Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:42:17.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - The Dual Process Motivational Model of Ideology and Prejudice

from Part I - General Theoretical Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2016

By
John Duckitt  and
Chris G. Sibley
Edited by
Chris G. Sibley  and
Fiona Kate Barlow
John Duckitt
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Chris G. Sibley
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Chris G. Sibley
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Fiona Kate Barlow
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Get access

Summary

Early research on prejudice resulted in two important empirical observations. First, the kinds of social groups or categories that are targeted with prejudice vary markedly in different societies; and second, individuals within societies vary markedly in the degree to which they are generally prejudiced or generally tolerant. This suggested that we need two kinds of theories to explain prejudice. In the first case, societal or intergroup theories have focused on particular kinds of intergroup relations (e.g., intergroup competition, threat, or inequality) that would cause prejudice to be directed against specific groups and to be widely shared within a particular society. Thomas Pettigrew (1958) referred to this as the “specificity of prejudice.” In the second case, individual difference theories have focused on certain stable characteristics of individuals (e.g., personality, values, motives, or ideological beliefs) that could cause them to be generally more or less prejudiced against all or most target groups. Early theorists referred to this as the “generality of prejudice” or “generalized prejudice” (e.g., Allport, 1954).

More recently, however, theories have emerged that can encompass both individual and intergroup factors within their explanatory frameworks. The dual process model (DPM) is one such approach. It was originally formulated to explain systematic individual differences in generalized prejudice, which it did in terms of two basic motivational orientations that dispose individuals to be generally prejudiced or tolerant. It also, however, proposed that these two motivational orientations would be largely activated by socially shared situational and intergroup factors (such as intergroup competition, threat, and inequality). In this way both individual and social or intergroup factors would operate together to generate prejudices. These prejudices are both specific (widely shared and directed against targets specific to a particular society) and generalized (with individuals in these societies varying systematically in the degree to which they were generally prejudiced or tolerant).

The DPM encompasses three closely intertwined explanatory contributions to the understanding of prejudice. First, it conceptualizes the two major social attitudinal predictors of individual differences in prejudice as expressions of two distinct motivational goal or value dimensions. Second, the DPM shows how these two motivationally based ideological dimensions are shaped by and emerge from different social and psychological bases. And third, the DPM provides an explanation of why these two motivationally based dimensions cause prejudice and describes how they operate in a complementary and interactive fashion with social and intergroup causes of prejudice.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice , pp. 188 - 221
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, R. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). San Diego: Academic.
Asbrock, F., Christ, O., Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Differential effects of intergroup contact for authoritarians and social dominators: A dual process model perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 477–490.Google Scholar
Asbrock, F., & Fritsche, I. (2013). Authoritarian reactions to terrorist threat: Who is being threatened, the Me or the We. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 35–49.Google Scholar
Asbrock, F., Nieuwoudt, C., Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2011). Societal stereotypes of warmth and competence and the permissiveness of intergroup behavior. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 11(1), 154–179.Google Scholar
Asbrock, F., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2010). Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice: A longitudinal test. European Journal of Personality, 24, 324–340.Google Scholar
Bettencourt, B., Charlton, K., Dorr, N., & Hume, D. (2001). Status differences and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520–542.Google Scholar
Bizumic, B., Duckitt, J., Popadic, D., Dru, V., & Krauss, S. (2009). Psychological structure of ethnocentrism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 871–899.Google Scholar
Block, J., & Block, J. H. (2006). Nursery school personality and political orientation two decades later. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 734–749.Google Scholar
Bonanno, G., & Jost, J. (2006). Conservative shift among high-exposure survivors of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 11–23.Google Scholar
Cantal, C., Milfont, T., Wilson, M., & Gouveia, V. (2015). Differential effects of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on dimensions of generalized prejudice in Brazil. European Journal of Personality, 29, 17–27.Google Scholar
Charles-Toussant, G., & Crowson, H. M. (2010). Prejudice against international students: The role of threat perceptions and authoritarian dispositions in U.S. students. Journal of Psychology, 144, 413–428.Google Scholar
Choma, B., Hanoch, Y., Hodson, M., & Gummerum, G. (2014). Relations between risk perceptions and socio-political ideology are domain- and ideology-dependent. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 29–34.Google Scholar
Christopher, A., & Wojda, M. (2008). Social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, sexism, and prejudice toward women in the workforce. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 65–73.Google Scholar
Cohrs, J.C., & Asbrock, F. (2009). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation and prejudice against threatening versus competitive outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 270–289.Google Scholar
Cohrs, J.C., & Ibler, S. (2009). Authoritarianism, threat, and prejudice: An analysis of mediation and moderation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 81–94.Google Scholar
