Personality and support for universal human rights: a review and test of a structural model

All individual differences that predict support for international human rights are first reviewed: support for human rights is linked most positively to "globalism" (other international and environmental concerns), "identification with all humanity," principled moral reasoning, benevolence, and dispositional empathy. It is related most negatively to ethnocentrism and its root dispositions, the social dominance orientation, and authoritarianism. Other correlates are also noted. Secondly, a structural model of the effects of authoritarianism, social dominance, ethnocentrism and identification with all humanity upon commitment to human rights is presented and tested. Across 2 studies (Study 1, N=218 nonstudent adults; Study 2, N=102 university students), ethnocentrism and identification with all humanity directly predicted human rights commitment. The effects of authoritarianism upon this commitment were fully mediated through enhanced ethnocentrism and reduced identification with all humanity. The effects of social dominance were similar, but its direct effect upon human rights commitment remained significant and was not, in the second study, mediated by reduced dispositional empathy.     

Who Cares About Human Rights?

Previous studies of human rights attitudes are reviewed, new measures are reported, and a three-factor model is identified (Human Rights Endorsement, Commitment, and Restriction). Individual differences that predict attitudes on each factor overlapped but differed. Dispositional empathy, education, and global knowledge contributed to an endorsement of human rights ideals, but none of these affected commitment or restriction. Globalism (vs. nationalism) and principled moral reasoning strengthened human rights commitment, while ethnocentrism and the social dominance orientation weakened it. Authoritarianism, ethnocentrism, and belief that the world cannot be changed increased a willingness to restrict the rights of unpopular groups, while principled moral reasoning and self-rated liberalism decreased it. In short, the individual differences that influence human rights attitudes depend substantially upon which dimension of these attitudes is considered.     

The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: testing a dual process model

The issue of personality and prejudice has been largely investigated in terms of authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. However, these seem more appropriately conceptualized as ideological attitudes than as personality dimensions. The authors describe a causal model linking dual dimensions of personality, social world view, ideological attitudes, and intergroup attitudes. Structural equation modeling with data from American and White Afrikaner students supported the model, suggesting that social conformity and belief in a dangerous world influence authoritarian attitudes, whereas toughmindedness and belief in a competitive jungle world influence social dominance attitudes, and these two ideological attitude dimensions influence intergroup attitudes. The model implies that dual motivational and cognitive processes, which may be activated by different kinds of situational and intergroup dynamics, may underlie 2 distinct dimensions of prejudice.     

The Dimensions of Generalized Prejudice within the Dual-Process Model: the Mediating Role of Moral Foundations

In our study we investigated how individualizing and binding moral foundations partially mediate the relationship between the attitudinal clusters of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. We found that binding moral foundations partially mediate the association between RWA and negative attitudes towards dissident and dangerous groups, while individualizing moral foundations had a positive relationship with the evaluations of all three clusters of dissident, dangerous, and derogated outgroups, and partially mediated the effects of both SDO and RWA. Based on these results we claim that intergroup attitudes are at least partly determined by moral concerns, and different personal needs activate or inhibit different moral concerns. Furthermore, while individualizing moral foundations seem to have a universal prejudice reducing effect, the effect of binding foundations is selective, increasing prejudice principally against dangerous and derogated outgroups that threaten one’s personal need for security and certainty.     

Differential effects of intergroup contact for authoritarians and social dominators: a dual process model perspective

Intergroup contact is among the most effective ways to improve intergroup attitudes. Research examining whether the effects of contact are contingent on individual differences is limited, however. The authors test a dual process model perspective of individual differences in contact and prejudice. Their model predicts that intergroup contact should be particularly effective for people high in right-wing authoritarianism, but not those high in social dominance orientation, because these ideological attitudes are driven by different underlying motivational goals. The authors confirm these hypotheses in longitudinal (N = 805) and cross-sectional (N = 1,343) national probability samples. They also isolate perceived social threat, but not competitive threat, as a mediator for the interaction of right-wing authoritarianism and contact on prejudice. The authors elaborate on the individual difference mechanisms that facilitate and inhibit the effects of intergroup contact on prejudice and discuss how these relations may depend on contextual factors and the varying functions of prejudice.     

