A Dual-Process Motivational Model of Ideology, Politics, and Prejudice

This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland] On: 7 August 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 906506408] Publisher Psychology Press Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Psychological Inquiry Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775648164

A Dual-Process Motivational Model of Ideology, Politics, and Prejudice John Duckitt a; Chris G. Sibley a a Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Online Publication Date: 01 April 2009

To cite this Article Duckitt, John and Sibley, Chris G.(2009)'A Dual-Process Motivational Model of Ideology, Politics, and

Prejudice',Psychological Inquiry,20:2,98 — 109 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10478400903028540 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10478400903028540

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Psychological Inquiry, 20: 98–109, 2009 C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright
ISSN: 1047-840X print / 1532-7965 online DOI: 10.1080/10478400903028540

A Dual-Process Motivational Model of Ideology, Politics, and Prejudice John Duckitt and Chris G. Sibley

Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009

Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand There have been two broad approaches to how sociopolitical or ideological attitudes are structured. The more traditional unidimensional approach sees ideological attitudes as organized along a single left-to-right dimension, and influenced by a single coherent set of social and psychological causes, but has not been well supported empirically. During the past 2 decades evidence has increasingly suggested that there are two distinct dimensions of ideological attitudes, which seem best captured by the constructs of Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). These dimensions may sometimes be strongly related, but often are not, and seem to express quite different basic values or motivational goals. This has been formalized in a dual-process motivational model of ideological attitudes, which sees RWA and SDO as originating in different social worldview beliefs, personality trait dimensions, and social environmental influences, and as influencing socio-political and intergroup behavior and outcomes in different ways and through different mechanisms. New research supporting these propositions is reviewed. Key words: right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, prejudice, politics, ideology.

Two main approaches for understanding the psychological structure and bases of ideological attitudes have been prominent. A unidimensional approach emerged in the mid-20th century and was widely accepted for a number of decades. This approach viewed socio-political or ideological attitudes and beliefs as structured along a single left (liberal) to right (conservative) dimension and as being causally rooted in a common set of social and psychological determinants. This tradition began with the research of Adorno and his colleagues (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) followed by Rokeach (1960), and Wilson (1973). More recently it has been represented in the influential research by Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway (2003). The second, two-dimensional approach sees ideological attitudes as organized along two relatively independent, though often related, social attitudinal dimensions, which have quite different social and motivational bases. This approach did have some early proponents (e.g., Eysenck, 1954) but has only become prominent in the past 2 decades, largely as a result of influential research on Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA; Altemeyer, 1981, 1998) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). This approach was subsequently systematized and elaborated as a dual-process motivational (DPM) model of ideology and prejudice (Duckitt, 2001).

In this article we first briefly describe the more important unidimensional approaches to ideology and note the empirical weaknesses that lead to their decline. Thereafter we describe the constructs of RWA and SDO and argue that they represent two relatively independent, though often correlated, dimensions of ideological attitudes that express two distinct sets of basic social values. This idea has been systematized and elaborated in a DPM model, which specifies the social and psychological bases of these two dimensions, and how and why they affect socio-political and intergroup behaviour and attitudes. We describe this model, note some of its important predictions, and briefly review new research testing them.

Unidimensional Approaches to Ideological Attitudes The first major empirically based theory of the structure and psychological basis of ideological attitudes emerged from the classic research of Adorno et al. (1950). Their findings suggested that people’s attitudes and beliefs about socio-political issues seemed to be highly correlated forming a single dimension with antisemitism, prejudice toward outgroups and minorities, politically conservative attitudes, and excessive and uncritical patriotism clustering at one pole and socially liberal attitudes, tolerance toward outgroups and minorities, and egalitarian beliefs clustering at the other 98

Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009

DUAL-PROCESS MOTIVATIONAL MODEL

pole. The extremes of this dimension seemed to Adorno et al. to be anchored in antidemocratic, profascist, attitudes that uncritically accepted established authority as opposed to prodemocratic, liberal, or socialist attitudes, and could thus be characterized as a dimension of authoritarian attitudes, which was measured by the famous F-scale. Adorno et al. (1950) assumed that the social attitudes measured by the F-scale were direct expressions of an underlying authoritarian personality dimension and that the F-scale could therefore be treated as a measure of personality. However, this assumption was never empirically validated, or even investigated, and more recently it has been increasingly accepted that the F-scale and measures derived from it are measures of social attitudes rather than of personality (e.g., Duriez & Van Hiel, 2002; Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov, & Duarte, 2003; Jost et al., 2003). A second problem of the F-scale was due to all its items being formulated in the protrait direction (i.e., agreement to all items indicating higher authoritarianism). When this problem of acquiescence was controlled by developing and including reversed items, these balanced F-scales lacked reliability and unidimensionality. As Altemeyer (1981) later demonstrated, the apparent unidimensionality of the original F-scale had been spurious and due to acquiescence, and its items were not tapping a single general factor but several rather related factors. This suggested that ideological attitudes might not be organized along a single unidimensional continuum. The psychometric problems of Adorno et al.’s (1950) F-scale and other criticisms of their theory and research lead to several alternative theories and conceptualizations of the psychological bases of ideological attitudes. An early rival to the F-scale was Rokeach’s (1960) Dogmatism or D-scale, which also consisted of a broad range of social attitudinal items similar to those of the F-scale, which were also not balanced to control for acquiescence. As a result the D-scale shared all the weaknesses of the F-scale, and once balancing items were included, lacked internal consistency and unidimensionality. Again, the broadly socio-political item content appeared to be tapping not one dimension but several. The most important empirical investigation of the psychological basis of ideology following those of Adorno et al. (1950) and Rokeach (1960) was that of Wilson (1973). He explicitly developed his Conservatism or C-scale to comprehensively measure the entire domain of ideological social attitudes along a single unidimensional liberal-conservative dimension. The C-scale was viewed as psychometrically superior to the earlier F- and D-scales because its items were balanced to control for acquiescence. However, the Cscale was plagued by exactly the same problem as its predecessors by having very low internal consistency,

with the average correlation between items typically not much higher than .05. Altemeyer (1981), in his research with the C-scale, for example, obtained a mean interitem correlation of only .06. Factor analytic studies confirmed this by showing that the C-scale, like the F- and D-scales, was clearly not unidimensional (Altemeyer, 1981). Empirical findings therefore consistently failed to support the idea that socio-political attitudes would be unidimensionally structured along a single left–right dimension. A second assumption of these unidimensional models, that a coherent cluster of personality, cognitive or motivational traits, such as an authoritarian personality, would powerfully determine these attitudes, was never directly tested. As a result these unidimensional approaches to the structure of ideological attitudes were largely abandoned during the last few decades of the 20th century, during which time new evidence emerged suggesting that ideological attitudes might be structured along two distinct dimensions.

