Search

Most theories addressing the topic have proposed that threat and fear underlie right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and many empirical findings have been consistent with this proposition. Important questions, however, remain unanswered, such as whether RWA is associated with fear and threat in general or only specific kinds of fear and threat. Theories of RWA generate markedly different predictions on this issue, particularly with respect to social or personal fears, and whether the association would also hold for the closely related construct of social dominance orientation (SDO). We investigated the issue by asking 463 undergraduate students to rate their feelings of fear, concern, and anxiety to a comprehensive 93-item list of potential fears and threats, which were formulated as either personal or social. Exploratory factors analysis identified five distinct fear-threat factors: harm to self, child, or country; personal and relationship failures; environmental and economic fears; political and personal uncertainties; and threats to ingroup. All the fear-threat factors were correlated with RWA, with the strongest correlations being for threats to ingroup, and with stronger effects for social than for personal fears. None of the fear factors correlated with SDO. These relationships were not affected by controlling for social desirability or emotional stability (EMS). When the intercorrelations between fear factors and EMS were controlled using ridge regression, only threats to ingroup predicted RWA. Structural equation modeling indicated good fit for a model in which low levels of EMS had a significant path to threats to ingroup, which in turn had a significant path to RWA, and EMS having a significant though weak indirect (fully mediated) inverse effect on RWA. Implications of these findings for theories of authoritarianism and future research are discussed.

Intergroup contact is among the most effective ways to improve intergroup attitudes. Research examining whether the effects of contact are contingent on individual differences is limited, however. The authors test a dual process model perspective of individual differences in contact and prejudice. Their model predicts that intergroup contact should be particularly effective for people high in right-wing authoritarianism, but not those high in social dominance orientation, because these ideological attitudes are driven by different underlying motivational goals. The authors confirm these hypotheses in longitudinal (N = 805) and cross-sectional (N = 1,343) national probability samples. They also isolate perceived social threat, but not competitive threat, as a mediator for the interaction of right-wing authoritarianism and contact on prejudice. The authors elaborate on the individual difference mechanisms that facilitate and inhibit the effects of intergroup contact on prejudice and discuss how these relations may depend on contextual factors and the varying functions of prejudice.

Early theorists assumed that sociopolitical or ideological attitudes were organized along a single left-right dimension and directly expressed a basic personality dimension. Empirical findings, however, did not support this and suggested that there seem to be 2 distinct ideological attitude dimensions, best captured by the constructs of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, which express 2 distinct sets of motivational goals or values. We outline a dual-process motivational (DPM) model of how these 2 dimensions originate from particular personality dispositions and socialized worldview beliefs and how and why their different underlying motivational goals or values generate their wide-ranging effects on social outcomes, such as prejudice and politics. We then review new research bearing on the model and conclude by noting promising directions for future research., (© 2010 The Authors. Journal of Personality © 2010, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The cross-lagged effects of the Big-Five personality dimensions on Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) were examined over 1 year (N = 112). Consistent with the Dual Process Cognitive-Motivational Model, SDO and RWA exhibited markedly different personality bases. Low Agreeableness and unexpectedly high Extraversion predicted change in the motivational goal for group-based dominance and superiority (SDO), whereas Openness to Experience predicted change in the motivational goal for social cohesion and collective security (RWA). Neuroticism and Conscientiousness did not predict change in SDO or RWA over time. These findings extend previous cross-sectional (correlational) research and indicate that key dimensions of personality (primarily Agreeableness and Openness to Experience) are an important temporal antecedent of the group-based motivational goals underlying individual differences in prejudice.

In this study, we extended the Dual Process Model of Ideology and Prejudice by incorporating the Five-Factor Model of Personality (N = 924). Disagreeable people tended to view the social world as competitive, which in turn predicted heightened motivations for group-based dominance and superiority (Social Dominance Orientation or SDO), whereas people low in Openness to Experience and high in Conscientiousness directly expressed heightened security-cohesion motivations (Right-Wing Authoritarianism or RWA). Other personality dimensions were weakly associated with RWA, and these effects were mediated by dangerous worldview. Multiple distinct aspects of personality predict SDO and RWA both directly and indirectly through worldviews, but we found little evidence for the possibility that personality alters the extent to which worldviews (once formed) predict SDO and RWA.

