Across two large-N studies (Ntotal = 1181), this article shows whether and how personal tendencies towards endorsing hierarchical social orders manifest in the context of world politics. Investigating the psychological factors underlying biases and predispositions towards stratification uncovers a missing link, offering a nuanced perspective on how dominance and anti-egalitarianism shape and reinforce global hierarchical structures. The findings suggest that individuals who favour dominance are more likely to endorse aggressive attitudes and behaviours, such as the use of military force abroad, as a means of securing their hierarchical positions. Furthermore, the anti-egalitarian dimension of stratification preferences drives opposition to international cooperation, functioning as a mechanism to prioritise the in-group and resist efforts to address inequalities and asymmetries. All in all, the study advances beyond traditional International Relations (IR) theories that primarily focus on authority and material power, as well as those that interpret global hierarchies as products of conservative foreign policy choices.
Adler-NissenR (2014) Stigma management in international relations: Transgressive identities, norms, and order in international society. International Organization68(1): 143–176.
2.
AdornoTFrenkel-BrunswikELevinsonD, et al (1950) The Authoritarian Personality. Harper & Row.
3.
AldrichJGelpiCFeaverP, et al (2006) Foreign policy and the electoral connection. Annual Review of Political Science9: 477–502.
4.
AlexanderMLevinSHenryPJ (2005) Image theory, social identity, and social dominance: Structural characteristics and individual motives underlying international images. Political Psychology26(1): 27–45.
5.
AlmeidaMHFernandesIFGuimarãesF (2021) Structuring public opinion on foreign policy issues: The case of Brazil. Latin American Research Review56(3): 557–574.
6.
AlmondG (1950) The American People and Foreign Policy. Harcourt, Brace & Co.
7.
AloeABeckerB (2012) An effect size for regression predictors in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics37(2): 278–297.
8.
AltemeyerB (1998) The other ‘authoritarian’ personality. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology30: 47–91.
9.
BakkerF (2018) Hawks and doves. Democratic peace theory revisited. PhD Thesis, Leiden University, Leiden.
10.
BayramA (2017) Due deference: Cosmopolitan social identity and the psychology of legal obligation in international politics. International Organization71(Suppl. 1): S137–S163.
11.
BerryC (2023) A critical examination and meta-analysis of the distinction between the dominance and antiegalitarianism facets of social dominance orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology124(2): 413–436.
12.
BjereldUEkengrenA-M (1999) Foreign policy dimensions: A comparison between the United States and Sweden. International Studies Quarterly43(3): 503–518.
13.
BoehmC (1999) Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Harvard University Press.
14.
BukovanskyMClarkIEckersleyR, et al (2012) Special Responsibilities: Global Problems and American Power. Cambridge University Press.
15.
CampbellAConversePMillerW, et al (1964 [1960]) The American Voter. University of Chicago Press.
16.
CapraraGVSchwartzSCapannaC, et al (2006) Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice. Political Psychology27(1): 1–28.
Chagas-BastosF (2024a) The challenge for the ‘rest’: Insertion, agency spaces, and recognition in world politics. International Affairs100(1): 43–60.
19.
Chagas-BastosF (2024b) A comprehensive aspect-level approach to the personality micro-foundations of foreign policy attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin50(10): 1517–1528.
20.
Chagas-BastosF (in press(a)) How disgust influences foreign policy attitudes. In Press.
21.
Chagas-BastosF (in press(b)) The meanings of inequality in world politics. In Press.
22.
Chagas-BastosF (in press(c)) The moral structure of foreign policy attitudes. In Press.
ChamplinDKnoedlerJ (2005) Whither, or wither, the good society?Journal of Economic Issues39(2): 455–463.
25.
ChengJTracyJHenrichJ (2010) Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior31(5): 334–347.
26.
ChengJTracyJFoulshamT, et al (2013) Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology104(1): 103–125.
27.
ChittickWBillingsleyKTravisR (1995) A three-dimensional model of American foreign policy beliefs. International Studies Quarterly39(3): 313–331.
28.
ChmielewskiMKuckerS (2020) An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science11(4): 464–473.
29.
CliffordSJewellRWaggonerP (2015) Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology?Research & Politics2(4): 1–9.
30.
CohenJ (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd edn). Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
ColaresiM (2004) When doves cry: International rivalry, unreciprocated cooperation, and leadership turnover. American Journal of Political Science48(3): 555–570.
