Human values and ideological beliefs as predictors of attitudes toward immigrants across 20 countries: The country-level moderating role of threat

Immigration is a worldwide subject of interest, and studies about attitudes toward immigrants have been frequent due to immigration crises in different locations across the globe. We aimed at understanding individual-level effects of human values and ideological beliefs (Right-Wing Authoritarianism—RWA, and Social Dominance Orientation—SDO) on attitudes toward immigrants, and whether country-level variables (perception of Islamic fundamentalism as a threat, perception of immigrants as a threat, and international migrant stock) moderate these relations. With representative samples from 20 countries (N = 21,362; the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Oceania), and using Multilevel Bayesian regressions, results showed the negative effect of RWA, SDO, and existence values on attitudes toward immigrants, and the positive effects of suprapersonal and interactive values. Cross-level interactions indicated that the effects of RWA, SDO, and suprapersonal and existence values were intensified in countries with societally high levels of perceiving Islamic fundamentalism as a threat. International migrant stock served as a country-level moderator for the effects of SDO and RWA only. When country-level moderators were included simultaneously, Islamic fundamentalism as a threat was the most consistent moderator. Framing theory is offered as a plausible explanation of these results.     

Developmental changes in sexual prejudice from early to late adolescence: the effects of gender, race, and ideology on different patterns of change

This study documented significant changes in prejudice toward gay and lesbian individuals among adolescents from the ages of 12 to 18 years. Moreover, in line with developmental theories of prejudice, there was substantial variability in these patterns, partially predicted by the gender and ideological beliefs (reflected by social dominance orientation [SDO]) of individuals. Boys reported higher prejudice at age 12 than girls. SDO also accounted for initial differences in levels of prejudice. Further, although prejudice toward gay men did decrease among girls over time, it did not decrease among boys. Prejudice toward lesbians decreased at similar rates for boys and girls. These different trajectories are explained within the context of gender socialization processes during adolescence. In addition, fluctuations in adolescents' own SDO corresponded with fluctuations in their level of prejudice, over and above those tied to age-related changes. This association was even stronger among those with overall higher SDO tendencies than others. However, SDO, when treated as a stable invariant factor, did not predict different patterns of progressive age-related change in prejudice. These results extend the research on sexual prejudice by examining it within a broader and more dynamic developmental framework, in greater alignment with developmental theories of prejudice.     

The role of ingroup threat and conservative ideologies on prejudice against immigrants in two samples of Italian adults

This research investigated the relationship among perception of ingroup threats (realistic and symbolic), conservative ideologies (social dominance orientation [SDO] and right-wing authoritarianism [RWA]), and prejudice against immigrants. Data were collected with a cross-sectional design in two samples: non-student Italian adults (n = 223) and healthcare professionals (n = 679). Results were similar in both samples and indicated that symbolic and realistic threats, as well as SDO and RWA, positively and significantly predicted anti-immigrant prejudice. Moreover, the model considering SDO and RWA as mediators of threats’ effects on prejudice showed a better fit than the model in which ingroup threats mediated the effects of SDO and RWA on prejudice against immigrants. Accordingly, SDO and RWA partially mediated the effect of both symbolic and realistic threats, which maintained a significant effect on prejudice against immigrants, however.     

When threat to society becomes a threat to oneself: Implications for right‐wing attitudes and ethnic prejudice

The relationships between threat on one hand and right‐wing attitudes and ethnic prejudice on the other were investigated in a heterogeneous sample (N = 588). Specifically, we considered the perception of economic and terroristic threats in terms of their consequences at the societal and personal levels. Previous studies revealed that societal consequences of threat, rather than personal consequences, are related to right‐wing attitudes. However, the present results challenge these findings. More specifically, three important results emerged. First, items probing the distinct threat levels loaded on separate dimensions for economic and terroristic threat, validating the distinction between societal and personal threat consequences. Second, consistent with previous research, this study revealed that perceived societal consequences of threat yield strong and robust relationships with all target variables. However, personal consequences of threat were also associated with higher levels of right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), and ethnic prejudice in particular. Third, societal and personal consequences of threat interacted in explaining the target variables. More specifically, feeling personally threatened by terrorism was only related to higher levels of RWA in the presence of low levels of threat to society, whereas experiencing personal economic threat was only related to higher levels of SDO and ethnic prejudice when high societal economic threat was experienced. In sum, although the perception of societal consequences of threat plays a prominent role in explaining right‐wing attitudes and ethnic prejudice, the perception of being personally affected by threat is also associated with higher levels of RWA and SDO, and especially ethnic prejudice.     

