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.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Leadership Preferences of Conservatives: A Desire for Cold/Cruel Dominance with (Conflicting) Links to Sadism

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff Scott Sinn
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Psychology ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Interpersonal Circumplex ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
Right Wing Authoritarianism ◽  
Leadership Study ◽  
Negative Predictor ◽  
Leader Preference

Recent findings suggest political conservatives prefer dominant leaders (Laustsen & Petersen, 2015, 2016). However, the exact sociofunctional nature of the desired dominance is unclear. Evolutionary psychology suggests two possibilities: coordinating action and imposing costs. Study 1 operationalizes these functions using the agency and nurturance axes of the interpersonal circumplex, with respondents characterizing either themselves or their ideal leaders, thereby creating “dominance profiles” for various measures of conservatism. Results show Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), self-reported conservatism, strong-leader authoritarianism, and (to a lesser degree) Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) predict a preference for low-nurturance (i.e., cold/cruel) leaders. Unexpectedly, conservatives show no preference for agentic leadership. SDO and strong-leader authoritarianism show a preference for passive leadership. Study 2 examined whether the cold/cruel preference shown in Study 1 entails a conservative preference for sadistic leaders or leaders with other dark tendencies (e.g., Machiavellianism, psychopathy, ruthless self-advancement, rejection of ethics). Multiple regression analyses reveal SDO, strong-leader authoritarianism, and RWA as the best predictors of sadistic-leader preference. Interestingly, RWA is a negative predictor. Additional analyses find multiple dark-leader preferences for several conservatism measures (but not RWA). Among other implications, the results suggest SDO may reflect a strategy seeking exploitation rather than intergroup hierarchies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document