Two Dimensions of Ideological Attitudes: RWA and SDO The idea that ideological social attitudes might be organized along two distinct dimensions came to the fore with the development of two constructs, RWA and SDO. The RWA scale was developed in 1981 by Bob Altemeyer to measure authoritarian attitudes and unlike its failed predecessor, the F-scale, was clearly unidimensional and had a high level of internal consistency. Altemeyer achieved this unidimensionality by limiting the scope of his RWA scale markedly to attitudinal expressions of just three of the original nine content clusters incorporated in the original F-scales, that is, conventionalism, authoritarian submission, and authoritarian aggression. Later, in the 1990s, Sidanius and Pratto (1999) developed the SDO scale to measure a “general attitudinal orientation toward intergroup relations, reflecting whether one generally prefers such relations to be equal, versus hierarchical” (Pratto et al., 1994, p. 742). This seemed to measure a different social attitudinal cluster of Adorno et al.’s (1950) original nine authoritarian content clusters, such as those pertaining to power and toughness, destructiveness and cynicism, and anti-intraception. Research showed that both the SDO and RWA scales were powerful predictors of socio-political and intergroup behavior and attitudes, such as generalized prejudice and political orientation (Pratto, 1999; Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1994). Although this could suggest that RWA and SDO were measuring essentially the same dimension, several considerations indicated that they seemed to be measuring two 99

DUCKITT AND SIBLEY

Table 1. Research Indicating Two Primary Ideological Attitude or Value Dimensions. Study

Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009

Eysenck (1954) Tomkins (1964) Hughes (1975) Rokeach (1973) Hofstede (1980) Kerlinger (1984) Forsyth (1980) Katz & Hass (1988) Middendorp (1991) Trompenaars (1993) Braithwaite (1994) Schwartz (1996) Triandis & Gelfand (1998) Saucier (2000) Ashton et al. (2005) Stangor & Leary (2006)

RWA Equivalent Conservatism vs. liberalism Normative (conservatism) Social conservatism vs. Liberalism Freedom Collectivism vs. Individualism Conservatism Relativism (i.e., group orientation) Protestant ethic Cultural conservatism vs. Openness Group loyalty vs. Individualism National strength and order Conservation vs. openness Collectivism vs. individualism Alpha-isms (Conservatism- Authoritarianism) Moral regulation vs. individual freedom Conservatism

relatively independent dimensions (Altemeyer, 1998; Duckitt, 2001; Roccato & Ricolfi, 2005). First, the item content of the two scales is different. RWA items express beliefs in coercive social control, in obedience and respect for existing authorities, and in conforming to traditional moral and religious norms and values. SDO items pertain to beliefs in social and economic inequality as opposed to equality, and the right of powerful groups to dominate weaker ones. Second, the RWA and SDO scales correlate differently with important other variables (Altemeyer, 1998; Duckitt, 2001, Duckitt & Fisher, 2003; Duckitt, Wagner, du Plessis, & Birum, 2002; McFarland, 1998; McFarland & Adelson, 1996). RWA is powerfully associated with religiosity and valuing order, structure, conformity, and tradition, whereas SDO is not. SDO, on the other hand, is strongly associated with valuing power, achievement, and hedonism, whereas RWA is not. RWA is influenced by social threat and correlates with a view of the social world as dangerous and threatening, whereas SDO is powerfully correlated with a Social Darwinist view of the world as a ruthlessly competitive jungle in which the strong win and the weak lose. Third, whereaes some studies, notably in Western Europe, have reported strong positive correlations between RWA and SDO, most research, particularly in North America, has found weak positive or nonsignificant correlations (see the review and meta-analysis by Roccato & Ricolfi, 2005). Research in East European, largely ex-communist, countries has found nonsignificant or significantly negative correlations between RWA and SDO (e.g., Duriez, Van Hiel, & Kossowska, 2005; Krauss, 2002; Van Hiel & Kossowska, 2007). Thus, although SDO and RWA both predict attitudinal and behavioral phenomena associated with the political right as opposed to the left, they seem to be 100

SDO Equivalent Tough vs. tender Humanism Economic conservatism vs. social welfare Equality Power distance Liberalism (i.e., humanism-egalitarianism) Idealism (altruism/social concern) Humanitarianism/Egalitarianism Economic conservatism vs. equality Hierarchy vs. egalitarianism International harmony Self-enhancement vs. transcendence Vertical vs. horizontal values Beta-isms (SDO/Machiavellianism) Compassion vs. competition Egalitarianism

quite distinct and relatively independent dimensions of ideological attitudes. This idea, that there may be two distinct dimensions of ideological attitudes, is not new. Over the years many empirical investigations have reported that socio-political attitudes and values were organized along two primary dimensions that correspond closely to RWA and SDO. These findings were reviewed earlier (Duckitt, 2001) and are summarized in Table 1, with several more recent investigations added (i.e., Ashton et al., 2005; Stangor & Leary, 2006). As Table 1 shows, many different labels and measures have been used for these two dimensions. The RWA-like dimension has typically been labeled authoritarianism, social conservatism, or traditionalism at one pole versus openness, autonomy, liberalism, or personal freedom at the other pole. The SDO-like dimension has typically been labeled economic conservatism, power, or belief in hierarchy and inequality at one pole versus egalitarianism, humanitarianism, or social welfare and concern at the other pole. However, of the many measures of these two dimensions that have been used in research, the RWA and SDO scales have invariably tended to be the best predictors of socio-political behaviors and reactions, possibly because they tap the core aspects of these dimensions most directly, or because of their better psychometric properties and higher degree of unidimensionality (Altemeyer, 1998, pp. 55–60; McFarland, 1998, 2006).

