Content uploaded by John Duckitt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John Duckitt on Jan 09, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance
Orientation Differentially Moderate Intergroup Effects on
Prejudice
JOHN DUCKITT*and CHRIS G. SIBLEY
Psychology Department, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Abstract
Research has shown that two individual difference dimensions, Right-Wing authoritarian-
ism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), consistently predict prejudice.
Traditionally it has been assumed that RWA and SDO both index generalized dispositions
to dislike outgroups and those who differ, and therefore predict prejudice similarly. An
alternative approach suggests that RWA and SDO express different motivational bases for
prejudice that differentially interact with intergroup conditions to predict prejudice. This
was tested by investigating students’ reactions to varying descriptions of a bogus
immigrant group. As hypothesized, the degree to which RWA and SDO predicted opposition
to the immigrants was differentially contingent on the degree to which the immigrants were
described as economically competitive, socially threatening (deviant) and socio-econ-
omically disadvantaged. Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key words: Right Wing Authoritarianism; Social Dominance Orientation; prejudice;
anti-immigrant attitudes
INTRODUCTION
Two approaches have dominated social psychological inquiry into the causes of outgroup
dislike or prejudice. One approach has explained prejudice in terms of group or intergroup
processes that generate prejudices that are widely shared within social groups and target
specific outgroups (Sherif, 1967; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The second approach has
explained prejudice in terms of systematic individual differences in peoples’ propensity to
hold generally prejudiced attitudes as individuals (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson,
& Sanford, 1950; Altemeyer, 1998).
Intergroup theories have focussed primarily of three kinds of intergroup processes or
relations that generate outgroup dislike. These are intergroup threat (e.g. Greenberg,
Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997; Neuberg & Cottrell, 2002; Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006;
European Journal of Personality
Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
Published online 4 April 2010 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/per.772
*Correspondence to: John Duckitt, Psychology Department, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019,
Auckland, New Zealand. E-mail: j.duckitt@auckland.ac.nz
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 1 November 2009
Revised 21 February 2010
Accepted 22 February 2010
Stephan & Stephan, 2000), intergroup competition (e.g. Esses, Jackson, Dovidio, &
Hodson, 2005; Sherif, 1967; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and intergroup inequality or
dominance (e.g. Jost & Banaji, 1994; Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin, 2006; Sidanius & Pratto,
1999).
The individual difference approach derived originally from the empirical finding that
prejudice or tolerance in individuals tends to be generalized over targets. This was
demonstrated by positive correlations, usually in the moderate to strong range, between
individuals’ attitudes to quite different outgroups (Adorno et al., 1950; Allport, 1954;
Altemeyer, 1998; Ekehammar & Akrami, 2007). This suggested that some stable
characteristic of individuals, such as personality or basic values, was influencing them to be
generally prejudiced or tolerant towards outgroups and minorities. Adorno et al. (1950)
first attempted to measure this individual difference component of prejudice proneness
using their famous F-scale measure of Authoritarian Personality. A great deal of research
over the following six decades has identified two relatively stable individual difference
dimensions, Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation
(SDO) that powerfully predict prejudice in individuals (Altemeyer, 1998; Duriez & Van
Hiel, 2002; Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje, & Zakrision, 2004; Heaven & Bucci, 2001;
McFarland, 1998; Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2002).
The RWA scale was developed by Altemeyer (1981) to rectify the psychometric
deficiencies of Adorno et al.’s (1950) original F-scale (i.e. its lack of unidimensionality,
failure to control acquiescence and low reliability when its items were balanced). The RWA
scale achieved this by narrowing its item content to just three of the original nine content
clusters (conceptualized as ‘traits’) incorporated in the original F-scale, that is,
conventionalism, authoritarian submission and authoritarian aggression. Thus, RWA
items express beliefs in coercive social control, in obedience and respect for existing
authorities and in conforming to traditional moral and religious norms and values.
The SDO scale was developed later by Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, and Malle (1994) to
measure a ‘general attitudinal orientation towards intergroup relations, reflecting whether
one generally prefers such relations to be equal, versus hierarchical’ (p. 742). This scale
seemed to measure a different set of social attitudinal clusters of Adorno et al.’s (1950)
original 9-item ‘trait’ clusters, such as those pertaining to power and toughness,
destructiveness and cynicism, and anti-intraception.
Research on RWA and SDO has indicated that they seem to be relatively independent
dimensions, with the correlation between them typically being positive but weak, although
it can vary from strong positive to weak negative (Duriez, Van Hiel, & Kossowska, 2005;
Roccato & Ricolfi, 2005). Both RWA and SDO have been shown to predict prejudice
against outgroups independently of each other with their effects relatively unaltered by
controlling for other psychological individual difference variables but typically eliminating
or substantially reducing significant effects of other psychological variables (Altemeyer,
1998; Ekehammar et al., 2004; McFarland, 1998; Sibley & Duckitt, 2008).
The issue of why and how RWA and SDO predict prejudice has attracted less attention.
The dominant assumption in the research literature, stemming originally from Adorno et al.
(1950) and continued by Altemeyer (1998), has been that RWA and SDO both seem to
involve a need for prejudice, that is, a basic disposition to generally dislike outgroups and
those who are different. This implies that RWA and SDO will both predict dislike or
prejudice towards all or most outgroups in much the same kind of way. This seems to have
been supported by the research showing that both RWA and SDO have independently and
powerfully predicted prejudice against many different kinds of outgroups (e.g. Altemeyer,
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
584 J. Duckitt and C. G. Sibley
1981, 1996; Ekehammar et al., 2004; Pratto et al., 1994; Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2002,
2005). As a result, researchers have often simply aggregated attitudes to different kinds of
outgroups into indices of generalized prejudice and shown that RWA and SDO powerfully
predict these generalized prejudice indices (e.g. Altemeyer, 1998; Ekehammar, & Akrami,
2003; McFarland, in press; Zick, Wolf, Ku
¨pper, Davidov, Schmidt, & Heitmeyer, 2008).
An alternative dual process motivational (DPM) approach sees RWA and SDO as
expressing different sets of basic social values or motivational goals and therefore has
somewhat different implications (Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt & Sibley, 2009). This approach
sees RWA as expressing collective security motivational values (i.e. at the high-RWA
extreme, values of social order, stability, cohesion, control and tradition as opposed to at
the low-RWA extreme, values of personal liberty, individual autonomy, social diversity
and openness to change) and SDO expressing enhancement or assertion motivational
values (i.e. values of power, dominance, superiority over others and self or group
aggrandizement at the high-SDO extreme and values of equality, universalism, and
altruistic social concern at the low-SDO extreme). This view is supported by independent
research showing that these values do differentially predict SDO and RWA as expected by
the Dual Process Model (Duriez et al., 2005; Van Hiel, Pandelaere & Duriez, 2004).
