Content uploaded by John Duckitt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John Duckitt on Feb 05, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:
[University of Auckland]
On:
7 August 2009
Access details:
Access Details: [subscription number 906506408]
Publisher
Psychology Press
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Psychological Inquiry
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775648164
A Dual-Process Motivational Model of Ideology, Politics, and Prejudice
John Duckitt a; Chris G. Sibley a
a Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Online Publication Date: 01 April 2009
To cite this Article Duckitt, John and Sibley, Chris G.(2009)'A Dual-Process Motivational Model of Ideology, Politics, and
Prejudice',Psychological Inquiry,20:2,98 — 109
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10478400903028540
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10478400903028540
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Psychological Inquiry, 20: 98–109, 2009
Copyright C
Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1047-840X print / 1532-7965 online
DOI: 10.1080/10478400903028540
A Dual-Process Motivational Model of Ideology, Politics, and Prejudice
John Duckitt and Chris G. Sibley
Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
There have been two broad approaches to how sociopolitical or ideological atti-
tudes are structured. The more traditional unidimensional approach sees ideological
attitudes as organized along a single left-to-right dimension, and influenced by a
single coherent set of social and psychological causes, but has not been well sup-
ported empirically. During the past 2 decades evidence has increasingly suggested
that there are two distinct dimensions of ideological attitudes, which seem best cap-
tured by the constructs of Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance
Orientation (SDO). These dimensions may sometimes be strongly related, but often
are not, and seem to express quite different basic values or motivational goals. This
has been formalized in a dual-process motivational model of ideological attitudes,
which sees RWA and SDO as originating in different social worldview beliefs, per-
sonality trait dimensions, and social environmental influences, and as influencing
socio-political and intergroup behavior and outcomes in different ways and through
different mechanisms. New research supporting these propositions is reviewed.
Key words: right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, prejudice,
politics, ideology.
Two main approaches for understanding the psy-
chological structure and bases of ideological atti-
tudes have been prominent. A unidimensional ap-
proach emerged in the mid-20th century and was
widely accepted for a number of decades. This ap-
proach viewed socio-political or ideological attitudes
and beliefs as structured along a single left (lib-
eral) to right (conservative) dimension and as be-
ing causally rooted in a common set of social and
psychological determinants. This tradition began with
the research of Adorno and his colleagues (Adorno,
Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) fol-
lowed by Rokeach (1960), and Wilson (1973). More
recently it has been represented in the influential
research by Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway
(2003).
The second, two-dimensional approach sees ide-
ological attitudes as organized along two relatively
independent, though often related, social attitudinal
dimensions, which have quite different social and mo-
tivational bases. This approach did have some early
proponents (e.g., Eysenck, 1954) but has only be-
come prominent in the past 2 decades, largely as a
result of influential research on Right Wing Author-
itarianism (RWA; Altemeyer, 1981, 1998) and So-
cial Dominance Orientation (SDO; Pratto, Sidanius,
Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). This approach was subse-
quently systematized and elaborated as a dual-process
motivational (DPM) model of ideology and prejudice
(Duckitt, 2001).
In this article we first briefly describe the more
important unidimensional approaches to ideology and
note the empirical weaknesses that lead to their de-
cline. Thereafter we describe the constructs of RWA
and SDO and argue that they represent two relatively
independent, though often correlated, dimensions of
ideological attitudes that express two distinct sets of ba-
sic social values. This idea has been systematized and
elaborated in a DPM model, which specifies the social
and psychological bases of these two dimensions, and
how and why they affect socio-political and intergroup
behaviour and attitudes. We describe this model, note
some of its important predictions, and briefly review
new research testing them.
Unidimensional Approaches to Ideological
Attitudes
The first major empirically based theory of the struc-
ture and psychological basis of ideological attitudes
emerged from the classic research of Adorno et al.
(1950). Their findings suggested that people’s attitudes
and beliefs about socio-political issues seemed to be
highly correlated forming a single dimension with an-
tisemitism, prejudice toward outgroups and minorities,
politically conservative attitudes, and excessive and un-
critical patriotism clustering at one pole and socially
liberal attitudes, tolerance toward outgroups and mi-
norities, and egalitarian beliefs clustering at the other
98
Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009
DUAL-PROCESS MOTIVATIONAL MODEL
pole. The extremes of this dimension seemed to Adorno
et al. to be anchored in antidemocratic, profascist, at-
titudes that uncritically accepted established authority
as opposed to prodemocratic, liberal, or socialist atti-
tudes, and could thus be characterized as a dimension
of authoritarian attitudes, which was measured by the
famous F-scale.
Adorno et al. (1950) assumed that the social atti-
tudes measured by the F-scale were direct expressions
of an underlying authoritarian personality dimension
and that the F-scale could therefore be treated as a
measure of personality. However, this assumption was
never empirically validated, or even investigated, and
more recently it has been increasingly accepted that the
F-scale and measures derived from it are measures of
social attitudes rather than of personality (e.g., Duriez
& Van Hiel, 2002; Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov, &
Duarte, 2003; Jost et al., 2003).
A second problem of the F-scale was due to all its
items being formulated in the protrait direction (i.e.,
agreement to all items indicating higher authoritari-
anism). When this problem of acquiescence was con-
trolled by developing and including reversed items,
these balanced F-scales lacked reliability and unidi-
mensionality. As Altemeyer (1981) later demonstrated,
the apparent unidimensionality of the original F-scale
had been spurious and due to acquiescence, and its
items were not tapping a single general factor but sev-
eral rather related factors. This suggested that ideo-
logical attitudes might not be organized along a single
unidimensional continuum.