The Motivational Bases of RWA and SDO Numerous studies have shown that RWA and SDO correlate powerfully with different sets of values or motivational goals. This has emerged clearly from studies using Schwartz’s (1992) well-validated values inventory, which was specifically developed to measure

DUAL-PROCESS MOTIVATIONAL MODEL

Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009

Figure 1. A causal model of the impact of personality, social environment, and social worldview beliefs on the two ideological attitude dimensions of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and their impact on socio-political behavior and attitudes as mediated through perceived social threat or competitiveness over group dominance, power, and resources.

universal values that express basic human motivational goals. These studies indicate that RWA is strongly correlated with the higher order value dimension of Conservation (Security, Conformity, and Tradition) versus Openness (Stimulation and Self-Direction), whereas SDO is strongly correlated with the higher order value dimension of Self-Enhancement (Achievement, Power, Hedonism) versus Self-Transcendence (Universalism, Benevolence; Altemeyer, 1998; Duriez & Van Hiel, 2002; Duriez et al., 2005; McFarland, 2006). Stangor and Leary’s (2006) research used very different measures of motivationally based values and found a strong positive relationship of conservative values with RWA, but not SDO, and a strong negative relationship of egalitarian values with SDO, but not RWA. This suggests that the two dimensions represented by RWA and SDO can be seen as attitudinal expressions of two basic and very different sets of social values or motivational goals. This conclusion suggests two important implications. These are, first, that RWA and SDO should have different psychological and social bases or causes, and second, that they seem likely then to exert their effects, as on politics and prejudice, in different ways and through different mechanisms. These ideas have been the basis of a DPM model of ideological attitudes (Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt et al., 2002). This model rests on the core idea that RWA and SDO express different sets of values or motivational goals and sets out to explicate exactly what the different social and psychological bases of these two ideological attitude dimensions are and how and why they produce their effects on socio-political and intergroup behavior. These two aspects of the model, and new research bearing on each, are described next.

The Social and Psychological Bbases of RWA and SDO The DPM model, which is diagrammatically summarized in Figure 1, proposes that the two sets of motivational goals or values expressed in RWA and SDO are made chronically salient for individuals by their social worldview beliefs, which are in turn products of their personalities and their socialization in and exposure to particular social environments. Specifically, it was proposed that high RWA expresses the value or motivational goal of establishing and maintaining societal security, order, cohesion, and stability, which is made chronically salient for individuals by the socialized worldview belief that the social world is an inherently dangerous, unpredictable, and threatening (as opposed to safe, stable, and secure) place (measured by agreement with items such as “We live in a dangerous society, in which good peoples values and way of life are threatened and disrupted by bad people”). This social worldview belief derives from individuals’ personalities and their exposure to and socialization within social environments that are dangerous, threatening, and unpredictable. The personality dimension that predisposes people to adopt this belief in a dangerous world and be high in RWA was initially labelled as Social Conformity (as opposed to Autonomy), which leads individuals to identify with the existing social order and so be more sensitive to threats to it, and to prefer order, structure, stability, and security in both their personal and social lives. This trait pattern was measured by a Social Conformity trait rating scale (with items such as “obedient,” “respectful,” “moralistic” versus “nonconforming,” “rebellious,” “unpredictable”), 101

Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009

DUCKITT AND SIBLEY

derived from a higher order trait dimension identified in prior research by Saucier (1994), which was found to correlate strongly with RWA but not with SDO (Duckitt, 2001). In Big-Five terms this Social Conformity trait dimension was seen as combining low Openness to Experience and high Conscientiousness (Duckitt et al., 2002; see also Sibley & Duckitt, 2008). Thus, as shown in Figure 1, the model sees Social Conformity (or low Openness, high Conscientiousness) as influencing the adoption of the belief that the social world is dangerous and threatening, as well as directly influencing RWA. Dangerous World Beliefs then also have direct effects influencing RWA. In contrast, SDO stems from the social worldview belief that the world is a ruthlessly competitive jungle in which might is right and the strong win and the weak lose, as opposed to a place of cooperative harmony, in which people care for, help, and share with each other (measured by agreement with items such as “It’s a dog-eat-dog world where you have to be ruthless at times”). This makes salient the value or motivational goals of power, dominance, and superiority over others, which is then expressed in high SDO. This competitive-jungle social worldview belief was seen as deriving directly from the personality dimension of Tough versus Tendermindedness (in Big-Five terms, low Agreeableness), and exposure to and socialization in social environments characterized by ingroup dominance, inequality, and competition. Tough versus Tendermindedness was measured by a trait rating scale, adapted from a measure originally used by Goertzel (1987) with items such as “toughminded,” “hard-hearted,” “uncaring” versus “sympathetic,” “compassionate,” and “forgiving.” Their lack of empathy for others and ruthless pursuit of power and self-interested goals would cause persons high in Toughmindedness (or low in Agreeableness) to see their social world as a competitive jungle, which in turn would cause them to be high in SDO, as shown in Figure 1. The model would expect the two social worldview belief dimensions, belief in a dangerous, threatening world, or belief in a competitive-jungle world, to generally be relatively stable over time for individuals. This would reflect their origins in individuals’ personality and their socialization within particular social environments, which would typically also be relatively stable over time. Once formed, these worldview beliefs should anchor the individuals’ interpretations and perceptions of their social world and thus predispose them to unduly weigh information that was consistent with these beliefs as representative of social reality. However, as suggested in Figure 1, when social environments change, these changes could, particularly if they were seen as dramatic and likely to be enduring, change individuals’ social worldviews and therefore change RWA and SDO. Thus, exposure to societies or 102