Cohrs, J. C., Moschner, B., Maes, J., & Kielmann, S. (2005). The motivational bases of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation: Relation to values and attitudes in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1–10.Google Scholar
Cohrs, J. C., & Stelzl, M. (2010). How ideological attitudes predict host society members’ attitudes toward immigrants: Exploring cross-national differences. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 673–694.Google Scholar
Cohrs, J. C., Kämfe-Hargrave, N., & Riemann, R. (2012). Individual differences in ideological attitudes and prejudice: Evidence from peer-report data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 343–361.Google Scholar
Cozzolino, P., & Snyder, M. (2008). Good times, bad times: How personal disadvantage moderates the relationship between social dominance and efforts to win. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1420–1433.Google Scholar
Craig, M., & Richeson, J. (2014). Not in my backyard! Authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and support for strict immigration policies at home and abroad. Political Psychology, 35, 417–429.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. (2012). The ideologically objectionable premise model: Predicting biased political judgments on the left and right. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 138–151.Google Scholar
Crawford, J., Brady, J., Pilanski, J., & Erny, H. (2013). Differential effects of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on political candidate support: The moderating role of message framing. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 1, 5–28.Google Scholar
Crawford, J., Jussim, L., Cain, T., & Cohen, F. (2013). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation differentially predict biased evaluations of media reports. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 163–174.Google Scholar
Crawford, J., & Pilanski, J. (2014). The differential effects of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on political intolerance. Political Psychology, 35, 557–575.Google Scholar
Crowson, H. M. (2009). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation as mediators of worldview beliefs on attitudes related to the war on terror. Social Psychology, 40, 93–103.Google Scholar
Dallagio, F., & Roccato, M. (2010). Right-wing authoritarianism, Big Five and perceived threat to safety. European Journal of Personality, 24, 106–122.Google Scholar
Danso, H., & Esses, V. (2001). Black experimenters and the intellectual performance of White participants: The tables are turned. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 158–165.Google Scholar
De Cremer, D., Cornelis, I., & Van Hiel, A. (2008). To whom does voice in groups matter? Effects of voice on affect and procedural fairness judgments as function of social dominance orientation. Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 61–76.Google Scholar
De Oliveira, P., Guimond, S., & Dambrun, M. (2012). Power and legitimizing ideologies in hierarchy-enhancing vs. hierarchy-attenuating environments. Political Psychology, 33, 867–885.Google Scholar
Dhont, K., & Van Hiel, A. (2009). We must not be enemies: Interracial contact and the reduction of prejudice among authoritarians. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 172–177.Google Scholar
Doty, R., Peterson, B., & Winter, D. (1991). Threat and authoritarianism in the United States, 1978–1987. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 629–640.Google Scholar
Dru, V. (2007). Authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice: Effects of various self-categorization conditions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 877–883.Google Scholar
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). San Diego: Academic.
Duckitt, J. (2006). Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 684–696.Google Scholar
Duckitt, J. (2013). Introduction to the special section on authoritarianism in social context: The role of threat. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 1–5.Google Scholar
Duckitt, J., & Fisher, K. (2003). The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24, 199–222.Google Scholar
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21, 113–130.Google Scholar
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). A dual process motivational model of ideology, politics, and prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 98–109.Google Scholar
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010a). Personality, ideology, prejudice and politics: A dual process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861–1893.Google Scholar
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010b). RWA and SDO differentially moderate intergroup effects on prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 24, 583–601 Google Scholar
Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 75–93.Google Scholar
Duriez, B., & Van Hiel, A., & Kossowska, M. (2005). Authoritarianism and social dominance in Western and Eastern Europe: The importance of the socio-political context and of political interest and involvement. Political Psychology, 26, 299–320.Google Scholar
Duriez, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & De Witte, H. (2007). The social costs of extrinsic relative to intrinsic goal pursuits: Their relation with social dominance and racial and ethnic prejudice. Journal of Personality, 75, 757–782.Google Scholar
Echebarria-Echabe, A., & Fernandez-Guede, E. (2006). Effects of terrorism on attitudes and ideological orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 259–265.Google Scholar
Eibach, R., & Keegan, T. (2006). Free at last: Social dominance, loss aversion, and White and Black Americans’ differing assessment of racial progress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 453–467.Google Scholar
Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson, I. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big Five personality, social dominance orientation, or right-wing authoritarianism? European Journal of Personality, 18, 463–482.Google Scholar
Esses, V., Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. (1993). Values, stereotypes, and emotions as determinants of intergroup attitudes. In Mackie, D. & Hamilton, D. (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping (Vol. 17, pp. 137–166). San Diego: Academic.
