Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jul 1;22(3):269-277.
doi: 10.1093/deafed/enx018.

Social Dominance Orientation, Language Orientation, and Deaf Identity

Affiliations

Social Dominance Orientation, Language Orientation, and Deaf Identity

Marc Marschark et al. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. .

Abstract

The notion of the Deaf community as a linguistic-cultural minority has been increasingly recognized and studied over the last two decades. However, significant differences of opinion and perspective within that population typically have been neglected in the literature. Social dominance orientation (SDO), a theoretical construct, typically focusing on intergroup perceptions and relations, is one aspect that has been left unexplored and might prove particularly enlightening. The present study investigated SDO among 119 deaf and 49 hearing young adults through a standardized SDO questionnaire. SDO was examined with regard to cultural identities (deaf, hearing, bicultural, and marginal), cochlear implant use, and language orientation (sign language or spoken language). The deaf participants were found to be more egalitarian than hearing individuals overall. Deaf individuals who held the strongest deaf identities, those who were sign language oriented, and not cochlear implant users, were the most egalitarian.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bat-Chava Y. (2000). Diversity of deaf identities. American Annals of the Deaf, 145, 420–428. - PubMed
    1. Bauman H.-D. L. (2004). Audism: Exploring the metaphysics of oppression. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9, 239–246. doi:10.1093/deafed/enh025 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bauman S., & Pero H. (2011). Bullying and cyberbullying among deaf students and their hearing peers: An exploratory study. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16, 236–253. doi:10.1093/deafed/enq043 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Behm G. (in press). The future of communication technologies for deaf and hard-of-hearing people: A deaf engineer's perspective. Raising and educating deaf children: Foundations for policy, practice, and research.
    1. Blume S. S. (1999). Histories of cochlear implantation. Social Science & Medicine, 49, 1257–1268. - PubMed