<p>SDO theory was developed outside the paradigm of evolutionary psychology, but I think it is possible to make a connection.
A person with a high social status can optimize his/her fitness by being egoistic and exploiting low status people.
On the other hand, the optimal survival strategy for a person with low status or in a precarious situation would be to be friendly and helpful. You help another person in need because one day you may need this person's help in return.
In other words SDO is an optimal strategy for people with high status only.
It would be possible to build an interesting theory about this, but I can't find much literature on this.
See Lammers, J., &amp; Stapel, D. A. (2011). Power increases dehumanization. Group Processes &amp; Intergroup Relations, 14(1), 113–126. and other literature by Lammers.
If you can find other literature relating to this then please post it here.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-20T08:41:16.950Z
2024-05-20T08:41:16.950Z
A Fog
<p>Are there any evolutionary explanations for how the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">social dominance orientation</a> personality trait came into existence in humans and other animals?</p>
<p>Jim Sidanius suggests that the SDO trait may be genetically inherited through genes, but he doesn't describe the mechanism by which the SDO trait evolved in his <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/social-dominance/social-dominance-theory-a-new-synthesis/FF0A172CC40CF2FD0C2B5C0510A14525" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Social Dominance Theory book</a>. This study of <a href="https://hrcak.srce.hr/clanak/373323" rel="nofollow noreferrer">830 Croatian twins from the University of Zagreb, in Croatia,</a> suggests that the SDO trait is genetically heritable. <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1818711116" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This study from Princeton Univerity</a> also suggests that SDO is genetically heritable. But this other study suggests that variances in <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1002/per.2061" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SDO are primarily environmental</a>.</p>
<p>In his book, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60735359-different" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Different Gender</a>, Frans De Waal suggests that mate guarding increases reproductive success by 10%, but he never describes mate guarding as a product of the social dominance orientation. De Waal only said that dominance hierarchies are the evolutionary product of the mate-guarding reproductive strategy. I think this is a plausible mechanism by which the SDO trait came into existence, but are there any other theories as to how the SDO trait came into existence?</p>
<p>I also think that the SDO theory is supported by evidence from another theory called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_value_orientations" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Social Value Orientation</a>, which suggests that people have different attitudes toward how economic resources are distributed. I think the SDO trait is one of the three types of social value orientations.</p>
<p>Some people have a pro-social value orientation and often seek altruistic redistributions of resources that would disadvantage them but benefit others. This prosocial value orientation could be explained by the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6378478/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">somatic empathy</a> trait having evolved out of joint parental child-rearing in mammals. I'm looking for similar evolutionary theories for the SDO trait.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, what are the evolutionary arguments for and against the SDO trait? And what are the evolutionary theories for SIT that could disprove the existence of an SDO trait?</p>
<p>And lastly, what are the various theories that explain the biological mechanism by which the SDO trait came into existence?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-15T20:19:51.987Z
What makes you think "social dominance orientation" is a thing that evolved, rather than an abstract construct? When you say you "have no social identity", are you sure you don't just mean that your social identity is treated as default in society?
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-16T10:44:59.857Z
@BryanKrause Men who identify as male will "prove" their manhood by showing how mentally tough they are by never discussing their relationship problems and emotional problems with their male friends. De Waal talked about how he and his male friends never talked about such feelings with other males. I will talk about such problems with any male and if they don't want to listen, I'll just never talk to them again. Men who identify with the male gender role aspire to be the sole breadwinner of their family. I don't and I wouldn't mind being a house husband if it's convenient for the family.
Jude Zambarakji
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-16T13:03:52.980Z
Having some differences from the most stereotypical male example you can come up with does not mean you don't identify as male.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-17T17:36:45.323Z
@BryanKrause I don't believe I have a female brain, and even if I did, I wouldn't try to change my body or biology to match women's biology. Transpeople believe that their brain is the wrong sex and need to change their body's sex to match their brain's sex, and they also feel that this supposed mismatch is causing them great distress. This is why they identify as the opposite biological sex. If you believe you have the opposite sex's brain, but don't care about changing your physiology, mannerisms, and dress code to match those of the opposite sex, then you don't have a gender identity.
Jude Zambarakji
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-17T17:42:19.933Z
@BryanKrause When people talk about what gender they identify with, they are talking about whether they believe they have a male or female personality or both in the case of non-binary people. One's gender identity is whatever one believes about one's gender. If you have a gender identity then your self-esteem is dependent on the extent to which you believe your biology matches your gendered personality. If your gender has no impact whatsoever on your self-esteem or mental well-being then you don't have a gender identity. You also need to believe gender personalities exist to have a gender.
Jude Zambarakji
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-17T17:58:44.447Z
@BryanKrause I think SDO is an evolved trait because I've never had the SDO trait, but some members of my family I grew up with have had this trait since they were prepubescent children. My personal experience with high SDO individuals makes me believe that it's impossible to socialize someone into having such a trait or into losing such a trait. My entire family has tried for decades to get me to become a high SDO individual, but my personality has never changed. I also think the desire to have a gender identity is biological or innate, but gender identities and gender roles are learned.
Jude Zambarakji
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-17T18:02:47.917Z
No need for something to be evolved just because it's observed. Do you have any evidence it's heritable?
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-17T18:07:06.640Z
@BryanKrause I don't feel a need to identify as male because it's a biological fact that I'm a male. I also don't believe that women evolved to behave differently from men, so how can I base my gender identity on gendered personality traits that I don't even believe exist? To have a gender identity you need to believe gender roles are biological or innate to some degree. You have to believe that gender roles are caused by innate gender-specific personality traits to have a gender identity. If transpeople don't believe in gender roles, then they're cosplayers or LARPs, which isn't the case.
Jude Zambarakji
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-17T18:15:54.937Z
@BryanKrause I've amended my question by adding a few scientific studies on the genetics of the SDO personality trait.
Jude Zambarakji
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-18T15:37:46.623Z
