Attachment and politics are two functionally distinct systems, and both share genetics with interpersonal trust and altruism

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Haarklau Kleppestø ◽  
Nikolai Olavi Czajkowski ◽  
Olav Vassend ◽  
Espen Røysamb ◽  
Nikolai Haahjem Eftedal ◽  
...  

The evolved attachment system maintains proximity and care-giving behavior between parents and offspring, in a way that is argued to shape people’s mental models of how relationships work, resulting in secure, anxious or avoidant interpersonal styles. Several theorists have suggested that the attachment system is closely connected to orientations and behaviors in social and political domains, such that the latter are grounded in the same set of familial experiences as are the different attachment styles. We use a large sample of Norwegian twins (N = 1987) to assess the relationship between attachment styles and two key ideological orientations, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), and the role of genetic and environmental influences therein. We also consider the relationship of both sets of traits with the interpersonal orientations of trust and altruism. Results indicate no shared environmental overlap between attachment and ideology, nor even between the two attachment styles or between the two ideological traits, challenging conventional wisdom in developmental, social, and political psychology. Rather, evidence supports two functionally distinct systems, one for navigating intimate relationships and one for navigating social hierarchies, with genetic overlap between traits within each system, and two distinct genetic linkages to trust and altruism. We argue for further genetically informed research in other settings to elucidate the etiology and dynamics of these core aspects of our social and political nature.

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 473-490
Author(s):  
Dmitry Sergeevich Grigoryev

The article considers the relationship of different views on ethnocultural diversity (intergroup ideologies) and authoritarian and ethnocentric attitudes of Russians. This is an important issue because, having the status of a culturally dominant group, it is the ethnic Russians who largely determine the mutual character of intercultural relations in Russia. In this regard, an empirical study was carried out aimed at (1) testing the relationship of intergroup ideologies (assimilationism, colorblindness, multiculturalism, polyculturalism) with other attitudes relevant to intercultural relations (ethnocentrism, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation) and (2) testing their sociofunctional orientation. A cross-sectional one-sample correlation design using data from the socio-psychological survey was applied. According to the results of the study on a sample of 225 ethnic Russians, it was found that: (1) assimilationism was positively associated with intergroup ethnocentrism; (2) colorblindness was negatively associated with intragroup and intergroup ethnocentrism, authoritarian aggression, conventionalism as well as dominance and anti-egalitarianism; (3) multiculturalism was positively associated with intragroup ethnocentrism and conventionalism; and (4) polyculturalism was negatively associated with intergroup ethnocentrism. In addition, it was proposed to distinguish four dimensions of the considered attitudes for a general description of intercultural relations in Russia: (1) protective group motivation aimed at collective security and cohesion (intragroup ethnocentrism and right-wing authoritarianism); (2) social domination orientation (dominance and anti-egalitarianism); (3) cultural dominance orientation and superiority (intergroup ethnocentrism, assimilationism and rejection of colorblindness); and (4) acceptance of cultural diversity (multiculturalism and polyculturalism). The results were discussed in terms of the importance of taking into account the historical development of intercultural relations in Russia.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Ilmi Amalia

AbstractIn practicing worship almost all Muslims run in the same manner but in Indonesia also found the diversity of the face of Islam. One form of diversity is how to see religion as a political ideology. From various views political ideologies based on Islamic religion have polarizations, namely secular and radical Islamism. How to explain the diversity of ideologies based on individual differences. Jost et al (2009) offer three basic needs that determine individual ideological differences, namely the need for epistemic, the need for existential, and the need for relational. In addition to differences in the concept of fundamental needs, studies also show a relationship between personality types and ideological or political attitudes. Duckitt & Sibley (2010) offers a dual-process motivational model that explains that political ideology is formed due to interactions between personalities and different social situations. Many studies have been conducted to see the relationship between ideology with liberal and conservative polarization (right / left) or right wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) with different needs or personality types (Jost, Ledgerwood, & Hardin, 2008; Jost et al., 2007; Sibley, Osborne, & Duckitt, 2012). However, no research has been conducted on political ideologies based on religion, especially Islam. The study was conducted on 243 Muslims and aged 17 years and over. Questionnaires were distributed in the Greater Jakarta area online and offline. The sampling technique used convenience sampling. Then the data is processed using regression analysis techniques. The results showed that together, the need for epistemic, need for existential, need for relational, and Big five personality influenced Islamic political ideology with a contribution of 7.2%. Significant predictors of the relationship are need for existential and need for relational. AbstrakDalam pelaksanaan ibadah hampir semua umat Islam menjalankan dengan tata cara yang sama namun di Indonesia ditemukan juga keanekaragaman wajah Islam. Salah satu bentuk keanekaragaman tersebut adalah bagaimana melihat agama sebagai suatu ideologi politik. Dari berbagai macam pandangan dapat dilihat bahwa ideologi politik yang berbasis agama Islam memiliki polarisasi yaitu sekuler dan radikal Islamisme. Bagaimana menjelaskan keragaman ideologi tersebut berdasarkan perbedaan individual. Jost dkk (2009) menawarkan adanya tiga kebutuhan mendasar yang menentukan perbedaan ideologi individu yaitu need for epistemic, need for existential, dan need for relational. Selain pada perbedaan pada konsep kebutuhan mendasar, studi juga menunjukkan adanya hubungan tipe kepribadian dan ideologi atau sikap politik. Duckitt & Sibley (2010) menawarkan model dual-process motivational yang menjelaskan bahwa ideologi politik terbentuk akibat interaksi antara kepribadian dan situasi sosial yang berbeda. Studi telah banyak dilakukan untuk melihat hubungan ideologi dengan polarisasi liberal dan konservatif (kanan/kiri) atau right wing authoritarianism (RWA) dan social dominance orientation (SDO) dengan perbedaan kebutuhan atau tipe kepribadian (Jost, Ledgerwood, & Hardin, 2008; Jost et al., 2007; Sibley, Osborne, & Duckitt, 2012). Namun demikian, belum ada riset yang dilakukan pada ideologi politik yang berlandaskan pada agama terutama Islam. Studi dilakukan pada 243 Muslim dan berumur 17 tahun ke atas. Kuesioner disebarkan di daerah Jabodetabek secara daring dan luring. Teknik pengambilan sampel digunakan convenience sampling. Kemudian data diolah dengan teknik analisis regresi. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan secara bersama-sama, need for epistemic, need for existential, need for relational, dan Big five personality mempengaruhi ideologi politik Islam dengan kontribusi sebesar 7,2 %. Prediktor yang signifikan hubungannya adalah need for existential dan need for relational.


