The Psychological Bases of Ideology and Prejudice: Testing a Dual Process Model

Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Impact Factor: 5.08). 08/2002; 83(1):75-93. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.75
Source: PubMed


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 toughmindedness 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.

Download full-text


Available from: John Duckitt, Jul 23, 2014
258 Reads
  • Source
    • "This observation has led researchers to consider RWA and SDO as two relatively independent core dimensions of ideological attitudes predicting prejudice. The dual-process motivational model (DPM; Duckitt & Sibley, 2010; Duckitt et al., 2002) of ideology and prejudice proposes that different social environments and different personality traits drive RWA and SDO, which in turn lead to different types of prejudice: (a) Threatening contexts and socially conforming personalities (a combination of low Openness and high Conscientiousness) promote danger-focused worldviews that feed into RWA, which itself predicts prejudice towards " threatening " groups; (b) competitive contexts and tough-minded personalities (low Agreeableness) contribute to competitive-jungle-themed worldviews that feed into SDO, itself a predictor of prejudice towards competitors and/or low-status groups. Meta-analytic evidence (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008) confirms the associations between low Openness and, to a lesser extent, high Consciousness with RWA (mean rs = −.36 and .15, "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Person-based factors influence a range of meaningful life outcomes, including intergroup processes, and have long been implicated in explaining prejudice. In addition to demonstrating significant heritability, person-based factors are evident in expressions of generalised prejudice, a robust finding that some people (relative to others) consistently score higher in prejudice towards multiple outgroups. Our contemporary review includes personality factors, ideological orientations (e.g., authoritarianism), religiosity, anxiety, threat, disgust sensitivity, and cognitive abilities and styles. Meta-analytic syntheses demonstrate that such constructs consistently predict prejudice, often at the upper bounds of effect sizes observed in psychological research. We conclude that prejudice theories need to better integrate person- and situation-based factors, including their interaction, to capture the complexity of prejudice and inform intervention development.
    European Review of Social Psychology 07/2015; 26(1):1-42. DOI:10.1080/10463283.2015.1070018 · 2.18 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Estos hallazgos concuerdan con estudios previos que han puesto de manifiesto la tendencia que tienen las personas más conservadoras (en especial aquellas con puntuaciones altas en RWA) a percibir el mundo como un lugar peligroso y amenazante. Bajo estas condiciones, estos individuos se verían motivados a buscar el control social y a reforzar la seguridad, ello inclusive a través del uso de la fuerza y la violencia como pueden ser las intervenciones policiales o militares (Duckitt et al, 2002; Duriez & Van Hiel, 2002; Jackson & Gaertner, 2010; Jost et al, 2003a; Jost et al, 2009). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A partir de una muestra de residentes en la ciudad de Lima (N = 311), se analizan los aspectos psicopolíticos por los cuales los ciudadanos respaldarían o no el proceso de revocatoria iniciado contra la alcaldesa de Lima, Susana Villarán. En conjunto, los resultados indican que el conservadurismo político (medido a través del RWA, SDO y la orientación política izquierda/derecha) se asocia a una posición desfavorable con respecto a la alcaldesa. En específico, la gestión de la alcaldesa es percibida por los sectores conservadores como ineficiente y responsable de los desmanes acontecidos en el intento de desalojo del mercado “La Parada”. Estos resultados respaldan la idea de que el continuo ideológico izquierda/derecha sigue vigente en la cultura política limeña y permite organizar y dar sentido a la información política y social. Palabras clave: Ideología política; Proceso de Revocatoria; Conservadurismo político.
  • Source
    • "In order to do so, all participants in the nine samples completed the same 20-item CWs scale. CWs capture people's tendency to perceive the world as a competitive jungle characterized by a ruthless struggle to obtain scarce resources (Duckitt et al., 2002). CWs represent a pertinent measure to assess data quality because the factor used to screen participants in the nine samples (i.e., a recent experience with selection) is theoretically unrelated to CWs, thus offering a " clean " example of the risks versus the benefits associated with convenience samples. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In their focal article, Landers and Behrend (2015) propose to reevaluate the legitimacy of using the so-called convenience samples (e.g., crowdsourcing, online panels, and student samples) as compared with traditional organizational samples in industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology research. They suggest that such sampling strategies should not be judged as inappropriate per se but that decisions to accept or reject such samples must be empirically or theoretically justified. I concur with Landers and Behrend's call for a more nuanced view on convenience samples. More precisely, I suggest that we should not “throw the baby out with the bathwater” but rather carefully and empirically examine the advantages and risks associated with using each sampling strategy before classifying it as suitable or not.
    Industrial and Organizational Psychology 06/2015; 8(2). DOI:10.1017/iop.2015.24 · 0.65 Impact Factor
Show more