The DPM approach proposes that RWA and SDO should have different psychological
bases or causes, and that they should therefore exert their effects on prejudice in different
ways and through different mechanisms. The first proposition has been supported by
research showing that different personality trait dimensions and different schema-based,
socialized beliefs about the nature of the social world underlie RWA and SDO (e.g. Duckitt,
2001; Duckitt, Wagner, du Plessis, & Birum, 2002; Duriez & Soenens, 2006; Sibley &
Duckitt, 2008; Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007a; see also Ekehammar et al., 2004). Thus,
RWA seems to be determined by the socialized belief that the social world is a dangerous
and threatening place, and by the personality construct of social conformity (or Big Five
low Openness and high Conscientiousness). SDO seems to be determined by a Social
Darwinist view of the social world as a ruthlessly competitive jungle, and by the
personality construct of toughnindedness (or big-five low Agreeablness).
Second, the model proposes that RWA and SDO generate prejudiced outgroup attitudes
for different reasons. Specifically, since RWA expresses the motivational goal or value of
collective security (that is, of controlling social or value-based threat and uncertainty by
maintaining societal order, cohesion, stability and tradition), persons high in RWA should
be particularly negative towards outgroups that seem to threaten collective security in some
way. Since SDO expresses the competitive motivational goal or value of group dominance
and superiority, persons high in SDO should be particularly negative towards lower status
outgroups, in order to justify and maintain existing ingroup superiority, and towards
outgroups competing over relative group dominance and superiority.
In contrast to the traditional approach, which has tended to assume that RWA and SDO
influence prejudice against all or most outgroups in broadly similar fashion, the DPM
approach suggests that because RWA and SDO express quite different motivationally based
values, they should have important differential effects on outgroup attitudes. This
suggested three specific hypotheses. First, RWA and SDO should predict outgroup
prejudice differentially with RWA predicting prejudice against outgroups threatening
collective security, while SDO should predict prejudice against low status groups or
competing groups (differential prediction hypothesis). Second, the effects of RWA and
SDO on outgroup prejudice should be differentially mediated psychologically with the
effects of RWA mediated by the degree of perceived threat from outgroups and the effects
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
RWA, SDO and prejudice 585
of SDO by feelings of competitiveness over relative status or dominance to outgroups
(differential mediation hypothesis). And, third, particular social and intergroup conditions
or processes, that is, intergroup threat in the case of RWA, and intergroup competition or
inequality in the case of SDO, should differentially activate the different motivational
values underlying RWA and SDO to direct prejudice against particular outgroups or
minorities (differential moderation hypothesis).
The differential prediction and differential mediation hypotheses have been directly
tested and supported in prior research. Thus, RWA and SDO differentially predicted dislike
of particular kinds of outgroups, and different kinds of prejudice, consistent with their
hypothesized motivationally based values (Bizumic, Duckitt, Popadic, & Krauss, 2009;
Duckitt, 2006; Duckitt & Sibley, 2007; Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007b; Asbrock, Sibley,
& Duckitt, in press). The effects of RWA and SDO on outgroup dislike have also been
shown to be differentially mediated, with RWA mediated by perceived threat and SDO
mediated by felt competitiveness (Duckitt, 2006). Research by McFarland (2005) also
showed that the effects of RWA and SDO on support for the Iraqi war were differentially
mediated in similar fashion.
The differential moderation hypothesis, however, has not yet been comprehensively and
directly tested. According to this hypothesis, when people high in RWA and SDO
categorize themselves as members of a social group, they will be particularly reactive to
intergroup relationships or processes that activate their underlying motivational goals or
values. Thus, awareness of outgroup threat to ingroup collective security, should result in
persons high in RWA, who value collective security, becoming correspondingly hostile to
that outgroup. Awareness of intergroup differences in status and power should result in
persons high in SDO, who value group dominance and superiority, becoming
correspondingly negative to outgroups lower in status and power in order to justify
their group’s relative superiority. And third, an awareness of outgroup competition over
status, prestige or over real resources and power should result in persons high in SDO
becoming corresponding negative to competing outgroups. Moreover, because intergroup
competition will typically also threaten ingroup collective security, competing outgroups
should also elicit negativity from persons high in RWA.
Although research has not yet tested this differential moderation hypothesis directly,
findings have been reported that seem consistent with it. Some studies have shown
expected moderation effects for either RWA (or similar measures of authoritarian attitudes
or values) (Cohrs, Kielmann, Maes, & Moschner, 2005; Cohrs & Ibler, 2009; Feldman,
2003; Feldman & Stenner, 1997; Rickert, 1998; Stenner, 2005) or SDO (Eibach & Keegan,
2006) separately, and so could not show if the effects were differential. Other studies have
shown differential effects for RWA and SDO using moderators (either manipulated or
measured) that seem reasonably consistent with the DPM hypotheses. For example, a
cross-national meta-analysis by Cohrs and Stelzl (in press) found that RWA correlated
particularly strongly with anti-immigrant attitudes in countries where immigrants were
perceived as increasing the crime rate (e.g. Germany, Italy), whereas SDO correlated
particularly strongly with anti-immigrant attitudes in countries with a higher relative
unemployment rate of immigrants (e.g. Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland). An experimental
study by Dru (2007) manipulated the motivational orientations presumed to underlie RWA
and SDO and found that when an ingroup norm preservation orientation was primed, RWA
was a significant predictor of anti-immigrant (Arabs, Blacks, Asians) attitudes among
French students while SDO was not. When group competitiveness was primed, SDO
significantly predicted anti-immigrant attitudes, while RWA did not.
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
586 J. Duckitt and C. G. Sibley
Several other experimental studies have tested differential moderation by manipulating
the description of a minority group to make either intergroup threat or intergroup
competition over relative dominance highly salient or not salient, with mixed results.
Thomsen, Green, and Sidanius (2008) found that RWA and not SDO predicted aggression
towards immigrants who would not assimilate (interpreted as likely to threaten collective
security and cohesion), whereas SDO and not RWA predicted aggression to immigrants
who were assimilating (interpreted as likely to blur the status boundary and power
differential between immigrants and the dominant majority).