2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arne Roets ◽  
Alain Van Hiel ◽  
Ilse Cornelis

Previous research reported that Right‐Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) constitute the individual's ideological space and are strong dispositional determinants of racism. In the present study, materialism was examined as a third social attitude and a potential predictor of racism. In a student (N = 183) and heterogeneous adult sample (N = 176) analyses revealed that RWA, SDO and materialism constitute three separate dimensions and that each of them explains a unique part of the variance in racism. In addition, Structural Equation Modelling showed that the relationship between materialism and racism was largely mediated by selfish motives. In the discussion we go further into the role of materialism as a third social attitudinal dimension. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Luke Howison

<p>Two general population studies examined the association of Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) with the Aggression Questionnaire, and any sex differences in this relationship. SDO and RWA were both associated with aggression; however, contradictory sex differences were found. In Study 1 (N = 270), SDO and aggression was associated for females but not males; the opposite was found in Study 2 (N = 178). A model of the relationships between SDO, RWA, sex, hostility, anger and physical aggression was constructed and evaluated for Study 1. Study 2 included additional measures including instrumental/expressive aggression, femininity/masculinity, gender group identification and sexism. SDO was related to instrumental aggression, suggesting that social dominators use aggression instrumentally. Masculinity/femininity did not have a major effect on the aggressionSDO/RWA relationship; however, gender identity mediated the relationship between sex and SDO, replicating previous challenges of the invariance hypothesis</p>


2008 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 219-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Roccato

The paper presents the results of a theoretical and empirical study of the relations between right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), and attachment. A study on 353 Italian university students in Turin was conducted. A correlation between RWA and SDO was found, and a structural equation model of the origins of RWA and SDO was built using attachment style as a principal predictor of the two constructs. Several psychosocial variables (course of studies undertaken, group participation, and importance of religion) were also used as predictors. The major results were: (a) RWA and SDO correlate positively, but not very strongly; (b) attachment styles directly and/or indirectly influence RWA and SDO; and (c) RWA and SDO each have specific predictors, but also share one predictor, importance of religion, which raises RWA scores, but lowers SDO scores. The limits and future developments of this research are discussed.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Luke Howison

<p>Two general population studies examined the association of Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) with the Aggression Questionnaire, and any sex differences in this relationship. SDO and RWA were both associated with aggression; however, contradictory sex differences were found. In Study 1 (N = 270), SDO and aggression was associated for females but not males; the opposite was found in Study 2 (N = 178). A model of the relationships between SDO, RWA, sex, hostility, anger and physical aggression was constructed and evaluated for Study 1. Study 2 included additional measures including instrumental/expressive aggression, femininity/masculinity, gender group identification and sexism. SDO was related to instrumental aggression, suggesting that social dominators use aggression instrumentally. Masculinity/femininity did not have a major effect on the aggressionSDO/RWA relationship; however, gender identity mediated the relationship between sex and SDO, replicating previous challenges of the invariance hypothesis</p>


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 708-720
Author(s):  
Stefano Passini

By considering the theory of basic values, several studies have considered the different underlying value patterns of social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). Recently, the value theory has been developed into a finer set of conceptually distinct values. Specifically, the same key assumptions have been retained, but 19 instead of 10 motivationally distinct values have been distinguished. The aim of the present research is to analyze the relationship between ideological and value orientations, using the refined theory of basic values. In line with previous studies, it was hypothesized that SDO would be mainly placed on the self-enhancement vs. self-transcendence value opposition, while RWA on that of the conservation vs. openness to change. Results on two hundred participants confirm the hypotheses. In particular, dominant people are characterized by a sense of superiority, supremacy, and unfairness, while authoritarian people by the perception of social instability and passive conformism with rules and laws. Moreover, by considering the underlying dimensions of both RWA and SDO, our results provide evidence of some differences existing in their mirror on specific value priorities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document