Threat and Right‐Wing Attitudes: A Cross‐National Approach

Threat relates to right‐wing ideological attitudes at the individual level. The present study aims to extend this relationship to the national level. More specifically, in a sample of 91 nations, we collected country‐level indicators of threat (including inflation, unemployment, gross national product, homicide rate, and life expectancy). Moreover, we analyzed data from the European and World Value Survey (total N = 134,516) to obtain aggregated country‐level indicators for social‐cultural and economic‐hierarchical right‐wing attitudes for each of these countries. In accordance with previous findings based on the individual level, a positive relationship between threat indicators and right‐wing attitudes emerged. This relationship was stronger than what was usually reported at the individual level. In the discussion, we focus on the mutually reinforcing influence at the individual and national levels in terms of right‐wing attitudes.     

The Differential Effects of Right‐Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation on Political Intolerance

Decades of scholarship have identified several determinants of political intolerance, including authoritarianism and normative threat. Previous attempts in the literature to associate other individual difference variables (i.e., social dominance orientation [SDO]) and situational variables (i.e., out‐groups' gains in power and status) have been unsuccessful. Using a dual‐process motivational (DPM) model framework, in Study 1 we found that SDO predicted political intolerance of groups with hierarchy‐attenuating political objectives. This relationship was consistent over and above other well‐known predictors of political intolerance, including right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA). RWA predicted intolerance of groups with both hierarchy‐attenuating and cohesion‐reducing objectives. In Study 2, we manipulated whether an immigrant‐rights group was described as presenting a normative threat or as gaining power and status. Consistent with extant findings, RWA moderated the effect of normative threat on political intolerance. More interestingly, SDO moderated the effect of gains in power and status on political intolerance. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

Predicting Political Biases Against the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party Movements

Accusations of hypocrisy have flown against both supporters and opponents of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and Tea Party movements. Integrating the ideologically objectionable premise model (IOPM), a newly devised model of political judgment, with political tolerance research, we find that how the political activities of OWS and Tea Party demonstrators are described determines whether or not biases against these groups emerge among people low and high in right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA). Specifically, people low in RWA were more biased against the Tea Party than OWS regardless of whether the groups engaged in normatively threatening or reassuring political behavior, whereas people high in RWA were more biased against OWS than the Tea Party when the groups engaged in normatively threatening (and therefore objectionable), but not normatively reassuring (and therefore acceptable) behavior. These findings further support the IOPM's contention that premise objectionableness, not right‐wing orientation, determines biases in political judgment.     

Voting “Against Islamization”? How Anti‐Islamic Right‐Wing,Populist Political Campaign Ads Influence Explicit and Implicit Attitudes Toward Muslims as Well as Voting Preferences

We explore the effects of anti‐Islamic right‐wing, populist political campaign ads on voting intention for a right‐wing populist party using a quota‐based online experiment (N = 174). Additionally, we investigate implicit attitudes (i.e., automatic affective associations) and explicit attitudes (i.e., overtly expressed evaluations) toward Muslims as underlying mechanisms of these effects. We find that exposure to the political campaign ads prompts explicit hostile attitudes toward Muslims mediated by implicit attitudes. Explicit attitudes in turn shape voting intention. Moreover, implicit attitudes toward Muslims predict voting preference beyond the influence of explicit attitudes. Thus, resentments toward Muslims may foster voters’ support for anti‐Islamic right‐wing populist parties even “under the radar” of conscious awareness. In sum, this study demonstrates for the first time the entire process of right‐wing, populist political campaign ads’ effects on voting preferences via implicit and explicit attitudes toward Muslims.     

Not in My Backyard! Authoritarianism,Social Dominance Orientation,and Support for Strict Immigration Policies at Home and Abroad

Many controversial immigration policies have recently emerged across the United States and abroad. We explore the role of national context in shaping support for such policies. Specifically, we examine whether the extent to which ideological attitudes—Right‐Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)—predict policy support is moderated by the national context of the policy. Across three studies, United States citizens read about a controversial immigration policy affecting either their own country (United States) or a foreign country (Israel or Singapore) and indicated their support for the policy. Results reveal that SDO predicts policy support, regardless of its national context; this effect is mediated by perceived competition. Conversely, RWA predicts policy support only if the policy affects domestic immigration; this effect is mediated by perceptions of cultural threat. Consistent with prior research, the present findings highlight the role of perceived cultural threat to one's ingroup and perceived competition in shaping attitudes toward immigration and shed light on some of the motivations underlying the recent rise in popularity of strict immigration policies.     