Cohrs and Asbrock (2009) found that describing Turks as socially threatening
significantly increased the degree to which RWA, and not SDO, predicted anti-Turkish
attitudes among German students. However, their study also found that depicting Turks as
competitive did not produce expected moderating effects of SDO on anti-Turkish attitudes.
In another recent study also focusing on Turkish immigrants, Meeus, Duriez, Vanbeselaere,
Phalet, and Kuppens (2009, Study 2) primed levels of perceived symbolic and realistic
threat to Flemish (ingroup) culture resulting from Turkish immigration. They reported that
SDO and RWA did not interact with the threat manipulation, and instead retained direct
(main) effects on attitudes towards Turkish immigration that were invariant across
conditions. Apparently non-supportive findings were also obtained by Esses, Jackson, and
Armstrong (1998) who found no difference in the degree to which SDO predicted anti-
immigrant attitudes under competition (information making competition from immigrants
for jobs salient) and no competition conditions (general information about immigrants).
These apparently non-supportive findings could, however, be due to differences in the
way the expected moderators were conceptualized or measured. For example, the study by
Cohrs and Asbrock (2009) did not manipulate intergroup competition from Turks. Instead
Turkish individuals were described as personally industrious, achievement oriented and
competitive, which persons high in SDO might tend to admire. These apparently non-
supportive findings could also be due to studies trying to manipulate the awareness of real
outgroups and group relations where knowledge and beliefs about these groups were
already powerfully entrenched. This was evidently the case in the Esses et al. (1998) study
in which SDO was already a strong predictor of anti-immigrant attitudes in the ‘no
competition’ condition, and the degree of subjectively perceived competition was a
powerful mediator of the relationship between SDO and anti-immigrant attitudes in both
competition and non-competition conditions. The study by Meeus et al. (2009, Study 2)
may have failed to detect significant interactions for a similar reason, namely that RWA and
SDO were significant predictors of opposition to Turkish immigration even in the non-
threatening control condition, making it all the more difficult to detect interaction effects
given a high baseline level of presumably heavily anchored attitudes about the threat posed
by Turks.
Finally, some research has been cited as not supporting moderation that did not
manipulate or compare real differences in awareness of actual outgroup threat or
competition (where moderation would be expected), but tested interactions with the degree
to which threat or competition was subjectively perceived or assessed (e.g. Sidanius, Haley,
Molina, & Pratto, 2007), which should mediate effects of RWA and SDO on outgroup
attitudes, but not necessarily moderate them (see, e.g. Cohrs & Ibler, 2009).
Overall, therefore, a number of studies have reported findings broadly consistent with
the DPM proposition that the degree to which RWA and SDO will predict prejudice against
particular outgroups will be differentially contingent on concerns over collective security;
and over competitiveness over relative dominance and superiority, respectively. There have
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
RWA, SDO and prejudice 587
also been some apparently non-supportive findings, but there have generally been plausible
methodological factors, or differences in conceptualization of the moderators, that could
account for these findings. No study has yet set out to directly and comprehensively test the
DPM differential moderation hypothesis by manipulating the three specific intergroup
conditions expected to differentially influence the degree to which RWA and SDO
would predict anti-outgroup attitudes towards a group that are not already anchored by
pre-existing knowledge and beliefs about the outgroup.
The current research therefore set out to test this by manipulating descriptions of a bogus
new immigrant outgroup as either competing with the ingroup, disadvantaged or low status
relative to the ingroup, socially deviant and so threatening ingroup norms, traditions, and
values, or, in a control condition, as neither competing, disadvantaged or socially
threatening. The DPM approach would predict that both RWA and SDO would
significantly predict opposition towards competing immigrants, only SDO would predict
opposition towards disadvantaged immigrants, only RWA would predict opposition
towards socially threatening immigrants, and neither RWA nor SDO would predict
opposition towards immigrants described as not competing, not disadvantaged and not
socially threatening.
These predictions can be contrasted to those that would be generated by the more
traditional view which has tended to assume that both RWA and SDO involve generalized
negativity to all, or most, outgroups independently of intergroup context or intergroup
relations (Adorno et al., 1950; Allport, 1954; Altemeyer, 1998). This perspective would
expect both RWA and SDO to predict opposition to immigrants more or less equivalently in
all these conditions.
METHOD
Participants
The participants were 191 undergraduate introductory psychology students in their first
semester at university in 2008. In order to ensure that all participants were native New
Zealanders only those who were born in and had lived in New Zealand for all or most of
their lives and who classified their ethnicity as Pakeha/European New Zealander or Maori
were included. The mean age of the sample was 19.0 years (SD ¼2.26), 68.1% were female
and 92.7% were of Pakeha/European ethnicity.
Experimental manipulations
Participants completed a questionnaire that described a bogus immigrant group, Sandrians
(adapted from Esses et al., 1998) and were asked to visualize a situation in which large
numbers of Sandrians would be immigrating to New Zealand in the near future. This was
followed by one of four descriptions of Sandrians, with participants randomly assigned to
one of these four questionnaire versions:
Direct economic competition (n ¼50): These Sandrian immigrants are culturally quite
similar to New Zealanders in values and lifestyle and in educational level and level of
skills. However, their numbers and skills make it inevitable that they will be taking away
jobs from native New Zealanders and competing with them for resources. As their
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
588 J. Duckitt and C. G. Sibley
numbers and influence in New Zealand increase, they will reduce the influence,
importance and role of New Zealanders like you in New Zealand society.
Disadvantaged (n ¼46): These Sandrian immigrants are quite similar to New
Zealanders in culture and lifestyle and are very unlikely to compete with New
Zealanders over jobs, resources and influence. However, they do come from a very
disadvantaged background. Although respectable and law abiding, their history of
poverty and lack of education and training means many might need educational support
and assistance in order to become economically self-sufficient in New Zealand.
Social threat (n ¼47): These Sandrian immigrants are very similar in education and
standard of living to native New Zealanders, and very unlikely to take away jobs from
native New Zealanders or disadvantage them in any way. Sandrian culture, however,
differs from that of more conventional New Zealanders. They are highly unconventional,
hedonistic and bohemian in outlook and behaviour and totally reject conventional family
or religious values and morality. For example, their lifestyle is characterized by high
levels of extra- and pre-marital sexual activity, hedonistic drug and alcohol use, and
much youth delinquency.