Great, thanks for that edit. Do you have any evidence that SDO is not the ancestral trait? That is, the thing that changed/evolved is not presence of SDO but rather absence of SDO? I also really think you should drop all the identity and gender components of the question, they seem not really related to the question at hand and are very distracting.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-19T20:40:51.560Z
@BryanKrause Okay, I removed the identity and gender components. I haven't seen any evidence that SDO is an ancestral trait. People with high empathy have the opposite social value orientation of those who have SDO, so empathy reduces SDO. I don't think it's possible for SDO to be an ancestral trait because empathy probably evolved before SDO. Empathy must have evolved before SDO because without empathy a mammalian species faces extinction due to high infant mortality, whereas SDO is not essential for any mammal's survival and only increases reproductive success by 10% (Frans De Waal).
Jude Zambarakji
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-19T20:51:56.663Z
I don't think that logic follows, and I certainly don't think it makes sense to assume that these various socio-behavioral traits are distinct items that evolved separately or in sequence rather than descriptions chosen to capture aspects of a high-dimensional landscape. If empathy is (anti)correlated with SDO, then they cannot be considered separate inheritable traits.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-20T11:19:14.573Z
@BryanKrause What's the error in my logic? I need you to elaborate. I don't understand evolutionary genetics. I don't know in what order traits can or cannot evolve or which traits can or cannot evolve. Could you recommend a book, article, or researcher that demonstrates the point you're trying to make? Could you give me an example of an evolved trait that refutes the logic of my argument? "Ancestral trait" is not a keyword or keyphrase that shows up on search engines, so can you provide me with a technical term I can research?
Jude Zambarakji
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-20T11:29:28.257Z
@BryanKrause The other reason why I think SDO and empathy are separate traits rather than traits that are part of another super trait or multidimensional trait is that I believe it's possible to have both high empathy and high SDO. The research I've seen on SDO, however, ignores the possibility of high SDO, high empathy individuals. I see these traits as two contradictory personality traits that one can have both of. Having both traits partly explains why some people switch ideologies from being capitalist to communist and vice versa or switch from being racist to anti-racist and vice versa.
Jude Zambarakji
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-20T12:07:33.490Z
@BryanKrause What do you mean by high-dimensional landscape? Are you saying that personality traits don't exist or that personality traits are not genetic and all personality traits are learned behaviors? Are you suggesting that B.F Skinner's theory of radical behaviorism is a better explanation for behaviors that are described as SDO, empathy, and other so-called personality traits? What is a socio-behavioral trait? "socio-behavioral trait" doesn't appear in a Google search. Why are you inventing new terms? I cannot understand what you're saying because you're using terms that don't exist.
Jude Zambarakji
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-20T13:22:49.250Z
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C50&q=sociobehavioral&btnG= Most heritable traits are polygenic, and the individual heritable components do not necessarily combine linearly or even monotonically. Behavioral traits especially, there are no single genes for any of these. It's extremely unlikely (and there are no known examples) that specific genetic variations that influence behavior are restricted to any one dimension of personality or behavior.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-20T15:03:35.133Z
@BryanKrause Is it possible for an indivisible personality trait to be caused by a multitude of genes? Could the smallest units of personality traits be polygenic because each personality trait exists as a continuum? E.g. SDO could have 50 genes and if you have an SDO score of 5/10 then you could have 25-30 of the genes that affect the SDO dimension. If 1 gene influences 2 different personality traits, then maybe they should be re-categorized as 1 trait instead of 2. And maybe some traits like Right-Wing Authoritarianism are multiple indivisible traits instead of just 1 trait.
Jude Zambarakji
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-20T15:12:43.320Z
@BryanKrause How does the polygenicity of genes and the fact that some genes don't combine linearly or monotonically prove that there couldn't possibly exist indivisible units of inheritable personality traits? Are you saying that for a personality trait to be both heritable it needs to be caused by a single gene or it needs to combine with another in a linear fashion? What prevents personality traits from being indivisible? Is there a specific theory for this? What if all the current dimensions of personality have poorly structured questionnaires or can be further subdivided?
Jude Zambarakji
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-20T15:27:06.493Z
@BryanKrause The absence of evidence for inheritable personality traits is not evidence of the absence of heritable personality traits. If I've understood your point, then you're making a fallacious argument. Are you saying personality psychology has been disproven? Why can't social scientists just keep recategorizing personality traits until they match the detected patterns of the genes? If personality traits are not genetic, then are they all the products of socialization? I can make that my next stack exchange question if that's the point you're making. But what is the theory for this?
Jude Zambarakji
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-20T21:58:06.240Z
Evidence that empathy and SDO are correlated is evidence that they are not inherited independently, that there is at least some unit of inheritance that influences both, unless this covariation is entirely environmental.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-20T22:10:19.797Z
As far as "evidence of absence" and the like, the burden of proof is on the less likely hypothesis. If you're proposing unicorns exist, you can't tell people who haven't seen a unicorn that this isn't evidence of the absence of unicorns, the burden of proof is on you to show a unicorn. So here, the burden of proof would be on providing any evidence that SDO is somehow special and specifically evolved independently of other traits, because the most sensible null hypothesis is that it isn't.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-22T19:27:25.537Z
@BryanKrause Observations made by zoologists and primatologists suggest that SDO and empathy evolved through separate mechanisms. Empathy evolved as a result of the need for mammalian children to be cared for by both parents until the children can feed and protect themselves. SDO evolved out of a mate-guarding reproductive strategy that functioned as a counter-strategy to sperm competition. I haven't seen any evidence that there is a super trait that determines SDO and empathy behaviors. Why not also conclude that all human personalities stem from and are controlled by a single super trait?
Jude Zambarakji
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-22T19:35:30.057Z
@BryanKrause Gender identity is also relevant to our discussion, but not to my question. The theories of SDO and somatic empathy can be falsified in the same way as the theory of gender identities. How do you falsify the hypothesis that everyone has a gender identity? In other words, how do you prove that not everyone has a gender identity? Moreover, why would animals be more likely to evolve super traits rather than individual and indivisible personality traits i.e. irreducible personality traits? Why not take a reductionist approach to genetics and evolution?
Jude Zambarakji
<social-psychology><personality><evolution><evolutionary-psychology><prosocial-behavior>
What are the various evolutionary theories of social dominance orientation?
Jude Zambarakji
# What are the various evolutionary theories of social dominance orientation?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-09-15)