The psychometric problems of Adorno et al.’s
(1950) F-scale and other criticisms of their theory and
research lead to several alternative theories and concep-
tualizations of the psychological bases of ideological
attitudes. An early rival to the F-scale was Rokeach’s
(1960) Dogmatism or D-scale, which also consisted of
a broad range of social attitudinal items similar to those
of the F-scale, which were also not balanced to control
for acquiescence. As a result the D-scale shared all the
weaknesses of the F-scale, and once balancing items
were included, lacked internal consistency and unidi-
mensionality. Again, the broadly socio-political item
content appeared to be tapping not one dimension but
several.
The most important empirical investigation of the
psychological basis of ideology following those of
Adorno et al. (1950) and Rokeach (1960) was that
of Wilson (1973). He explicitly developed his Con-
servatism or C-scale to comprehensively measure the
entire domain of ideological social attitudes along a
single unidimensional liberal-conservative dimension.
The C-scale was viewed as psychometrically superior
to the earlier F- and D-scales because its items were
balanced to control for acquiescence. However, the C-
scale was plagued by exactly the same problem as its
predecessors by having very low internal consistency,
with the average correlation between items typically
not much higher than .05. Altemeyer (1981), in his re-
search with the C-scale, for example, obtained a mean
interitem correlation of only .06. Factor analytic stud-
ies confirmed this by showing that the C-scale, like
the F- and D-scales, was clearly not unidimensional
(Altemeyer, 1981).
Empirical findings therefore consistently failed to
support the idea that socio-political attitudes would be
unidimensionally structured along a single left–right
dimension. A second assumption of these unidimen-
sional models, that a coherent cluster of personality,
cognitive or motivational traits, such as an authoritar-
ian personality, would powerfully determine these at-
titudes, was never directly tested. As a result these uni-
dimensional approaches to the structure of ideological
attitudes were largely abandoned during the last few
decades of the 20th century, during which time new
evidence emerged suggesting that ideological attitudes
might be structured along two distinct dimensions.
Two Dimensions of Ideological Attitudes: RWA
and SDO
The idea that ideological social attitudes might be
organized along two distinct dimensions came to the
fore with the development of two constructs, RWA
and SDO. The RWA scale was developed in 1981 by
Bob Altemeyer to measure authoritarian attitudes and
unlike its failed predecessor, the F-scale, was clearly
unidimensional and had a high level of internal consis-
tency. Altemeyer achieved this unidimensionality by
limiting the scope of his RWA scale markedly to at-
titudinal expressions of just three of the original nine
content clusters incorporated in the original F-scales,
that is, conventionalism, authoritarian submission, and
authoritarian aggression.
Later, in the 1990s, Sidanius and Pratto (1999)
developed the SDO scale to measure a “general at-
titudinal orientation toward intergroup relations, re-
flecting whether one generally prefers such relations
to be equal, versus hierarchical” (Pratto et al., 1994,
p. 742). This seemed to measure a different social at-
titudinal cluster of Adorno et al.’s (1950) original nine
authoritarian content clusters, such as those pertaining
to power and toughness, destructiveness and cynicism,
and anti-intraception.
Research showed that both the SDO and RWA scales
were powerful predictors of socio-political and inter-
group behavior and attitudes, such as generalized prej-
udice and political orientation (Pratto, 1999; Pratto
et al., 1994; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1994). Although
this could suggest that RWA and SDO were measur-
ing essentially the same dimension, several considera-
tions indicated that they seemed to be measuring two
99
Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009
DUCKITT AND SIBLEY
Table 1. Research Indicating Two Primary Ideological Attitude or Value Dimensions.
Study RWA Equivalent SDO Equivalent
Eysenck (1954) Conservatism vs. liberalism Tough vs. tender
Tomkins (1964) Normative (conservatism) Humanism
Hughes (1975) Social conservatism vs. Liberalism Economic conservatism vs. social welfare
Rokeach (1973) Freedom Equality
Hofstede (1980) Collectivism vs. Individualism Power distance
Kerlinger (1984) Conservatism Liberalism (i.e., humanism-egalitarianism)
Forsyth (1980) Relativism (i.e., group orientation) Idealism (altruism/social concern)
Katz & Hass (1988) Protestant ethic Humanitarianism/Egalitarianism
Middendorp (1991) Cultural conservatism vs. Openness Economic conservatism vs. equality
Trompenaars (1993) Group loyalty vs. Individualism Hierarchy vs. egalitarianism
Braithwaite (1994) National strength and order International harmony
Schwartz (1996) Conservation vs. openness Self-enhancement vs. transcendence
Triandis & Gelfand (1998) Collectivism vs. individualism Vertical vs. horizontal values
Saucier (2000) Alpha-isms (Conservatism- Authoritarianism) Beta-isms (SDO/Machiavellianism)
Ashton et al. (2005) Moral regulation vs. individual freedom Compassion vs. competition
Stangor & Leary (2006) Conservatism Egalitarianism
relatively independent dimensions (Altemeyer, 1998;
Duckitt, 2001; Roccato & Ricolfi, 2005).
First, the item content of the two scales is different.
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. SDO items pertain to beliefs in social and
economic inequality as opposed to equality, and the
right of powerful groups to dominate weaker ones.
Second, the RWA and SDO scales correlate dif-
ferently with important other variables (Altemeyer,
1998; Duckitt, 2001, Duckitt & Fisher, 2003; Duckitt,
Wagner, du Plessis, & Birum, 2002; McFarland, 1998;
McFarland & Adelson, 1996). RWA is powerfully as-
sociated with religiosity and valuing order, structure,
conformity, and tradition, whereas SDO is not. SDO,
on the other hand, is strongly associated with valu-
ing power, achievement, and hedonism, whereas RWA
is not. RWA is influenced by social threat and cor-
relates with a view of the social world as dangerous
and threatening, whereas SDO is powerfully correlated
with a Social Darwinist view of the world as a ruth-
lessly competitive jungle in which the strong win and
the weak lose.
