Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice against threatening and competitive ethnic groups

This research rests on the assumption that individual differences approaches to prejudice benefit from all integration of intergroup factors. Following Duckitt (2001), we assumed that two prominent individual differences variables, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), would differentially predict majority members' levels of ethnic prejudice depending on specific factors of the intergroup context: RWA as all index of motivational concerns about social cohesion, stability and security should drive prejudice against outgroups perceived as socially threatening, and SDO as an index of concerns about ingroup superiority and dominance should predict prejudice against outgroups perceived as potential competitors for power-status. Across two studies (Ns = 82, 176), using between-participants and within-participants experimental designs, the effects of RWA on prejudice were particularly powerful when the outgroup was manipulated to be socially threatening, but the effects of SDO on prejudice appeared not to increase when the outgroup was manipulated to be competitive. In Study 2, presenting the outgroup as having low status also increased the effect of RWA, but not the effect of SDO. These results support the differential prediction assumption for RWA, but not for SDO. Implications for the conceptualisation of RWA and SDO are discussed. Copyright (C) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The David and Goliath principle: Cultural, ideological, and attitudinal underpinnings of the normative protection of low-status groups from criticism

Two studies documented the “David and Goliath” rule—the tendency for people to perceive criticism of “David” groups (groups with low power and status) as less normatively permissible than criticism of “Goliath” groups (groups with high power and status). The authors confirmed the existence of the David and Goliath rule across Western and Chinese cultures (Study 1). However, the rule was endorsed more strongly in Western than in Chinese cultures, an effect mediated by cultural differences in power distance. Study 2 identified the psychological underpinnings of this rule in an Australian sample. Lower social dominance orientation (SDO) was associated with greater endorsement of the rule, an effect mediated through the differential attribution of stereotypes. Specifically, those low in SDO were more likely to attribute traits of warmth and incompetence to David versus Goliath groups, a pattern of stereotypes that was related to the protection of David groups from criticism.

Determinants of human rights attitudes and behavior: A comparison and integration of psychological perspectives

Following several political-psychological approaches, the present research analyzed whether orientations toward human rights are a function of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), basic human values in the sense of Schwartz (1992), and political ideology. Three dimensions of human rights attitudes (endorsement, restriction, and enforcement) were differentiated from human rights knowledge and behavior. In a time-lagged Internet survey (N = 479), using structural equation modeling, RWA, universalism and power values, and political ideology (measured at Time 1) differentially predicted dimensions of human rights attitudes (measured at Time 2 five months later). RWA and universalism values also predicted self-reported human rights behavior, with the effects mediated through human rights endorsement. Human rights knowledge also predicted behavior. The psychological roots of positive and negative orientations toward human rights, consequences for human rights education, and the particular role of military enforcement of human rights are discussed.

Indigenous rights in Chile: National identity and majority group support for multicultural policies

We examine support for policies affecting indigenous ethnic minorities in Chile. Specifically, we examine the role of national group definitions that include the largest indigenous group—the Mapuche—in different ways. Based on questionnaire data from nonindigenous Chilean students (N = 338), we empirically distinguish iconic inclusion, whereby the Mapuche are seen as an important part of Chile's history and identity on the one hand, from egalitarian inclusion, which represents the Mapuche as citizens of equal importance to the nonindigenous majority on the other. Both forms of inclusion positively predict support for indigenous rights, independent of participants' political affiliation, strength of national identification, and social distance. A second study (N = 277) replicates this finding whilst controlling for right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, blind patriotism, and constructive patriotism. It also finds iconic inclusion to be predictive of a pro-Mapuche position regarding the unrest over the issue of ancestral land in 2009. We conclude that understanding how national identity affects attitudes about minority rights necessitates appreciating the importance of particular meanings of nationality, and not only the strength of identification.