social contexts characterized by marked increases in real social threat, instability, and dangerousness should increase individuals’ levels of RWA with this increase mediated via changes in their belief that their social world is dangerous and threatening. When societies or social groups experience sharp and seemingly enduring increases in group dominance, inequality, and competition, members of those groups will tend to be more inclined to see their social worlds as competitive jungles, which should increase their levels of SDO. Initial research on the model focused on testing its hypotheses about how RWA and SDO would be associated with the personality constructs of Social Conformity and Toughminedess, and the two worldview belief dimensions. This initial research showed that Social Conformity and Dangerous World beliefs did predict RWA specifically and not SDO, and that Toughmindedness and Competitive World, beliefs, or closely related measures, did predict SDO specifically and not RWA (Altemeyer, 1998, Duckitt, 2001). More comprehensive tests of the relationships between these personality, worldview, and ideological attitude variables were conducted using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with latent variables in large samples in New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States (Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt et al., 2002). The overall model showed good fit in all the samples, and all the paths shown between these variables in Figure 1 were clearly significant. The SEM analysis also confirmed an interesting asymmetry in the way personality and worldview beliefs seemed to affect RWA and SDO. Social Conformity and Dangerous World beliefs had strong direct and independent effects on RWA, with only relatively weak effects for Social Conformity mediated through Dangerous World beliefs. Toughmindedness, however, had no direct effects on SDO, with all its effects on SDO powerfully mediated through Competitive-Jungle World beliefs. Finally, these analyses also confirmed the expectation that personality and worldview would tend not to have direct effects on social and intergroup outcomes such as prejudice but that their effects would be entirely or largely mediated through RWA and SDO. Subsequently a good deal of new research has investigated many of the models’ propositions about the social and psychological bases or RWA and SDO. This research is briefly reviewed next.

New Research on the Social and Psychological Bases of RWA and SDO New research has tested the DPM model’s hypotheses about the different personality, social environmental, and social worldview bases of RWA and SDO using different and better validated measures of personality,

DUAL-PROCESS MOTIVATIONAL MODEL

using longitudinal and experimental designs to test the causalities proposed more directly, and finally using cross-national research.

Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009

Personality, Worldview Beliefs, and Ideological Attitudes The new research on personality, ideological attitudes, and prejudice used well validated and well established Big Five measures of personality. A weakness of the original research on the model had been that it had used specially constructed measures of Social Conformity and Toughmindedness, which had not yet been systematically validated. Both were, however, expected to be directly related to specific Big Five personality dimensions, with Social Conformity expected to be strongly related to low Openness and high Conscientiousness. Toughmindedness was expected to be strongly related to low Agreeableness. This was empirically confirmed with data from 259 New Zealand undergraduates (Duckitt & Sibley, 2009). When the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg, 1999) Big Five measures were simultaneously regressed on Toughmindness, the only significant, though very powerful, predictor was low Agreeableness (β = –.72, t = –15.23, p < .01). The two strongest predictors of Social Conformity were, as expected, low Openness (β = –.39, t = –6.99, p < .01) and high Conscientiousness (β = .29, t = 5.36, p < .01). This suggested that low Agreeableness should differentially predict SDO and low Openness and high Conscientiousness should predict RWA. This was confirmed by a meta-analysis of 71 prior research studies involving 22,068 participants that investigated the relationships between the Big Five personality constructs with RWA, SDO, and prejudice (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008). As predicted by the model, RWA was predicted by low Openness (r = –.36) and somewhat less strongly by high Conscientiousness (r = .15), whereas SDO was predicted by low Agreeableness (r = –.29). Although low Openness did show a weak significant relationship with SDO as well, this effect was largely eliminated when RWA was controlled, suggesting that it was spurious and resulted from RWA and SDO being positively correlated. In addition, the findings were also consistent with the model in showing that effects of these personality variables on prejudice were wholly or largely mediated by ideological attitudes. Thus, significant effects of Agreeableness on prejudice were entirely mediated by SDO and those of Openness largely mediated by RWA. Moreover, these associations were relatively consistent across a large range of sample characteristics, including cross-cultural and regional differences, differences in personality inventory, and differences in adult versus undergraduate samples. Two recent studies have also used structural equation modelling to assess whether dangerous and com-

petitive social worldviews mediate the effects of Big Five personality on SDO and RWA (Sibley & Duckitt, in press-a; Van Hiel, Cornelis, & Roets, 2007). Both of these studies reported that Agreeableness was correlated with SDO, and this association was fully mediated by competitive worldview, whereas Openness was strongly associated with RWA, and this association was partly mediated by dangerous worldview. These findings were therefore consistent with the earlier research using the somewhat ad hoc measures of Social Conformity and Toughmindedness, in suggesting that that socialized worldview beliefs (of the social world as either dangerous and threatening or as a ruthlessly competitive jungle) were important proximal mechanisms, which partly or wholly mediated the effects of certain aspects of personality on ideological attitudes.

