Right‐wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice against threatening and competitive ethnic groups

Citations Over TimeTop 1% of 2008 papers

Abstract

Abstract This research rests on the assumption that individual differences approaches to prejudice benefit from an integration of intergroup factors. Following Duckitt (2001), we assumed that two prominent individual differences variables, right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), would differentially predict majority members' levels of ethnic prejudice depending on specific factors of the intergroup context: RWA as an index of motivational concerns about social cohesion, stability and security should drive prejudice against outgroups perceived as socially threatening, and SDO as an index of concerns about ingroup superiority and dominance should predict prejudice against outgroups perceived as potential competitors for power‐status. Across two studies ( N s = 82, 176), using between‐participants and within‐participants experimental designs, the effects of RWA on prejudice were particularly powerful when the outgroup was manipulated to be socially threatening, but the effects of SDO on prejudice appeared not to increase when the outgroup was manipulated to be competitive. In Study 2, presenting the outgroup as having low status also increased the effect of RWA, but not the effect of SDO. These results support the differential prediction assumption for RWA, but not for SDO. Implications for the conceptualisation of RWA and SDO are discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Related Papers

• → When and How Do High Status Group Members Offer Help: Effects of Social Dominance Orientation and Status Threat(2008)119 cited
• → Examining dispositional and situational effects on outgroup attitudes(2009)30 cited
• → Reactions to Crime as a Hierarchy Regulating Strategy: The Moderating Role of Social Dominance Orientation(2009)27 cited
• → Conflict, what conflict? Evidence that playing down “conflict” can be a weapon of choice for high‐status groups(2020)4 cited
• → Liking low-status? Contextual and individual differences in attributional biases of low-status outgroup members(2019)1 cited