Control (n ¼48): These Sandrian immigrants do not differ from New Zealanders in any
important ways. Their life style, values and cultural background are very similar to those
of New Zealanders. They are also similar in educational level and standard of living, and
it seems very unlikely that they will take away jobs from native New Zealanders or
disadvantage native New Zealanders in any way.
Measures
Participants first completed a shortened 10-item balanced version of the RWA scale
(Altemeyer, 1996) and a shortened 8-item balanced version of the SDO scale (Pratto et al.,
1994). The as for these scales were .76 and .73, respectively and the correlation between
them was r(189) ¼.03, p¼.68. Participants then read one of the four experimental
manipulations describing Sandrian immigrants.
After reading the description of Sandrians, participants completed a 6-item balanced
Likert scale assessing opposition to Sandrian immigration. This scale was adapted from the
generalized intergroup attitude scale used previously by Duckitt, Callaghan, and Wagner
(2005). Specimen items are: ‘I would be completely opposed to Sandrians migrating to
NZ’ and ‘I would have a very positive attitude to Sandrians migrating to NZ’ (reverse
scored). One of these items had a relatively weak item-total correlation was therefore
discarded. The remaining 5-item scale had an acoefficient of .87. In addition, a single item
assessed how generally unfavourable or favourable participants would feel about the
migration of Sandrians to New Zealand. This rating correlated .73 with the opposition to
Sandrian migration scale and was therefore simply added to that scale. This expanded 6-
item opposition to Sandrian migration scale had an aof .89.
Manipulation check measures
Participants also completed three 2-item scales, which were used to assess if the
experimental manipulations had been successful in depicting Sandrians as direct economic
competitors, as disadvantaged, or as socially threatening, relative to the control group.
Direct economic competition manipulation check items:
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
RWA, SDO and prejudice 589
(1) Sandrians will compete with New Zealanders for jobs and resources.
(2) As their numbers increase Sandrians are likely to reduce the influence, importance and
role of New Zealanders like you in NZ society.
These 2 items had an aof .62.
Disadvantaged condition manipulation check items:
(1) Sandrians come from very disadvantaged backgrounds.
(2) Sandrians will probably need support and assistance to become economically self-
sufficient in NZ.
These 2 items had an aof .86.
Social threat manipulation check items:
(1) Sandrians’ are highly unconventional and will tend to undermine traditional family and
religious values.
(2) In their behaviour and outlook, Sandrians reject and do not adhere to conventional
moral and religious values.
These 2 items had an aof .87.
All items were rated on scales ranging from 4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree),
and items were averaged to create overall scale scores in which a higher score represented a
higher value on the construct in question.
RESULTS
Expectation maximization (Schafer, 1997) was used to estimate isolated missing values so
that the full data set could be used for analysis.
Effect of experimental manipulations on attitudes towards Sandrian immigration
Opposition to Sandrian immigration was higher in the three experimental conditions
(Economic Competition, M¼.72, SD ¼1.39; Disadvantaged, M¼.66, SD ¼1.66;
social threat, M¼.29, SD ¼1.52) than in the control condition (M¼1.77, SD ¼1.37). A
one-way ANOVA was significant (F(3, 187) ¼15.20, p<.001, partial h
2
¼.20) and
multiple comparison analyses revealed that the means for the three experimental
conditions were all significantly higher than the mean for the control condition (p<.001).
These effects were all powerful with the difference in each case close to or exceeding one
standard deviation.
The effect of the experimental manipulations on the three manipulation check measures
was assessed using one-way ANOVA followed by multiple comparisons to assess if the
mean scores on the three experimental manipulation check scales differed as expected
between the four experimental conditions. The means on these three scales for each of the
four experimental conditions are shown in Table 1, with differing superscripts indicating
which means differed from each other.
Economic competition manipulation check
An ANOVA comparing economic competition ratings for the four manipulation condition
groups was significant (F(3, 187) ¼16.10, p<.001, partial h
2
¼21). Multiple comparison
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
590 J. Duckitt and C. G. Sibley
tests between the four means showed that, as expected, participants in the economic
competition manipulation condition had the highest mean economic competition rating,
and their mean was significantly higher than the means for participants in the
disadvantaged, social threat and control manipulation conditions.
Disadvantaged condition manipulation check
An ANOVA comparing the mean disadvantaged ratings for the four manipulation
condition groups was significant (F(3, 187) ¼39.34, p<.001, partial h
2
¼39). Multiple
comparison tests between the four means indicated that, as expected, and as shown in
Table 2, the mean disadvantaged rating was highest in the disadvantaged manipulation
condition, and significantly higher than the means for all three the other manipulation
conditions.
Social threat manipulation check
As expected, the mean for the social threat rating was highest for the social threat
manipulation condition, and much lower in the other three conditions. The ANOVA was
significant (F(3, 187) ¼30.40, p<.001, partial h
2
¼33), and multiple comparison tests
showed that the social threat rating mean was significantly higher than all three the other
means.
Overall, therefore, the findings from the manipulation check rating scales indicate that
the manipulations had their expected effects. Relative to participants in the control
Table 1. Means and standard deviations, and results of multiple comparison tests, for each of the
three experimental groups and the control group on the three manipulation check ratings
Experimental/
control group(s)
Economic
competition rating
Disadvantaged
rating Social threat rating
M SD M SD M SD
Competition 2.16
a
1.49 1.13
b
1.83 1.76
b
1.82
Disadvantaged .11
b
1.79 2.12
a
1.23 1.04
b
1.60
Social threat .21
b
1.88 .21
c
1.79 1.05
a
1.77
Control .17
b
1.81 1.31
b
1.93 1.93
b
1.64
Note: The means are scale means, with a possible range of þ4 to –4. Means with different superscripts differ
significantly ( p<.05).
Table 2. Bivariate correlations for RWA and SDO with opposition to Sandrian migration in the four
experimental conditions and the equivalent standardized bs for RWA and SDO (controlling for each
other) on opposition to Sandrian migration
Experimental condition
RWA SDO
rbrb
Economic Competition .34
.32
.38
.36
Disadvantaged .01 .02 .28
.28
Social threat .44
.44
.04 .06
Control .01 .02 .01 .01
p<.05 (one tailed).
p<.01 (one tailed).