Third, whereaes some studies, notably in Western
Europe, have reported strong positive correlations be-
tween RWA and SDO, most research, particularly in
North America, has found weak positive or nonsignifi-
cant correlations (see the review and meta-analysis by
Roccato & Ricolfi, 2005). Research in East European,
largely ex-communist, countries has found nonsignif-
icant or significantly negative correlations between
RWA and SDO (e.g., Duriez, Van Hiel, & Kossowska,
2005; Krauss, 2002; Van Hiel & Kossowska, 2007).
Thus, although SDO and RWA both predict attitu-
dinal and behavioral phenomena associated with the
political right as opposed to the left, they seem to be
quite distinct and relatively independent dimensions of
ideological attitudes. This idea, that there may be two
distinct dimensions of ideological attitudes, is not new.
Over the years many empirical investigations have re-
ported that socio-political attitudes and values were
organized along two primary dimensions that corre-
spond closely to RWA and SDO. These findings were
reviewed earlier (Duckitt, 2001) and are summarized in
Table 1, with several more recent investigations added
(i.e., Ashton et al., 2005; Stangor & Leary, 2006).
As Table 1 shows, many different labels and mea-
sures have been used for these two dimensions. The
RWA-like dimension has typically been labeled au-
thoritarianism, social conservatism, or traditionalism
at one pole versus openness, autonomy, liberalism, or
personal freedom at the other pole. The SDO-like di-
mension has typically been labeled economic conser-
vatism, power, or belief in hierarchy and inequality
at one pole versus egalitarianism, humanitarianism, or
social welfare and concern at the other pole. How-
ever, of the many measures of these two dimensions
that have been used in research, the RWA and SDO
scales have invariably tended to be the best predictors
of socio-political behaviors and reactions, possibly be-
cause they tap the core aspects of these dimensions
most directly, or because of their better psychomet-
ric properties and higher degree of unidimensionality
(Altemeyer, 1998, pp. 55–60; McFarland, 1998, 2006).
The Motivational Bases of RWA and SDO
Numerous studies have shown that RWA and SDO
correlate powerfully with different sets of values or mo-
tivational goals. This has emerged clearly from stud-
ies using Schwartz’s (1992) well-validated values in-
ventory, which was specifically developed to measure
100
Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009
DUAL-PROCESS MOTIVATIONAL MODEL
Figure 1. A causal model of the impact of personality, social environment, and social worldview beliefs on the two ideological attitude
dimensions of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and their impact on socio-political behavior
and attitudes as mediated through perceived social threat or competitiveness over group dominance, power, and resources.
universal values that express basic human motivational
goals. These studies indicate that RWA is strongly cor-
related with the higher order value dimension of Con-
servation (Security, Conformity, and Tradition) versus
Openness (Stimulation and Self-Direction), whereas
SDO is strongly correlated with the higher order
value dimension of Self-Enhancement (Achievement,
Power, Hedonism) versus Self-Transcendence (Uni-
versalism, Benevolence; Altemeyer, 1998; Duriez &
Van Hiel, 2002; Duriez et al., 2005; McFarland, 2006).
Stangor and Leary’s (2006) research used very differ-
ent measures of motivationally based values and found
a strong positive relationship of conservative values
with RWA, but not SDO, and a strong negative rela-
tionship of egalitarian values with SDO, but not RWA.
This suggests that the two dimensions represented by
RWA and SDO can be seen as attitudinal expressions
of two basic and very different sets of social values or
motivational goals.
This conclusion suggests two important implica-
tions. These are, first, that RWA and SDO should have
different psychological and social bases or causes, and
second, that they seem likely then to exert their ef-
fects, as on politics and prejudice, in different ways
and through different mechanisms. These ideas have
been the basis of a DPM model of ideological atti-
tudes (Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt et al., 2002). This model
rests on the core idea that RWA and SDO express dif-
ferent sets of values or motivational goals and sets
out to explicate exactly what the different social and
psychological bases of these two ideological attitude
dimensions are and how and why they produce their ef-
fects on socio-political and intergroup behavior. These
two aspects of the model, and new research bearing on
each, are described next.
The Social and Psychological Bbases of RWA
and SDO
The DPM model, which is diagrammatically sum-
marized in Figure 1, proposes that the two sets of mo-
tivational goals or values expressed in RWA and SDO
are made chronically salient for individuals by their
social worldview beliefs, which are in turn products of
their personalities and their socialization in and expo-
sure to particular social environments. Specifically, it
was proposed that high RWA expresses the value or
motivational goal of establishing and maintaining so-
cietal security, order, cohesion, and stability, which is
made chronically salient for individuals by the social-
ized worldview belief that the social world is an in-
herently dangerous, unpredictable, and threatening (as
opposed to safe, stable, and secure) place (measured
by agreement with items such as “We live in a dan-
gerous society, in which good peoples values and way
of life are threatened and disrupted by bad people”).
This social worldview belief derives from individuals’
personalities and their exposure to and socialization
within social environments that are dangerous, threat-
ening, and unpredictable.
The personality dimension that predisposes peo-
ple to adopt this belief in a dangerous world and be
high in RWA was initially labelled as Social Confor-
mity (as opposed to Autonomy), which leads individ-
uals to identify with the existing social order and so
be more sensitive to threats to it, and to prefer or-
der, structure, stability, and security in both their per-
sonal and social lives. This trait pattern was measured
by a Social Conformity trait rating scale (with items
such as “obedient,” “respectful,” “moralistic” ver-
sus “nonconforming,” “rebellious,” “unpredictable”),
101
Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009
DUCKITT AND SIBLEY
derived from a higher order trait dimension identified
in prior research by Saucier (1994), which was found
to correlate strongly with RWA but not with SDO
(Duckitt, 2001). In Big-Five terms this Social Con-
formity trait dimension was seen as combining low
Openness to Experience and high Conscientiousness
(Duckitt et al., 2002; see also Sibley & Duckitt, 2008).
