Reflections on the statistical analysis of personality and norms in war, peace, and prejudice: Are deviant minorities the problem?

The compelling quality of the Global Change simulation study (Altemeyer, 2003), in which high RWA (right-wing authoritarianism)/high SDO (social dominance orientation) individuals produced poor outcomes for the planet, rests on the inference that the link between high RWA/SDO scores and disaster in the simulation can be generalized to real environmental and social situations. However, we argue that studies of the Person × Situation interaction are biased to overestimate the role of the individual variability. When variables are operationalized, strongly normative items are excluded because they are skewed and kurtotic. This occurs both in the measurement of predictor constructs, such as RWA, and in the outcome constructs, such as prejudice and war. Analyses of normal linear statistics highlight personality variables such as RWA, which produce variance, and overlook the role of norms, which produce invariance. Where both normative and personality forces are operating, as in intergroup contexts, the linear analysis generates statistics for the sample that disproportionately reflect the behavior of the deviant, antinormative minority and direct attention away from the baseline, normative position. The implications of these findings for the link between high RWA and disaster are discussed.

Primary personality trait correlates of religious practice and orientation

The aim of the study was to examine the relationships between Eysenck's primary personality factors and various aspects of religious orientation and practice. Some 400 UK undergraduates completed questionnaires constructed from the Batson and Schoenrade Religious Life Inventory (Batson & Schoenrade, 1991) and the Eysenck Personality Profiler (Eysenck, Barrett, Wilson, & Jackson, 1992). As is generally found, all the religious variables correlated negatively with the higher order personality factor of psychoticism. In contrast, among the primary factors, those associated with neuroticism appeared to be the strongest indicators of religiosity. In particular, all the primary traits classically linked to neuroticism correlate positively with the quest orientation. However, fewer primary traits predict religious behaviour in regression and of these, a sense of guilt is the greatest and a common predictor of extrinsic, intrinsic and quest religiosities. Upon factor analysis of the significant personality predictors together with the three religious orientations, the orientations formed a single discrete factor, which implies that extrinsic, intrinsic and quest religiosities have more in common with one another than with any of the personality traits included in the study. This suggests that religious awareness may itself be an important individual difference that is distinct from those generally associated with models of personality. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Morningness-eveningness orientation, optimal time-of-day and attitude change: Evidence for the systematic processing of a persuasive communication

This study investigates the effects of morningness-eveningness orientation and time-of-day on persuasion. In an attitude change paradigm, 120 female participants read a persuasive message that consisted of six counter-attitudinal arguments (anti-voluntary euthanasia) either in the morning (8:30 a.m.) or in the evening (7:00 p.m.). Attitude change was assessed by measuring attitudes towards the target issue before and after exposure to the message. Message processing was assessed by thought-listing and message recall tasks. Self-reported mood and arousal were monitored throughout. Participants were classified into M- and E-types according to their scores on the Horne and Ostberg (1976) MEQ questionnaire. When tested at their respective optimal time-of-day (i.e., morning for M-types/evening for E-types), M- and E-types reported higher energetic arousal, greater agreement with the message, greater message-congruent thinking, and a propensity for superior message recall compared to M- and E-types tested at their nonoptimal time-of-day (i.e., evening for M-types/morning for E-types). The attitude change in those tested at their optimal time-of-day was mediated by the level of message-congruent thinking. Results are interpreted in terms of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Demographic category membership and leadership in small groups: A social identity analysis

Developing the social identity theory of leadership (e.g., [Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184-200]), an experiment (N=257) tested the hypothesis that as group members identify more strongly with their group (salience) their evaluations of leadership effectiveness become more strongly influenced by the extent to which their demographic stereotype-based impressions of their leader match the norm of the group (prototypicality). Participants, with more or less traditional gender attitudes (orientation), were members, under high or low group salience conditions (salience), of non-interactive laboratory groups that had instrumental or expressive group norms (norm), and a male or female leader (leader gender). As predicted, these four variables interacted significantly to affect perceptions of leadership effectiveness. Reconfiguration of the eight conditions formed by orientation, norm and leader gender produced a single prototypicality variable. Irrespective of participant gender, prototypical leaders were considered more effective in high then low salience groups, and in high salience groups prototypical leaders were more effective than less prototypical leaders. Alternative explanations based on status characteristics and role incongruity theory do not account well for the findings. Implications of these results for the glass ceiling effect and for a wider social identity analysis of the impact of demographic group membership on leadership in small groups are discussed. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.