Feature boxes

Highlight key content using feature boxes, but don't overuse, otherwise they lose their effect
Consider using feature boxes for:
- Scenarios, case studies, or examples
- Focus questions
- Tips
- Quiz questions
- Take-home messages

Embedded links

When key words are introduced, use interwiki links to:
- Wikipedia articles (e.g., "An early psychological view dreams) of dreams was provided by Sigmund Freud") or
- Related book chapters (e.g., "If you're feeling stuck, check out the chapter about writer's block")

Tables

Use tables to organise and summarise information
Cite each table at least once in the main text (e.g., see Table 1)
Tables should be captioned
More example tables which can be adapted

Table 1

A Descriptive Caption Explains The Table Contents and its Relevance to the Text e.g.,

The 2 x 2 Johari Window Model Showing the Relationship Between Known/Unknown and Self/Other

	Known to self	Not known to self
Known to others	Open area	Blind spot
Not known to others	Hidden area	Unknown

Quizzes

One or two quiz questions for each main section is better than a long quiz at the end
Quiz conceptual understanding, rather than trivia. Ask about important information such as the take-home messages
Ask easy rather than hard questions
Different types of quiz questions are possible; see Quiz

Example simple quiz questions. Choose your answers and click "Submit":

References

Provide the references for all citations in APA style (7th ed.) or wiki style. Alternatively, you can use wiki style (as used on Wikipedia), as long as the information is complete and the formatting is consistent.\

Abou-Ismail, R., Cichocka, A., Phillips, J., & Sengupta, N. K. (2025). Authoritarianism and social dominance as differential predictors of individuals’ support for collective violence. Psychology of Violence, 15(5), 634–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000580Anderson,

C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5), 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/.1467-8721.2009.01655.x

Denrich, D. S. (2024). Charismatic leadership and vulnerability: A comprehensive study of cult dynamics. Psychology Presentations. https://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/psych_pres/11/

Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual‐process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1861–1894. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x

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

Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., Foels, R., & Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033

Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self‐reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211628

McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power : The inner experience. Irvington Publishers.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

Rybnicek, R., Bergner, S., & Gutschelhofer, A. (2017). How individual needs influence motivation effects: A neuroscientific study on McClelland’s need theory. Review of Managerial Science, 13(2), 443–482. springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0252-1

Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Liu, J., & Pratto, F. (2000). Social dominance orientation, anti-egalitarianism and the political psychology of gender: An extension and cross-cultural replication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(1), 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(200001/02)30:1<41::aid-ejsp976>3.0.co;2-o

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Contemporary Sociology, 30(2), 120. https://doi.org/10.2307/2655372

Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., & McBride, M. V. (2007). Authoritarian dynamics and unethical decision making: High social dominance orientation leaders and high right-wing authoritarianism followers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.67

Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118

Ward, D. (1982). Right-wing authoritarianism. . American Political Science Review, 76(3), 737–738. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963836

Wilson, M. S., & Liu, J. H. (2003). Social dominance orientation and gender: The moderating role of gender identity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322127175

Wirth, M. M., Welsh, K. M., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2006). Salivary cortisol changes in humans after winning or losing a dominance contest depend on implicit power motivation. Hormones and Behavior, 49(3), 346–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2005.08.013

Zink, C. F., Tong, Y., Chen, Q., Bassett, D. S., Stein, J. L., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2008). Know your place: Neural processing of social hierarchy in humans. Neuron, 58(2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.01.025

Suggestions for this section:

Important aspects of APA referencing style
- Author surname, followed by a comma, then the author initials separated by full stops and spaces
- Year of publication in parentheses
- Title of work in lower case (except first letter and proper names), ending in a full-stop
- Journal title in italics, volume number in italics, issue number in parentheses, first and last page numbers separated by an en-dash(–), followed by a full-stop
- doi as a URL which is a working hyperlink (i.e., clickable)
- Hanging indent: Wrap the set of references in the hanging indent template:
  - Use "Edit source"
  - {{Hanging indent|1= the full list of references}}
The most common mistakes include:
- Incorrect capitalisation
- Incorrect italicisation
- dois which aren't clickable as working hyperlinks
- Citing sources that haven't been consulted

External links

External links to highly relevant resources such as podcasts and videos, news articles, and professional sites. Use sentence casing and alphabetical order. For example:

Six top tips for writing a great essay (University of Melbourne)
The importance of structure (skillsyouneed.com)