Content uploaded by Bo Ekehammar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bo Ekehammar on Feb 12, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
European Journal of Personality
Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
Published online 25 May 2004 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/per.526
What Matters Most to Prejudice: Big Five Personality,
Social Dominance Orientation,
or Right-Wing Authoritarianism?
BO EKEHAMMAR
1
*, NAZAR AKRAMI
1
, MAGNUS GYLJE
1
and INGRID ZAKRISSON
2
1
Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
2
Mid Sweden University, O
¨stersund, Sweden
Abstract
Whereas previous research has studied the relation of either (i) personality with prejudice,
(ii) personality with social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism
(RWA), or (iii) SDO and RWA with prejudice, the present research integrates all
approaches within the same model. In our study (N¼183), various causal models of the
relationships among the Big Five, SDO, RWA, and Generalized Prejudice are proposed
and tested. Generalized Prejudice scores were obtained from a factor analysis of the
scores on various prejudice instruments (racism, sexism, prejudice toward homosexuals,
and mentally disabled people), which yielded a one-factor solution. The best-fitting causal
model, which was our suggested hypothetical model, showed that Big Five personality had
no direct effect on Generalized Prejudice but an indirect effect transmitted through RWA
and SDO, where RWA seems to capture personality aspects to a greater extent than SDO.
Specifically, Generalized Prejudice was affected indirectly by Extraversion, Openness to
Experience, and Conscientiousness through RWA, and by Agreeableness through SDO,
whereas Neuroticism had no effect at all. The results are discussed against the background
of previous research and the personality and social psychology approaches to the study of
prejudice. Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
Overview
During more than five decades social and personality psychologists have conducted
research to explain why some people are more prejudiced than others. This research has
emphasized two major lines of explanation—either stable factors within the individual,
Received 22 October 2003
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 26 March 2004
*Correspondence to: Bo Ekehammar, Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Box 1225, SE-751 42
Uppsala, Sweden. E-mail: Bo.Ekehammar@psyk.uu.se
Contract/grant sponsor: Swedish Research Council.
Contract/grant number: 421-2002-2849.
that is, people’s internal attributes or personality characteristics (see e.g. Adorno, Frenkel-
Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Altemeyer, 1998; Duckitt, Wagner, du Plessis, &
Birum, 2002; Ekehammar & Akrami, 2003; Heaven & St. Quintin, 2003; McFarland,
manuscript submitted for publication; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), or factors linked to the
outside world, that is, people’s social identity, social self-categorization, or social position
(see e.g. Guimond, 2000; Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov, & Duarte, 2003; Reynolds,
Turner, Haslam, & Ryan, 2001; Schmitt, Branscombe, & Kappen, 2003; Sherif, 1967;
Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner & Reynolds, 2003; Verkuyten & Hagendoorn, 1998). Within
the personality approach, which is also the main focus of the present study, two major
theoretical frameworks have been put forth to explain prejudice — authoritarian
personality theory (Adorno et al., 1950) and the more recent theory of right-wing
authoritarianism (RWA; see e.g. Altemeyer, 1981, 1998) on the one hand, and the recent
theory of social dominance orientation (SDO; see e.g. Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, &
Malle, 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) on the other. Although the issue is important for the
personality explanation of prejudice, hardly any attempts have been made to integrate and
examine the relation of personality, RWA, SDO, and prejudice (but see McFarland,
manuscript submitted for publication; Duckitt et al., 2002). Thus, past research has studied
either the relation between personality and prejudice, or the relation of personality with
SDO and RWA, or the relation of SDO and RWAwith prejudice. In addition, by analysing
just one type of prejudice at a time (but see Ekehammar & Akrami, 2003; McFarland,
manuscript submitted for publication), the personality approach has missed one central
point—the generalized prejudice issue — which means that different types of prejudice
have been shown to be substantially correlated (Adorno et al., 1950; Allport, 1954; Bierly,
1985; McFarland, manuscript submitted for publication; Ekehammar & Akrami, 2003).
The present study attempts to integrate the research on personality and prejudice by
examining Big Five personality, RWA, SDO, and generalized prejudice (based on four
types of prejudice) within the same causal model.
Prejudice as a personality trait
Generalized prejudice is a tendency to respond with prejudice toward any outgroup
(Allport, 1954; Duckitt, 1992). Five decades ago, Gordon Allport noted that ‘(o)ne of the
facts of which we are most certain is that people who reject one out-group will tend to
reject other out-groups. If a person is anti-Jewish, he is likely to be anti-Catholic, anti-
Negro, anti any out-group’ (Allport, 1954, p. 68). Further, generalized prejudice can be
seen as the major motivating factor behind the development of the authoritarian
personality theory (Adorno et al., 1950). Given the importance of this issue, surprisingly
few recent attempts have been made to examine and employ the generalized prejudice
concept. However, in line with the classical works (e.g. Adorno et al., 1950; Allport &
Kramer, 1946; Hartley, 1946), Bierly (1985) found that attitudes toward homosexuals,
Blacks, women, and elderly people were correlated (see also Altemeyer, 1996). Further,
McFarland (manuscript submitted for publication) found that racism, sexism, and antigay
attitudes are highly correlated and load on one and the same factor. More recently,
Ekehammar and Akrami (2003) reported that four types of prejudice (racism, sexism,
prejudice toward homosexuals, and prejudice toward mentally disabled people) are highly
correlated and form one single factor. The cross-cultural validity of the relation between
various types of prejudice (toward e.g. Jews or women) has been shown by McFarland,
Ageyev, and Abalakina (1993). Taken together, the high correlations obtained between
464 B. Ekehammar et al.
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
different types of prejudice in past and more recent research lend support to the idea of
prejudice as a unit of personality, or, as Allport concluded, ‘The evidence we have
reviewed constitutes a very strong argument for saying that prejudice is basically a trait of
personality. When it takes root in life it grows like a unit. The specific object of prejudice is
more or less immaterial’ (1954, p. 73).
Big Five personality and RWA
RWA is a construct that consists of conventionalism, authoritarian submission, and
authoritarian aggression, which means that high-RWA people tend to favour traditional
values, are submissive to authority figures, are highly ethnocentric, and can be expected to
act aggressively toward outgroups (Altemeyer, 1981, 1998). RWA is argued to be an
individual difference or personality variable (see e.g. Altemeyer, 1996, 1998), and there is
also accumulating evidence speaking for the heritability of RWA (McCourt, Bouchard,
Lykken, Tellegen, & Keyes, 1999). Nevertheless, RWA focuses on intragroup perceptions
or social and ideological attitudes (Duckitt et al., 2002) and could conceptually be placed
in the interface between personality and social psychology. Thus, RWA is a narrowly
defined trait that may conceptually fall under higher-order and general personality
dimensions, like the Big Five personality factors. Previous research has shown that RWA is
correlated negatively with Openness to Experience (Altemeyer, 1996; Heaven & Bucci,
2001; Lippa & Arad, 1999; Peterson, Smirles, & Wentworth, 1997; Van Hiel & Mervielde,
in press), and positively with Conscientiousness (Heaven & Bucci, 2001) and Extraversion
(Lippa & Arad, 1999; Trapnell, 1994).