Esses, V., Jackson, L., & Armstrong, T. (1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 699–724.Google Scholar
Feldman, S., & Stenner, K. (1997). Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 18, 741–770.Google Scholar
Feldman, S., Lavine, H., Lodge, M., & Verhulst, B. (2010, July). Seeing negative: Authoritarianism and automatic vigilance for threatening stimuli. Paper presented at the 33rd annual meeting of the International Society for Political Psychology, San Francisco.
Fischer, P., Fischer, J., Frey, D., Such, M., Smyth, M., Tester, M., & Kasenmüeller, A. (2010). Causal evidence that terrorism salience increases authoritarian parenting practices. Social Psychology, 41, 246–254.Google Scholar
Fraley, R. C., Griffen, B., Belsky, J., & Roisman, D. (2012). Developmental antecedents of political ideology: A longitudinal investigation from birth to age 18 years. Psychological Science, 23, 1425–1431.Google Scholar
Fritsche, I., Cohrs, J. C., Kessler, T., & Bauer, J. (2012). Global warming is breeding social conflict: The subtle impact of climate change threat on authoritarian tendencies. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 1–10.Google Scholar
Gerber, M., & Jackson, J. (2013). Retribution as revenge and retribution as just deserts. Social Justice Research, 26, 61–80.Google Scholar
Guimond, S., Dambrun, M., Michinov, N., & Duarte, S. (2003). Does social dominance generate prejudice: Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 697–721.Google Scholar
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55–66.Google Scholar
Henry, P. J. (2011). The role of stigma in understanding ethnicity differences in authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 32, 419–438.Google Scholar
Hodson, G. (2008). Interracial prison contact: The pros for (socially dominant) cons. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 325–351.Google Scholar
Hodson, G., & Busseri, M. (2012). Bright minds and dark attitudes: Lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing authoritarianism and low intergroup contact. Psychological Science, 23, 187–195.Google Scholar
Hodson, G., Harry, H., & Mitchell, A. (2009). Independent benefits of contact and friendship on attitudes toward homosexuals among authoritarians and highly identified heterosexuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 509–525.Google Scholar
Huang, L., & Liu, J. (2005). Personality and social structural implications of the situational priming of social dominance orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 267–276.Google Scholar
Jackson, L., & Esses, V. (2000). Effects of economic competition on people's willingness to help empower immigrants. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3, 419–435.Google Scholar
Jackson, L., & Gaertner, L. (2010). Mechanisms of moral disengagement and their differential use by right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation in support of war. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 238–250.Google Scholar
Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sulloway, F. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.Google Scholar
Jugert, P., & Duckitt, J. (2009). A motivational model of authoritarianism: Testing personal and situational determinants. Political Psychology, 30, 693–719.Google Scholar
Kauff, M., Asbrock, F., Thörner, S., & Wagner, U. (2013). Side effects of multiculturalism – The interaction effect of a multicultural ideology and authoritarianism on prejudice and diversity beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 306–321.Google Scholar
Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., & Riemann, R. (2012). Left or right? Sources of political orientation: The roles of genetic factors, cultural transmission, assortative mating, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 633–645.Google Scholar
Kossowska, M., Trejtowicz, M., de Lemus, S., Bukowski, M., Van Hiel, A., & Goodwin, R. (2011). Relationships between right-wing authoritarianism, terrorism threat, and attitudes towards restriction of civil rights: A comparison among four European countries. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 245–259.Google Scholar
Kteily, N., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2011). Social dominance orientation: Cause or mere effect? Evidence for SDO as a causal predictor of prejudice and discrimination against ethnic and racial outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 208–214.Google Scholar
Lavine, H., Burgess, D. Snyder, M., Transue, J., Sullivan, J., Henry, B., & Wagner, S. (1999). Threat, authoritarianism, and voting: An investigation of personality and persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 337–347.Google Scholar
Lavine, H., Lodge, M., Polichak, J., & Taber, C. (2002). Explicating the black box through experimentation: Studies of authoritarianism and threat. Political Analysis, 10, 343–361.Google Scholar
Lee, K., Ashton, M., Ogunfowora, B., Bourdage, J., & Shin, K. (2010). The personality bases of socio-political attitudes: The role of honesty-humility and openness to experience. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 115–119.Google Scholar
Leone, L., Desimoni, M., & Chirumbolo, A. (2012). HEXACO, social worldviews, and socio-political attitudes: A mediation analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 995–1001.Google Scholar
Levin, S., Pratto, F., Matthews, M., Sidanius, J., & Kteily, N. (2012). A dual process approach to understanding prejudice toward Americans in Lebanon: An extension to intergroup threat perceptions and emotions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16, 139–158.Google Scholar