Thus, as shown in Figure 1, the model sees Social Con-
formity (or low Openness, high Conscientiousness) as
influencing the adoption of the belief that the social
world is dangerous and threatening, as well as directly
influencing RWA. Dangerous World Beliefs then also
have direct effects influencing RWA.
In contrast, SDO stems from the social worldview
belief that the world is a ruthlessly competitive jun-
gle in which might is right and the strong win and
the weak lose, as opposed to a place of cooperative
harmony, in which people care for, help, and share
with each other (measured by agreement with items
such as “It’s a dog-eat-dog world where you have to
be ruthless at times”). This makes salient the value
or motivational goals of power, dominance, and su-
periority over others, which is then expressed in high
SDO. This competitive-jungle social worldview be-
lief was seen as deriving directly from the personal-
ity dimension of Tough versus Tendermindedness (in
Big-Five terms, low Agreeableness), and exposure to
and socialization in social environments characterized
by ingroup dominance, inequality, and competition.
Tough versus Tendermindedness was measured by a
trait rating scale, adapted from a measure originally
used by Goertzel (1987) with items such as “tough-
minded,” “hard-hearted,” “uncaring” versus “sympa-
thetic,” “compassionate,” and “forgiving.” Their lack
of empathy for others and ruthless pursuit of power
and self-interested goals would cause persons high in
Toughmindedness (or low in Agreeableness) to see
their social world as a competitive jungle, which in
turn would cause them to be high in SDO, as shown in
Figure 1.
The model would expect the two social worldview
belief dimensions, belief in a dangerous, threatening
world, or belief in a competitive-jungle world, to gen-
erally be relatively stable over time for individuals.
This would reflect their origins in individuals’ per-
sonality and their socialization within particular social
environments, which would typically also be relatively
stable over time. Once formed, these worldview be-
liefs should anchor the individuals’ interpretations and
perceptions of their social world and thus predispose
them to unduly weigh information that was consistent
with these beliefs as representative of social reality.
However, as suggested in Figure 1, when social envi-
ronments change, these changes could, particularly if
they were seen as dramatic and likely to be enduring,
change individuals’ social worldviews and therefore
change RWA and SDO. Thus, exposure to societies or
social contexts characterized by marked increases in
real social threat, instability, and dangerousness should
increase individuals’ levels of RWA with this increase
mediated via changes in their belief that their social
world is dangerous and threatening. When societies
or social groups experience sharp and seemingly en-
during increases in group dominance, inequality, and
competition, members of those groups will tend to
be more inclined to see their social worlds as com-
petitive jungles, which should increase their levels of
SDO.
Initial research on the model focused on testing
its hypotheses about how RWA and SDO would be
associated with the personality constructs of Social
Conformity and Toughminedess, and the two world-
view belief dimensions. This initial research showed
that Social Conformity and Dangerous World beliefs
did predict RWA specifically and not SDO, and that
Toughmindedness and Competitive World, beliefs, or
closely related measures, did predict SDO specifically
and not RWA (Altemeyer, 1998, Duckitt, 2001). More
comprehensive tests of the relationships between these
personality, worldview, and ideological attitude vari-
ables were conducted using Structural Equation Mod-
eling (SEM) with latent variables in large samples
in New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States
(Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt et al., 2002). The overall model
showed good fit in all the samples, and all the paths
shown between these variables in Figure 1 were clearly
significant.
The SEM analysis also confirmed an interesting
asymmetry in the way personality and worldview be-
liefs seemed to affect RWA and SDO. Social Confor-
mity and Dangerous World beliefs had strong direct
and independent effects on RWA, with only relatively
weak effects for Social Conformity mediated through
Dangerous World beliefs. Toughmindedness, however,
had no direct effects on SDO, with all its effects on
SDO powerfully mediated through Competitive-Jungle
World beliefs. Finally, these analyses also confirmed
the expectation that personality and worldview would
tend not to have direct effects on social and intergroup
outcomes such as prejudice but that their effects would
be entirely or largely mediated through RWA and SDO.
Subsequently a good deal of new research has in-
vestigated many of the models’ propositions about the
social and psychological bases or RWA and SDO. This
research is briefly reviewed next.
New Research on the Social and Psychological
Bases of RWA and SDO
New research has tested the DPM model’s hypothe-
ses about the different personality, social environmen-
tal, and social worldview bases of RWA and SDO using
different and better validated measures of personality,
102
Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009
DUAL-PROCESS MOTIVATIONAL MODEL
using longitudinal and experimental designs to test the
causalities proposed more directly, and finally using
cross-national research.
Personality, Worldview Beliefs,
and Ideological Attitudes
The new research on personality, ideological atti-
tudes, and prejudice used well validated and well es-
tablished Big Five measures of personality. A weak-
ness of the original research on the model had been
that it had used specially constructed measures of So-
cial Conformity and Toughmindedness, which had not
yet been systematically validated. Both were, however,
expected to be directly related to specific Big Five per-
sonality dimensions, with Social Conformity expected
to be strongly related to low Openness and high Con-
scientiousness. Toughmindedness was expected to be
strongly related to low Agreeableness. This was em-
pirically confirmed with data from 259 New Zealand
undergraduates (Duckitt & Sibley, 2009). When the
International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg, 1999)
Big Five measures were simultaneously regressed on
Toughmindness, the only significant, though very pow-
erful, predictor was low Agreeableness (β=–.72,
t=–15.23, p< .01). The two strongest predictors
of Social Conformity were, as expected, low Openness
(β=–.39, t=–6.99, p<.01) and high Conscien-
tiousness (β=.29, t=5.36, p<.01).
This suggested that low Agreeableness should dif-
ferentially predict SDO and low Openness and high
Conscientiousness should predict RWA. This was con-
firmed by a meta-analysis of 71 prior research studies
involving 22,068 participants that investigated the rela-
tionships between the Big Five personality constructs
with RWA, SDO, and prejudice (Sibley & Duckitt,
2008). As predicted by the model, RWA was pre-
dicted by low Openness (r=–.36) and somewhat less
strongly by high Conscientiousness (r=.15), whereas
SDO was predicted by low Agreeableness (r=–.29).