RWA and prejudice
Recent research indicates that RWA correlates with negative attitudes toward African-
Americans (Altemeyer, 1998; Lambert & Chasteen, 1997; McFarland, manuscript
submitted for publication; Whitley, 1999), homosexuals (Altemeyer, 1998; Lippa & Arad,
1999; McFarland, manuscript submitted for publication; Whitley, 1999; Whitley &
Ægisdottir, 2000; Whitley & Lee, 2000), women (Altemeyer, 1998; McFarland,
manuscript submitted for publication), Jews (McFarland et al., 1993), and immigrants
in Sweden (Zakrisson, unpublished manuscript). Further, RWA has been shown to be
related to biological, symbolic, aversive racism, ethnocentrism, blatant and subtle
prejudice (Van Hiel & Mervielde, paper submitted for publication), modern racism
(Reynolds et al., 2001), prejudice toward Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands
(Verkuyten & Hagendoorn, 1998), antiblack attitudes among white South Africans
(Duckitt, 1992), and prejudice toward Asians and Aboriginals in Australia (Heaven & St.
Quintin, 2003). Taken together, a large body of research attests that RWA is a powerful
predictor of prejudice and negative attitudes toward outgroups in a variety of cultures.
Big Five personality and SDO
Social dominance orientation (SDO), the basic individual difference variable in social
dominance theory, can be seen as ‘a general attitudinal orientation toward intergroup
relations, reflecting whether one generally prefers such relations to be equal, versus
hierarchical’ (Pratto et al., 1994, p. 742). Thus, high-SDO people tend to promote
intergroup hierarchies and to rank social groups in a superior–inferior hierarchy. SDO is
assumed to be an individual difference or personality variable with evolutionary roots
What matters most to prejudice 465
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
(see e.g. Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). The concept, however, focuses on
intergroup perceptions or social and ideological attitudes and values (Duckitt et al., 2002)
and could, like RWA, be placed in the interface between personality and social
psychology. Thus, SDO is a trait with a narrow definition that may conceptually fall, like
RWA, under some higher-order, general personality dimensions, such as the Big Five
personality factors. Despite the theoretical importance of the relation between personality
and SDO, there is almost a total lack of empirical studies on this relation. However, two
studies have found SDO to be correlated negatively with Agreeableness (Heaven &
Bucci, 2001; Lippa & Arad, 1999) and Openness to Experience (Heaven & Bucci, 2001).
Also, in the study by Ekehammar and Akrami (2003), where SDO was included but not
reported on, they found, like Heaven and Bucci, that SDO was negatively related to
Agreeableness (r(154) ¼0.34, p<0.001) and Openness to Experience (r(154) ¼0.36,
p<0.001).
SDO and prejudice
The relation between SDO and prejudice has been subjected to far more research than
SDO’s relation with personality. There is an impressive amount of research attesting
SDO’s strength in predicting various types of prejudice in many different cultures and
settings. Thus, SDO has been found to correlate strongly with measures of, for example,
ethnic prejudice (see e.g. Akrami, Ekehammar, & Araya, 2000; Pratto et al., 1994), sexism
(Ekehammar, Akrami, & Araya, 2000; Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1994,
1996), negative attitudes toward homosexuals (Altemeyer 1998; Lippa & Arad, 1999;
Whitley, 1999; Whitley & Ægisdottir, 2000; Whitley & Lee, 2000), symbolic, classic (Van
Hiel & Mervielde, 2002) and biological, aversive racism, ethnocentrism, blatant and subtle
prejudice (Van Hiel & Mervielde, manuscript submitted for publication), and generalized
prejudice—a composite measure of attitudes toward homosexuals, African Americans,
and women (McFarland, manuscript submitted for publication; see also Guimond et al.,
2003).
The relation between SDO and RWA
As the research referred to above has shown, SDO and RWA are strong single predictors of
prejudice and negative outgroup attitudes. Further, the two scales have low (especially in
North America; Altemeyer, 1998; McFarland, manuscript submitted for publication;
Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Whitley, 1999) to moderate (especially in Europe; Duriez & Van
Hiel, 2002; Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2002; Zakrisson, unpublished manuscript) correlations
and therefore serve as distinct and complementary predictors of prejudice. Thus,
combining SDO and RWA in prediction studies of various types of prejudice has given
impressive predictive validities (see e.g. Altemeyer, 1998; McFarland, manuscript
submitted for publication; Whitley, 1999). As the empirical correlations would imply,
there are several conceptual differences between SDO and RWA (see e.g. Altemeyer,
1998; Duriez & Van Hiel, 2002; Heaven & Connors, 2001; Whitley, 1999). First, SDO
focuses on the practice of intergroup dominance whereas RWA primarily is to be
considered an intragroup phenomenon. Second, SDO people do not submit to others in the
way RWA people tend to do. Third, people high on RWA tend to be religious whereas
people high on SDO do not. Fourth, those high on RWA tend to need structure, value
conformity, and tradition, in contrast to those high on SDO. Fifth, RWA has been found to
correlate with security values but not SDO.
466 B. Ekehammar et al.
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
More generally, RWA and SDO seem to parallel two broad value dimensions (see
Duckitt, 2000) that have often been revealed in cross-cultural studies (e.g. Schwartz,
1994). The first deals with collectivism (conformity) versus individualism (autonomy) and
the other with hierarchy versus egalitarianism (or power distance), and these dimensions
have been found to describe national as well as individual differences.
Big Five personality and prejudice
To our knowledge, only three studies (Ekehammar & Akrami, 2003; McFarland,
manuscript submitted for publication; Saucier & Goldberg, 1998) have reported data on
the relationship between Big Five personality factors and prejudice, although the two last-
mentioned studies did not have the personality–prejudice relationship as their major
concern. Ekehammar and Akrami (2003) examined the relation of the Big Five personality
factors to generalized prejudice (a composite measure based on scores from four types of
prejudice) using a variable-centred (relating personality and prejudice through correlation
and multiple regression analyses) as well as a person-centred approach (Big Five
personality profiles obtained by cluster analyses related to mean prejudice scores; see
Asendorpf, 2002, 2003). The variable-centred approach, which outperformed the person-
centred approach in that study, showed that two of the Big Five factors (Openness to
Experience and Agreeableness) displayed rather strong (r¼0.44 to 0.45) negative
zero-order correlations with Generalized Prejudice. Also, McFarland (manuscript
submitted for publication) reported that Openness to Experience (r¼0.38) and
Agreeableness (r¼0.33) showed the largest correlations with his generalized prejudice
measure. Saucier and Goldberg (1998) used quite another approach to the measurement of
prejudice, and they obtained only small correlations with this measure and the Big Five
traits. In conclusion, when studying simple correlations, it seems that Agreeableness and
Openness to Experience are the single Big Five factors most closely associated with
Generalized Prejudice.