The authors argue that individual differences in men's Benevolent Sexism (BS) stem from a threat-driven security-cohesion motivation, indexed by Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), whereas Hostile Sexism (HS) stems from a competitively driven motivation for intergroup dominance, indexed by Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). In Study 1, meta-analysis indicated that men's SDO (controlling for RWA) was moderately positively associated with HS (r = .35) but not BS (r = .05), whereas men's RWA (controlling for SDO) was moderately associated with BS (r = .36) but only weakly associated with HS (r = .16). Study 2 replicated and extended these results by also modeling the dual personality traits and world-views underlying HS and BS. In Study 3, longitudinal analyses demonstrated that SDO predicted increases in HS (but not BS) and RWA predicted increases in BS (but not HS) throughout a 5-month period. Relations between the sociostructural and individual difference bases of men's ambivalent sexism are discussed.

A dual-process model of individual differences in prejudice proneness proposes that Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) will influence prejudice against particular outgroups through different motivational mechanisms. RWA should cause negative attitudes toward groups seen as threatening social control, order, cohesion, and stability, such as deviant groups, and negativity toward these groups should be mediated through perceived threat from them. SDO should cause negative attitudes toward groups that activate competitiveness over relative dominance and superiority, such as socially subordinate groups low in power and status, and negativity toward these groups should be mediated through competitiveness toward them. Findings from four student samples that assessed attitudes toward seven social groups selected as likely to vary systematically in social threat and social subordination supported these predictions. The findings have implications for reconciling intergroup and individual difference explanations of prejudice and for interventions to reduce prejudice.