Social dominance orientation,prejudice, and discrimination: A new computer-based method for studying discriminatory behaviors

A number of studies have shown that the scale of social dominance orientation (SDO), used to measure the degree of preference for inequality among social groups, is a predictive measure of social and political attitudes toward stigmatized outgroups. However, the relationship between SDO and discrimination has received little attention. The main goal of this study was to assess the validity of a new computer-based method used to measure discriminatory behaviors in a laboratory setting. An additional goal was to test the mediating role of prejudice in the relation between SDO and discrimination. The results provide a first validation of this new method and demonstrate that the effect of SDO on discrimination is mediated by prejudice.     

The impact of submissive versus dominant authoritarianism and negative emotions on prejudice

The two present studies tested the relationships between the negative emotions of fear, anger, and sadness and the social attitudes of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). It was hypothesized that these specific emotions interact with the social attitudes exerting an influence on prejudice toward outgroups with varying status levels. The emotions studied reflected general predispositions to experience particular affective states (Study 1) or were evoked by the activation of various emotionally-laden episodic memories (Study 2). The results revealed that anger increases RWA based prejudice and fear increases SDO based prejudice when a low status outgroup is considered. Sadness enhances both RWA and SDO based prejudice when a high status outgroup is targeted.     

A joke is just a joke (except when it isn't): cavalier humor beliefs facilitate the expression of group dominance motives

Past research reveals preferences for disparaging humor directed toward disliked others. The group-dominance model of humor appreciation introduces the hypothesis that beyond initial outgroup attitudes, social dominance motives predict favorable reactions toward jokes targeting low-status outgroups through a subtle hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myth: cavalier humor beliefs (CHB). CHB characterizes a lighthearted, less serious, uncritical, and nonchalant approach toward humor that dismisses potential harm to others. As expected, CHB incorporates both positive (affiliative) and negative (aggressive) humor functions that together mask biases, correlating positively with prejudices and prejudice-correlates (including social dominance orientation [SDO]; Study 1). Across 3 studies in Canada, SDO and CHB predicted favorable reactions toward jokes disparaging Mexicans (low-status outgroup). Neither individual difference predicted neutral (nonintergroup) joke reactions, despite the jokes being equally amusing and more inoffensive overall. In Study 2, joke content targeting Mexicans, Americans (high-status outgroup), and Canadians (high-status ingroup) was systematically controlled. Although Canadians preferred jokes labeled as anti-American overall, an underlying subtle pattern emerged at the individual-difference level: Only those higher in SDO appreciated those jokes labeled as anti-Mexican (reflecting social dominance motives). In all studies, SDO predicted favorable reactions toward low-status outgroup jokes almost entirely through heightened CHB, a subtle yet potent legitimatizing myth that "justifies" expressions of group dominance motives. In Study 3, a pretest-posttest design revealed the implications of this justification process: CHB contributes to trivializing outgroup jokes as inoffensive (harmless), subsequently contributing to postjoke prejudice. The implications for humor in intergroup contexts are considered.     

Differential Effects of Right‐Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation on Dimensions of Generalized Prejudice in Brazil

Previous research within a dual‐process cognitive‐motivational theory of ideology and prejudice has indicated that dimensions of generalized prejudice are structured around attitudes towards dangerous, derogated and dissident groups, and that these prejudice dimensions are differentially predicted by the ideological attitudes of Right‐Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). However, to date, these findings have been restricted to New Zealand samples. We describe two studies examining whether the structure of prejudiced attitudes and the differential prediction by RWA and SDO replicate in the Brazilian context, incorporating context‐relevant examples of each group—politicians, those from the northeast region of Brazil, and environmentalists. Results broadly supported the three‐factor structure of dangerous, derogated, and dissident groups. Consistent with previous research, regression and structural equation analyses showed that RWA explained prejudice against dangerous groups, SDO explained prejudice against derogated groups, and both RWA and SDO explained prejudice against dissident groups. This research provides some evidence for the generalizability of the three‐dimensional structure of generalized prejudice and differential prediction by RWA and SDO. Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology     

Assimilation,multiculturalism, and colorblindness: Mediated and moderated relationships between social dominance orientation and prejudice

