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

ABSTRACT 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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We describe five different model types used as part of an effort to inform policy-making for a regional multi-use Management Strategy Evaluation. The multi-model approach we propose de-couples stakeholder engagement process from the development of a full system model aimed at answering core management questions. This allows continuous engagement and considerable flexibility in addressing specific questions which may arise during project development. It also provides a basis for developing skills and changing attitudes, which are both needed when facing complex problems. To fulfil these roles, we developed five broad types of models: (i) conceptual, (ii) toy, (iii) single system, (iv) shuttle and (v) full system model respectively. In conceptual models the main drivers of a system are highlighted for subsequent representation as components of the full system model. A diagram is usually used to summarise our understanding of how the system works. Toy models were used to simplify the problem so that only a handful of components are included. These models were used to educate stakeholders so that they could understand how the inclusion of each component can be used to address their specific concerns. In order to achieve this, we temporarily renounced a satisfactory understanding of the overall problem. In single system models we included a fairly detailed representation of a single component of the system. These models can be used to provide initial results of a single activity, which subsequently feed into the development of the final full system model, or address sector specific issues. Shuttle models on the other hand incorporated the minimum number of processes which we believe are crucial for a basic understanding of the overall problem. These models provide sufficient understanding to enable us to contemplate, build and use more complex models needed for full problem description. Finally, the full system model included all information collected through the project and addressed all stakeholders concerns, whose definition has been greatly eased by the use of 'simpler' models. Furthermore, we provide an overview of (i) how each of these models can be used to gain insights towards full system understanding, (ii) the different roles they cover, (iii) how they fit into a full decision making process and facilitate stakeholder engagement and (v) the lessons learnt by using these models in a large Management Strategy Evaluation project in northern Western Australia.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sociopolitical values are hypothesized to form during adolescence, but the developmental and contextual origins of these values have been largely unexplored. A sample of 846 adolescents (Mage = 15.96, SD = 1.22, range = 13-20 years) reported on their organized activity involvement (volunteering, sports, church, community clubs, arts/music, school clubs) and their sociopolitical values (patriotism, authoritarianism, spirituality, social dominance, materialism). Structural equation models (controlling for demographics and accounting for shared variance among variables) indicated that there were unique associations between activities and values. Greater church and sports involvement was related to higher levels of spirituality. Involvement in sports was also related to higher levels of materialism and authoritarianism. Greater volunteer involvement was related to lower social dominance, and involvement in arts/music was associated with less patriotism. These findings suggest that organized activity involvement may provide a context for adolescents’ developing sociopolitical values. Implications and future directions are discussed.
    Youth &amp Society 01/2014; · 1.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous research within a dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice has indicated that dimensions of generalized prejudice are structured around attitudes towards dangerous, derogated and dissident groups, and that these prejudice dimensions are differentially predicted by the ideological attitudes of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). However, to date, these findings have been restricted to New Zealand samples. We describe two studies examining whether the structure of prejudiced attitudes and the differential prediction by RWA and SDO replicate in the Brazilian context, incorporating context-relevant examples of each group—politicians, those from the northeast region of Brazil, and environmentalists. Results broadly supported the three-factor structure of dangerous, derogated, and dissident groups. Consistent with previous research, regression and structural equation analyses showed that RWA explained prejudice against dangerous groups, SDO explained prejudice against derogated groups, and both RWA and SDO explained prejudice against dissident groups. This research provides some evidence for the generalizability of the three-dimensional structure of generalized prejudice and differential prediction by RWA and SDO. Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology
    European Journal of Personality 10/2014; · 2.44 Impact Factor


Available from
Jul 23, 2014