Are there any evolutionary explanations for how the [social dominance orientation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation) personality trait came into existence in humans and other animals?

Jim Sidanius suggests that the SDO trait may be genetically inherited through genes, but he doesn't describe the mechanism by which the SDO trait evolved in his [Social Dominance Theory book](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/social-dominance/social-dominance-theory-a-new-synthesis/FF0A172CC40CF2FD0C2B5C0510A14525). This study of [830 Croatian twins from the University of Zagreb, in Croatia,](https://hrcak.srce.hr/clanak/373323) suggests that the SDO trait is genetically heritable. [This study from Princeton Univerity](https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1818711116) also suggests that SDO is genetically heritable. But this other study suggests that variances in [SDO are primarily environmental](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1002/per.2061).

In his book, [Different Gender](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60735359-different), Frans De Waal suggests that mate guarding increases reproductive success by 10%, but he never describes mate guarding as a product of the social dominance orientation. De Waal only said that dominance hierarchies are the evolutionary product of the mate-guarding reproductive strategy. I think this is a plausible mechanism by which the SDO trait came into existence, but are there any other theories as to how the SDO trait came into existence?

I also think that the SDO theory is supported by evidence from another theory called [Social Value Orientation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_value_orientations), which suggests that people have different attitudes toward how economic resources are distributed. I think the SDO trait is one of the three types of social value orientations.