Although low Openness did show a weak significant
relationship with SDO as well, this effect was largely
eliminated when RWA was controlled, suggesting that
it was spurious and resulted from RWA and SDO be-
ing positively correlated. In addition, the findings were
also consistent with the model in showing that effects
of these personality variables on prejudice were wholly
or largely mediated by ideological attitudes. Thus, sig-
nificant effects of Agreeableness on prejudice were en-
tirely mediated by SDO and those of Openness largely
mediated by RWA. Moreover, these associations were
relatively consistent across a large range of sample
characteristics, including cross-cultural and regional
differences, differences in personality inventory, and
differences in adult versus undergraduate samples.
Two recent studies have also used structural equa-
tion modelling to assess whether dangerous and com-
petitive social worldviews mediate the effects of Big
Five personality on SDO and RWA (Sibley & Duckitt,
in press-a; Van Hiel, Cornelis, & Roets, 2007). Both
of these studies reported that Agreeableness was cor-
related with SDO, and this association was fully medi-
ated by competitive worldview, whereas Openness was
strongly associated with RWA, and this association was
partly mediated by dangerous worldview. These find-
ings were therefore consistent with the earlier research
using the somewhat ad hoc measures of Social Con-
formity and Toughmindedness, in suggesting that that
socialized worldview beliefs (of the social world as ei-
ther dangerous and threatening or as a ruthlessly com-
petitive jungle) were important proximal mechanisms,
which partly or wholly mediated the effects of certain
aspects of personality on ideological attitudes.
Longitudinal, Experimental, and
Cross-National Research
The new findings relating personality, worldview
beliefs, and ideological attitudes described above, how-
ever, were all derived from correlational research, and
so could not directly test the causal effects proposed
by the DPM model. This would require longitudinal or
experimental research.
Two recent longitudinal studies therefore investi-
gated the cross-lagged effects of personality and world-
view beliefs on RWA and SDO. In the first study, the re-
sults indicated that low Openness predicted increased
levels of RWA, but not SDO, over a 1-year period,
whereas low Agreeableness predicted increased levels
of SDO, but not RWA, over this same period (Sibley &
Duckitt, in press-b). A second longitudinal study also
supported the predicted causal effects of social world-
views on RWA and SDO. Thus, heightened perceptions
of the social world as dangerous and threatening pre-
dicted increased RWA, and not SDO, over a 5-month
period and heightened perceptions of the social world
as competitive predicted increased SDO, and not RWA,
over that period (Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007b).
A number of earlier experimental or longitudinal
studies had previously investigated the causal effects
proposed by the model for social environmental fac-
tors on RWA and SDO separately. Thus, research
dating back many years has shown that social situa-
tional threat did seem to have causally increase RWA
or closely related measures of authoritarian attitudes
(e.g., Doty, Peterson, & Winter, 1991; McCann, 1997;
McCann & Stewin, 1990; Sales, 1973). Somewhat
more recent research has also shown that member-
ship in competitively dominant social groups and high
levels of societal resource scarcity and competition in-
creases SDO (e.g., Danso & Esses, 2001; Guimond
et al., 2003; Huang & Liu, 2005; Levin, 2004; Schmitt,
Branscombe, & Kappen, 2003).
103
Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009
DUCKITT AND SIBLEY
More recently several studies have extended these
findings to see if such social environmental factors
would have clearly differential effects on RWA and
SDO, when these were tested in the same study, and
if such effects would be mediated by social world-
view beliefs, as the model would predict. To do this,
two recent studies manipulated social environmental
threat by having participants read a hypothetical sce-
nario depicting a dangerous and threatening future for
their country and found that RWA increased signifi-
cantly but not SDO, with the increase in RWA fully
being fully mediated by heightened Dangerous World
beliefs (Duckitt & Fisher, 2003; Jugert & Duckitt, in
press).
Finally, a cross-national study comparing White
Afrikaners in South Africa with European origin New
Zealanders also reported findings consistent with social
environmental threat having effects specific to RWA,
and not SDO, which were mediated by worldview
beliefs (Duckitt, 2004). This research found that the
Afrikaners were much higher in RWA and this was
directly linked to their very high levels of dangerous
world beliefs, presumably reflecting the higher lev-
els of social threat experienced by White Afrikaners
during the period following the collapse of Apartheid
and their loss of political power in South Africa.
New Zealanders, on the other hand, were significantly
higher in SDO than Afrikaners, and this was associ-
ated with their having higher Competitive Jungle social
worldview beliefs, probably reflecting the increased
emphasis on economic inequality and competitiveness
in New Zealand during the preceding 2 decades.
Conclusions, and Some Apparently Contrary
Findings
Overall, therefore, a good deal of new research
has clearly supported the propositions of the DPM
model that two relatively independent ideological at-
titude dimensions, represented by RWA and SDO, are
determined by quite different personality traits, so-
cial worldview beliefs, and social environmental in-
fluences. However, this conclusion might seem to be at
least in part contradicted by a recent, influential meta-
analysis on the on the motivational bases of ideological
attitudes (Jost et al., 2003). This meta-analysis found
that political conservatism was significantly predicted
by a common set of motivationally related situational
(system instability and social threat, fear of threat and
loss) and dispositional factors (death anxiety, dogma-
tism, uncertainly tolerance, openness to experience,
needs for order, structure, closure, integrative complex-
ity, low self-esteem). In this analysis, political conser-
vatism was treated as a single ideological dimension
indexed by both SDO, seen as representing justifica-
tion of inequality, and RWA (or related measures), seen
as representing resistance to change.