When using all Big Five factors for predicting Generalized Prejudice in a linear multiple
regression analysis (MRA), Ekehammar and Akrami (2003) arrived at a fairly high
predictive power (cross-validated R¼0.56) with Agreeableness and Openness to
Experience showing, as expected, the largest regression weights. McFarland (manuscript
submitted for publication, Study 4), entering the Big Five factors in a first step in the MRA,
made a similar analysis and found that only Openness to Experience and Agreeableness
gave significant contributions to the regression equation. The predictive power obtained in
McFarland’s study was very similar (R¼0.52, not cross-validated) to that of Ekehammar
and Akrami. Adding RWA, SDO, and empathy (the Big Three predictors of prejudice,
according to McFarland, manuscript submitted for publication) improved the predictive
power substantially.
Aim of the present study
We argue that a fair treatment of personality (such as the Big Five factors) in this context
would be to carry out a causal modelling analysis rather than a strict prediction study. It
seems clear that in a prediction study RWA and SDO would most probably come out as the
single strongest predictors of prejudice with a substantial combined predictive power.
However, as shown by Heaven and Bucci (2001), RWA and SDO are associated with the
Big Five traits in different ways (see also McCrae, 1996). Thus, in the present study we
examine this issue by applying a variable-centred causal modelling approach that includes
What matters most to prejudice 467
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
RWA and SDO together with the Big Five and prejudice factors. In this way, in addition to
the direct effects, the probable indirect effects of the Big Five factors on prejudice,
transmitted through RWA and SDO, are also to be examined and estimated.
A hypothetical model
Hence, our main model suggests that in a causal order the Big Five factors first affect SDO
and RWA as intermediate or transmitting variables, which in turn affect prejudice. Thus,
we find it reasonable to assume that the Big Five personality factors are prior to SDO and
RWA in a causal chain because of the early expression of at least some of them as
temperament variables in human infants (see e.g. Clark & Watson, 1999) and in other
animal species as well (Bouchard & Loehlin, 2001), and because of their substantial
heritability coefficients (see e.g. Bouchard & Loehlin, 2001; Plomin & Caspi, 1999).
Further, we suggest that SDO and RWA are causally prior to prejudice, as we assume that
they are positioned at the interface between personality and social psychology. This
reasoning fits nicely into the general framework outlined by McCrae and Costa (1996,
1999) for the causal relationships between what they call ‘basic tendencies’ (Big Five
personality), ‘characteristic adaptations’ (e.g. attitudes such as RWA and SDO), and
‘objective biography’ (e.g. observable behaviour, such as prejudice manifested in
discrimination). Within this framework, ‘basic tendencies’ are assumed to affect
‘characteristic adaptations’, which in turn affect ‘objective biography’. Finally, we have
also included a measure of social desirability in order to test whether the relationship
between personality and prejudice disclosed in a previous study (Ekehammar & Akrami,
2003) could have been inflated by social desirability. Social desirability has been found to
be correlated with one Big Five factor (Agreeableness) at least (see e.g. Sto
¨ber, 2001).
Our hypothetical model is outlined in Figure 1. Based on the previous findings reviewed
above, we suggest a causal relationship of the personality factors Conscientiousness,
Extraversion and Openness to Experience with RWA, and Openness to Experience and
Figure 1. A hypothetical model of the causal relation between Big Five personality, Right-Wing
Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation, and Generalized Prejudice.
468 B. Ekehammar et al.
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
Agreeableness with SDO. Further, we assume a causal relationship of SDO and RWA with
Generalized Prejudice. In addition, and in line with our intention to examine direct effects
of personality on prejudice, we suggest causal paths from the personality factors
Agreeableness and Openness to Experience to Generalized Prejudice. With no specific
theoretical basis for the causal direction between RWA and SDO at hand, we find it
reasonable to examine the relation between these variables by one path in each direction.
Thus, the causal relation between RWA and SDO is the only exploratory link postulated
within the model.
Of course, alternative models of causal order that could compete with our hypothetical
model are to be tested as well. In light of the recent debate on the causal order of SDO and
prejudice (see e.g. Guimond et al., 2003; Schmitt et al., 2003), one reasonable alternative is
to modify our hypothetical model by reversing the causal order of RWA and SDO on the
one hand and Generalized Prejudice on the other. This alternative model questions the
prevailing implicit assumption of the causal relation between, for example, SDO and
various types of prejudice—where SDO is assumed to be the causal determinant of
prejudice (see e.g. Schmitt et al., 2003; see also Guimond et al., 2003). Furthermore, this
model is still consistent with the McCrae–Costa model (1996, 1999), assuming that
personality, as a ‘basic tendency’, is first in the causal chain. Another possible alternative
model is to switch the causal order by putting RWA and SDO first in the causal chain,
followed by Big Five personality and, finally, Generalized Prejudice. Although we regard
this model as not very realistic
1
, we think that it could be the next best alternative to our
hypothetical model. It is important to note that in the two alternative models the relations
between Big Five personality and the other variables remain as in the main hypothetical
model.
METHOD
Participants
The participants were 183 nonpsychology university students at Uppsala University,
97 women and 86 men. The mean age for all participants was 22.9 years. The
questionnaires were distributed at various study centres and libraries for studies in social
sciences, the humanities, and natural sciences. The students represented various academic
disciplines, such as social science, behavioural science, medicine, economics, technology,
and dentistry. The participants completed the questionnaire individually and were
instructed not to talk to each other during completion. All participants were anonymous in
the study and received cinema vouchers (3.5 s) for their participation.
Measures
Big Five Inventory (BFI)
The scale is a Swedish translation of the Big Five Inventory constructed by John, Donahue,
and Kentle (cf. John & Srivastava, 1999). The BFI consists of 44 items that are distributed
among the five personality dimensions Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness,
Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism. Examples of items are ‘‘I consider myself
1
This model was actually suggested by a reviewer of a previous version of the present paper.
What matters most to prejudice 469
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
as someone who: is talkative (Extraversion), is forgiving (Agreeableness), has a vivid
imagination (Openness to Experience), worries a lot (Neuroticism), tends to be
disorganized’’ (Conscientiousness, reversed). The answers were indicated on a five-step
Likert scale ranging from Is absolutely not true (1) to Is absolutely true (5).