The Structure and Sources of Right‐wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation

Right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) are widely used constructs in research on social and political attitudes. This study examined their hierarchical and correlative structure (across sexes, generations and rater perspectives), as well as how genetic and environmental factors may contribute to individual differences in them (using different rater perspectives and nuclear twin family data). We found a substantive common aspect (beyond shared artificial variance arising from socially desirable responding) underlying both RWA and SDO: aggression against subordinate groups. We discussed how this aspect could help to explain the commonly reported correlation between the two concepts in Western countries. Estimates of genetic and environmental components in RWA and SDO based on self‐reports were quite comparable with those based on peer reports. When controlling for error variance and taking assortative mating into account, individual differences in RWA were primarily due to genetic contributions including genotype–environment correlation, whereas variance in SDO was largely attributable to environmental sources shared and not shared by twins. The findings are discussed in terms of the utility of RWA and SDO as basic constructs to describe individual differences in social attitudes and with respect to the different patterns of genetic and environmental influences that underlie them. Copyright © 2016 European Association of Personality Psychology     

Speaking (Un‐)Truth to Power: Conspiracy Mentality as a Generalised Political Attitude

Conspiracy theories explain complex world events with reference to secret plots hatched by powerful groups. Belief in such theories is largely determined by a general propensity towards conspirational thinking. Such a conspiracy mentality can be understood as a generalised political attitude, distinct from established generalised political attitudes such as right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) (Study 1a, N = 497) that is temporally relatively stable (Study 1b and 1c, total N = 196). Three further studies (combined N = 854) show that in contrast to RWA and SDO, conspiracy mentality is related to prejudice against high‐power groups that are perceived as less likeable and more threatening than low‐power groups, whereas SDO and RWA are associated with an opposite reaction to perceptions of power. Study 5 (N = 1852) investigates the relationship of conspiracy mentality with political behavioural intentions in a specific catastrophic scenario (i.e. the damage to the Fukushima nuclear reactor after the 2011 tsunami in Japan) revealing a hitherto neglected role of conspiracy mentality in motivating social action aimed at changing the status quo. Copyright © 2013 European Association of Personality Psychology.     

Do they want contact with us? The role of intergroup contact meta‐perceptions on positive contact and attitudes

This research examined the role of contact meta‐perceptions on positive intergroup contact and outgroup attitudes. Specifically, perceptions of the ingroup's and outgroup's desire for intergroup contact were simultaneously tested as predictors of intergroup contact and outgroup attitudes. Three correlational studies were conducted in three distinct contexts, international students' view of British students, general public views of people with schizophrenia, and both Muslims' and non‐Muslims' views of one another. Among these three intergroup relationships, the role of outgroup contact meta‐perceptions was consistently highlighted as predictor of intergroup contact. In stark contrast, ingroup contact meta‐perceptions did not emerge as a significant predictor of contact. Intergroup contact then predicted outgroup attitudes (Studies 1, 2, and 3) and stereotyping (Studies 2 and 3) via reduced anxiety (Studies 2 and 3). The results demonstrate the importance of explicitly highlighting outgroups' openness for intergroup interactions and are discussed in the context of intergroup relations literature.     

Religion,Prejudice, and Authoritarianism: Is RWA a Boon or Bane to the Psychology of Religion?

In research on religiosity and prejudice, right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) has been studied alongside variables such as fundamentalism and orthodoxy. Four concerns regarding research on the relationship between RWA and religiosity are identified: (1) the overlap of religiosity and prejudice within the RWA scale; (2) the inflation of relationships by correlating part‐whole measures; (3) covariation in the extremes of the construct hiding the possible independence of components within RWA; and (4) statistical artifacts arising in multiple regression from the combination of these factors. We elaborate these four issues and then demonstrate how they can lead to different interpretations of some previously published data. The article concludes with suggestions for the management and resolution of these issues that may allow RWA to continue to be used in religiosity and prejudice research and how it might evolve to become the boon to researchers that they seek.