Lippa, R., & Arad, S. (1999). Gender, personality, and prejudice: The display of authoritarianism and social dominance in interviews with college men and women. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 463–493.Google Scholar
Liu, J., Huang, L., & McFedries, C. (2008). Cross-sectional and longitudinal differences in social dominance orientation and right wing authoritarianism as a function of political party preferences and social change. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 116–126.Google Scholar
Matthews, M., Levin, S., & Sidanius, J. (2009). A longitudinal test of the model of political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Political Psychology, 30, 921–936.Google Scholar
McClelland, G., & Judd, C. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390.Google Scholar
McFarland, S. (1998, July). Toward a typology of prejudiced persons. Paper presented at annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Montreal, Canada.
McFarland, S. (2005). On the eve of war: Authoritarianism, social dominance, and American students’ attitudes toward attacking Iraq. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 360–367.Google Scholar
McFarland, S. (2010). Authoritarianism, social dominance, and other roots of generalized prejudice. Political Psychology, 31, 453–477.Google Scholar
McFarland, S., & Adelson, S. (1996, July). An omnibus study of personality, values, and prejudice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Vancouver, Canada.
McKee, I., & Feather, N. (2008). Revenge, retribution, and values: Social attitudes and punitive sentencing. Social Justice Research, 21, 138–163.Google Scholar
McPherson, S., & Parks, C. (2011). Intergroup and interindividual resource competition escalating into conflict: The elimination option. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15, 285–296.Google Scholar
Meeus, J., Duriez, B., Vanbesselaere, N., Phalet, K., & Kuppens, P. (2009). Examining dispositional and situational effects on outgroup attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 23, 307–328.Google Scholar
Milojev, P., Osborne, D., Greaves, L. M., Bulbulia, J., Wilson, M. S., Davies, C. L. … Sibley, C. G. (2014). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation predict different moral signatures. Social Justice Research, 27, 149–174.Google Scholar
Mirisola, A., Roccato, M., Russo, S., Spagna, G., & Vieno, A. (2014). Societal threat to safety, compensatory control, and right-wing authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 35, 795–812.Google Scholar
Morrision, K., Fast, N., & Ybarra, O. (2009). Group status, perceptions of threat, and support for social inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 204–210.Google Scholar
Morrision, K., & Ybarra, O. (2008). The effects of realistic threat and group identification on social dominance orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 156–163.Google Scholar
Napier, J. L. (2014, July). Superheroes for change: Priming physical invulnerability facilitates progressive attitudes among conservatives. Paper presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Political Psychology, Herzliya, Israel.
Onraet, E., Dhont, K., & Van Hiel, A. (2014). The relationships between internal and external threats and right-wing attitudes: A three-wave longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 712–725.Google Scholar
Onraet, E., Van Hiel, A., & Cornelis, I. (2013). Threat and right-wing attitudes: A cross-national approach. Political Psychology, 35, 791–803.Google Scholar
Onraet, E., Van Hiel, A., Dhont, K., & Pattyn, S. (2013). Internal and external threat in relationship with right-wing attitudes. Journal of Personality, 81, 233–248.Google Scholar
Onraet, E., Van Hiel, A., Roets, A., & Cornelis, I. (2011). The closed mind: “Experience” and “cognition” aspects of openness to experience and need for closure as psychological bases for right-wing attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 25, 184–197.Google Scholar
Perry, R., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). A dual-process motivational model of social and economic policy attitudes. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 262–285.Google Scholar
Perry, R., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Dangerous and competitive schemas: A new frequency estimation index of the dual process model's social worldviews component. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 983–988.Google Scholar
Perry, R., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013a). Dangerous and competitive worldviews: A meta-analysis of their associations with social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 116–127.Google Scholar
Perry, R., Sibley, G. C., & Duckitt, J. (2013b). A comparison of broad-bandwidth and frequency-specific measures of competitive and dangerous worldviews. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 284–288.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T. (1958). Personality and socio-cultural factors in intergroup attitudes: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 29–42.Google Scholar
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.Google Scholar
Proch, J. (2013). More than half a century of research on personality and prejudice: Where are we now and where do we go from here? Unpublished PhD dissertation, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.