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)
The Swedish translation of the SDO scale, constructed by Pratto et al. (1994), consists of
16 items and measures the level of social dominance orientation that a person displays.
Some item examples: Some groups of people are just inferior to others (approving suggests
high social dominance); We would have fewer problems if we treated all groups equally
(approving suggests low social dominance).
Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA)
A Swedish short version of the RWA scale, originally constructed by Altemeyer (1981),
has recently been adapted by Zakrisson (unpublished manuscript) and was used in the
present study. The scale contains 15 items. Some examples: Our country needs a powerful
leader to overthrow the radical and immoral values that are present in today’s society
(approving suggests high RWA); It is better to accept bad literature than to censor it
(approving suggests low RWA).
The Modern Racial Prejudice Scale
The scale was constructed by Akrami et al. (2000) for measuring modern (covert, subtle,
symbolic) racial/ethnic prejudice in a Scandinavian context following the item contents of
McConahay’s (1986) Modern Racism Scale and based on Sears’ (1988) classification
system. Sears characterized modern (symbolic) prejudice by three components: denial of
continued discrimination, antagonism toward minority group demands, and resentment
about special favours for minority groups. Reliability and validity data for the scale are
provided by Akrami et al. (2000). The scale contains nine items (example: Discrimination
against immigrants is no longer a problem in Sweden).
The Swedish Modern Sexism Scale
The scale was constructed for measuring attitudes toward women in a Scandinavian
context by Ekehammar et al. (2000). It was based on Sears’ (1988) classification system
and the Modern Sexism Scale items constructed by Swim, Aikin, Hall, and Hunter (1995).
For reliability and validity information, see the article by Ekehammar et al. (2000). The
scale comprises eight items (example: Discrimination against women is no longer a
problem in Sweden).
The Modern Prejudice toward Mentally Disabled Persons Scale
The scale was developed by Akrami, Ekehammar, Sonnander, and Claesson (manuscript
submitted for publication) to measure attitudes and prejudice toward mentally disabled
persons, taking into account the distinction between classical and modern prejudice, based
on Sears’ (1988) classification system. The scale includes 11 items (example: Mentally
disabled persons are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights).
The Attitude to Homosexuality Scale
The scale, constructed for a Scandinavian context by Ekehammar and Akrami (manuscript
in preparation) is intended to measure prejudice toward homosexuals in general. Thus, the
total score can be seen as an index of prejudice toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
The scale contains 10 items (example: Homosexuality should be abandoned).
470 B. Ekehammar et al.
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
The Social Desirability Scale
A short form of the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale constructed by Rudmin
(1999) was used. The scale contains 14 items (example: I have never deliberately said
something that hurt someone’s feelings). The answers were indicated on a five-step Likert
scale ranging from Is absolutely not true (1) to Is absolutely true (5).
Procedure
The order of the scales in the questionnaire was distributed according to the following
principle: the Big Five Inventory always came first and the Social Desirability scale always
came last. The order of the RWA, the SDO, and the prejudice scales was varied, leading to
the following six different versions of scale order in the questionnaire: RWA–SDO–
prejudice, RWA–prejudice–SDO, SDO–prejudice–RWA, SDO–RWA–prejudice, preju-
dice–RWA–SDO, prejudice–SDO–RWA. The item order within the RWA, SDO, and
prejudice scales was randomized when constructing the scales but remained fixed across
the six different versions.
The answers on the RWA, SDO, and all the prejudice scales were indicated on a five-
step scale ranging from Do not agree at all (1) to Agree fully (5).
Two respondents were excluded from the analyses as they failed to fill out one or more
of the questionnaire scales. Twenty-eight respondents, accounting for 15% of all
respondents, had failed to fill out one or two items. In this case, the mean for all the other
respondents on that item was imputed.
RESULTS
Analyses of prejudice scale scores
Before the main analyses, the participants’ scores on the four prejudice scales presented
above were analysed by computing pair-wise correlation coefficients (r) and Cronbach
alpha coefficients. As shown in Table 1, the alpha reliabilities can be regarded as
satisfactory for all scales, varying between 0.80 and 0.91. Further, the magnitude of the
scale intercorrelations are moderate to high, and statistically significant ( p<0.01). The
largest correlation coefficient (r¼0.59) was obtained for the relation between racism and
sexism, and the smallest (r¼0.24) for the relation between prejudice toward homosexuals
and mentally disabled people.
To arrive at a smaller number of general prejudice factors, we performed a principal
components analysis on the correlation matrix. There was only one factor with an
eigenvalue greater than unity (2.28), explaining 57% of the total variance, and a scree plot
indicated one factor as well. Following Allport’s (1954: see also McFarland, manuscript
submitted for publication) terminology, we denoted this factor Generalized Prejudice. The
loadings on this factor were found to be high: 0.58 (prejudice toward homosexuals), 0.82
(racism), 0.84 (sexism), and 0.76 (prejudice toward mentally disabled people). Finally,
standardized factor scores (M¼0, SD ¼1) for the Generalized Prejudice factor were
calculated for each participant, with higher scores indicating higher generalized prejudice.
These scores were then used in the main analyses below.
Descriptive statistics and relations among the main variables
Cronbach alpha coefficients for SDO, RWA, Generalized Prejudice (based on the scores of
the four prejudice scales), social desirability, and the Big Five factors were computed. The
What matters most to prejudice 471
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
Table 1. Correlations among the RWA, SDO, GP, Social Desirability, and Big Five personality factors, Cronbach alpha () reliabilities, means, and standard
deviations (N¼183)
Scale 1 2 3 3a 3b 3c 3d 4 MSD
1. RWA — 2.01 0.62 0.85
2. SDO 0.52*** — 1.83 0.62 0.87
3. Generalized Prejudice 0.55*** 0.65*** — 0.00 1.00 0.73
a
3a. Homosexuals 0.48*** 0.39*** 0.58*** — 1.75 0.85 0.91
3b. Racism 0.50*** 0.62*** 0.82*** 0.27*** — 1.89 0.71 0.86
3c. Sexism 0.41*** 0.52*** 0.84*** 0.40*** 0.59*** — 2.33 0.83 0.85
3d. Mentally disabled 0.31*** 0.40*** 0.76*** 0.24*** 0.53*** 0.47*** — 1.90 0.51 0.80
4. Social Desirability 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.13 — 2.86 0.56 0.70
Big Five Factors
Neuroticism 0.18** 0.12 0.14* 0.17* 0.11 0.15* 0.01 0.14 2.84 0.74 0.79
Extraversion 0.15* 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 3.40 0.67 0.81
Openness to Experience 0.28*** 0.07 0.16* 0.06 0.22** 0.12 0.06 0.04 3.59 0.60 0.74
Agreeableness 0.08 0.25*** 0.20** 0.11 0.16* 0.13 0.20** 0.51*** 3.73 0.53 0.69
Conscientiousness 0.25*** 0.10 0.09 0.12 0.16* 0.02 0.01 0.14 3.39 0.60 0.73
a
Based on the scores of the four prejudice scales. All scales range from 1 to 5.