Intercultural Effectiveness,Authoritarianism, and Ethnic Prejudice

This study examined the extent to which intercultural effectiveness dimensions (cultural empathy, open‐mindedness, social initiative, emotional stability, flexibility) and right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) predicted the ethnic prejudice of 166 Australian respondents toward Indigenous Australians. Intercultural effectiveness was assessed on the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire, and RWA was assessed on the RWA scale, whereas ethnic prejudice was measured on the Modern Racism Scale. The results revealed that intercultural effectiveness (open‐mindedness, flexibility, cultural empathy) was inversely related to ethnic prejudice, with open‐mindedness being the main predictor. Intercultural effectiveness was also inversely related to RWA, the latter being directly related to ethnic prejudice. The implications of these findings for the potential role of intercultural effectiveness in combating ethnic prejudice are discussed.     

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.     

Support for Anti‐Muslim Policies: The Role of Political Traits and Threat Perception

We explored how political beliefs and attitudes predict support for anti‐Muslim policies and extremist behavior in the United States following the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. A large sample completed measures of authoritarianism, social dominance orientation (SDO), generalized prejudice, identification with all humanity (IWAH), perceptions of Muslim threat, and support for anti‐Muslim policies and behaviors. These measures accounted for 73% of the variance in moderate anti‐Muslim policies and 55% of the variance in extreme anti‐Muslim policies. Authoritarianism and SDO directly and indirectly predicted support for anti‐Muslim policies, with their effects partially mediated by generalized prejudice, IWAH, and perceptions of Muslims as threatening. Threat both mediated and moderated the relationship between authoritarianism and anti‐Muslim policies. A negative interaction between authoritarianism and perceptions of Muslims as threatening predicted moderate anti‐Muslim policies, but a positive interaction predicted extreme anti‐Muslim policies. A tentative explanation is offered. Perceptions of Muslim threat was consistently a powerful predictor of anti‐Muslim policies and willingness to engage in extremist behaviors targeting Muslims. Programs to combat anti‐Muslim prejudice should consider the role of threat‐related stereotypes in expressions of anti‐Muslim prejudice.     

The Common Beliefs Survey-III, The Situational Self-Statement, and Affective State Inventory and Their Relationship to Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation

The concept of irrational beliefs is central to rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). These beliefs are defined by their absolutist and dogmatic qualities. The terms absolutist and dogmatic are also characteristic of some personality constructs, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) being foremost among these. A relatively new personality construct, social dominance orientation (SDO) is similar to RWA in that both are excellent predictors of prejudice. As these two constructs are independent of each other, it has been suggested that they have different etiological underpinnings. The present study examined the relationship between the presence of irrational beliefs in people scoring high in RWA and SDO. Results suggest that high RWAs are more likely than high SDOs to endorse irrational beliefs. These findings add to the growing literature examining the relationship between these two personality constructs as well as suggesting possible implications for the use of REBT with clients scoring high on these personality dimensions.     

Parent–Child Similarity in Common and Specific Components of Prejudice: The Role of Ideological Attitudes and Political Discussion

Using a representative sample of Belgian adolescents (N = 1530) and both their parents, we investigated the parent–child similarity in prejudice towards different out‐groups and ideological attitudes (right‐wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation). Contrary to previous studies, first, we distinguished between common and specific components of prejudice to test whether the parent–child similarity in one specific type of prejudice was symptomatic of parent–child similarity in prejudice towards out‐groups in general. Second, we evaluated whether the parent–child similarity in common and specific components of prejudice was related to the parent–child similarity in ideological attitudes. Third, we investigated the moderating role of political discussion in the intergenerational framework of ideology and prejudice. Results indicated that parent–child similarity was particularly pronounced for the common rather than the specific component of prejudice and that the similarity in ideological attitudes was partly related to the similarity in the common component of prejudice. Finally, adolescents who discuss social and political issues more (versus less) frequently with their parents more strongly resembled their parents in the common component of prejudice and levels of authoritarianism. These results suggest that generalized prejudice runs in families and highlight politicization of the family as an important socialization mechanism. Copyright © 2015 European Association of Personality Psychology     

Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: a dual-process motivational model

Early theorists assumed that sociopolitical or ideological attitudes were organized along a single left-right dimension and directly expressed a basic personality dimension. Empirical findings, however, did not support this and suggested that there seem to be 2 distinct ideological attitude dimensions, best captured by the constructs of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, which express 2 distinct sets of motivational goals or values. We outline a dual-process motivational (DPM) model of how these 2 dimensions originate from particular personality dispositions and socialized worldview beliefs and how and why their different underlying motivational goals or values generate their wide-ranging effects on social outcomes, such as prejudice and politics. We then review new research bearing on the model and conclude by noting promising directions for future research.     