Sex-related invariance across cultures in an online role-playing game

This study examines the Social Dominance Orientation of players of the online roleplaying game World of Warcraft. The World of Warcraft offers an opportunity to investigate social dominance and biological sex differences in an environment where there is no cultural dominance of one sex over another. Social Dominance Orientation has been found to be different between males and females, with males scoring higher. However, this might be the consequence of social context. To this end sex differences between male and female players were investigated in the World of Warcraft environment, as well as the effects of chosen character sex. Player sex and character sex were found to have effects on Social Dominance Orientation. These results add further support to claims that Social Dominance Orientation has the characteristics of a sexually selected disposition to acquire resources and out-compete rival groups.

"I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my homosexuals flaming!" : preference for stereotype consistency as a function of a person x situation interaction /

The study centers on the power of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) as predictors of prejudice against stereotypical and nonstereotypical homosexuals under the threat of death and the threat of uncertainty. Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is an individual difference variable that measures the tendency for individuals to unquestionably follow those perceived to be authorities. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is an individual difference variable that measures the degree to which an individual prefers inequality among social groups. The RWA and SDO Scales are considered to be two of the strongest predictors of prejudice, such as prejudice against homosexuals. The study focuses on the unique predictive power of these two variables in predicting prejudice against homosexuals. The study also examines the role of situational threat in prejudice, specifically the threat of death (mortality salience) and the threat of uncertainty (uncertainty salience). Competing predictions from theories involving the threat of death (Terror Management Theory) and the threat of uncertainty (Uncertainty Management Theory) are also tested. The preference for expected information in the form of stereotypes concerning male homosexuals (that is, a stereotypical or non-stereotypical homosexual) were tested. The difference between the predictive power ofRWA and SDO was examined by measuring how these variables predict liking of a stereotypical or non-stereotypical homosexual under the threat of death, the threat of uncertainty, or a control condition. Along with completing a measure for RWA and a measure for SDO, participants were asked to think of their own death, of their being uncertain or about watching television then were asked to read about a week in the life of either a stereotypical or non-stereotypical male homosexual. Participants were then asked to evaluate the individual and his essay. Based on the participants' evaluations, results from 180 heterosexual university students show that RWA and SDO are strong predictors for disliking of a stereotypical homosexual under the threat of uncertainty and disliking of a non-stereotypical homosexual under the threat of death. Furthermore, however, results show that RWA is a particularly strong predictor of disliking of a stereotypical homosexual under the threat of uncertainty, whereas SDO is an exceptionally strong predictor of disliking of the non-stereotypical homosexual under the threat of death. This further adds to the notion that RWA and SDO are indeed unique predictors of prejudice. Implications are also explored, including the fact that the study simuhaneously examined the role of individual difference variables and situational threat variables, as well as exploratory analysis on Dominating Authoritarians.

"Re-huminization": the role of human-animal similarity in predicting prejudice towards immigrants and non-human animals

Research implies that there ~ay be an association between attitudes toward margil1alized human outgroups and non-human animals. Very few studies, however, have specifically tested this relation empirically. The general purpose of the present research was to determine if such a relation exists and if perceptions of human-animal similarity avail as a common predictor of both types of attitudes. Ideological orientations associated with prejudiced attitudes (Social Dominance Orientation, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, and Universal Orientation) were also examined as individual differences in predicting perceptions of human-animal similarity. As predicted, people who endorsed prejudiced attitudes toward human outgroups (Study 1) and immigrants in particular (Studies 2 and 3), were more likely to endorse prejudiced attitudes toward non-human animals. In Study 2, perceptions that humans are superior (versus similar) to other animals directly predicted higher levels of prejudice toward non-human animals, whereas the effect of human superiority beliefs on immigrant prejudice was mediated by dehumanization. In other words, greater perceptions of humans as superior (versus similar) to other animals "allowed for" greater dehumanization of immigrants, which in turn resulted in heightened immigrant prejudice. Furthermore, people higher in Social Dominance Orientation or Right-Wing Authoritarianism were particularly likely to perceive humans as superior (versus similar) to other animals, whereas people characterized by a greater Universal Orientation were more likely to perceive humans and non-human animals as similar. Study 3 examined whether inducing perceptions of human-animal similarity through experimental manipulation would lead to more favourable attitudes toward non-human animals and immigrants. Participants were randomly assigned to read one of four 11 editorials designed to highlight either the similarities or differences between humans and other animals (i.e., animals are similar to humans; humans are similar to animals;~~nimals are inferior to humans; humans are superior to animals) or to a neutral control condition. Encouragingly, when animals were described as similar to humans, prejudice towards non-human animals and immigrants was significantly lower, and to some extent this finding was also true for people naturally high in prejudice (i.e., high in Social Dominance Orientation or Right-Wing Authoritarianism). Inducing perceptions that nonhuman animals are similar to humans was particularly effective at reducing the tendency to dehumanize immigrants ("re-humanization"), lowering feelings of personal threat regarding one's animal-nature, and at increasing inclusive intergroup representations and empathy, all of which uniquely accounted for the significant decreases in prejudiced attitudes. Implications for research, theory and prejudice interventions are considered.