Jost et al.’s (2003) findings, therefore, seem to sup-
port a unidimensional approach to the structure and
bases of ideological attitudes, because they imply that
ideological attitudes comprise just one political con-
servatism dimension, which derives from a single co-
herent set of motivational dynamics. However, there
are several reasons why these findings might be mis-
leading, at least in this respect.
First, by aggregating RWA-like and SDO-like indi-
cators of ideological attitudes, the meta-analysis would
have obscured any differential effects for these two sets
of indicators. Second, most of their indices of political
conservatism were RWA-like, which would account for
their significant predictors being predominantly those
that seem to predict RWA specifically, with the sit-
uational factors being clearly threat-related, and the
dispositional factors all clearly relevant to Social Con-
formity or low Openness to Experience. In addition,
Jost et al.’s (2003) analysis did not include the most im-
portant variables shown to predict SDO differentially,
such as Toughmindedness or in Big-Five terms, low
Agreeableness, Competitive-Jungle World beliefs or
Machiavellianism, and Self-Enhancement and Power
versus Egalitarian motivational values. Nor did their
analysis control for the generally positive (and some-
times substantial) positive correlation between RWA
and SDO, which could have resulted in strong predic-
tors of RWA having completely spurious significant
correlations with SDO.
The Effects of RWA and SDO on Prejudice and
Politics
Whereas the previous section detailed the individual
and situational geneses of RWA and SDO, we now turn
to a discussion of how and why RWA and SDO exert
their effects on socio-political and intergroup behavior
and attitudes. Prior research has shown that RWA and
SDO powerfully influence a number of socio-political
and intergroup outcomes, such as prejudice against out-
groups and support for right- versus left-wing political
parties and policies (Adorno et al., 1950; Altemeyer,
1981, 1998; Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius & Pratto,
1999). A dual-process approach makes important pre-
dictions about these effects that differ from those sug-
gested by a more traditional unidimensional approach.
RWA and SDO are seen as representing relatively inde-
pendent ideological attitude dimensions that have dif-
ferent origins and express different motivational goals
and values. Thus, although they may often have the
same effects, they should do so for different reasons
and through different mechanisms (as shown in Figure
1), and should sometimes have quite different effects.
Specifically, the model proposes that RWA ex-
presses the threat and uncertainty driven motiva-
tional goal or value of maintaining or establishing
104
Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009
DUAL-PROCESS MOTIVATIONAL MODEL
collective security (i.e., societal order, cohesion, sta-
bility, tradition). Persons high in RWA should there-
fore be particularly negative to outgroups that seem to
threaten collective security, and particularly supportive
of political parties, policies, and legitimising myths that
emphasize the control of potential threats to collective
security.
SDO, on the other hand, expresses the competitive
motivational goal or value of maintaining or estab-
lishing group dominance and superiority. Persons high
in SDO should therefore be particularly negative and
competitive toward lower status outgroups, to justify
and maintain existing intergroup superiority, and to
outgroups that are competing over or challenging rela-
tive group dominance and superiority. They should also
be particularly supportive of political policies, parties,
or legitimizing myths that would promote and maintain
group dominance, superiority, and inequality.
These propositions suggest three novel hypothe-
ses about the effects of RWA and SDO on prejudice
and politics. These are, first, that although RWA and
SDO may often have the same effects on prejudice
and politics, they should also sometimes have clearly
differential effects by predicting support for different
policies and parties, endorsement of different kinds of
legitimizing myths or stratification ideologies, and dis-
like for different outgroups. Moreover, irrespective of
whether they have the same or different effects, these
effects should occur for different reasons and so be
differentially mediated. Finally, RWA and SDO should
produce many of their effects by differentially mod-
erating particular social environmental influences, no-
tably threat or uncertainty, and group dominance and
competition respectively.
Differential Effect Hypothesis
The differential effect hypothesis suggests that al-
though RWA and SDO often predict support for the
same political policies and dislike of the same out-
groups, they should also have specific and differential
effects in both domains. For example, persons high
in RWA and SDO will both tend to support right-wing
conservative political parties in general. However, they
should differ in their relative preference for differ-
ent kinds of right-wing parties. Persons high in RWA
should prefer right-wing parties that emphasize law
and order and defend traditional and religious values.
Persons high in SDO should prefer right-wing parties
that emphasize free market capitalism and antiwelfare
policies. When right-wing parties espouse both sets
of policies, RWA and SDO should predict their sup-
port similarly, though, as already noted, there should
be differential mediation of this support. In the case of
foreign policy SDO should be more strongly associated
with support for blatant wars of conquest than RWA,
whereas RWA should be more strongly associated with
purely defensive military policies and expenditures in
the absence of direct external threats.
In the case of prejudice, RWA and SDO involve dif-
ferent motives for outgroup dislike, which often covary
in the same outgroup so that both RWA and SDO will
predict prejudice against those groups. However, some-
times these motives may be differentially activated by
outgroups, in which case RWA and SDO should pre-
dict prejudice against them differentially. Thus, RWA
should predict dislike of socially threatening or deviant
outgroups and SDO should predict dislike of groups
low in power or status or groups competing over power
and status.
These predictions regarding the differential effects
on prejudice for RWA and SDO were tested in two
recent studies. In the first study an exploratory factor
analysis of attitudes to 24 different social outgroups
revealed three distinct outgroup attitude dimensions
(Duckitt & Sibley, 2007). One dimension comprised
attitudes to dangerous and threatening outgroups (vio-
lent criminals, terrorists, people who disrupt safety and
security in society), a second comprised attitudes to
derogated or disadvantaged groups (unattractive peo-
ple, mentally handicapped people, obese people, psy-
chiatric patients), and a third comprised attitudes to
dissident groups (protestors, people who cause dis-
agreement in society, feminists). As the dual-process
model would predict, only RWA significantly predicted
attitudes to dangerous groups, only SDO predicted atti-
tudes to disadvantaged groups, and both RWA and SDO
predicted attitudes to dissident groups (although the
effect of RWA was more pronounced), which was ex-
pected because these groups would be socially threat-
ening, but in most cases also challenged social inequal-
ities.