Social Dominance Orientation and Right‐Wing Authoritarianism: Additive and Interactive Effects on Political Conservatism

It is commonly accepted that social dominance orientation (SDO) and right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) are potent unique predictors of a variety of prejudice and prejudice‐related constructs. However, contrary to some predictions, there has been little evidence that these constructs interact to produce this outcome—they appear to be additive but not interactive in their prediction of prejudice. We extend the interaction hypothesis to consideration of another broadly relevant construct—political ideology. Drawing from 14 independent New Zealand–based samples, we show, through meta‐analysis and multilevel random coefficient modelling, that SDO and RWA additively and interactively predict levels of political conservatism operationalised in a variety of ways. Specifically, both constructs are associated with increasing political conservatism, and the lowest levels of conservatism (or highest levels of political liberalism) are found in those lowest in both SDO and RWA.     

Gender, Personality, and Prejudice: The Display of Authoritarianism and Social Dominance in Interviews with College Men and Women

One hundred fifty-five men and 256 women were assessed on authoritarianism, social dominance, and other personality traits. Authoritarianism showed few correlations with personality measures; however, social dominance correlated with disagreeableness, coldness, vindictiveness, and aggressiveness for all participants and with masculine interests for men. Ninety-three questionnaire participants (47 men and 46 women) were interviewed and rated on various personality traits. Both authoritarianism and social dominance were highly judgable from interviews. Authoritarian individuals, especially men, were judged to be defensive, maladjusted, and prejudiced. Socially dominant individuals, especially women, were judged to be disagreeable, cold, and prejudiced. Authoritarianism correlated particularly strongly with negative attitudes toward homosexuality, and social dominance with the endorsement of gender inequality. Results are discussed in terms of two kinds of dispositional prejudice.     

Islamic Personal Religion and Moral Reasoning in Social Justice and Equality: The Evidence From Indonesian College Students

Researchers have long been concerned with the relationship between religion and social justice and equality. Hoping to understand this association at the individual level, researchers have taken on the psychological models of personal religion and Kohlberg's moral reasoning. This article extends this line of inquiry to Islam, using Muslim college and graduate students in Indonesia. Specifically, it explores the extent to which religious orientations and Islamic doctrinal orthodoxy relate to Kohlbergian principled reasoning in justice and equality. In view of the results, the Muslim respondents are skewed toward the nonprincipled mode of Kohlbergian moral reasoning. In addition, those with greater intrinsic religiosity are likely to respond in an increasingly principled manner to moral dilemmas, whereas personal extrinsic religiosity tends to increase conventional practice of moral reasoning. Quest religiosity and doctrinal orthodoxy have little to do with Kohlbergian principled reasoning. The implications of these findings are discussed by giving attention to the accent of personal mediation, Islam as a belief system, and congregational worship to principled reasoning in social justice.     

Interpersonal disgust, ideological orientations, and dehumanization as predictors of intergroup attitudes

Disgust is a basic emotion characterized by revulsion and rejection, yet it is relatively unexamined in the literature on prejudice. In the present investigation, interpersonal-disgust sensitivity (e.g., not wanting to wear clean used clothes or to sit on a warm seat vacated by a stranger) in particular predicted negative attitudes toward immigrants, foreigners, and socially deviant groups, even after controlling for concerns with contracting disease. The mechanisms underlying the link between interpersonal disgust and attitudes toward immigrants were explored using a path model. As predicted, the effect of interpersonal-disgust sensitivity on group attitudes was indirect, mediated by ideological orientations (social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism) and dehumanizing perceptions of the out-group. The effects of social dominance orientation on group attitudes were both direct and indirect, via dehumanization. These results establish a link between disgust sensitivity and prejudice that is not accounted for by fear of infection, but rather is mediated by ideological orientations and dehumanizing group representations. Implications for understanding and reducing prejudice are discussed.     

Can Ethical Ideologies Predict Prejudice?