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
RWA, SDO and prejudice 591
condition, participants in the economic competition condition rated Sandrians as
economic competitors, participants in the social threat condition rated Sandrians
as socially threatening, and participants in the disadvantaged condition rated Sandrians as
disadvantaged.
Testing the differential moderation hypotheses
It had been hypothesized that RWA would be a stronger predictor of opposition to Sandrian
migrants in the competition and social threat conditions (as opposed to disadvantaged and
control conditions), whereas SDO would be a stronger predictor in the competition and
disadvantaged conditions (as opposed to the threat and control conditions). In order to test
this using moderated multiple regression, we created two corresponding contrast coded
variables combining the conditions that should differentially elicit prejudice from high
versus low RWA and SDO persons. For RWA this was Threat and Competition (both coded
.50) versus disadvantaged and control (both coded .50), whereas for SDO this was
Disadvantaged and Competition (both coded .50) versus threat and control (both coded
.50). We entered both of these contrast codes, one reflecting the main effect of
competitive and threat versus disadvantaged and control, and the other reflecting the main
effect of competitive and disadvantage versus threat and control simultaneously, and thus
controlled for possible shared variance in these condition combinations in the analysis.
To test for the proposed differential moderated effect, we next created centred SDO and
RWA scores, and entered these into the regression analysis along with category
condition SDO and RWA product terms. We therefore created four product or interaction
terms, which reflected the interactions of RWA (and SDO) with the competitive and threat
versus disadvantaged and control, and the interactions of SDO (and RWA) with
competitive and disadvantage versus threat and control. Significant interaction terms found
using this method of analysis would indicate that the combined combinations of categories
evoked prejudice differentially for high versus low SDO and RWA individuals. This
approach has the strength of controlling for differences across conditions that are shared by
the collapsed contrast codes, thus the inclusion of these two sets of contrasting category
codes and the interaction terms, controlled for shared variance across conditions.
1
The results from this analysis are presented in Table 3. As shown, SDO (b¼.15) and
RWA (b¼.20), were both uniquely associated with increased prejudice across conditions
(main effects). There was also a main effect for condition, such that prejudice tended to be
higher in mean level in the combined competitive and threat conditions relative to the
disadvantaged and control conditions (b¼.32). The hypothesized interactions were also
significant. The combined competition and threat conditions (versus the disadvantaged and
control conditions) moderated the association between RWA and prejudice (b¼.20), but
also consistent with predictions, the combined competition and disadvantage conditions
(versus the threat and control conditions) did not moderate this RWA association. As
expected, SDO showed the opposite pattern of results. The combined competition and
disadvantage conditions (versus the threat and control conditions) moderated the
1
In order to rule out any possibility that the obtained effects might have been biased by this procedure, we also
tested the effects of each of the two contrast coded variables separately with RWA and SDO. The interactive effects
remained comparable with a significant interaction for threat-competition (versus disadvantaged-control) with
RWA but not with SDO, and a significant interaction of disadvantage-competition (versus threat-control) with
SDO but not with RWA.
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
592 J. Duckitt and C. G. Sibley
association between SDO and prejudice (b¼.16), and also consistent with predictions, the
combined competition and threat conditions (versus the disadvantage and control
conditions) did not moderate this SDO association. Finally, Table 3 also reported
multicollinearity tolerance statistics, which indicated acceptable levels of tolerance in all
cases.
We explored the nature of these interactions in further detail by solving the simple slopes
for the effects of low (1 SD) versus high (þ1 SD) SDO and RWA across the different
combinations of conditions (contrast coded .50, .50) using the procedures outlined by
Aiken and West (1991). As predicted, the interaction with RWA occurred because RWA
significantly predicted prejudice towards the hypothetical immigrant group Sandrians
when that group was described as competitive or threatening (simple slope ¼.55, t¼4.28,
p<.01) but not when the group was described as competitive or in the control condition
(simple slope ¼.01, t¼.04, p¼.96). As predicted, SDO in contrast, significantly
predicted prejudice towards the hypothetical immigrant group Sandrians when that group
was described as competitive or disadvantaged (simple slope ¼.40, t¼3.58, p<.01) but
not when the group was described as threatening or in the control condition (simple
slope ¼.02, t¼.15, p¼.88). These slopes are presented in Figures 1 and 2,
respectively. Importantly these simple slopes were calculated controlling for all effects, i.e.
the multiple interaction terms presented in the regression output in Table 3.
Because the effects analysed in this way did represent combined effects aggregated
across discrete experimental conditions, there was a possibility that the effects might have
varied between the conditions being aggregated. In order to check that these effects were
indeed as hypothesized for the conditions separately, we also computed standardized
regression coefficients assessing the associations of RWA and SDO (controlling for each
other) with attitudes towards Sandrian immigration for each of the four experimental
conditions separately, as well as the zero-order correlations of RWA and SDO with
opposition to Sandrian migration in each condition. These correlations and bs are shown in
Table 2. They indicate that, as hypothesized, opposition to Sandrian migration was
significantly positively predicted by RWA in both the threat and competition conditions but
not in the disadvantaged and control conditions. Moreover, SDO significantly predicted
Table 3. Moderated multiple regression analysis predicting opposition to Sandrian migration by
two contrast coded categorical predictors (threat and competition versus disadvantage and control;
disadvantage and competition versus threat and control), two continuous predictors (RWA and SDO),
and the interactions of each categorical predictor with RWA and SDO
bse bt-value Tolerance
Constant .77
RWA .27 .09 .20 2.96
.95
SDO .19 .09 .15 2.17
.91
Comp-Threat vs. Disadv-Control 1.05 .22 .32 4.86
.97
Comp-Disadv vs. Threat-Control .13 .22 .04 .61 .97
Comp-Threat vs. Disadv-Control RWA .56 .18 .20 3.06
.98
Comp-Disadv vs. Threat-Control SDO .42 .17 .16 2.44
.95
Comp-Disadv vs Threat-Control RWA .19 .19 .07 1.04 .95
Comp-Threat vs. Disadv-Control SDO .04 .17 .01 .21 .94
Note: Comp ¼competitive condition; Threat ¼threat condition; Disadv ¼disadvantaged condition; Con-
trol ¼control condition; RWA ¼right-wing authoritarianism; SDO ¼social dominance orientation.
p<.05.