A second study (Duckitt, 2006) showed that RWA,
but not SDO, predicted negative attitudes to two groups
selected as likely to be seen as socially deviant and
therefore threatening traditional norms and values but
not as socially subordinate (drug dealers and rock
stars). SDO, but not RWA, predicted negative attitudes
to three groups selected as likely to be seen as socially
subordinate and therefore likely to activate competi-
tive motives to maintain their relative subordination
but not as socially deviant or threatening (physically
handicapped people, unemployment beneficiaries, and
housewives).
Finally, research has also indicated that RWA and
SDO predict different aspects of men’s sexism toward
women (Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007a). RWA, on
one hand, was moderately positively correlated with
benevolent sexist attitudes toward women (subjectively
positive, but patronizing and controlling attitudes that
position women as weaker than men and as deserv-
ing of care and affection as long as they prescribe
to traditional gender roles; see Glick & Fiske, 1996).
SDO, on the other hand, was moderately positively
105
Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009
DUCKITT AND SIBLEY
correlated with more hostile and antipathetic expres-
sions of sexism toward women. Moreover, Sibley et al.
(2007a) demonstrated that these effects held longitu-
dinally, with RWA predicting change in men’s benev-
olent sexism over time, and SDO predicting change in
men’s hostile sexism. These findings provide good ev-
idence that SDO and RWA exert a causal influence on
prejudice over time and that they affect fundamentally
different aspects of prejudice.
Sibley et al. (2007a) argued that this difference in
the geneses of benevolent and hostile forms of sexism
occurred because of the different motivational goals ex-
pressed by RWA and SDO. RWA would predict nega-
tive intergroup attitudes when the stigmatization of the
outgroup serves to establish and maintain consensual
ideologies that strengthen the traditionally normative
beliefs of the ingroup. Given the mutual interdependen-
cies between men and women, men high in RWA would
adopt ideologies about gender relations that emphasize
cooperative relations between men and women, gen-
der role complementarity, and position women’s ideal
role(s) as cherished objects and homemakers. Accord-
ingly, men high in RWA would endorse benevolent
sexism because it reflects a prescriptive ideology of
gender relations that positions womens’ ideal role rel-
ative to men within the ingroup, and in the broader
context of patriarchal society. This should appeal to
high-RWA men because it strengthens and preserves
traditional roles and promotes social cohesion, order,
and ingroup stability—a central motivational goal of
RWA.
SDO, on the other hand, expresses the competi-
tively driven motivation to maintain or establish group
dominance and superiority. Men high in SDO would
therefore be highly sensitive to and reactive to com-
petitiveness in gender relations, and high SDO men’s
inevitable perception of women as competitively chal-
lenging male dominance will result in overt hostility
to such challenges, which in turn results in expressions
of more hostile forms of sexism.
In sum, recent research suggests that SDO and RWA
predict prejudice differentially when outgroups seem
to be threatening ingroup cohesion and collective se-
curity (in the case of RWA), or are lower in power
and status or competing over relative power and status
with the ingroup (in the case of SDO). This has been
shown in research on attitudes toward different social
categories (dangerous groups, derogated groups) and is
also apparent when examining specific sexist attitudes
that position women in traditional roles relative to men
(benevolent sexism) or express hostile and antipathetic
attitudes toward women in social roles that are per-
ceived as competing rather than complementing men
(hostile sexism). Future research is needed to examine
the differential effects predicted by the dual-process
model in other domains, although initial findings are
promising.
Differential Mediation Hypothesis
A differential mediation hypothesis suggests that
the effects of RWA should be mediated by perceived
social threat and its management so that persons high
in RWA dislike outgroups whom they perceive as so-
cially threatening in some way and support political
parties and policies whom they perceive as likely to
control and manage perceived social threats. The ef-
fects of SDO on outgroup dislike should be mediated
by feelings of intergroup competitiveness over group
dominance and inequality and its effects on political
party or policy support mediated by the perception that
those parties or policies will establish or maintain in-
group dominance and inequality.
Several recent studies have supported the differ-
ential mediation hypothesis. A study by McFarland
(2005) found that both RWA and SDO were signifi-
cantly related to American students’ support for the
attack on Iraq. However, SEM analysis indicated that
these effects were differentially mediated. The effect of
RWA was fully mediated by perceived threat from Iraq.
On the other hand, the effect of SDO was fully mediated
by a lack of concern for the human costs of war, a find-
ing that fits with the tough-minded, hard, competitive
motivational orientation expected to be characteristic
of SDO.
A second study investigated the degree to which
outgroup dislike predicted by RWA or SDO would be
differentially mediated by perceived threat from these
outgroups or competitiveness towards them (Duckitt,
2006). The findings showed that significant effects of
RWA on hostility to socially deviant groups (drug deal-
ers, rock stars) were fully mediated by perceived threat
from these groups, and not by competitiveness to those
groups. On the other hand, significant effects of SDO
on dislike of socially subordinate or low-status groups
(physically handicapped people, unemployment bene-
ficiaries, housewives) were fully mediated by compet-
itiveness over relative dominance toward these groups
and not by perceived threat from them.
Differential Moderation Hypothesis
The differential moderation hypothesis suggests
RWA and SDO will index differential reactivity to so-
cial processes influencing prejudice and politics. Per-
sons high in RWA will be highly reactive to threats to
collective security (i.e., to social order, stability, tradi-
tion, and cohesion), and therefore dislike threatening
outgroups and support parties or policies to control
or manage such threats. Persons high in SDO will be
highly sensitive to intergroup relations of dominance,
inequality, and competition, and therefore dislike low-
status groups or groups that compete over or challenge
group dominance. They will also support political
106
Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009
DUAL-PROCESS MOTIVATIONAL MODEL
parties and policies aiming to maintain or establish
group dominance and inequality.