Idealism and relativism were designed to assess different ethical ideological views. Their relation with attitudes toward a variety of outgroups has not been previously studied. Understanding how concerns over ethical principles and consequences are related to prejudiced attitudes could provide some insight into these constructs and into the nature of prejudice. In two studies totaling 311 participants, participants completed measures on ethical ideologies, right-wing authoritarianism, and attitudes toward various outgroups. The differential predictive validities of ethical ideologies, in comparison to right-wing authoritarianism, on prejudicial attitudes toward dangerous, derogated, and dissident outgroup members were examined. We found that both idealism and relativism contributed to predicting attitudes regarding outgroup members, over and above right-wing authoritarianism. As such, people’s personal moral standards and code of conduct for dealing with interpersonal problems and transgressions can partly explain their negative attitudes toward outgroup members. More research is required to determine the unique influence of ethical ideologies over other constructs previously shown to predict prejudice.     

Effects of social dominance orientation and right‐wing authoritarianism on corrupt intention: The role of moral outrage

Previous research suggested that dominance orientation and authoritarianism may be associated with corruption, but little research has verified this assumption or uncovered its psychological processes. In this article, we examined empirically the relationships between social dominance orientation (SDO), right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) and corrupt intention and explored the mediating role of moral outrage on these relationships. A total of 677 college students participated in the study and completed measures of SDO, RWA, moral outrage and corrupt intention. Our findings demonstrated that both SDO and RWA were positively associated with corrupt intention. Additionally, moral outrage partially mediated the relation between SDO and corrupt intention and fully mediated the relation between RWA and corrupt intention. Specifically, the results indicated that higher SDO or RWA was associated with reduced moral outrage and increased corrupt intention. This implies that the enhancement of morality and moral outrage may inhibit corrupt intention.     

Patterns and Personality Correlates of Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Toward Christians and Muslims

We explored implicit and explicit attitudes toward Muslims and Christians within a predominantly Christian sample in the United States. Implicit attitudes were assessed with the Implicit Association Test (IAT), a computer program that recorded reaction times as participants categorized names (of Christians and Muslims) and adjectives (pleasant or unpleasant). Participants also completed self-report measures of attitudes toward Christians and Muslims, and some personality constructs known to correlate with ethnocentrism (i.e., right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, impression management, religious fundamentalism, intrinsic-extrinsic-quest religious orientations). Consistent with social identity theory, participants' self-reported attitudes toward Christians were more positive than their self-reported attitudes toward Muslims. Participants also displayed moderate implicit preference for Christians relative to Muslims. This IAT effect could also be interpreted as implicit prejudice toward Muslims relative to Christians. A slight positive correlation between implicit and explicit attitudes was found. As self-reported anti-Arab racism, social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and religious fundamentalism increased, self-reported attitudes toward Muslims became more negative. The same personality variables were associated with more positive attitudes toward Christians relative to Muslims on the self-report level, but not the implicit level.     

The social‐psychological bases of far‐right support in Europe and the United States

The roles of authoritarianism, social dominance orientation (SDO), and prejudice in the prediction of far‐right support were examined in Europe and the United States. A meta‐analysis shows remarkably similar, positive, and strong associations of far‐right support with these three variables in previous studies conducted in Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Results from two cross‐sectional studies in the United States further indicated that higher levels of authoritarianism and SDO related to higher voting intentions and support for Trump, via increased prejudice. In a three‐wave longitudinal study in the United Kingdom, authoritarianism and SDO predicted pro‐Brexit attitudes and support for the U.K. Independence Party, again via prejudice. These results shed a new light on the widely held beliefs in “American and British exceptionalism,” as Trump and Brexit adherents share the same social‐psychological underpinnings as far‐right supporters observed in several European countries.     

On the eve of war: authoritarianism, social dominance, and American students' attitudes toward attacking Iraq

In the week before the 2003 American attack on Iraq, the effects of authoritarianism and the social dominance orientation on support for the attack were examined. Based on prior research on the nature of these constructs, a structural model was developed and tested. As predicted, authoritarianism strengthened support for the attack by intensifying the perception that Iraq threatened America. Social dominance increased support by reducing concern for the likely human costs of the war. Both also increased blind patriotism, which in turn reduced concern for the war's human costs and was reciprocally related to the belief that Iraq threatened America.