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
RWA, SDO and prejudice 593
opposition to Sandrian migration in both the disadvantaged and competition conditions,
but not in the threat and control conditions. Moreover, and again as expected, the
differences between the correlations of RWA and SDO with opposition to Sandrian
migration were significant or marginally significant in the Disadvantaged (t¼1.39,
p¼.085) and social threat (t¼2.54, p¼.007) conditions, but not in the competition
(t¼.20, non-significant) and control (t ¼.00, p>.90) conditions.
As expected, therefore, both RWA and SDO significantly predicted opposition to
Sandrian migration in the competition condition, only SDO significantly predicted
opposition towards disadvantaged immigrants, only RWA significantly predicted
opposition to socially threatening immigrants, and in the control condition neither
RWA nor SDO significantly predicted opposition towards immigrants described as not
competing, not disadvantaged, and not socially threatening.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
As expected, the experimental manipulation of the description of the intergroup
relationship between Sandrian immigrants and host New Zealanders had strong effects
Figure 1. Slopes for the association between RWA and opposition to Sandrian migration across threat (social
threat and competitive) and non-threat (disadvantaged and control) conditions.
Figure 2. Slopes for the association between SDO and opposition to Sandrian migration across competition
(competitive and disadvantaged) and non-competition (social threat and control) conditions.
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
594 J. Duckitt and C. G. Sibley
on participants’ opposition towards Sandrian immigration. Describing Sandrians as
economically competitive with New Zealanders, as disadvantaged (low in status, education
and skills), and as threatening conventional New Zealand culture, lifestyle norms and
values resulted in markedly greater opposition towards Sandrian immigration than was the
case when Sandrian migrants were described as non-competitive, not disadvantaged and
not threatening conventional social values. The manipulation check ratings confirmed that
the participants in these three experimental conditions did indeed perceive Sandrian
immigrants as economic competitors, or as disadvantaged, or as threatening conventional
values.
The relatively favourable attitudes to Sandrian immigrants in the control group in this
study (relative to the three experimental groups) provides an analogue for an important real
world distinction that is relevant for understanding why attitudes to different kinds of
immigrants can sometimes be very different. Certain countries and regions, such as North
America, Australia and New Zealand, have historically drawn two quite different kinds of
immigrants, at least as viewed by the dominant majorities in these countries. One kind of
immigrant is very similar to that described in the control group in this study. These have
been immigrants coming from United Kingdom and Western Europe, who been seen as
culturally and ethnically similar to the dominant majorities in these countries, as well as
generally similar in skill and educational level, and have generally not been seen as
economic competitors.
The other kind of immigrants, which for Australia and New Zealand today have been
primarily from Asian countries, tend to be seen as culturally very different to the majority
in the host country, as typically of lower skill and educational level, and as prepared to work
harder for lower wages, and therefore as economic competitors (i.e. as described in this
study’s three experimental groups). Government policies in New Zealand and Australia in
the past have favoured culturally and ethnically similar immigrants such as those from
Western Europe and the United Kingdom (e.g. the ‘White Australia’ policy), and while
these discriminatory policies have now been abandoned, very different attitudes to these
two kinds of immigrant groups still persist. For example, a New Zealand study that
compared attitudes to Asian and European immigrants measured on exactly the same items
found generally favourable attitudes to the European immigrants and generally
unfavourable attitudes to Asian immigrants with the difference greater than one standard
deviation (Zavareh, 1997). More recent unpublished data has also shown that RWA and
SDO did not predict attitudes to European immigrants in New Zealand but did predict
negative attitudes to Asian immigrants.
2
The current findings therefore suggest that the
three kinds of intergroup relationships operationalised through outgroup descriptions in
this research all seem to contribute independently to explaining these profound attitudinal
differences towards these different kinds of immigrants.
The findings showing substantial differences between opposition to Sandrian
immigrants in the control group and the three experimental groups are also consistent
with a great deal of prior research showing that intergroup threat, competition and
inequality were powerfully associated with intergroup dislike and prejudice, and with a
2
This study was a replication in New Zealand of an earlier study of attitudes to immigrants in France by
Dru (2007). The target groups were Asian and European immigrants to New Zealand and the correlational findings
noted in the text were those obtained in the control or no prime condition. Because the study was a direct
replication, the findings have not been submitted for publication, but can be obtained on request from the first
author.
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
RWA, SDO and prejudice 595
number of theoretical perspectives that view intergroup relations of this kind as highly
conducive to prejudice (e.g. Esses et al., 2005; Greenberg et al., 1997; Jost & Banaji, 1994;
Schaller, Park, & Faulkner, 2003; Sherif, 1967; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Stephan &
Stephan, 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). They are also consistent with a DPM approach to
explaining individual differences in prejudice, because this approach proposes that it is
precisely these three kinds of intergroup conditions that will most directly activate the
motivational goals and values (expressed in RWA and SDO) that generate outgroup dislike
in individuals.
The primary objective of the research was to investigate the differential moderation
hypothesis generated from the DPM that the degree to which RWA and SDO predicted
outgroup dislike would be directly contingent on these particular intergroup relationships.
More specifically, it was predicted that outgroup social threat would interact with RWA to
influence prejudice, outgroup low status or disadvantage would interact with SDO to
influence prejudice, and outgroup competition would interact with both RWA and SDO to
influence prejudice. The findings were consistent with this. When outgroup threat was
manipulated by describing Sandrian immigrants as likely to threaten conventional norms and
values, RWA predicted opposition to Sandrian migration while SDO did not. When
intergroup inequality was manipulated by describing Sandrians as low status and dis-
advantaged, SDO predicted opposition to Sandrian migration while RWA did not. When
intergroup competition was manipulated by describing Sandrians as economically
competitive, both RWA and SDO predicted opposition towards Sandrian migration. And,
in the control condition where Sandrians were described as non-competitive, non-
disadvantaged, and not socially threatening, neither RWA nor SDO predicted opposition to
Sandrian migration.
3
These findings are therefore not consistent with the widely held, though often implicit,
assumption in the traditional research literature on RWA and SDO that these two individual
difference variables involve a basic disposition to dislike outgroups generally that would be
relatively invariant across intergroup context (e.g. Adorno et al., 1950; Altemeyer, 1998).
This assumption would expect significant effects for both RWA and SDO on opposition
towards Sandrian immigrants across all conditions. This was only the case for the
economically competitive Sandrians. The findings for the disadvantaged and socially
threatening conditions, where opposition towards Sandrian immigration was predicted
only by SDO or RWA respectively, and for the control condition, where neither RWA nor
SDO predicted opposition to Sandrian migration, clearly contradicted this expectation.
