Examining dispositional and situational effects on outgroup attitudes

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 307-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joke Meeus ◽  
Bart Duriez ◽  
Norbert Vanbeselaere ◽  
Karen Phalet ◽  
Peter Kuppens
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Intergroup Relations ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism ◽  
Situational Characteristics ◽  
Situational Effects ◽  
Ingroup Identification ◽  
The Individual

Two research lines have dominated the quest for the antecedents of outgroup attitudes. Whereas the first has viewed outgroup attitudes as a result of individual differences, the second stressed the importance of the intergroup situation. In order to investigate the interplay of individual differences and situational characteristics, key predictors of the individual differences perspective (i.e. right‐wing authoritarianism or RWA, and social dominance orientation or SDO) and the intergroup relations perspective (i.e. ingroup identification and ingroup threat) were simultaneously tested. Two studies revealed additive but no interaction effects of RWA and SDO, ingroup identification and threat. Additionally, Study 1 showed that threat effects remain limited to the outgroup that is portrayed as threatening and do not generalize to other outgroups. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A Dual Group Processes Model of Individual Differences in Prejudice

2005 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 90-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara A. Kreindler
Keyword(s):  
Group Dynamics ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Group Processes ◽  
Category Membership ◽  
Dual Group ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism ◽  
Individual Traits ◽  
The Individual

The study of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) as predictors of prejudice has represented an attempt to explain group dynamics in terms of individual traits. In contrast, I argue that the individual tendencies that predict prejudice are actually a product of group dynamics. This article critiques personality approaches, focusing primarily on authoritarianism and secondarily on social dominance, and defends a model that explains the 2 variables in terms of discrete group processes. According to the Dual Group Processes model, SDO reflects category differentiation, which involves the evaluation of individuals on the basis of their category membership. RWA reflects normative differentiation, which involves the evaluation of ingroup members on the basis of their prototypicality. Authoritarian aggression—whether against ethnic minorities or other targets—is conceptualized as an intragroup phenomenon, involving the rejection of perceived antinorm deviants who threaten the longevity or legitimacy of social norms.

The Structure and Sources of Right–wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 406-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Kandler ◽  
Edward Bell ◽  
Rainer Riemann
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Error Variance ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Personality Psychology ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism ◽  
Genetic And Environmental Factors ◽  
Genetic Contributions ◽  
Peer Reports

Right–wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) are widely used constructs in research on social and political attitudes. This study examined their hierarchical and correlative structure (across sexes, generations and rater perspectives), as well as how genetic and environmental factors may contribute to individual differences in them (using different rater perspectives and nuclear twin family data). We found a substantive common aspect (beyond shared artificial variance arising from socially desirable responding) underlying both RWA and SDO: aggression against subordinate groups. We discussed how this aspect could help to explain the commonly reported correlation between the two concepts in Western countries. Estimates of genetic and environmental components in RWA and SDO based on self–reports were quite comparable with those based on peer reports. When controlling for error variance and taking assortative mating into account, individual differences in RWA were primarily due to genetic contributions including genotype–environment correlation, whereas variance in SDO was largely attributable to environmental sources shared and not shared by twins. The findings are discussed in terms of the utility of RWA and SDO as basic constructs to describe individual differences in social attitudes and with respect to the different patterns of genetic and environmental influences that underlie them. Copyright © 2016 European Association of Personality Psychology

Relations between HEXACO personality and ideology variables are mostly genetic in nature

2021 ◽  
pp. 089020702110140
Author(s):  
Reinout E. de Vries ◽  
Laura W. Wesseldijk ◽  
Annika K. Karinen ◽  
Patrick Jern ◽  
Joshua M. Tybur
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Environmental Factors ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Genetic Factors ◽  
Genetic Correlations ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Openness To Experience ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Environmental Correlations ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism