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.
472 B. Ekehammar et al.
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
scale reliabilities, as shown in Table 1, can in general be regarded as satisfactory. The
agreeableness dimension of the Big Five displayed the lowest reliability, with an alpha of
0.69, and SDO displayed the highest reliability with an alpha of 0.87. Pair-wise
correlations (r) as well as Mand SD values for the scales were calculated and are presented
in Table 1.
The relations of the Big Five personality dimensions to SDO, RWA, Generalized
Prejudice, and social desirability were also examined. A low but significant negative
correlation was displayed between SDO and Agreeableness (r¼0.25, p<0.001)
whereas the correlations between SDO and the other Big Five dimensions were all
nonsignificant. Further, low but statistically significant correlations were found between
RWA and four of the Big Five dimensions. Thus, RWA was positively correlated with
Conscientiousness (r¼0.25, p<0.001) and Extraversion (r¼0.15, p<0.05), and
negatively correlated with Openness to Experience (r¼0.28, p<0.001), and
Neuroticism (r¼0.18, p<0.05). As shown in Table 1, social desirability had a
significant correlation with Agreeableness (r¼0.51, p<0.001), but not with any other
personality or prejudice scale.
The effect of social desirability was controlled by partialling out its effect through
computing partial correlations as well. These analyses led to only minor changes in the
magnitude of correlation coefficients and significance levels. Thus, the significant
correlation between Agreeableness and SDO was not changed (moving from r¼0.26 to
r¼0.27, p<0.001).
Also when adjusting for the effect of social desirability, statistically significant
correlations were obtained between Generalized Prejudice and Agreeableness (r¼0.20,
p<0.01), Openness to Experience (r¼0.15, p<0.05), and Neuroticism (r¼0.14,
p<0.05) respectively. These results indicate that the more open one is to new experiences
and the more agreeable one is, the less prejudiced one tends to be toward various
outgroups. This finding is in line with the results of Ekehammar and Akrami (2003), where
the same significant correlations were found, although the magnitudes were higher in that
study.
Strong correlations were found between Generalized Prejudice and SDO (r¼0.65,
p<0.001), and RWA (r¼0.58, p<0.001), respectively. These strong correlations are in
line with previous research and confirm that SDO and RWA are potent predictors of
various forms of prejudice (Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Whitley, 1999).
Finally, a strong correlation was obtained between SDO and RWA (r¼0.52, p<0.001).
Causal modelling
A causal model including the Big Five factors, linked by SDO and RWA to Generalized
Prejudice, portrays our main hypotheses as depicted in Figure 1 (see also Table 2). To
allow a proper examination of our hypothetical model, however, two alternative models
were proposed and examined. In Model II, we varied the causal order between RWA and
SDO on the one hand and Generalized Prejudice on the other. In Model III, we reversed the
causal order between RWA and SDO on the one hand and the Big Five personality factors
on the other (see Table 2).
The models were examined using LISREL 8.30 (Jo
¨reskog & So
¨rbom, 1993) on the
covariance matrix and employing maximum likelihood estimation. Within each
measurement model, one manifest variable (the participants’ mean scale scores on the
Big Five factors, RWA, SDO, and GP, respectively) was assigned to one latent variable. As
What matters most to prejudice 473
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
Table 2. Model specifications and fit indices for causal models examining Big Five personality, RWA, SDO, and prejudice
Model Relations Model fit index
2
df p
2
/df SRMR RMSEA GFI CFI
I Theoretical model (Big Five personality !RWA & SDO !prejudice)
Step 1 O, E, C, SDO !RWA; A, O, RWA !SDO; A, O, RWA, SDO !GP 2.45 4 0.65 0.61 0.014 0.000 1.00 1.00
Step 2 O, E, C !RWA; A, RWA !SDO; RWA, SDO !GP 8.02 8 0.43 1.00 0.027 0.004 0.99 1.00
II Alternative model (Big Five personality !prejudice !RWA & SDO)
Step 1 O, E, C, SDO, GP !RWA; A, O, RWA, GP !SDO; A, O !GP 3.55 4 0.47 0.89 0.028 0.000 0.99 1.00
Step 2 E, C, GP !RWA; A, O, RWA, !SDO; A, O !GP 41.99 7 0.00 6.00 0.058 0.170 0.94 0.86
Step 3 E, C, GP !RWA; A, RWA, !SDO; A, O !GP 43.87 8 0.00 5.48 0.057 0.160 0.94 0.86
III Alternative model (RWA & SDO !Big Five personality !prejudice)
Step 1 RWA !C, E, O, GP; SDO !A, O, GP; A, O !GP 16.78 5 0.01 3.36 0.050 0.114 0.97 0.95
Step 2 RWA !C, O, GP; SDO !A, GP 19.99 6 0.00 3.33 0.058 0.113 0.96 0.93
GFI ¼goodness of fit index, RMSEA ¼root mean square error of approximation, SRMR ¼standardized root mean square residual, CFI ¼Bentler’s comparative fit index,
O¼openness to experience, E ¼extraversion, C ¼conscientiousness, A ¼agreeableness, RWA ¼right-wing authoritarianism, SDO ¼social dominance orientation, GP ¼gener-
generalized prejudice, Step 2 and Step 3 ¼model fit after removing nonsignificant paths.
474 B. Ekehammar et al.
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
the reliability estimates of the manifest variables affect the parameters in the model, the
error variances of the manifest variables were fixed (Jo
¨reskog & So
¨rbom, 1993). Error
variance was calculated using the reliability estimates (Cronbach alpha) presented in Table
1 (see Jo
¨reskog & So
¨rbom, 1993, pp. 37–38). This procedure allows an analysis of the
linear structural relations among the latent rather than the manifest variables. To simplify
the picture, the manifest variables are not depicted in Figure 2. Further, in all the tested
models the Big Five factors were allowed to correlate as they were correlated in our
sample. These correlations are, for the sake of simplicity, not depicted in Figure 1 and
Figure 2.