Prior research had already shown that RWA and SDO predicted prejudice against different
outgroups, with RWA predicting prejudice against apparently dangerous and socially
threatening (deviating from existing norms and values) social groups, and SDO predicting
3
A preliminary study to the current one with similar but more rudimentary descriptions of Sandrians as
experimental manipulations, which was briefly described in Duckitt and Sibley (2009) (Duckitt, Nasoordeen,
& Sibley, 2008), produced the same pattern of significant findings as reported here, with one exception. Both SDO
and RWA significantly predicted opposition toward Sandrian immigration in the social (in that study, cultural)
threat condition, instead of just RWA as hypothesized. However, the manipulation checks revealed that the social
or cultural threat condition had resulted in Sandrians being rated as economic competitors as well as socially or
culturally threatening, which presumably produced the significant correlation of SDO with opposition toward
Sandrians in that condition. A careful review of the wording of the descriptions of Sandrian migrants in the four
experimental conditions suggested these descriptions had not been clearly enough differentiated from each other,
and in particular that the wording of the social or cultural threat condition was likely to suggest economic threat
from Sandrians as well as social or cultural threat. The manipulation conditions were therefore thoroughly revised,
and pilot tested for the present study, which was conducted with a new sample 1 year later.
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
596 J. Duckitt and C. G. Sibley
prejudice againstgroups apparently low in status andpower, or deviant groups that challenged
existing social inequalities (Duckitt, 2006; Duckitt & Sibley, 2007). However, this research
was purely correlational and the nature of the groups differentially predicted was merely
inferred from what seemed to be their common characteristics. The current experimental
research extends these findings in several important was. First, it showed that manipulating
highly specific outgroup characteristics (social threat, low status or disadvantage, economic
competition) derived from theory directly altered the degree to which RWA and SDO
predicted opposition to particular immigrants. Thus, instead of merely inferring that
differential prediction might be due to certain outgroup characteristics, it showed that
differential prediction was indeed directlyrelated to change in these characteristics. Second,
the experimental research design demonstrated causality, that is, that manipulating the
description of outgroup social threat, outgroup low status or disadvantage, and outgroup
economic competition directly caused increases in opposition to immigrants, with the degree
to which this occurred varying with participants’ levels of RWA and SDO. This therefore
implies that RWA and SDO were interacting with the causal impacts of outgroup threat,
disadvantage and economic competition to predict prejudice.
The current findings are consistent with prior findings showing similar interaction effects
for RWA and SDO. However, as noted previously, these earlier findings typically
investigated RWA and outgroup threat or SDO and outgroup low status separately and so
could not show that these effects were indeed differential. Other studies did investigate
both types of effects simultaneously but did not measure or manipulate the hypothesized
indicators of outgroup threat, low status, or competition comprehensively or directly. Some
studies used real outgroups or minorities, where attitudes would tend to reflect well
established beliefs about intergroup relations and manipulating the salience of these
relations would tend to produce relatively weak effects that might not show differential
moderation effects clearly (e.g. Cohrs & Asbrock, 2009; Esses et al., 1998).
In contrast to these earlier studies, the current study provided a much better test of the
DPM differential moderation hypothesis. First, it used a bogus immigrant group so that
pre-existing outgroup beliefs would be unlikely to obscure effects. Second, it provided a
more comprehensive test of the theory by simultaneously manipulating all three the
intergroup conditions expected to moderate the effects of RWA and SDO on prejudice. And
third, it provided information about the outgroup that manipulated these three intergroup
conditions directly as opposed to earlier studies which merely inferred change in these
intergroup conditions from overtly different manipulations (e.g. an immigrant who was
assimilating or not assimilating; Thomsen et al., 2008). Overall, therefore, these findings
together with the number of prior studies that have reported broadly consistent effects,
support the DPM hypotheses that particular intergroup relationships or conditions will
moderate the effects of RWA and SDO on outgroup dislike or prejudice.
However, these findings do not exclude the possibility that the precise way in which this
interaction occurs, or indeed if it occurred at all, might also be contingent on other factors,
such as the kind of intergroup threat, competition, or inequality (see, e.g. Akrami,
Ekehammar, Bergh, Dahlstrand, & Malmsten, 2009). If so, this might have contributed to
the inconsistent findings noted in the prior research. For example, Cohrs and Ibler (2009)
have suggested that the degree to which intergroup threat and RWA will interact in
determining outgroup dislike may depend on the nature and possibly the strength of
outgroup threat. They suggest that it may be when intergroup threats are ambiguous (and
relatively weak) that they should elicit stronger reactions from persons higher in RWA,
because high RWAs believe the social world is dangerous and threatening while lows do
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
RWA, SDO and prejudice 597
not. High RWAs should therefore maximize weak or ambiguous threats, while low RWAs
would minimize or ignore them, so there would be significant moderation. On the other
hand, when outgroup threat was completely unambiguous (and relatively strong), it might
elicit as strong a reaction from persons low in RWA (who might then not be able to deny or
minimize the threat) as from persons high in RWA, and there would be no moderation. A
closely related possibility is that symbolic threats to collective norms and values from an
outgroup, as manipulated in this study, might elicit moderation effects (with high RWAs
reacting more strongly than lows), while real threats to group resources or power might not
elicit moderation (with low RWAs reacting as strongly as highs). Assessing possibilities
such as this would require research that systematically varied factors such as the ambiguity,
strength, or nature of threat (e.g. real or symbolic), competition (e.g. real or social) or
inequality (e.g. status or power).
Irrespective of these possibilities, however, an important implication of the present
findings is that they do support a broad perspective that individual differences and
intergroup processes related to prejudice do not necessarily operate in isolation, but may
often operate together in a complementary and interactive fashion to determine outgroup
dislike. RWA indexes the importance of the motivational goals and value of collective
security for individuals, and therefore how reactive individuals will be to threats to
collective security. Persons high in RWA will therefore not be prejudiced against all
outgroups or under all circumstances. It should be primarily when persons high in RWA
categorize themselves as members of a group whose collective security, stability and
cohesion seems to be threatened in some way by outgroups that they should generally react
with greater hostility towards those outgroups than persons low in RWA. In similar fashion
SDO indexes how important the motivational goal or value of power, superiority and
dominance is for individuals. Persons high in SDO should therefore not be particularly
hostile towards all outgroups, or under all circumstances. However, when persons high in
SDO categorize themselves as members of a group which is higher in status and power than
outgroups, or competing over dominance or superiority with outgroups, they should
generally tend to dislike and devalue those outgroups in order to establish or justify their
relative superiority over them.