32.
ConverseP (1964) The nature and origin of belief systems in mass publics. In: ApterD (ed.) Ideology and Discontent. Free Press, pp. 206–261.
33.
DavisC (2023) Discriminatory Clubs: The Geopolitics of International Organizations. Princeton University Press.
34.
DeYoungCQuiltyLPetersonJ (2007) Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology93(5): 880–896.
35.
DuckittJ (2001) A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In: ZannaM (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 33. Academic Press, pp. 41–113.
36.
DuckittJSibleyC (2010) Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality78(6): 1861–1894.
37.
DuckittJBizumicBKraussS, et al (2010) A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model. Political Psychology31(5): 685–715.
38.
DuckittJWagnerCdu PlessisI, et al (2002) The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology83(1): 75–93.
39.
EaglyADiekmanAJohannesen-SchmidtMC, et al (2004) Gender gaps in sociopolitical attitudes: A social psychological analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology87(6): 796–816.
40.
EverettJ (2013) The 12 item Social and Economic Conservatism Scale (SECS). PLoS ONE8(12): e82131.
41.
FedericoCSidaniusJ (2002) Racism, ideology, and affirmative action revisited: The antecedents and consequences of ‘principled objections’ to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology82(4): 488–502.
42.
FischerRHankeKSibleyC (2012) Cultural and institutional determinants of social dominance orientation: A cross-cultural meta-analysis of 27 societies. Political Psychology33(4): 437–467.
43.
FlahertyTRogowskiR (2021) Rising inequality as a threat to the liberal international order. International Organization75(2): 495–523.
44.
FletcherJHoveJ (2012) Emotional determinants of support for the Canadian mission in Afghanistan: A view from the bridge. Canadian Journal of Political Science45(1): 33–62.
45.
FreedmanJ (2016) Status insecurity and temporality in world politics. European Journal of International Relations22(4): 797–822.
46.
FunkeMSchularickMTrebeschC (2016) Going to extremes: Politics after financial crises, 1870–2014. European Economic Review88: 227–260.
47.
GangulySHellwigTThompsonW (2017) The foreign policy attitudes of Indian elites: Variance, structure, and common denominators. Foreign Policy Analysis13(2): 416–438.
48.
GatesR (2020) Exercise of Power: American Failures, Successes, and a New Path Forward in the Post-Cold War World. Alfred A Knopf.
49.
GildeaR (2020) Psychology and aggregation in international relations. European Journal of International Relations26(Suppl. 1): 166–183.
50.
GohJHallJRosenthalR (2016) Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass10(10): 535–549.
51.
GötzE (2021) Status matters in world politics. International Studies Review23(1): 228–247.
52.
GraeberDWengrowD (2021) The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
53.
GramsciA (1957) The Modern Prince and Other Writings. International Publishers.
54.
GravelleTReiflerJScottoT (2017) The structure of foreign policy attitudes in transatlantic perspective: Comparing the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany. European Journal of Political Research56(4): 757–776.
55.
HenrichJ (2020) The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
56.
HenrichJGil-WhiteFJ (2001) The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior22(3): 165–196.
57.
HenryPJSidaniusJLevinS, et al (2005) Social dominance orientation, authoritarianism, and support for intergroup violence between the Middle East and America. Political Psychology26(4): 569–583.
58.
HerrmannRChoiJ (2007) From prediction to learning: Opening experts’ minds to unfolding history. International Security31(4): 132–161.
59.
HindriksPVerkuytenMCoendersM (2014) Dimensions of social dominance orientation: The roles of legitimizing myths and national identification. European Journal of Personality28(6): 538–549.
60.
HoAKSidaniusJPrattoF, et al (2012) Social dominance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin38(5): 583–606.
61.
HoAKSidaniusJKteilyN, et al (2015) The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology109(6): 1003–1028.
62.
HobsonJ (2014) The twin self-delusions of IR: Why ‘hierarchy’ and not ‘anarchy’ is the core concept of IR. Millennium42(3): 557–575.
63.
HolstiO (2004) Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. University of Michigan Press.
64.
HurwitzJPeffleyM (1987) How are foreign policy attitudes structured?American Political Science Review81(4): 1099–1120.
65.
IkenberryGJ (2000) After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars. Princeton University Press.
66.
IkenberryGJ (2012) Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton University Press.