Existing work indicates that socio-political attitudes (or: ideology) are associated with personality, with Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism relating most strongly to honesty-humility and openness to experience, the two value-related domains of the HEXACO framework. Using a sample of 7067 twins and siblings of twins (including 1376 complete twin pairs), we examined the degree to which these relations arise from common genetic and environmental sources. Heritability estimates for the HEXACO personality and ideology variables ranged from .34 to .58. Environmental factors shared by twins reared together showed negligible effects on individual differences in personality and ideology. At the phenotypic level, Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism dimensions related most strongly to honesty-humility and openness to experience. These associations were mostly explained by genetic factors (48%–93%). Genetic correlations between openness to experience and the ideology scales ranged from –.29 to –.53; those between honesty-humility and the ideology scales ranged from –.31 to –.43. None of the environmental correlations exceeded | r| = .18. These results suggest that the relations between the two value-related domains of the HEXACO personality model and ideology are mostly genetic in nature, and that there is substantial overlap in the heritable components of personality and ideology.

Interpersonal Disgust, Ideological Orientations, and Dehumanization as Predictors of Intergroup Attitudes

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (8) ◽  
pp. 691-698 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon Hodson ◽  
Kimberly Costello
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Path Model ◽  
Intergroup Attitudes ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Disgust Sensitivity ◽  
Group Representations ◽  
Negative Attitudes ◽  
Attitudes Toward Immigrants ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism

Disgust is a basic emotion characterized by revulsion and rejection, yet it is relatively unexamined in the literature on prejudice. In the present investigation, interpersonal-disgust sensitivity (e.g., not wanting to wear clean used clothes or to sit on a warm seat vacated by a stranger) in particular predicted negative attitudes toward immigrants, foreigners, and socially deviant groups, even after controlling for concerns with contracting disease. The mechanisms underlying the link between interpersonal disgust and attitudes toward immigrants were explored using a path model. As predicted, the effect of interpersonal-disgust sensitivity on group attitudes was indirect, mediated by ideological orientations (social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism) and dehumanizing perceptions of the out-group. The effects of social dominance orientation on group attitudes were both direct and indirect, via dehumanization. These results establish a link between disgust sensitivity and prejudice that is not accounted for by fear of infection, but rather is mediated by ideological orientations and dehumanizing group representations. Implications for understanding and reducing prejudice are discussed.

Prejudice and personality: A role for positive-approach processes?

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 446-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Seger ◽  
Philip J. Corr
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Approach Motivation ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Positive Approach ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism

AbstractIndividuals differ in their support for social change. We argue that examinations of inequality and change would benefit from consideration of underlying personality processes. New data suggest that Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation, indicators of support for inequality, may be motivated by biologically driven personality processes, particularly those related to positive-approach motivation.

scholarly journals Experiments in political psychology

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle Fischer ◽  
Quentin Atkinson ◽  
Ananish Chaudhuri
Keyword(s):  
Social Dominance ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
Ultimatum Game ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism ◽  
The Social ◽  
Orientation Scale ◽  
The Right ◽  
Social Conservatism

This chapter provides an overview of studies that use incentivised experiments to study political ideology. We look first at studies that conceptualise political ideology along a unidimensional liberal-conservative spectrum and explore whether there are behavioural differences between liberals and conservatives. While recent studies find that liberals display more pro-sociality, many other studies find that liberals and conservatives display similar levels of pro-social, ingroup-biased, normative, and punitive behaviour. We then turn to experiments that study two-dimensional political ideology as embodied in the concepts of economic conservatism/progressivism (often measured with the Social Dominance Orientation scale) and social conservatism/progressivism (usually measured with the Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale). In such experiments, economic conservatives display lower levels of pro-sociality and universalism and greater tolerance of inequality and tendencies to harm outgroups. Social conservatives tend to display “groupishness”, including distrusting anonymous strangers, cooperating with ingroup members, following rules, punishing in the ultimatum game, and sometimes harming outgroups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document