Riek, B., Mania, E., & Gaertner, S. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353.Google Scholar
Rickert, E. (1998). Authoritarianism and economic threat: Implications for political behavior. Political Psychology, 19, 707–720.Google Scholar
Rippl, S., & Seipel, C. (2012). Threat appraisal and authoritarianism in context: Reactions to the European Union enlargement in border regions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 2758–2775.Google Scholar
Roets, A., Van Hiel, A., & Dhont, K. (2012). Is sexism a gender issue? A motivated social cognition perspective on men's and women's sexist attitudes toward own and other gender. European Journal of Personality, 26, 350–359.Google Scholar
Sales, S. (1973). Threat as a factor in authoritarianism: an analysis of archival data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 44–57.Google Scholar
Schmitt, M., Branscombe, N., & Kappen, D. (2003). Attitudes toward group-based inequality: Social dominance or social identity? British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 161–186.Google Scholar
Shaffer, B., & Duckitt, J. (2013). The dimensional structure of people's fears, threats, and concerns and their relationship with right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 6–17.Google Scholar
Sherif, M. (1967). Group conflict and cooperation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 248–279.Google Scholar
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2009). Big-Five personality, social worldviews, and ideological attitudes: Further tests of a dual process cognitive-motivational model. Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 545–561.Google Scholar
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The personality basis of ideology: A one-year longitudinal study. Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 540–559.Google Scholar
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013). The dual process model of ideology and prejudice: A longitudinal test during a global recession. Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 448–466.Google Scholar
Sibley, C. G., Osborne, D., & Duckitt, J. (2012). Personality and political orientation: Meta-analysis and test of a threat-constraint model. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 664–677.Google Scholar
Sibley, C. G., Harding, J., Perry, R., Asbrock, F., & Duckitt, J. (2010). Personality and prejudice: Extension to the HEXACO model of personality structure. European Journal of Personality, 24, 515–534.Google Scholar
Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M., & Duckitt, J. (2007a). Effects of dangerous and competitive worldviews on right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation over a five-month period. Political Psychology, 28, 357–371.Google Scholar
Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M., & Duckitt, J. (2007b). Antecedents of men's hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 160–172.Google Scholar
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance. An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sidanius, J., Haley, H., Molina, L., & Pratto, F. (2007). Vladimir's choice and the distribution of social resources: A social dominance perspective. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 257–265.Google Scholar
Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Ho, A., Sibley, C. G., & Duriez, B. (2012). You're inferior and not worth our concern: The interface between empathy and social dominance orientation. Journal of Personality, 81, 313–323.Google Scholar
Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (1991). A terror management theory of social behavior: The psychological function of self-esteem and cultural worldviews. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 93–159.Google Scholar
Stangor, C., & Leary, M. (2006). Intergroup beliefs: Investigations from the social side. In Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 243–281). New York: Academic.
Stenner, K. (2005). The authoritarian dynamic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swami, V., Neofytou, R., Thirlwell, H., Taylor, D., & McCleary, D. (2013). Social dominance orientation predicts drive for muscularity among British men. Body Image, 10, 653–656.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. & Worchel, S. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Thomsen, L., Green, E., & Sidanius, J. (2008). We will hunt them down: How social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism fuel ethnic persecution of immigrants in fundamentally different ways. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1455–1464.Google Scholar
Van Hiel, A., Cornelis, I., & Roets, A. (2007). The intervening role of social worldviews in the relationship between the Five-Factor model of personality and social attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 21, 131–148.Google Scholar
Van Hiel, A., & Mervielde, I. (2002). Explaining conservative beliefs and political preferences: A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 965–976.Google Scholar
Weber, C., & Federico, C. (2007). Interpersonal attachment and patterns of ideological belief. Political Psychology, 28, 389–416.Google Scholar
Wildschut, T., & Insko, C. (2007). Explanations of interindividual-intergroup discontinuity: A review of the evidence. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 175–211.Google Scholar
Wilson, M., & Liu, J. (2003). Social dominance orientation and gender: The moderating role of gender identity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 187–198.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. (1973). The psychology of conservatism. New York: Academic.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×