Using correlational and experimental data, we examined the degree to which personal and perceived normative support for the acculturation ideologies of assimilation, multiculturalism, and colorblindness mediated and moderated the relationship between social dominance orientation (SDO) and prejudice among 299 White students at three American colleges. Correlational results indicated that personal support for the acculturation ideologies mediated the SDO–prejudice relationship. Personal support for assimilation (a hierarchy-enhancing ideology) positively related to SDO; multiculturalism and colorblindness (hierarchy-attenuating ideologies) negatively related to SDO. An experimental manipulation varied whether assimilation, multiculturalism, or colorblindness was considered normative in the United States. In addition to a control, a fifth condition primed the Obama presidency. SDO related most strongly to prejudice toward American immigrants and ethnic minorities when assimilation norms and the Obama presidency were primed. Efforts to reduce the associations between SDO and prejudice are discussed in terms of highlighting hierarchy-attenuating national norms of multiculturalism and colorblindness.     

Right wing authoritarianism,social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice

Prior research suggests that individuals' prejudiced attitudes form a single generalized dimension predicted by Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). A dual process approach, however, expects different domains of generalized prejudice that relate differentially to RWA and SDO. To test this, 212 participants rated attitudes to 24 typically disliked groups. Factor analysis revealed three distinct generalized prejudice dimensions. Hierarchical Linear Modelling indicated that attitudes towards a ‘dangerous’ groups domain was significantly related only with RWA, attitudes toward a second ‘derogated’ groups domain was related only to SDO, and attitudes toward a third, ‘dissident’ groups, domain was significantly related to both, but powerfully with RWA and weakly with SDO. These findings have implications for explaining and reducing prejudice. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups

A dual-process model of individual differences in prejudice proneness proposes that Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) will influence prejudice against particular outgroups through different motivational mechanisms. RWA should cause negative attitudes toward groups seen as threatening social control, order, cohesion, and stability, such as deviant groups, and negativity toward these groups should be mediated through perceived threat from them. SDO should cause negative attitudes toward groups that activate competitiveness over relative dominance and superiority, such as socially subordinate groups low in power and status, and negativity toward these groups should be mediated through competitiveness toward them. Findings from four student samples that assessed attitudes toward seven social groups selected as likely to vary systematically in social threat and social subordination supported these predictions. The findings have implications for reconciling intergroup and individual difference explanations of prejudice and for interventions to reduce prejudice.     

Social dominance‐based threat reactions to immigrants in need of assistance

The present investigation examined how individuals higher in social dominance orientation (SDO) react to experimentally induced intergroup threat in terms of support for helping immigrants. Participants read editorials describing an incoming immigrant outgroup posing realistic threats (to tangible resources and well‐being), symbolic threats (to values and traditions) or no threats. Participants higher in SDO exhibited greater resistance to helping immigrants upon exposure to realistic, symbolic, (Experiments 1 and 2), or combined realistic–symbolic (Experiment 2) intergroup threats, but not when the same immigrants posed no threats. In Experiment 2, SDO exerted indirect effects on modern prejudice through both heightened infra‐humanization and intergroup anxiety, with modern prejudice itself predicting greater resistance and indifference to helping immigrants. Moderated mediation analyses revealed strongest SDO‐infra‐humanization relations under conditions of symbolic threat. Implications for prejudice‐reduction interventions are considered. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Ideology,Prejudice, and Attitudes Toward Sexual Minority Social Policies and Organizations

This study tested the effects of multiple ideologies on support for restrictive policies against gay and lesbian individuals and organizations and if these effects were mediated by sexual prejudice. Social dominance orientation (SDO), conservatism, and right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) each had significant direct and indirect effects. SDO had the most consistent direct effects in addition to its effects through sexual prejudice. The direct effects of conservatism were smaller and similar in size to its indirect effects through prejudice. Although the direct effect of RWA was significant for policy attitudes, its effect was entirely mediated through sexual prejudice for organization opposition. Results suggest that high‐RWA individuals adopt their positions largely because of prejudice toward sexual minorities, while high‐SDO individuals adopt their positions partly out of prejudice and partly because these positions perpetuate hierarchies between heterosexuals and sexual minorities. Results also diminish the principled conservatism argument that conservative positions on these policies and organizations are absent of prejudice. As policies continue to be enacted that affect the sexual minority community, research is needed to identify the underlying motivations for individuals' positions toward these policies.     