67.
JackmanM (1994) The Velvet Glove: Paternalism and Conflict in Gender, Class, and Race Relations. University of California Press.
68.
JacksonLGaertnerL (2010) Mechanisms of moral disengagement and their differential use by right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation in support of war. Aggressive Behavior36(4): 238–250.
69.
JohnsonD (2015) Survival of the disciplines: Is international relations fit for the new millennium?Millennium43(2): 749–763.
70.
JohnstonCLavineHFedericoC (2017) Open Versus Closed: Personality, Identity, and the Politics of Redistribution. Cambridge University Press.
71.
JostJThompsonE (2000) Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology36(3): 209–232.
72.
JostJBeckerJOsborneD, et al (2017) Missing in (collective) action: Ideology, system justification, and the motivational antecedents of two types of protest behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science26(2): 99–108.
73.
JostJChaikalis-PetritsisVAbramsD, et al (2012) Why men (and women) do and don’t rebel: Effects of system justification on willingness to protest. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin38(2): 197–208.
74.
KahnemanDRenshonJ (2009) Hawkish biases. In: ThrallTCramerJ (eds) American Foreign Policy and the Politics of Fear: Threat Inflation Since 9/11. Routledge, pp. 79–96.
75.
KandlerCBellERiemannR (2016) The structure and sources of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. European Journal of Personality30(4): 406–420.
76.
KangD (2010) East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute. Columbia University Press.
77.
KarunaratneKLahamS (2019) Social dominance orientation predicts opposition to hierarchy-attenuating intergroup apologies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin45(12): 1651–1665.
78.
KeesJBerryCBurtonS, et al (2017) An analysis of data quality: Professional panels, student subject pools, and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Journal of Advertising46(1): 141–155.
79.
KertzerJ (2013) Making sense of isolationism: Foreign policy mood as a multilevel phenomenon. Journal of Politics75(1): 225–240.
80.
KertzerJ (2022) Re-assessing elite-public gaps in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science66(3): 539–553.
81.
KertzerJ (2023) Public opinion about foreign policy. In: HuddyLSearsDLevyJ (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (3rd edn). Oxford University Press, pp. 447–485.
82.
KertzerJZeitzoffT (2017) A bottom-up theory of public opinion about foreign policy. American Journal of Political Science61(3): 543–558.
83.
KertzerJHolmesMLeVeckB, et al (2022) Hawkish biases and group decision making. International Organization76(3): 513–548.
84.
KertzerJPowersKRathbunB, et al (2014) Moral support: How moral values shape foreign policy attitudes. Journal of Politics76(3): 1–16.
85.
KlingbergF (1952) The historical alternation of moods in American foreign policy. World Politics4(2): 239–273.
86.
KlugmanJ (1985) Hawks and doves. Political Psychology6(4): 573–589.
87.
KteilyNBruneauEWaytzA, et al (2015) The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology109(5): 901–931.
88.
KteilyNSidaniusJLevinS (2011) Social dominance orientation: Cause or ‘mere effect’? Evidence for SDO as a causal predictor of prejudice and discrimination against ethnic and racial outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology47(1): 208–214.
89.
KuglerMCooperJNosekB (2010) Group-based dominance and opposition to equality correspond to different psychological motives. Social Justice Research23(2–3): 117–155.
90.
LagosG (1963) International Stratification and Underdeveloped Countries. University of North Carolina Press.
91.
LakeD (1996) Anarchy, hierarchy, and the variety of international relations. International Organization50(1): 1–33.
92.
LakeD (2007) Escape from the state of nature: Authority and hierarchy in world politics. International Security32(1): 47–79.
93.
LakeD (2009) Hierarchy in International Relations. Cornell University Press.
94.
LakeD (2010) Rightful rules: Authority, order, and the foundations of global governance. International Studies Quarterly54(3): 587–613.
95.
LevinSHenryPJPrattoF, et al (2003) Social dominance and social identity in Lebanon: Implications for support of violence against the West. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations6(4): 353–368.
96.
LippmannW (1955) Essays in the Public Philosophy. Little, Brown and Co.
97.
LuLNealeNLineND, et al (2022) Improving data quality using Amazon Mechanical Turk through platform setup. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly63(2): 231–246.
98.