Model fit was determined by using
2
tests in the first place, but as sample size affects
the
2
value, and in line with recent advice (Hu & Bentler, 1999; McDonald & Ho, 2002),
multiple indices were used to evaluate the fit of the models. Specifically, we examined the
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR 0.08 indicating good fit), the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA 0.06 indicating good fit), the goodness-of-fit
index (GFI 0.90 indicating good fit), and the comparative fit index (CFI 0.95
indicating good fit). We also computed the
2
/df ratio (2 indicating good fit) to simplify
comparison between models with different degrees of freedom (Shumacker & Lomax,
1996).
Every model was first tested with the hypothesized paths in the first step. Nonsignificant
paths in the first step were removed and the model was run in a second step, and if there
was any nonsignificant path in the second step the model was run in a third step after
removing the nonsignificant path(s). This happened only in Model II. Fit indices for all
steps are presented in Table 2. However, it is the indices for the last step for every model
that are to be compared.
To begin with, we examined our hypothetical model and found the paths from Openness
to Experience and Agreeableness to Generalized Prejudice nonsignificant. Also the path
from Openness to Experience to SDO and that from SDO to RWA were not significant.
Figure 2. Causal model of personality and prejudice going from the Big Five personality factors through Social
Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism to generalized prejudice. All path (partial regression)
coefficients are statistically significant at p<0.05 at least.
What matters most to prejudice 475
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
Removing the nonsignificant paths we arrived at the final model depicted in Figure 2.
According to Table 2, this model (Model I, Step 2) was found to have a very good fit to
the data (
2
(8) ¼8.02, p¼0.43, SRMR ¼0.027, RMSEA ¼0.004, GFI ¼0.99,
CFI ¼1.00).
Examining the possible impact of social desirability, the final model was also run after
regressing the effect of social desirability on all scales. The fit indices for the regressed
model were found to be slightly worse (
2
(8) ¼8.59, p¼0.38, SRMR ¼0.033,
RMSEA ¼0.020, GFI ¼0.99, CFI ¼1.00) as compared with the final model.
As mentioned earlier, the final hypothetical model is to be compared with the suggested
alternative models (for details of the paths, see Table 2). As can be seen in Table 2 the final
hypothetical model showed a much better fit to the data as compared with each of the two
alternative models.
In addition to the examination of the hypothetical and the alternative model, we
examined the final model for each prejudice type — replacing Generalized Prejudice with
racism, sexism, prejudice toward homosexuals, and prejudice toward mentally disabled
people. The results showed a very good fit between model and data and all paths were
significant in the models using racism (
2
(8) ¼8.51, p¼0.39, SRMR ¼0.028,
RMSEA ¼0.019, GFI ¼0.99, CFI ¼1.00) and prejudice toward homosexuals
(
2
(8) ¼9.12, p¼0.33, SRMR ¼0.033, RMSEA ¼0.028, GFI ¼0.99, CFI ¼0.99) as
the outcome variables. Although there was also a good fit for the models employing sexism
(
2
(9) ¼10.02, p¼0.35, SRMR ¼0.029, RMSEA ¼0.025, GFI ¼0.98, CFI ¼0.99) and
prejudice toward mentally disabled people (
2
(9) ¼8.00, p¼0.53, SRMR ¼0.028,
RMSEA ¼0.000, GFI ¼0.99, CFI ¼1.00) as the outcome variables, the path from RWA to
sexism and prejudice toward mentally disabled people was found to be nonsignificant.
Table 3 presents an overview of the direct, indirect, and total effects of the Big Five
factors, SDO, and RWA on Generalized Prejudice for the final model. As shown in the
table, RWA displayed the largest total effect on prejudice through a direct path and a
substantial indirect path via SDO. The direct (and total) effect of SDO was thus somewhat
smaller than the total effect of RWA. None of the Big Five factors showed a direct effect on
prejudice, and the largest indirect effects were disclosed for Openness to Experience
(through RWA) and Agreeableness (through SDO). The magnitude of the effects of the Big
Five personality factors was markedly smaller than that of RWA and SDO.
Table 3. Direct, indirect, and total effects (partial regression coefficients) of Big Five personality
factors, SDO, and RWA on Generalized Prejudice
Scale Effects on Generalized Prejudice
Direct Indirect Total
Right-Wing Authoritarianism 0.30 0.42 0.72
Social Dominance Orientation 0.65 0.00 0.65
Big Five factors
Neuroticism — — —
Extraversion — 0.16 0.16
Openness to Experience 0.00 0.28 0.28
Agreeableness 0.00 0.27 0.27
Conscientiousness — 0.17 0.17
—¼effect not examined.
476 B. Ekehammar et al.
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
DISCUSSION
The analyses of the various prejudice scales disclosed that these were strongly correlated,
and through factor analysis it was shown that they formed one factor only. In accord with
Allport (1954; see also Altemeyer, 1998; McFarland, manuscript submitted for
publication) we labelled this factor Generalized Prejudice. Thus, in spite of the fact that
our prejudice scales covered four types of prejudice (racial prejudice, sexism, prejudice
toward homosexuals, and prejudice toward mentally disabled people) they could all be
reduced to one and the same general factor. This outcome is quite in line with that of a
previous study by Ekehammar and Akrami (2003) and with those of some classical and
more recent studies reviewed in our ‘Introduction’ section as well.
As to the simple correlations among the variables in our model, the relations between
Big Five personality and prejudice support the findings from a previous study (Ekehammar
& Akrami, 2003). Thus, Openness to Experience and Agreeableness showed significant
negative relationships with Generalized Prejudice but the magnitude of these correlation
coefficients was lower here than in the previous study. We suspect that this has to do with a
change of Big Five instrument from NEO-PI in the previous study to BFI in the present
one. As BFI is a short scale it could not be expected to have the same level of reliability
and construct validity as the NEO-PI. In addition to the cross-study congruence outlined
above, we found in the present study that Neuroticism displayed a small but statistically
significant relationship with Generalized Prejudice. Finally, social desirability, which was
not included in the study by Ekehammar and Akrami (2003), was shown here to be
correlated with Agreeableness only. Partialling out the effect of social desirability from all
correlations had only negligible effects on the magnitude of the correlation coefficients.
In conclusion, and based on the congruent outcome in the present study and that of
Ekehammar and Akrami (2003), it seems that Agreeableness and Openness to Experience
are those single Big Five factors most closely associated with generalized prejudice. This
is not unexpected as Openness to Experience includes components that have to do with
nonconformity and unconventionality (cf. John & Srivastava, 1999), and has been shown
to be inversely related to authoritarianism (McCrae & Costa, 1997; Peterson et al., 1997;
Trapnell, 1994), and positively related to liberal and social political values (McCrae, 1996;
Van Hiel, Kossowska, & Mervielde, 2000). All these characteristics of openness to
experience would imply a negative relation to prejudice. In the same way, agreeableness,
as the opposite of antagonism, includes components such as tendermindedness and
altruism (cf. John & Srivastava, 1999) as well as nonhostility, empathy, and prosocial
behaviour (cf. Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997), which could be expected to relate negatively
to prejudice as well.