Some people have a pro-social value orientation and often seek altruistic redistributions of resources that would disadvantage them but benefit others. This prosocial value orientation could be explained by the [somatic empathy](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6378478/) trait having evolved out of joint parental child-rearing in mammals. I'm looking for similar evolutionary theories for the SDO trait.

Nevertheless, what are the evolutionary arguments for and against the SDO trait? And what are the evolutionary theories for SIT that could disprove the existence of an SDO trait?

And lastly, what are the various theories that explain the biological mechanism by which the SDO trait came into existence?

**Tags:** social-psychology, personality, evolution, evolutionary-psychology, prosocial-behavior

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What makes you think "social dominance orientation" is a thing that evolved, rather than an abstract construct? When you say you "have no social identity", are you sure you don't just mean that your social identity is treated as default in society?  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause Men who identify as male will "prove" their manhood by showing how mentally tough they are by never discussing their relationship problems and emotional problems with their male friends. De Waal talked about how he and his male friends never talked about such feelings with other males. I will talk about such problems with any male and if they don't want to listen, I'll just never talk to them again. Men who identify with the male gender role aspire to be the sole breadwinner of their family. I don't and I wouldn't mind being a house husband if it's convenient for the family.  
> **username_1**: Having some differences from the most stereotypical male example you can come up with does not mean you don't identify as male.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause I don't believe I have a female brain, and even if I did, I wouldn't try to change my body or biology to match women's biology. Transpeople believe that their brain is the wrong sex and need to change their body's sex to match their brain's sex, and they also feel that this supposed mismatch is causing them great distress. This is why they identify as the opposite biological sex. If you believe you have the opposite sex's brain, but don't care about changing your physiology, mannerisms, and dress code to match those of the opposite sex, then you don't have a gender identity.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause When people talk about what gender they identify with, they are talking about whether they believe they have a male or female personality or both in the case of non-binary people. One's gender identity is whatever one believes about one's gender. If you have a gender identity then your self-esteem is dependent on the extent to which you believe your biology matches your gendered personality. If your gender has no impact whatsoever on your self-esteem or mental well-being then you don't have a gender identity. You also need to believe gender personalities exist to have a gender.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause I think SDO is an evolved trait because I've never had the SDO trait, but some members of my family I grew up with have had this trait since they were prepubescent children. My personal experience with high SDO individuals makes me believe that it's impossible to socialize someone into having such a trait or into losing such a trait. My entire family has tried for decades to get me to become a high SDO individual, but my personality has never changed. I also think the desire to have a gender identity is biological or innate, but gender identities and gender roles are learned.  
> **username_1**: No need for something to be evolved just because it's observed. Do you have any evidence it's heritable?  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause I don't feel a need to identify as male because it's a biological fact that I'm a male. I also don't believe that women evolved to behave differently from men, so how can I base my gender identity on gendered personality traits that I don't even believe exist? To have a gender identity you need to believe gender roles are biological or innate to some degree. You have to believe that gender roles are caused by innate gender-specific personality traits to have a gender identity. If transpeople don't believe in gender roles, then they're cosplayers or LARPs, which isn't the case.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause I've amended my question by adding a few scientific studies on the genetics of the SDO personality trait.  
> **username_1**: Great, thanks for that edit. Do you have any evidence that SDO is not the ancestral trait? That is, the thing that changed/evolved is not presence of SDO but rather absence of SDO? I also really think you should drop all the identity and gender components of the question, they seem not really related to the question at hand and are very distracting.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause Okay, I removed the identity and gender components. I haven't seen any evidence that SDO is an ancestral trait. People with high empathy have the opposite social value orientation of those who have SDO, so empathy reduces SDO. I don't think it's possible for SDO to be an ancestral trait because empathy probably evolved before SDO. Empathy must have evolved before SDO because without empathy a mammalian species faces extinction due to high infant mortality, whereas SDO is not essential for any mammal's survival and only increases reproductive success by 10% (Frans De Waal).  