LyallHThorsteinssonE (2007) Attitudes to the Iraq war and mandatory detention of asylum seekers: Associations with authoritarianism, social dominance, and mortality salience. Australian Journal of Psychology59(2): 70–77.
99.
McDermottR (1998) Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy. University of Michigan Press.
McFarlandS (2005) On the eve of war: Authoritarianism, social dominance, and American students’ attitudes toward attacking Iraq. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin31(3): 360–367.
102.
McFarlandSWebbMBrownD (2012) All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and studies of identification with all humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology103(5): 830–853.
103.
McNameeS (2024) The Meritocracy Myth (5th edn). Rowman & Littlefield.
104.
MaderMPötzschkeJ (2014) National identities and mass belief systems on foreign and security policy in Germany. German Politics23(1–2): 59–77.
105.
ManerJCaseC (2016) Dominance and prestige: Dual strategies for navigating social hierarchies. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology54: 129–180.
106.
ManerJMeadN (2010) The essential tension between leadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology99(3): 482–497.
107.
MaozIWardAKatzM, et al (2002) Reactive devaluation of an ‘Israeli’ vs. ‘Palestinian’ peace proposal. Journal of Conflict Resolution46(4): 515–546.
108.
MarkovitsD (2019) The Meritocracy Trap: How America’s Foundational Myth Feeds Inequality, Dismantles the Middle Class, and Devours the Elite. Penguin Books.
109.
MercerJ (1995) Anarchy and identity. International Organization49(2): 229–252.
110.
MillerC (2022) Chip War: The Fight for the World’s Most Critical Technology. Scribner.
111.
MillerM (2021) Why Nations Rise: Narratives and the Path to Great Power. Oxford University Press.
112.
MilojevPSenguptaNSibleyC (2014) Majority group opposition to minority political entitlements: The social dominance paradox. International Journal of Intercultural Relations39: 82–92.
113.
MintzAReddSVedlitzA (2006) Can we generalize from student experiments to the real world in political science, military affairs, and international relations?Journal of Conflict Resolution50(5): 757–776.
114.
MutzDKimE (2017) The impact of in-group favoritism on trade preferences. International Organization71(4): 827–850.
115.
OrganskiAFKKuglerJ (1980) The War Ledger. University of Chicago Press.
116.
OsborneDJostJBeckerJ, et al (2018) Protesting to challenge or defend the system? A system justification perspective on collective action. European Journal of Social Psychology49(2): 244–269.
117.
PageBShapiroRDempseyG (1987) What moves public opinion?The American Political Science Review81(1): 23–43.
118.
ParmarI (2019) Global power shifts, diversity, and hierarchy in international politics. Ethics & International Affairs33(2): 231–244.
119.
PaulhusDWilliamsK (2002) The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality36(6): 556–563.
120.
PaulhusDBuckelsETrapnellP, et al (2021) Screening for dark personalities: The Short Dark Tetrad (SD4). European Journal of Psychological Assessment37(3): 208–222.
121.
PowellR (2017) Research bets and behavioral IR. International Organization71(Suppl. 1): S265–S277.
122.
PowersKKertzerJBrooksD, et al (2022) What’s fair in international politics? Equity, equality, and foreign policy attitudes. Journal of Conflict Resolution66(2): 217–245.
123.
PrattoF (1999) The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In: ZannaM (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 31. Academic Press, pp. 191–263.
124.
PrattoFSidaniusJLevinS (2006) Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology17(1): 271–320.
125.
PrattoFSidaniusJBou ZeineddineF, et al (2014) When domestic politics and international relations intermesh: Subordinated publics’ factional support within layered power structures. Foreign Policy Analysis10(2): 127–148.
126.
PrattoFSidaniusJStallworthLM, et al (1994) Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology67(4): 741–763.
127.
RathbunB (2007) Hierarchy and community at home and abroad: Evidence of a common structure of domestic and foreign policy beliefs in American elites. Journal of Conflict Resolution51(3): 379–407.
128.
RathbunBSteinR (2020) Greater goods: Morality and attitudes toward the use of nuclear weapons. Journal of Conflict Resolution64(5): 787–816.
129.
RathbunBKertzerJReiflerJ, et al (2016) Making foreign policy personally: Personal values and foreign policy attitudes. International Studies Quarterly60(1): 124–137.
130.
ReeseGProchJCohrsJ (2014) Individual differences in responses to global inequality. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy14(1): 217–238.
131.