Determinants and Consequences of Dehumanization: An Interspecies Model of Prejudice

Dehumanizing ideologies that explicitly liken other humans to “inferior” animals can have negative consequences for intergroup attitudes and relations. Surprisingly, very little is known about the causes of dehumanization, and essentially no research has examined strategies for reducing dehumanizing tendencies. The Interspecies Model of Prejudice specifies that animalistic dehumanization may be rooted in basic hierarchical beliefs regarding human superiority over animals. This theoretical reasoning suggests that narrowing the human-animal divide should also reduce dehumanization. The purpose of the present dissertation, therefore, was to gain a more complete understanding of the predictors of and solutions to dehumanization by examining the Interspecies Model of Prejudice, first from a layperson’s perspective and then among young children. In Study 1, laypeople strongly rejected the human-animal divide as a probable cause of, or solution to, dehumanization, despite evidence that their own personal beliefs in the human-animal divide positively predicted their dehumanization (and prejudice) scores. From Study 1, it was concluded that the human-animal divide, despite being a robust empirical predictor of dehumanization, is largely unrecognized as a probable cause of, or solution to, dehumanization by non-experts in the psychology of prejudice. Studies 2 and 3 explored the expression of dehumanization, as well as the Interspecies Model of Prejudice, among children ages six to ten years (Studies 2 and 3) and parents (Study 3). Across both studies, White children showed evidence of racial dehumanization by attributing a Black child target fewer “uniquely human” characteristics than the White child target, representing the first systematic evidence of racial dehumanization among children. In Study 3, path analyses supported the Interspecies Model of Prejudice among children. Specifically, children’s beliefs in the human-animal divide predicted greater racial prejudice, an effect explained by heightened racial dehumanization. Moreover, parents’ Social Dominance Orientation (preference for social hierarchy and inequality) positively predicted children’s human-animal divide beliefs. Critically, these effects remained significant even after controlling for established predictors of child-prejudice (i.e., parent prejudice, authoritarian parenting, and social-cognitive skills) and relevant child demographics (i.e., age and sex). Similar patterns emerged among parent participants, further supporting the Interspecies Model of Prejudice. Encouragingly, children reported narrower human-animal divide perceptions after being exposed to an experimental prime (versus control) that highlighted the similarities among humans and animals. Together the three studies reported in this dissertation offer important and novel contributions to the dehumanization and prejudice literature. Not only did we find the first systematic evidence of racial dehumanization among children, we established the human-animal divide as a meaningful dehumanization precursor. Moreover, empirical support was obtained for the Interspecies Model of Prejudice among diverse samples including university students (Study 1), children (Studies 2 and 3), and adult-aged samples (Study 3). Importantly, each study also highlights the promising social implication of targeting the human-animal divide in interventions to reduce dehumanization and other prejudicial processes.