Longitudinal, Experimental, and Cross-National Research The new findings relating personality, worldview beliefs, and ideological attitudes described above, however, were all derived from correlational research, and so could not directly test the causal effects proposed by the DPM model. This would require longitudinal or experimental research. Two recent longitudinal studies therefore investigated the cross-lagged effects of personality and worldview beliefs on RWA and SDO. In the first study, the results indicated that low Openness predicted increased levels of RWA, but not SDO, over a 1-year period, whereas low Agreeableness predicted increased levels of SDO, but not RWA, over this same period (Sibley & Duckitt, in press-b). A second longitudinal study also supported the predicted causal effects of social worldviews on RWA and SDO. Thus, heightened perceptions of the social world as dangerous and threatening predicted increased RWA, and not SDO, over a 5-month period and heightened perceptions of the social world as competitive predicted increased SDO, and not RWA, over that period (Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007b). A number of earlier experimental or longitudinal studies had previously investigated the causal effects proposed by the model for social environmental factors on RWA and SDO separately. Thus, research dating back many years has shown that social situational threat did seem to have causally increase RWA or closely related measures of authoritarian attitudes (e.g., Doty, Peterson, & Winter, 1991; McCann, 1997; McCann & Stewin, 1990; Sales, 1973). Somewhat more recent research has also shown that membership in competitively dominant social groups and high levels of societal resource scarcity and competition increases SDO (e.g., Danso & Esses, 2001; Guimond et al., 2003; Huang & Liu, 2005; Levin, 2004; Schmitt, Branscombe, & Kappen, 2003). 103

Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009

DUCKITT AND SIBLEY

More recently several studies have extended these findings to see if such social environmental factors would have clearly differential effects on RWA and SDO, when these were tested in the same study, and if such effects would be mediated by social worldview beliefs, as the model would predict. To do this, two recent studies manipulated social environmental threat by having participants read a hypothetical scenario depicting a dangerous and threatening future for their country and found that RWA increased significantly but not SDO, with the increase in RWA fully being fully mediated by heightened Dangerous World beliefs (Duckitt & Fisher, 2003; Jugert & Duckitt, in press). Finally, a cross-national study comparing White Afrikaners in South Africa with European origin New Zealanders also reported findings consistent with social environmental threat having effects specific to RWA, and not SDO, which were mediated by worldview beliefs (Duckitt, 2004). This research found that the Afrikaners were much higher in RWA and this was directly linked to their very high levels of dangerous world beliefs, presumably reflecting the higher levels of social threat experienced by White Afrikaners during the period following the collapse of Apartheid and their loss of political power in South Africa. New Zealanders, on the other hand, were significantly higher in SDO than Afrikaners, and this was associated with their having higher Competitive Jungle social worldview beliefs, probably reflecting the increased emphasis on economic inequality and competitiveness in New Zealand during the preceding 2 decades. Conclusions, and Some Apparently Contrary Findings Overall, therefore, a good deal of new research has clearly supported the propositions of the DPM model that two relatively independent ideological attitude dimensions, represented by RWA and SDO, are determined by quite different personality traits, social worldview beliefs, and social environmental influences. However, this conclusion might seem to be at least in part contradicted by a recent, influential metaanalysis on the on the motivational bases of ideological attitudes (Jost et al., 2003). This meta-analysis found that political conservatism was significantly predicted by a common set of motivationally related situational (system instability and social threat, fear of threat and loss) and dispositional factors (death anxiety, dogmatism, uncertainly tolerance, openness to experience, needs for order, structure, closure, integrative complexity, low self-esteem). In this analysis, political conservatism was treated as a single ideological dimension indexed by both SDO, seen as representing justification of inequality, and RWA (or related measures), seen as representing resistance to change. 104

Jost et al.’s (2003) findings, therefore, seem to support a unidimensional approach to the structure and bases of ideological attitudes, because they imply that ideological attitudes comprise just one political conservatism dimension, which derives from a single coherent set of motivational dynamics. However, there are several reasons why these findings might be misleading, at least in this respect. First, by aggregating RWA-like and SDO-like indicators of ideological attitudes, the meta-analysis would have obscured any differential effects for these two sets of indicators. Second, most of their indices of political conservatism were RWA-like, which would account for their significant predictors being predominantly those that seem to predict RWA specifically, with the situational factors being clearly threat-related, and the dispositional factors all clearly relevant to Social Conformity or low Openness to Experience. In addition, Jost et al.’s (2003) analysis did not include the most important variables shown to predict SDO differentially, such as Toughmindedness or in Big-Five terms, low Agreeableness, Competitive-Jungle World beliefs or Machiavellianism, and Self-Enhancement and Power versus Egalitarian motivational values. Nor did their analysis control for the generally positive (and sometimes substantial) positive correlation between RWA and SDO, which could have resulted in strong predictors of RWA having completely spurious significant correlations with SDO.

The Effects of RWA and SDO on Prejudice and Politics Whereas the previous section detailed the individual and situational geneses of RWA and SDO, we now turn to a discussion of how and why RWA and SDO exert their effects on socio-political and intergroup behavior and attitudes. Prior research has shown that RWA and SDO powerfully influence a number of socio-political and intergroup outcomes, such as prejudice against outgroups and support for right- versus left-wing political parties and policies (Adorno et al., 1950; Altemeyer, 1981, 1998; Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). A dual-process approach makes important predictions about these effects that differ from those suggested by a more traditional unidimensional approach. RWA and SDO are seen as representing relatively independent ideological attitude dimensions that have different origins and express different motivational goals and values. Thus, although they may often have the same effects, they should do so for different reasons and through different mechanisms (as shown in Figure 1), and should sometimes have quite different effects. Specifically, the model proposes that RWA expresses the threat and uncertainty driven motivational goal or value of maintaining or establishing

Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009

DUAL-PROCESS MOTIVATIONAL MODEL

collective security (i.e., societal order, cohesion, stability, tradition). Persons high in RWA should therefore be particularly negative to outgroups that seem to threaten collective security, and particularly supportive of political parties, policies, and legitimising myths that emphasize the control of potential threats to collective security. SDO, on the other hand, expresses the competitive motivational goal or value of maintaining or establishing group dominance and superiority. Persons high in SDO should therefore be particularly negative and competitive toward lower status outgroups, to justify and maintain existing intergroup superiority, and to outgroups that are competing over or challenging relative group dominance and superiority. They should also be particularly supportive of political policies, parties, or legitimizing myths that would promote and maintain group dominance, superiority, and inequality. These propositions suggest three novel hypotheses about the effects of RWA and SDO on prejudice and politics. These are, first, that although RWA and SDO may often have the same effects on prejudice and politics, they should also sometimes have clearly differential effects by predicting support for different policies and parties, endorsement of different kinds of legitimizing myths or stratification ideologies, and dislike for different outgroups. Moreover, irrespective of whether they have the same or different effects, these effects should occur for different reasons and so be differentially mediated. Finally, RWA and SDO should produce many of their effects by differentially moderating particular social environmental influences, notably threat or uncertainty, and group dominance and competition respectively. Differential Effect Hypothesis The differential effect hypothesis suggests that although RWA and SDO often predict support for the same political policies and dislike of the same outgroups, they should also have specific and differential effects in both domains. For example, persons high in RWA and SDO will both tend to support right-wing conservative political parties in general. However, they should differ in their relative preference for different kinds of right-wing parties. Persons high in RWA should prefer right-wing parties that emphasize law and order and defend traditional and religious values. Persons high in SDO should prefer right-wing parties that emphasize free market capitalism and antiwelfare policies. When right-wing parties espouse both sets of policies, RWA and SDO should predict their support similarly, though, as already noted, there should be differential mediation of this support. In the case of foreign policy SDO should be more strongly associated with support for blatant wars of conquest than RWA, whereas RWA should be more strongly associated with

purely defensive military policies and expenditures in the absence of direct external threats. In the case of prejudice, RWA and SDO involve different motives for outgroup dislike, which often covary in the same outgroup so that both RWA and SDO will predict prejudice against those groups. However, sometimes these motives may be differentially activated by outgroups, in which case RWA and SDO should predict prejudice against them differentially. Thus, RWA should predict dislike of socially threatening or deviant outgroups and SDO should predict dislike of groups low in power or status or groups competing over power and status. These predictions regarding the differential effects on prejudice for RWA and SDO were tested in two recent studies. In the first study an exploratory factor analysis of attitudes to 24 different social outgroups revealed three distinct outgroup attitude dimensions (Duckitt & Sibley, 2007). One dimension comprised attitudes to dangerous and threatening outgroups (violent criminals, terrorists, people who disrupt safety and security in society), a second comprised attitudes to derogated or disadvantaged groups (unattractive people, mentally handicapped people, obese people, psychiatric patients), and a third comprised attitudes to dissident groups (protestors, people who cause disagreement in society, feminists). As the dual-process model would predict, only RWA significantly predicted attitudes to dangerous groups, only SDO predicted attitudes to disadvantaged groups, and both RWA and SDO predicted attitudes to dissident groups (although the effect of RWA was more pronounced), which was expected because these groups would be socially threatening, but in most cases also challenged social inequalities. A second study (Duckitt, 2006) showed that RWA, but not SDO, predicted negative attitudes to two groups selected as likely to be seen as socially deviant and therefore threatening traditional norms and values but not as socially subordinate (drug dealers and rock stars). SDO, but not RWA, predicted negative attitudes to three groups selected as likely to be seen as socially subordinate and therefore likely to activate competitive motives to maintain their relative subordination but not as socially deviant or threatening (physically handicapped people, unemployment beneficiaries, and housewives). Finally, research has also indicated that RWA and SDO predict different aspects of men’s sexism toward women (Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007a). RWA, on one hand, was moderately positively correlated with benevolent sexist attitudes toward women (subjectively positive, but patronizing and controlling attitudes that position women as weaker than men and as deserving of care and affection as long as they prescribe to traditional gender roles; see Glick & Fiske, 1996). SDO, on the other hand, was moderately positively 105

Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009

DUCKITT AND SIBLEY

correlated with more hostile and antipathetic expressions of sexism toward women. Moreover, Sibley et al. (2007a) demonstrated that these effects held longitudinally, with RWA predicting change in men’s benevolent sexism over time, and SDO predicting change in men’s hostile sexism. These findings provide good evidence that SDO and RWA exert a causal influence on prejudice over time and that they affect fundamentally different aspects of prejudice. Sibley et al. (2007a) argued that this difference in the geneses of benevolent and hostile forms of sexism occurred because of the different motivational goals expressed by RWA and SDO. RWA would predict negative intergroup attitudes when the stigmatization of the outgroup serves to establish and maintain consensual ideologies that strengthen the traditionally normative beliefs of the ingroup. Given the mutual interdependencies between men and women, men high in RWA would adopt ideologies about gender relations that emphasize cooperative relations between men and women, gender role complementarity, and position women’s ideal role(s) as cherished objects and homemakers. Accordingly, men high in RWA would endorse benevolent sexism because it reflects a prescriptive ideology of gender relations that positions womens’ ideal role relative to men within the ingroup, and in the broader context of patriarchal society. This should appeal to high-RWA men because it strengthens and preserves traditional roles and promotes social cohesion, order, and ingroup stability—a central motivational goal of RWA. SDO, on the other hand, expresses the competitively driven motivation to maintain or establish group dominance and superiority. Men high in SDO would therefore be highly sensitive to and reactive to competitiveness in gender relations, and high SDO men’s inevitable perception of women as competitively challenging male dominance will result in overt hostility to such challenges, which in turn results in expressions of more hostile forms of sexism. In sum, recent research suggests that SDO and RWA predict prejudice differentially when outgroups seem to be threatening ingroup cohesion and collective security (in the case of RWA), or are lower in power and status or competing over relative power and status with the ingroup (in the case of SDO). This has been shown in research on attitudes toward different social categories (dangerous groups, derogated groups) and is also apparent when examining specific sexist attitudes that position women in traditional roles relative to men (benevolent sexism) or express hostile and antipathetic attitudes toward women in social roles that are perceived as competing rather than complementing men (hostile sexism). Future research is needed to examine the differential effects predicted by the dual-process model in other domains, although initial findings are promising. 106