Framing (implicitly) matters: The role of religion in attitudes toward immigrants and Muslims in Denmark

Denmark is currently experiencing the highest immigration rate in its modern history. Population surveys indicate that negative public attitudes toward immigrants actually stem from attitudes toward their (perceived) Islamic affiliation. We used a framing paradigm to investigate the explicit and implicit attitudes of Christian and Atheist Danes toward targets framed as Muslims or as immigrants. The results showed that explicit and implicit attitudes were more negative when the target was framed as a Muslim, rather than as an immigrant. Interestingly, implicit attitudes were qualified by the participants’ religion. Specifically, analyses revealed that Christians demonstrated more negative implicit attitudes toward immigrants than Muslims. Conversely, Atheists demonstrated more negative implicit attitudes toward Muslims than Atheists. These results suggest a complex relationship between religion, and implicit and explicit prejudice. Both the religious affiliation of the perceiver and the perceived religious affiliation of the target are key factors in social perception.     

Are emotionally intelligent people less prejudiced? The importance of emotion management skills for outgroup attitudes

People vary in their ability to understand, process, and manage information about one's own and others’ emotions, a construct known as Emotional Intelligence (EI). Past research highlighted the importance of EI in interpersonal relations as well as the key role of emotions underlying outgroup prejudice. Remarkably, hardly any research has investigated the associations between EI and outgroup prejudice. In three studies (total N = 922) conducted in Spain and the United Kingdom, we measured emotional intelligence using self-report and performance tests and prejudice toward a variety of outgroups. Results showed that those with stronger performance-based emotion management skills expressed lower generalized ethnic prejudice (Studies 1–3), more positive attitudes toward immigrants (Study 2a) and refugees (Study 2b), and less homophobic attitudes (Study 3). This negative association between emotion management and prejudice was found with different performance-based EI measures and held after controlling for self-perceived EI (Study 1) and self-reported abilities to regulate emotions (Study 3). Study 3 further demonstrated that higher empathy partly accounted for the association between emotion management and prejudice. The findings suggest that emotion management abilities play an important, but so far largely neglected role in generalized prejudice.     

Implicit and explicit ethnocentrism: revisiting the ideologies of prejudice

Two studies investigated relationships among individual differences in implicit and explicit prejudice, right-wing ideology, and rigidity in thinking. The first study examined these relationships focusing on White Americans' prejudice toward Black Americans. The second study provided the first test of implicit ethnocentrism and its relationship to explicit ethnocentrism by studying the relationship between attitudes toward five social groups. Factor analyses found support for both implicit and explicit ethnocentrism. In both studies, mean explicit attitudes toward out groups were positive, whereas implicit attitudes were negative, suggesting that implicit and explicit prejudices are distinct; however, in both studies, implicit and explicit attitudes were related (r = .37, .47). Latent variable modeling indicates a simple structure within this ethnocentric system, with variables organized in order of specificity. These results lead to the conclusion that (a) implicit ethnocentrism exists and (b) it is related to and distinct from explicit ethnocentrism.     

Janus‐faced nature of colorblindness: Social dominance orientation moderates the relationship between colorblindness and outgroup attitudes

Colorblindness is a popular diversity ideology promoted as a means to intergroup harmony in ethnically diverse nations. While some research suggests that colorblindness reduces intergroup bias, other work suggests that colorblindness may increase it. The present research utilizes a national sample of European New Zealanders to examine whether the relationship between colorblind endorsement and outgroup attitudes is moderated by perceivers' individual differences in social dominance orientation (SDO). Data revealed that for participants low in SDO, colorblind beliefs predicted more negative attitudes toward ethnic minorities. However, for those high in SDO, colorblind beliefs predicted more positive attitudes toward ethnic minorities. Taken together, these findings suggest that colorblindness is not all good or bad for intergroup relations—instead, its effects may depend on perceivers' own egalitarian sentiments.     

Authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice: Effects of various self-categorization conditions

One hundred and seventy nine students first answered RWA and SDO scales were assigned to experimental conditions that primed different forms of self-categorization, and finally responded for prejudice scales for three target ethnic groups. The results showed first, that RWA and SDO correlate with prejudice in a control condition. Second, RWA and SDO correlated differently with prejudice depending on the way in which membership to social group was primed. When a prime as member of a group oriented to devotion to the in-group norms and values was used, the correlation of RWA and in-group identification with prejudice was significant, but when a prime as member of a competitive group was used, only SDO correlated significantly with prejudice. The results were discussed as identifying two different schemas of social categorization according to which RWA and SDO expressed sets of social beliefs and attitudes relevant for inter-group relations.