Extending previous research (but see Duckitt et al., 2002), we used a causal modelling
rather than a prediction approach to examine the relations among personality, RWA, SDO,
and prejudice. Using Generalized Prejudice as our basic outcome variable, we employed
structural equation modelling (using LISREL) to clarify the causal relationships based on
a hypothetical model derived from previous empirical research. In this model, Big Five
personality factors were expected to cause RWA and SDO, which in turn were thought to
causally effect generalized and specific prejudice(s). Some direct effects of Big Five
personality on prejudice were included in the model as well. Our model displayed a better
fit to the empirical data than the alternative models where RWA and SDO changed position
with prejudice (Model II) and personality (Model III) in the causal chain. Model II, where
prejudice is assumed to cause SDO and RWA rather than the reverse, has been advocated
What matters most to prejudice 477
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
by some social psychologists in the social identity and self-categorization traditions (e.g.
Schmitt et al., 2003; Turner & Reynolds, 2003). It must be emphasized that the degree of fit
between our hypothetical model and the empirical data was very high —the
2
values were
statistically nonsignificant, which is not often the case in causal modelling studies, the
RMSEA index was close to zero, and the GFI and CFI indices were 1.00 or close to unity.
It is important to note, however, that structural equation modelling can test the fit of
hypothesized causal models to empirical data but cannot demonstrate causality in the same
way that experimental and longitudinal studies can. In any case, whereas some social
psychological approaches have found SDO to transmit the effect of social position on
prejudice (Guimond et al., 2003), our study found that SDO transmits the effect of
personality (Agreeableness) on prejudice. Unless Big Five personality is linked to social
position, these two views appear to be incompatible.
Our causal analyses thus showed that one Big Five personality factor (Agreeableness)
affected prejudice through SDO whereas three of the other personality factors
(Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience) affected prejudice through
RWA. Thus, RWA appears to be more closely associated with the Big Five personality
sphere than SDO. This conclusion is further sustained by the fact that RWA was shown to
cause SDO rather than the reverse, and this unidirectional causation was the same when
using Generalized Prejudice or the four specific prejudices as outcome variables. Thus,
SDO appears to be closer to the prejudice sphere than RWA. As emphasized by Duckitt
et al. (2002), the relation (as to magnitude and direction) between SDO and RWA might
look different in different cultures or societies, although the basis for this difference is not
well understood. In the present case, for example, the relation between RWA and SDO as
expressed through a zero-order correlation (and through a path coefficient as well) was
rather substantial and stronger than those estimates obtained in previous North American
studies. However, they were of the same magnitude as or even higher than those figures
reported from previous studies in Europe (see the ‘Introduction’ section). In any case, the
different links between Big Five personality factors on the one hand and RWA and SDO
on the other give further support to the view that these constructs are quite different.
Finally, by including a measure of social desirability in our analyses, we were able to
show that the relations and conclusions outlined above were not affected by the social
desirability factor.
Gleaning the literature on personality–prejudice research we have been able to find only
one empirical examination that is in some respects similar to ours. Thus, Duckitt et al.
(2002) also employed a causal modelling approach to disclose the causal relations between
several antecedent factors and prejudice. Their outcome variable was only confined to
ethnic prejudice, however, and their personality factors, toughmindedness and social
conformity, are not higher-order or broad bandwidth variables as is the case for the
personality factors in the present study. In addition to SDO and RWA, they also included
some other variables. As to the personality factors in the study, Duckitt et al. noted that
toughmindedness, as the opposite of tendermindedness, covers a large part of the
Agreeableness factor in the Big Five through its subdimensions tenderness, empathy, and
sympathy. In the same way, the authors commented that social conformity seems to
subsume some highly specific trait dimensions within the Big Five factors Conscientious-
ness and Openness to Experience. Moreover, one can add that Big Five Factor V
(Openness to Experience) in some European studies has been labelled nonconformity (e.g.
De Raad, Perugini, Hrebickova, & Szarota, 1998) or autonomy (Hendriks, 1997) instead.
As compared with our study, one can thus conclude that the tender–toughmindedness
478 B. Ekehammar et al.
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
factor of Duckitt et al. fairly well corresponds to our Agreeableness factor, and that their
social conformity factor covers important elements in our Conscientiousness and
Openness to Experience (nonconformity) factors. The major difference is that we were
interested in the higher-order and general (broad-bandwidth) personality factors, whereas
Duckitt et al. selected the factors in line with their theoretical framework.
As regards the causal picture, there are also some obvious similarities between the two
studies. Thus, when we found that Agreeableness had a causal effect on SDO, Duckitt et al.
reported in a similar way that toughmindedness (our Agreeableness reversed) had a causal
effect on SDO (through ‘Belief in a competitive jungle-world’). Further, when we found
that Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience affected RWA but not SDO, Duckitt et
al. found in a similar way that social conformity caused RWA but not SDO. The results
taken together confirm the view that SDO and RWA are linked to different personality
factors or syndromes. A final important similarity is that both studies disclosed significant
paths from both SDO and RWA to prejudice.
Needless to say, our results are based on a limited number of participants and a
replication is necessary to arrive at a firm conclusion. This caution is especially motivated
when causal modelling with many variables is employed. Although our results have
shown that Big Five personality, RWA, and SDO are causally related, in that order, we
must point out that the direct and indirect causal effects of the personality factors on
RWA, SDO, and prejudice, though statistically significant, were rather weak as compared
with the direct and indirect causal effects of RWA and SDO on prejudice. Thus, the causal
picture leaves room for other influencing factors, such as the more genuine social-
psychological factors based on, for example, social identity (see e.g. Tajfel & Turner,
1986), social self-categorization (see e.g. Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell,
1987), and social position (see e.g. Guimond, 2000). Although some efforts have been
made to examine this issue (see e.g. Guimond et al., 2003; Reynolds et al., 2001; Schmitt
et al, 2003; Verkuyten & Hagendoorn, 1998), this research has failed to integrate the
personality and social psychology approaches in a common model. Consequently, in
addition to those factors examined in the present research, future research should try to
include the social–psychological and the personality-based constructs in one and the
same model. In this way, it would be possible to estimate the magnitude and direction of
the various components that relate to prejudice. This would make possible more solid
conclusions about the relative importance of personality and social–psychological factors
as antecedents of prejudice. In that context, it would also be valuable to incorporate
constructs based on implicit (automatic, unconscious, fast) processes (e.g. implicit
prejudice, implicit group identity) in addition to the constructs based on explicit
(controlled, conscious, slow) processes as employed in the present and most previous
research. To achieve this, the theory and methodology presented by Greenwald et al.