Overall, therefore, there is empirical support for the broad nature of the motivational
goals and values that underlie RWA and SDO and how they may be activated and directed
by intergroup conditions. However, the exact nature of these complementarities and how
these interactive processes may play out or not play out in varying conditions may be more
complex than envisaged by current theory, and may need more systematic research to be
fully clarified.
REFERENCES
Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, R. (1950). The authoritarian
personality. New York: Harper.
Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury
Park: Sage.
Akrami, N., Ekehammar, B., Bergh, R., Dahlstrand, E., & Malmsten, S. (2009). Prejudice: The
person in the situation. Journal of Research in Personality,43, 890–897.
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: University of
Manitoba Press.
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
598 J. Duckitt and C. G. Sibley
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other ‘authoritarian personality’. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). San Diego: Academic.
Asbrock, F., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (in press). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance
orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice: A longitudinal test. European Journal of
Personality.
Bizumic, B., Duckitt, J., Popadic, D., Dru, V., & Krauss, S. (2009). Psychological structure of
ethnocentrism. European Journal of Social Psychology,39, 871–899.
Cohrs, J. C., & Asbrock, F. (2009). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and
prejudice against threatening and competitive ethnic groups. European Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy,39, 270–289.
Cohrs, J. C., & Ibler, S. (2009). Authoritarianism, threat, and prejudice: An analysis of mediation and
moderation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,31, 81–94.
Cohrs, J. C., Kielmann, S., Maes, J., & Moschner, B. (2005). Effects of right-wing authoritarianism
and threat from terrorism on restriction of civil liberties. Analyses of Social Issues and Public
Policy,5, 263–276.
Cohrs, J. C., & Stelzl, M. (in press). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation as
predictors of host society member’s attitudes toward immigrants: Toward understanding cross-
national differences. Journal of Social Issues.
Dru, V. (2007). Authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice: Effects of various self-
categorization conditions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,43, 877–883.
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In
M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). San Diego:
Academic Press.
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.
Duckitt, J., Callaghan, J., & Wagner, C. (2005). Group identity and intergroup attitudes in South
Africa: A multidimensional approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,31, 633–
646.
Duckitt, J., Nasoordeen, S., & Sibley, C. G. (2008). Right wing authoritarianism and social
dominance orientation moderate the effects of immigrant characteristics on anti-immigrant
attitudes. Unpublished manuscript.
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.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). A dual-process motivational model of ideology, politics, and
prejudice. Psychological Inquiry,20, 98–109.
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.
Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (2006). Personality, identity styles, and authoritarianism: An integrative
study among late adolescents. European Journal of Personality,20, 397–417.
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.
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.
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.
Ekehammar, B., & Akrami, N. (2003). The relation between personality and prejudice: A variable-
and a person-centred. European Journal of Personality,17, 449–464.
Ekehammar, B., & Akrami, N. (2007). Personality and prejudice: From big five personality factors to
facets. Journal of Personality,75, 899–925.
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.
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
RWA, SDO and prejudice 599
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.
Esses, V., Jackson, L., Dovidio, J., & Hodson, G. (2005). Instrumental relations among groups: Group
competition, conflict, and prejudice. In J. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. Rudmin (Eds.), On the nature of
prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 227–253). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Feldman, S. (2003). Enforcing social conformity: A theory of authoritarianism. Political Psychology,
24, 41–74.
Feldman, S., & Stenner, K. (1997). Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Political Psychology,18,
741–770.
Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Pyszczynski, T. (1997). Terror management theory of self-esteem and
cultural worldviews. Empirical assessments and cultural refinements. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 61–139). Orlando, Florida: Academic.
Heaven, P., & Bucci, S. (2001). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation
and prejudice: An analysis using the IPIP measure. European Journal of Personality,15,
49–56.
Jost, J., & Banaji, M. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system justification and the production of
false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology,33, 1–27.
McFarland, S. (1998). Toward a typology of prejudiced persons. Paper Presented at the 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.
Meeus, J., Duriez, B., Vanbeselaere, N., Phalet, K., & Kuppens, P. (2009). Examining dispositional
and situational effects on outgroup attitudes. European Journal of Personality,23, 307–328.
Neuberg, S., & Cottrell, C. (2002). Intergroup emotions: A socio-functional approach. In D. Mackie,
& E. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup relations: Differential reactions to social groups
(pp. 265–283). New York: Psychology Press.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of
intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology,
17, 271–320.
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.
Rickert, E. (1998). Authoritarianism and economic threat: Implications for political behavior.
Political Psychology,19, 707–720.
Riek, B., Mania, E., & Gaertner, S. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic
review. Personality and Social Psychology Review,10, 336–353.
Roccato, M., & Ricolfi, L. (2005). On the correlation between right-wing authoritarianism and social
dominance orientation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,27, 187–200.
Schafer, J. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London: Chapman & Hall.
Schaller, M., Park, J., & Faulkner, J. (2003). Prehistoric dangers and contemporary prejudices.
European Review of Social Psychology,14, 105–137.
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.
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.
Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007b). Antecedents of men’s hostile and benevolent
sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin,33, 160–172.
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.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and
oppression. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Stenner, K. (2005). The authoritarian dynamic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
600 J. Duckitt and C. G. Sibley
Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.),
Reducing prejudice and discrimination: Claremont symposium on applied social psychology
(pp. 23–46). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin, &
S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, Cali-
fornia: 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 fundamen-
tally different ways. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,44, 1455–1464.
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. (2005). Authoritarianism and social dominance orientation: Relation-
ships with various forms of racism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,35, 2323–2344.
Van Hiel, A., Pandelaere, M., & Duriez, B. (2004). The impact of need for closure on conservative
beliefs and racism: Differential mediation by authoritarian submission and authoritarian dom-
inance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,30, 824–837.
Zavareh, M. (1997). Investigating public attitudes towards Asian and European immigrant groups:
The dynamics of prejudice. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Zick, A., Wolf, C., Ku
¨pper, B., Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Heitmeyer, W. (2008). The syndrome of
group-focused enmity: Theory and test. Journal of Social Issues,64, 363–383.
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 583–601 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
RWA, SDO and prejudice 601