> **username_1**: I don't think that logic follows, and I certainly don't think it makes sense to assume that these various socio-behavioral traits are distinct items that evolved separately or in sequence rather than descriptions chosen to capture aspects of a high-dimensional landscape. If empathy is (anti)correlated with SDO, then they cannot be considered separate inheritable traits.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause What's the error in my logic? I need you to elaborate. I don't understand evolutionary genetics. I don't know in what order traits can or cannot evolve or which traits can or cannot evolve. Could you recommend a book, article, or researcher that demonstrates the point you're trying to make? Could you give me an example of an evolved trait that refutes the logic of my argument? "Ancestral trait" is not a keyword or keyphrase that shows up on search engines, so can you provide me with a technical term I can research?  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause The other reason why I think SDO and empathy are separate traits rather than traits that are part of another super trait or multidimensional trait is that I believe it's possible to have both high empathy and high SDO. The research I've seen on SDO, however, ignores the possibility of high SDO, high empathy individuals. I see these traits as two contradictory personality traits that one can have both of. Having both traits partly explains why some people switch ideologies from being capitalist to communist and vice versa or switch from being racist to anti-racist and vice versa.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause What do you mean by high-dimensional landscape? Are you saying that personality traits don't exist or that personality traits are not genetic and all personality traits are learned behaviors? Are you suggesting that B.F Skinner's theory of radical behaviorism is a better explanation for behaviors that are described as SDO, empathy, and other so-called personality traits? What is a socio-behavioral trait? "socio-behavioral trait" doesn't appear in a Google search. Why are you inventing new terms? I cannot understand what you're saying because you're using terms that don't exist.  
> **username_1**: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C50&q=sociobehavioral&btnG= Most heritable traits are polygenic, and the individual heritable components do not necessarily combine linearly or even monotonically. Behavioral traits especially, there are no single genes for any of these. It's extremely unlikely (and there are no known examples) that specific genetic variations that influence behavior are restricted to any one dimension of personality or behavior.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause Is it possible for an indivisible personality trait to be caused by a multitude of genes? Could the smallest units of personality traits be polygenic because each personality trait exists as a continuum? E.g. SDO could have 50 genes and if you have an SDO score of 5/10 then you could have 25-30 of the genes that affect the SDO dimension. If 1 gene influences 2 different personality traits, then maybe they should be re-categorized as 1 trait instead of 2. And maybe some traits like Right-Wing Authoritarianism are multiple indivisible traits instead of just 1 trait.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause How does the polygenicity of genes and the fact that some genes don't combine linearly or monotonically prove that there couldn't possibly exist indivisible units of inheritable personality traits? Are you saying that for a personality trait to be both heritable it needs to be caused by a single gene or it needs to combine with another in a linear fashion? What prevents personality traits from being indivisible? Is there a specific theory for this? What if all the current dimensions of personality have poorly structured questionnaires or can be further subdivided?  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause The absence of evidence for inheritable personality traits is not evidence of the absence of heritable personality traits. If I've understood your point, then you're making a fallacious argument. Are you saying personality psychology has been disproven? Why can't social scientists just keep recategorizing personality traits until they match the detected patterns of the genes? If personality traits are not genetic, then are they all the products of socialization? I can make that my next stack exchange question if that's the point you're making. But what is the theory for this?  
> **username_1**: Evidence that empathy and SDO are correlated is evidence that they are not inherited independently, that there is at least some unit of inheritance that influences both, unless this covariation is entirely environmental.  
> **username_1**: As far as "evidence of absence" and the like, the burden of proof is on the less likely hypothesis. If you're proposing unicorns exist, you can't tell people who haven't seen a unicorn that this isn't evidence of the absence of unicorns, the burden of proof is on you to show a unicorn. So here, the burden of proof would be on providing any evidence that SDO is somehow special and specifically evolved independently of other traits, because the most sensible null hypothesis is that it isn't.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause Observations made by zoologists and primatologists suggest that SDO and empathy evolved through separate mechanisms. Empathy evolved as a result of the need for mammalian children to be cared for by both parents until the children can feed and protect themselves. SDO evolved out of a mate-guarding reproductive strategy that functioned as a counter-strategy to sperm competition. I haven't seen any evidence that there is a super trait that determines SDO and empathy behaviors. Why not also conclude that all human personalities stem from and are controlled by a single super trait?  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause Gender identity is also relevant to our discussion, but not to my question. The theories of SDO and somatic empathy can be falsified in the same way as the theory of gender identities. How do you falsify the hypothesis that everyone has a gender identity? In other words, how do you prove that not everyone has a gender identity? Moreover, why would animals be more likely to evolve super traits rather than individual and indivisible personality traits i.e. irreducible personality traits? Why not take a reductionist approach to genetics and evolution?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-05-20. Score: 1

SDO theory was developed outside the paradigm of evolutionary psychology, but I think it is possible to make a connection.
A person with a high social status can optimize his/her fitness by being egoistic and exploiting low status people.
On the other hand, the optimal survival strategy for a person with low status or in a precarious situation would be to be friendly and helpful. You help another person in need because one day you may need this person's help in return.
In other words SDO is an optimal strategy for people with high status only.
It would be possible to build an interesting theory about this, but I can't find much literature on this.
See Lammers, J., & Stapel, D. A. (2011). Power increases dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(1), 113–126. and other literature by Lammers.
If you can find other literature relating to this then please post it here.


---