Differential Mediation Hypothesis A differential mediation hypothesis suggests that the effects of RWA should be mediated by perceived social threat and its management so that persons high in RWA dislike outgroups whom they perceive as socially threatening in some way and support political parties and policies whom they perceive as likely to control and manage perceived social threats. The effects of SDO on outgroup dislike should be mediated by feelings of intergroup competitiveness over group dominance and inequality and its effects on political party or policy support mediated by the perception that those parties or policies will establish or maintain ingroup dominance and inequality. Several recent studies have supported the differential mediation hypothesis. A study by McFarland (2005) found that both RWA and SDO were significantly related to American students’ support for the attack on Iraq. However, SEM analysis indicated that these effects were differentially mediated. The effect of RWA was fully mediated by perceived threat from Iraq. On the other hand, the effect of SDO was fully mediated by a lack of concern for the human costs of war, a finding that fits with the tough-minded, hard, competitive motivational orientation expected to be characteristic of SDO. A second study investigated the degree to which outgroup dislike predicted by RWA or SDO would be differentially mediated by perceived threat from these outgroups or competitiveness towards them (Duckitt, 2006). The findings showed that significant effects of RWA on hostility to socially deviant groups (drug dealers, rock stars) were fully mediated by perceived threat from these groups, and not by competitiveness to those groups. On the other hand, significant effects of SDO on dislike of socially subordinate or low-status groups (physically handicapped people, unemployment beneficiaries, housewives) were fully mediated by competitiveness over relative dominance toward these groups and not by perceived threat from them.

Differential Moderation Hypothesis The differential moderation hypothesis suggests RWA and SDO will index differential reactivity to social processes influencing prejudice and politics. Persons high in RWA will be highly reactive to threats to collective security (i.e., to social order, stability, tradition, and cohesion), and therefore dislike threatening outgroups and support parties or policies to control or manage such threats. Persons high in SDO will be highly sensitive to intergroup relations of dominance, inequality, and competition, and therefore dislike lowstatus groups or groups that compete over or challenge group dominance. They will also support political

Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009

DUAL-PROCESS MOTIVATIONAL MODEL

parties and policies aiming to maintain or establish group dominance and inequality. The differential moderation hypothesis has been supported in experimental studies investigating interactions between RWA and SDO with social or intergroup factors that influence outgroup hostility, such as intergroup threat and insecurity with RWA, and intergroup dominance and competition with SDO. Recently, Dru (2007) investigated the effects of priming an ingroup norm preservation (i.e., collective security) orientation and a competitiveness orientation on French students’ attitudes to various immigrant groups (Arabs, Blacks, Asians). Dru found that when an ingroup norm preservation orientation was salient, RWA was a significant predictor of anti-immigrant attitudes, whereas SDO was not. On the other hand, when group competitiveness was made salient, SDO significantly predicted anti-immigrant attitudes, whereas RWA did not. Second, Cohrs and Asbrock (2009) investigated the effect of depicting an immigrant group (Turks) as either threatening or competitive on German students’ attitudes to that group. There was a significant interaction between perceived threat and RWA, and not SDO, such that persons high in RWA became more negative to Turks when they were depicted as threatening. Depicting Turks as competitive, however, did not produce the expected interaction with SDO, possibly because this manipulation may have made personal competitiveness salient (which high SDOs would admire) rather than intergroup competitiveness. Third, research by Duckitt, Sibley, and Nasoordeen (2008) investigated New Zealand students’ attitudes to a bogus new immigrant group (“Sandrians”). Sandrians were depicted as socially deviant and unconventional (threat condition), likely to compete for jobs and resources with New Zealanders (competitive condition), low in status and power (disadvantaged condition), or as similar in status and culture to New Zealanders (control condition). As expected, neither RWA or SDO predicted negativity to Sandrians in the control condition, only SDO predicted negativity in the disadvantaged condition, both RWA and SDO predicted negativity in the competitive condition (this was expected, because the competitive manipulation should elicit both perceived threat and competitiveness over relative dominance), and only RWA predicted negativity to Sandrians in the threat condition. Summing Up Research Testing the Three Hypotheses Research was reviewed testing three relatively novel hypotheses derived from the DPM model’s propositions of how RWA and SDO would influence prejudice and politics. In sum, this research indicates that

RWA and SDO can differentially predict negative attitudes toward particular kinds of outgroups, that these negative outgroup attitudes will be differentially mediated, and that these negative attitudes will involve the differential moderation of certain social environmental factors. There has been much less research on the effects of RWA and SDO on politics, though the one study reported did show differential mediation on support for aggressive foreign policy, specifically support for the Iraqi war, that was clearly consistent with the model (McFarland, 2005). More research is therefore needed to investigate the effects of RWA and SDO on political orientation and on party and policy support.

Conclusions The traditional approach to understanding how ideological attitudes are structured, caused, and impact on behavior was a unidimensional one, but this was not well supported empirically. During the past few decades research has suggested that there seem to be two distinct dimensions of ideological attitudes, which have been studied and measured in a variety of guises but which seem best measured and captured by the constructs of RWA and SDO. This approach has been formalized in a DPM model of ideological attitudes, which proposes that the two ideological attitude dimensions represented by RWA and SDO express different basic values or motivational goals and originate from different personality trait dimensions, social environmental influences, and social worldview beliefs. A good deal of correlational research, with much using SEM, produced initial findings consistent the model’s propositions about the social and psychological bases of RWA and SDO. More recent research using correlational research with better validated measures as well as studies using experimental and longitudinal designs that could test these causal propositions more directly have begun to produce more compelling supportive evidence. The model also suggests the two ideological attitude dimensions of RWA and SDO influence socio-political and intergroup behavior in different ways, for different reasons, and through different mechanisms, even though they often have the same or similar effects on prejudice and related outcomes. This was formalized in three hypotheses suggesting that RWA and SDO would have certain differential effects and that their effects, even when the same or similar, would typically involve differential mediation and the differential moderation of social environmental influences. Research has supported all three these hypotheses for the effects of RWA and SDO on prejudice, but more research is needed to investigate their effects in other domains, such as politics, although initial findings have been promising. 107