(2002) seem to offer promise.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by Grant No. 421-2002-2849 from the Swedish Research
Council to Bo Ekehammar. A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the Fifth
Biennial Conference of Asian Association of Social Psychology, Manila, the Philippines
(July 2003). We would like to thank Ivan Mervielde and three anonymous reviewers for
their insightful comments on an earlier version of this article.
What matters most to prejudice 479
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
REFERENCES
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian
personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Akrami, N., Ekehammar, B., & Araya, T. (2000). Classical and modern racial prejudice: A study of
attitudes toward immigrants in Sweden. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 521–532.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Allport, G. W., & Kramer, B. M. (1946). Some roots of prejudice. Journal of Psychology, 22, 9–39.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Manitoba, Canada: University Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other ‘authoritarian personality.’ In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Asendorpf, J. B. (2002). Editorial: The puzzle of personality types. European Journal of Personality,
16, S1–S5.
Asendorpf, J. B. (2003). Head-to-head comparison of the predictive validity of personality types and
dimensions. European Journal of Personality, 17, 327–346.
Bierly, M. M. (1985). Prejudice toward contemporary outgroups as a generalized attitude. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 15, 189–199.
Bouchard, T. J., Jr., & Loehlin, J. C. (2001). Genes, evolution, and personality. Behavior Genetics,
31, 243–273.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1999). Temperament: A new paradigm for trait psychology. In L. A.
Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 399–
423). New York: Guilford.
De Raad, B., Perugini, M., Hrebickova, M., & Szarota, P. (1998). Lingua franca of personality:
Taxonomies and structures based on the psycholexical approach. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 29, 212–232.
Duckitt, J. (1992). The social psychology of prejudice. New York: Praeger.
Duckitt, J. (2000). Culture, personality, prejudice. In S. Renshon, & J. Duckitt (Eds.), Political
psychology: Cultural and crosscultural foundations (pp. 89–106). Houndmills, UK: Macmillan.
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, 83, 75–93.
Duriez, B., & Van Hiel, A. (2002). The march of modern fascism: A comparison of social dominance
orientation and authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1199–1213.
Ekehammar, B., & Akrami, N. (2003). The relation between personality and prejudice: A variable-
versus a person-centred approach. European Journal of Personality, 17, 449–464.
Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., & Araya, T. (2000). Development and validation of Swedish classical
and modern sexism scales. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 307–314.
Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. H. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In
R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–
824). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellott, D. S.
(2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept.
Psychological Review, 109, 3–25.
Guimond, S. (2000). Group socialization and prejudice: The social transmission of intergroup
attitudes and beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 335–354.
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.
Hartley, E. L. (1946). Problems in prejudice. New York: Kings Crown.
Heaven, P. C. L., & Bucci, S. (2001). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and
personality: An analysis using the IPIP measure. European Journal of Personality, 15, 49–56.
Heaven, P. C. L., & Connors, J. R. (2001). A note on the value correlates of social dominance
orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 925–930.
Heaven, P. C. L., & St. Quintin, D. (2003). Personality factors predict racial prejudice. Personality
and Individual Differences, 34, 625–634.
Hendriks, A. A. J. (1997). The construction of the Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI).
Groningen: University Press.
480 B. Ekehammar et al.
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory
and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford.
Jo
¨reskog, K., & So
¨rbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation models with the SIMPLIS
command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
Lambert, A. J., & Chasteen, A. L. (1997). Perceptions of disadvantage vs. conventionality: Political
values and attitudes toward the elderly vs. Blacks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,
469–481.
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.
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In J. F.
Dovidio, & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism (pp. 91–126). New York:
Academic.
McCourt, K., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Lykken, D. T., Tellegen, A., & Keyes, M. (1999). Authoritarianism
revisited: Genetic and environmental influences examined in twins reared apart and together.
Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 985–1014.
McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120,
323–337.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories:
Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of
personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51–87). New York: Guilford.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In
R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825–
847). San Diego, CA: Academic.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P.
John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139–153). New York:
Guilford.
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation
analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.
McFarland, S. G., Ageyev, V., & Abalakina, M. (1993). The authoritarian personality in the U.S.A.
and U.S.S.R.: Comparative studies. In W. F. Stone, G. Lederer, & R. Christie (Eds.), Strengths and
weaknesses: The authoritarian personality today (pp. 199–228). New York: Springer.
Peterson, B. E., Smirles, K. A., & Wentworth, P. A. (1997). Generativity and authoritarianism:
Implications for personality, political involvement, and parenting. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 1202–1216.
Plomin, R., & Caspi, A. (1999). Behavior genetics and personality. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John
(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 251–276). New York:
Guilford.
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.
Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., Haslam, S. A., & Ryan, M. K. (2001). The role of personality and
group factors in explaining prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 427–434.
Rudmin, F. W. (1999). Norwegian short-form of the Marlowe–Crowne social desirability scale.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40, 229–233.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of Personality, 66, 495–
524.
Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & Kappen, D. M. (2003). Attitudes toward group-based
inequality: Social dominance or social identity? British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 161–
186.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? Journal of
Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz, & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism:
Profiles in controversy (pp. 53–84). New York: Plenum.
What matters most to prejudice 481
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
Sherif, M. (1967). Group conflict and cooperation. London: Routledge–Kegan Paul.
Shumacker, R., & Lomax, R. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and
oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1994). Social dominance orientation and the political psychology
of gender: A case of invariance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 998–1011.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action and intellectual
sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 476–490.
Sto
¨ber, J. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminant
validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 222–232.
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and
modern prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, &
W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Trapnell, P. D. (1994). Openness versus intellect: A lexical left turn. European Journal of
Personality, 8, 273–290.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the
social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003). Why social dominance theory has been falsified. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 199–206.
Van Hiel, A., Kossowska, M., & Mervielde, I. (2000). The relationship between openness to
experience and political ideology. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 741–751.
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.
Van Hiel, A., & Mervielde, I. (in press). Openness to experience and boundaries in the mind:
Relationships with cultural and economic conservative beliefs. Journal of Personality.
Verkuyten, M., & Hagendoorn, L. (1998). Prejudice and self-categorization: The variable role of
authoritarianism and in-group stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 99–
110.
Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126–134.
Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Ægisdottir, S. (2000). The gender belief system, authoritarianism, social
dominance orientation, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Sex Roles, 42,
947–967.
Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Lee, S. E. (2000). The relationship of authoritarianism and related constructs to
attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 144–170.
482 B. Ekehammar et al.
Copyright #2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 463–482 (2004)