Research has long suggested that there may be distinct subpopulations of authoritarian leaders and followers within the broader population. We describe a latent profile analysis of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) in a New Zealand national probability sample (N = 18,248) that -- for the first time -- reliably identifies these two types. Consistent with the positive correlation between SDO and RWA, most people in New Zealand (about 91.2%) expressed comparable levels of RWA and SDO (i.e., moderate-moderate or low-low, but no high-high profile). Two small and distinct subpopulations diverted from this pattern, instead fitting a high-SDO/low-RWA authoritarian leader (1.2%) or low-SDO/high-RWA authoritarian follower (7.6%) profile. Authoritarian leaders tended to show the least concern for human rights, and were least willing to make personal sacrifices for the environment, but tended to support same-sex marriage, while authoritarian followers were particularly opposed to same-sex marriage, and yet highly supportive of human rights. These two profiles represent distinct subpopulations of people within society who are predisposed to seek dominance over others and those predisposed to unquestioningly follow them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three studies examined the form and function of ideologies that negate (versus recognise) the historical basis of claims for reparation for past injustices. Historical negation (a) predicted opposition towards the resource-specific aspects of social policy and (b) functioned as the mechanism though which majority group members high in a threat-driven security-cohesion motivation (indexed by right-wing authoritarianism (RWA)) legitimated policy opposition in both undergraduate student (Study 1) and general population (Study 2) samples of the majority group (New Zealand Europeans/Pakeha). Study 3 experimentally manipulated historical negation in a general population sample using extracts adapted from political speeches, and demonstrated that historical negation increased opposition among liberal voters towards the resource-specific aspects of bicultural policy. These results suggest that history serves an important symbolic function in mobilising support for public policies regarding intergroup relations because temporal continuity is central to claims of legitimacy, especially where resources are involved. Research in this area is important for any nation with a history of intergroup conflict, as it aids not only in understanding the form and function of historical narratives that legitimate social inequality, but also provides insight into the ways in which such discourses can be countered and re-formulated in order to promote social equality. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior research suggests that individuals' prejudiced attitudes form a single generalized dimension predicted by Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). A dual process approach, however, expects different domains of generalized prejudice that relate differentially to RWA and SDO. To test this, 212 participants rated attitudes to 24 typically disliked groups. Factor analysis revealed three distinct generalized prejudice dimensions. Hierarchical Linear Modelling indicated that attitudes towards a ‘dangerous’ groups domain was significantly related only with RWA, attitudes toward a second ‘derogated’ groups domain was related only to SDO, and attitudes toward a third, ‘dissident’ groups, domain was significantly related to both, but powerfully with RWA and weakly with SDO. These findings have implications for explaining and reducing prejudice. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The issue of personality and prejudice has been largely investigated in terms of authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. However, these seem more appropriately conceptualized as ideological attitudes than as personality dimensions. The authors describe a causal model linking dual dimensions of personality, social world view, ideological attitudes, and intergroup attitudes. Structural equation modeling with data from American and White Afrikaner students supported the model, suggesting that social conformity and belief in a dangerous world influence authoritarian attitudes, whereas tough-mindedness and belief in a competitive jungle world influence social dominance attitudes, and these two ideological attitude dimensions influence intergroup attitudes. The model implies that dual motivational and cognitive processes, which may be activated by different kinds of situational and intergroup dynamics, may underlie 2 distinct dimensions of prejudice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The anti-Black prejudice, ethnocentric ingroup preference, and affinity for right-wing politics and ideology of White right-wing authoritarians in South Africa suggest that they should be particularly opposed to political intolerance and infringements on civil liberties by a future Black, left-wing, majority rule government. In this study, conducted in August 1992 with 79 White South African students, the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale (Altemeyer, 1981) showed a strong positive correlation with anti-Black racial prejudice and a negative correlation with anti-White attitudes. However, the RWA scores were negatively associated with support for political tolerance by a new majority-rule government, despite indications that the intolerance would be directed against conservatives opposing the new state. This finding is consistent with a previous finding that right-wing authoritarians were more ready to persecute not only left-wing but also right-wing groups proscribed by governmental authorities, and it suggests that political intolerance, rather than ethnocentrism, ingroup loyalty, or right-wing politics, is fundamental to the authoritarian syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although Adorno et al. related F-scale authoritarianism to childhood socialization, substantial F scale/SES correlations have suggested alternative explanations in terms of SES or such concepts as breadth of perspective. Ray has also argued that the F scale only measures attitudinal authoritarianism and has therefore presented his directiveness scale as a behaviorally valid measure of authoritarian personality. The present study attempted to elucidate some of these issues by examining the prediction of F scale authoritarianism from directiveness scores, culture, class, and other demographic variables in a large community sample of white South Africans. The results indicated that culture (language group) was the best predictor of F-scale scores, SES was only weakly predictive, and directiveness had no predictive utility. A sex effect, with higher F scale scores for men, emerged for Afrikaans-speaking but not English-speaking Ss. These findings seemed to be reasonably compatible with a socialization explanation of F-scale authoritarianism but inconsistent with explanations in terms of SES or such concepts as breadth of perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Responds to an article written by J.J. Ray in which he examined works by the author that focused on subtle racism and authoritarianism in South Africa. Author's support and defense of his writings; Reiterates evidence which his writings were based on; Rebuts criticisms by Ray.

This article reports on a study using the short balanced F (BF) scale and several indices of self-perceived deprivations, strains, and threats in important life areas. In one study, sociologists used archival data to show that social manifestations of authoritarian behavior in the U.S. appeared to increase in historical periods of high threat as opposed to low threat. The short BF scale and several indices of self-perceived deprivations, strains, and threats in important life areas were used in this study. Controlling for social desirability and the sociodemographic variables of age, marital status, sex, education, income, occupational status, language group, and urbanicity did not alter any of the correlations materially, nor did analyses using these sociodemographic variables reveal any subgroup for which threat was significantly related to authoritarianism. The results suggest that previous findings on the subject should not be uncritically accepted until they can be satisfactorily replicated and clarified.

Abstract: The authors argue that cross-national variation in the association between right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) depends upon the degree to which political systems are organized along a single explicitly ideologically articulated left–right dimension. In societies where the political system is ideologized along a single dimension, RWA and SDO should be strongly positively correlated, and the magnitude of this association should be moderated by political identification. This hypothesis was tested in Italy, a society where the political system is highly ideologized, using analyses of concurrent data from student (N =148) and community samples (N =133) (study 1), and an experiment in which the salience of peoples’ political identification was manipulated (study 2; N =151). In both studies, stronger political identification was associated with a significantly stronger positive RWA–SDO association, although mean levels of RWA and SDO did not vary across conditions in study 2. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]