DUCKITT AND SIBLEY

Note Address correspondence to John Duckitt, Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]

Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009

References Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, R. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: University of Manitoba Press. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). San Diego: Academic. Ashton, M., Danso, H., Maio, G., Esses, V., Bond, M., & Keung, D. (2005). Two dimensions of political attitudes and their individual difference correlates: A cross-cultural perspective. In R. Sorrentino, D. Cohen, J. Olson, & M. Zanna (Eds.), Cultural and social behavior: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 10 (pp. 1–29). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Braithwaite, V. (1994). Beyond Rokeach’s equality-freedom model: Two dimensional values in a one-dimensional world. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 67–94. Cohrs, J. C., & Asbrock, F. (2009). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice against threatening and competitive ethnic groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 270–289. Danso, H. A., & Esses, V. M. (2001). Black experimenters and the intellectual performance of White participants: The tables are turned. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 158–165. Doty, R., Peterson, B., & Winter, D. (1991). Threat and authoritarianism in the United States, 1978—1987. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 629–640. Dru, V. (2007). Authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice: effects of various self-categorization conditions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 877–883. Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Duckitt, J. (2004). The cultural bases of ethnocentrism and prejudice. In Y.-T. Lee, C. McCauley, F. Moghaddam, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The psychology of ethnic and cultural conflict: Looking through American and global chaos or harmony (pp. 155–174). Westport, NY: Praeger. Duckitt, J. (2006). Differential effects of Right Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 684– 696. Duckitt, J., & Fisher, K. (2003). The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24, 199–222. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007). Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21, 113–130. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). A dual process model of ideological attitudes and system justification. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 292–313). New York: Oxford University Press. Duckitt, J., Sibley, C. G., & Nasoordeen, S. (2008). Right Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation moder-

108

ate the effects of immigrant characteristics on anti-immigrant attitudes. Manuscript in preparation. Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 75–93. Duriez, B., & Van Hiel, A. (2002). The march of modern fascism: A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1199–1213. Duriez, B., Van Hiel, A., & Kossowska, M. (2005). Authoritarianism and social dominance in Western and Eastern Europe: The importance of the socio-political context and of political interest and involvement. Political Psychology, 26, 299–320. Eysenck, H. (1954). The psychology of politics. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul. Forsyth, D. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 175–184. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. Goertzel, T. (1987). Authoritarianism of personality and political attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 7–18. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Guimond, S., Dambrun, M., Michinov, N., & Duarte, S. (2003). Does social dominance generate prejudice: Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 697–721. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Huang, L-L., & Liu, J. H. (2005). Personality and social structural implications of the situational priming of social dominance orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 267– 276. Hughes, A. (1975). Psychology and the political experience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., Sulloway, F. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375. Jugert, P., & Duckitt, J. (in press). A motivational model of authoritarianism: Testing personal and situational determinants. Political Psychology. Katz, I., & Hass, R. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893–905. Kerlinger, F. (1984). Liberalism and conservatism: The nature and structure of social attitudes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Krauss, S. (2002). Romanian authoritarianism 10 years after communism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1255– 1264. Levin, S. (2004). Perceived group status differences and the effects of gender, ethnicity, and religion on social dominance orientation. Political Psychology, 25, 31–48. McCann, S. J. H. (1997). Threatening times, “strong” presidential vote winners, and the victory margin, 1824–1964. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 160–170. McCann, S. J. H., & Stewin, L. L. (1990). Good and bad years: An index of American social, economic and political threat (1920–1986). Journal of Psychology, 124, 601–617. McFarland, S. (1998). Toward a typology of prejudiced persons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Montreal, Canada. McFarland, S. (2005). On the eve of war: Authoritarianism, Social Dominance, and American students’ attitudes toward attacking

Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009

DUAL-PROCESS MOTIVATIONAL MODEL Iraq. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 360– 367. McFarland, S. (2006). Prejudiced people: Individual differences in explicit prejudice. Manuscript submitted for publication. McFarland, S., & Adelson, S. (1996). An omnibus study of personality, values, and prejudice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Vancouver, Canada. Middendorp, C. (1991). Ideology in Dutch politics. Assen, the Netherlands: Van G. Corcum. Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 191–263). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. Roccato, M., & Ricolfi, L. (2005). On the correlation between rightwing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 187–200. Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and the closed mind. New York: Basic Books. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. Sales, S. (1973). Threat as a factor in authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 44–57. Saucier, G. (1994). Separating description and evaluation in the structure of personality attributes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 141–154. Saucier, G. (2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 366–385. Schmitt, M., Branscombe, N., & Kappen, D. (2003). Attitudes toward group-based inequality: Social dominance or social identity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 161– 186. Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium. (Vol. 8, pp. 1–24), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008a). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 248–279. Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (in press-a). Big-Five personality, social worldviews, and ideological attitudes: Further tests of a dual process cognitive-motivational model. Journal of Social Psychology. Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (in press-b). The personality bases of ideology: A one-year longitudinal study. Journal of Social Psychology. Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M., & Duckitt, J. (2007a). Antecedents of men’s hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 160–172. Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M., & Duckitt, J. (2007b). Effects of dangerous and competitive worldviews on Right Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation over a five-month period. Political Psychology, 28, 357–371. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1994). Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 998–1011. Stangor, C., & Leary, M. (2006). Intergroup beliefs: Investigations from the social side. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 243–281). New York: Academic. Tomkins, S. (1964). The polarity scale. New York: Springer. Triandis, H., & Gelfand, M. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118–128. Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture. London: Brealey. Van Hiel, A., Cornelis, I., & Roets, A. (2007). The intervening role of social worldviews in the relationship between the Five-Factor model of personality and social attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 21, 131–148. Van Hiel, A., & Kossowska, M. (2007). Contemporary attitudes and their ideological representation in Flanders (Belgium), Poland, and the Ukraine. International Journal of Psychology, 42, 16– 26. Wilson, G. D. (Ed.). (1973). The psychology of conservatism. New York: Academic.

109