Subliminal Exposure to Empathy Primes: A New Method to Reduce Intergroup Bias?

An abundant literature has demonstrated the benefits of empathy for intergroup relations (e.g., Batson, Chang, Orr, & Rowland, 2002). In addition, empathy has been identified as the mechanism by which various successful prejudice-reduction procedures impact attitudes and behaviour (e.g., Costello & Hodson, 2010). However, standard explicit techniques used in empathy-prejudice research have a number of potential limitations (e.g., resistance; McGregor, 1993). The present project explored an alternative technique, subliminally priming (i.e., outside of awareness) empathy-relevant terms (Study 1), or empathy itself (Study 2). Study 1 compared the effects of exposure to subliminal empathy-relevant primes (e.g., compassion) versus no priming and priming the opposite of empathy (e.g., indifference) on prejudice (i.e., negative attitudes), discrimination (i.e., resource allocation), and helping behaviour (i.e., willingness to empower, directly assist, or expect group change) towards immigrants. Relative to priming the opposite of empathy, participants exposed to primes of empathy-relevant constructs expressed less prejudice and were more willingness to empower immigrants. In addition, the effects were not moderated by individual differences in prejudice-relevant variables (i.e., Disgust Sensitivity, Intergroup Disgust-Sensitivity, Intergroup Anxiety, Social Dominance Orientation, Right-wing Authoritarianism). Study 2 considered a different target category (i.e., Blacks) and attempted to strengthen the effects found by comparing the impact of subliminal empathy primes (relative to no prime or subliminal primes of empathy paired with Blacks) on explicit prejudice towards marginalized groups and Blacks, willingness to help marginalized groups and Blacks, as well as implicit prejudice towards Blacks. In addition, Study 2 considered potential mechanisms for the predicted effects; specifically, general empathy, affective empathy towards Blacks, cognitive empathy towards Blacks, positive mood, and negative mood. Unfortunately, using subliminal empathy primes “backfired”, such that exposure to subliminal empathy primes (relative to no prime) heightened prejudice towards marginalized groups and Blacks, and led to stronger expectations that marginalized groups and Blacks improve their own situation. However, exposure to subliminal primes pairing empathy with Blacks (relative to subliminal empathy primes alone) resulted in less prejudice towards marginalized groups and more willingness to directly assist Blacks, as expected. Interestingly, exposure to subliminal primes of empathy paired with Blacks (vs. empathy alone) resulted in more pro-White bias on the implicit prejudice measure. Study 2 did not find that the potential mediators measured explained the effects found. Overall, the results of the present project do not provide strong support for the use of subliminal empathy primes for improving intergroup relations. In fact, the results of Study 2 suggest that the use of subliminal empathy primes may even backfire. The implications for intergroup research on empathy and priming procedures generally are discussed.

Fördomar och urvalsprocessen till polisutbildningen

Över 6000 personer söker till de 900 lediga studieplatserna vid polishögskolan vid varje ansökningstillfälle. Urvalet för att tillsätta dessa platser är således stort. Kritik har dock riktats mot polisens urvalsprocess som har utpekats för inte tillräckligt kunna identifiera och gallra ut olämpliga individer med låg och bristfällig respekt och inställning till andra människor och olikheter. Syftet med föreliggande studie var att undersöka skillnader i fördomar mellan två grupper; sökande till, och studerande vid polishögskolan (N=84) och jämföra dessa med en ickepolisiär kontrollgrupp. Fördomarna mättes med tre moderna fördomsfullhetsskalor; rasism, sexism och fördomar mot homosexuella. Studien undersökte även undersökningsdeltagarnas personlighetstyper med Big-Five Inventory (BFI), Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) och Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). Inga skillnader mellan grupperna i fördomsfullhet hittades, dock visade sig kombinationen av BFI, RWA och SDO vara bra på att predicera fördomsfullhet. Resultaten diskuterades och polisutbildningens urvalsprocess uppmanas reflektera över införande av motsvarande personlighetstest.

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.