ReiflerJScottoTClarkeH (2011) Foreign policy beliefs in contemporary Britain: Structure and relevance. International Studies Quarterly55(1): 245–266.
132.
RenshonJ (2015) Losing face and sinking costs: Experimental evidence on the judgment of political and military leaders. International Organization69(3): 659–695.
133.
RenshonJ (2017) Fighting for Status: Hierarchy and Conflict in World Politics. University Press.
134.
RenshonJLeeJTingleyD (2017) Emotions and the micro-foundations of commitment problems. International Organization71(Suppl. 1): S189–S218.
135.
SandelM (2020) The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
136.
SchmittMBranscombeNKappenD (2003) Attitudes toward group-based inequality: Social dominance or social identity?British Journal of Social Psychology42(2): 161–186.
137.
SchulzC-A (2019) Hierarchy salience and social action: Disentangling class, status, and authority in world politics. International Relations33(1): 88–108.
138.
ShapiroRPageB (1988) Foreign policy and the rational public. Journal of Conflict Resolution32(2): 211–247.
139.
ShefferLLoewenPSorokaS, et al (2018) Nonrepresentative representatives: An experimental study of the decision making of elected politicians. American Political Science Review112(2): 302–321.
140.
SidaniusJPrattoF (1993) The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of social dominance. In: SnidermanPTetlockP (eds) Prejudice, Politics, and the American Dilemma. Stanford University Press, pp. 87–103.
141.
SidaniusJPrattoF (1999) Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge University Press.
142.
SidaniusJPrattoF (2012) Social dominance theory. In: Van LangePAKruglanskiAHigginsE (eds) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, vol. 2: Sage, pp. 418–438.
143.
SidaniusJCotterillSSheehy-SkeffingtonJ, et al (2016) Social dominance theory: Explorations in the psychology of oppression. In: SibleyCBarlowF (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice. Cambridge University Press, pp. 149–187.
144.
SidaniusJHaleyHMolinaL, et al (2007) Vladimir’s choice and the distribution of social resources: A group dominance perspective. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations10(2): 257–265.
145.
SidaniusJHenryPJPrattoF, et al (2004a) Arab attributions for the attack on America: The case of Lebanese subelites. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology35(4): 403–416.
146.
SidaniusJPrattoFVan LaarC, et al (2004b) Social dominance theory: Its agenda and method. Political Psychology25(6): 845–880.
147.
StewartAMcCartyNBrysonJ (2020) Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline. Science Advances6(50): eabd4201.
148.
ThomsenLGreenESidaniusJ (2008) We will hunt them down: How social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism fuel ethnic persecution of immigrants in fundamentally different ways. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology44(6): 1455–1464.
149.
ViechtbauerW (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software36(3): 1–48.
150.
ViolaLA (2020) The Closure of the International System: How Institutions Create Political Equalities and Hierarchies. Cambridge University Press.
151.
VorsinaMManningMSheppardJ, et al (2019) Social dominance orientation, fear of terrorism and support for counter-terrorism policies. Australian Journal of Political Science54(1): 99–113.
152.
WardS (2017) Lost in translation: Social identity theory and the study of status in world politics. International Studies Quarterly61(4): 821–834.
153.
WendtA (2004) The state as person in international theory. Review of International Studies30(2): 289–316.
154.
WilsonMSibleyC (2013) Social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects on political conservatism. Political Psychology34(2): 277–284.
155.
WittkopfE (1986) On the foreign policy beliefs of the American people: A critique and some evidence. International Studies Quarterly30(4): 425–445.
156.
WittkopfE (1990) Faces of Internationalism: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Duke University Press.
157.
WohlforthW (2009) Unipolarity, status competition, and great power war. World Politics61(1): 28–57.
158.
ZallerJ (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge University Press.
159.
ZarakolA (2014) What made the modern world hang together: Socialisation or stigmatisation?International Theory6(2): 311–332.
160.
ZarakolA (2017a) Theorising hierarchies: An introduction. In: ZarakolA (ed.) Hierarchies in World Politics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–16.
161.
ZarakolA (ed.) (2017b) Hierarchies in World Politics. Cambridge University Press.
162.
ZhirkovK (2021) Social dominance orientation and differential affect toward immigrant origin groups: Evidence from three immigration-receiving countries. International Journal of Intercultural Relations85: 170–183.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
