The Pathway between Social Dominance Orientation and Drop out from Hierarchy-Attenuating Contexts: The Role of Moral Foundations and Person-Environment Misfit.

intergroup relations moral foundations person-environment fit social dominance social hierarchies

Journal

Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2076-328X
Titre abrégé: Behav Sci (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101576826

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 Aug 2023
Historique:
received: 07 07 2023
revised: 12 08 2023
accepted: 24 08 2023
medline: 27 9 2023
pubmed: 27 9 2023
entrez: 27 9 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The present study examines the role of individuals' preference for unequal intergroup relations in exacerbating a process of differential attrition from organizations that value intergroup equality (i.e., hierarchy-attenuating contexts). We proposed that people functioning within a well-recognized hierarchy-attenuating context (i.e., students of social work) who were higher on social dominance orientation (SDO) would be more likely to leave their institution through two pathways; first, people higher on SDO would have fewer moral concerns of social fairness and human harm-avoidance (i.e., individualizing); in turn, a lack of individualizing morality would stimulate a perceived person-environment misfit, ultimately increasing their intention to leave. We conducted a single cross-sectional design study involving a convenience sample of 245 undergraduate social work students. Overall, the results of the serial mediation model suggest that people higher on SDO intend to leave their organization that supports inclusive equality via reduced individualizing morality and high perceived P-E misfit. These findings contribute to understanding the role of socio-political orientations and moral beliefs in hindering proper adaptation to contexts that value egalitarian social norms, with relevant implications for individuals and groups.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37753990
pii: bs13090712
doi: 10.3390/bs13090712
pmc: PMC10525906
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

Int J Psychol. 2020 Oct;55(5):882-890
pubmed: 31916249
J Occup Health Psychol. 2011 Jul;16(3):361-89
pubmed: 21728441
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2005 Oct;31(10):1425-34
pubmed: 16143673
Psychol Bull. 2003 May;129(3):339-75
pubmed: 12784934
J Pers. 2013 Jun;81(3):313-23
pubmed: 23072294
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009 May;96(5):1029-46
pubmed: 19379034
Front Psychol. 2022 Apr 19;13:739579
pubmed: 35519640
Psychol Methods. 2016 Sep;21(3):369-87
pubmed: 27571021
J Soc Psychol. 2009 Oct;149(5):545-61
pubmed: 20014520
Psychol Bull. 2011 Nov;137(6):1029-64
pubmed: 22023142
J Appl Psychol. 2009 Sep;94(5):1210-26
pubmed: 19702366
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 Aug;101(2):366-85
pubmed: 21244182
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2015 Dec;109(6):1003-28
pubmed: 26479362
Psychol Rep. 2014 Dec;115(3):710-24
pubmed: 25539174
Sci Adv. 2020 Nov 20;6(47):
pubmed: 33219019

Auteurs

Alessio Tesi (A)

Department of Political Sciences, University of Pisa, Via F. Serafini, 3, 56126 Pisa, Italy.

Daniela Di Santo (D)

Department of Political Sciences, University of Pisa, Via F. Serafini, 3, 56126 Pisa, Italy.

Antonio Aiello (A)

Department of Political Sciences, University of Pisa, Via F. Serafini, 3, 56126 Pisa, Italy.

Classifications MeSH