The differential moderation hypothesis has been
supported in experimental studies investigating inter-
actions between RWA and SDO with social or inter-
group factors that influence outgroup hostility, such
as intergroup threat and insecurity with RWA, and in-
tergroup dominance and competition with SDO. Re-
cently, Dru (2007) investigated the effects of prim-
ing an ingroup norm preservation (i.e., collective secu-
rity) orientation and a competitiveness orientation on
French students’ attitudes to various immigrant groups
(Arabs, Blacks, Asians). Dru found that when an in-
group norm preservation orientation was salient, RWA
was a significant predictor of anti-immigrant attitudes,
whereas SDO was not. On the other hand, when group
competitiveness was made salient, SDO significantly
predicted anti-immigrant attitudes, whereas RWA did
not.
Second, Cohrs and Asbrock (2009) investigated the
effect of depicting an immigrant group (Turks) as ei-
ther threatening or competitive on German students’
attitudes to that group. There was a significant inter-
action between perceived threat and RWA, and not
SDO, such that persons high in RWA became more
negative to Turks when they were depicted as threat-
ening. Depicting Turks as competitive, however, did
not produce the expected interaction with SDO, possi-
bly because this manipulation may have made personal
competitiveness salient (which high SDOs would ad-
mire) rather than intergroup competitiveness.
Third, research by Duckitt, Sibley, and Nasoordeen
(2008) investigated New Zealand students’ attitudes
to a bogus new immigrant group (“Sandrians”). San-
drians were depicted as socially deviant and uncon-
ventional (threat condition), likely to compete for
jobs and resources with New Zealanders (competi-
tive condition), low in status and power (disadvan-
taged condition), or as similar in status and culture
to New Zealanders (control condition). As expected,
neither RWA or SDO predicted negativity to San-
drians in the control condition, only SDO predicted
negativity in the disadvantaged condition, both RWA
and SDO predicted negativity in the competitive con-
dition (this was expected, because the competitive
manipulation should elicit both perceived threat and
competitiveness over relative dominance), and only
RWA predicted negativity to Sandrians in the threat
condition.
Summing Up Research Testing the Three
Hypotheses
Research was reviewed testing three relatively novel
hypotheses derived from the DPM model’s proposi-
tions of how RWA and SDO would influence preju-
dice and politics. In sum, this research indicates that
RWA and SDO can differentially predict negative atti-
tudes toward particular kinds of outgroups, that these
negative outgroup attitudes will be differentially me-
diated, and that these negative attitudes will involve
the differential moderation of certain social environ-
mental factors. There has been much less research
on the effects of RWA and SDO on politics, though
the one study reported did show differential mediation
on support for aggressive foreign policy, specifically
support for the Iraqi war, that was clearly consistent
with the model (McFarland, 2005). More research is
therefore needed to investigate the effects of RWA and
SDO on political orientation and on party and policy
support.
Conclusions
The traditional approach to understanding how ide-
ological attitudes are structured, caused, and impact
on behavior was a unidimensional one, but this was
not well supported empirically. During the past few
decades research has suggested that there seem to be
two distinct dimensions of ideological attitudes, which
have been studied and measured in a variety of guises
but which seem best measured and captured by the
constructs of RWA and SDO.
This approach has been formalized in a DPM model
of ideological attitudes, which proposes that the two
ideological attitude dimensions represented by RWA
and SDO express different basic values or motiva-
tional goals and originate from different personality
trait dimensions, social environmental influences, and
social worldview beliefs. A good deal of correlational
research, with much using SEM, produced initial find-
ings consistent the model’s propositions about the so-
cial and psychological bases of RWA and SDO. More
recent research using correlational research with better
validated measures as well as studies using experimen-
tal and longitudinal designs that could test these causal
propositions more directly have begun to produce more
compelling supportive evidence.
The model also suggests the two ideological attitude
dimensions of RWA and SDO influence socio-political
and intergroup behavior in different ways, for differ-
ent reasons, and through different mechanisms, even
though they often have the same or similar effects on
prejudice and related outcomes. This was formalized in
three hypotheses suggesting that RWA and SDO would
have certain differential effects and that their effects,
even when the same or similar, would typically involve
differential mediation and the differential moderation
of social environmental influences. Research has sup-
ported all three these hypotheses for the effects of RWA
and SDO on prejudice, but more research is needed to
investigate their effects in other domains, such as pol-
itics, although initial findings have been promising.
107
Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009
DUCKITT AND SIBLEY
Note
Address correspondence to John Duckitt, Depart-
ment of Psychology, University of Auckland, Private
Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. E-mail:
j.duckitt@auckland.ac.nz
References
Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, R.
(1950). The authoritarian personality.NewYork:Harper.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Man-
itoba, Canada: University of Manitoba 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.
Ashton, M., Danso, H., Maio, G., Esses, V., Bond, M., & Keung,
D. (2005). Two dimensions of political attitudes and their in-
dividual difference correlates: A cross-cultural perspective. In
R. Sorrentino, D. Cohen, J. Olson, & M. Zanna (Eds.), Cul-
tural and social behavior: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 10
(pp. 1–29). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Braithwaite, V. (1994). Beyond Rokeach’s equality-freedom model:
Two dimensional values in a one-dimensional world. Journal
of Social Issues, 50, 67–94.
Cohrs, J. C., & Asbrock, F. (2009). Right-wing authoritarianism,
social dominance orientation and prejudice against threaten-
ing and competitive ethnic groups. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 39, 270–289.
Danso, H. A., & Esses, V. M. (2001). Black experimenters and the in-
tellectual performance of White participants: The tables are tur-
ned. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 158–165.
Doty, R., Peterson, B., & Winter, D. (1991). Threat and authoritari-
anism in the United States, 1978—1987. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61, 629–640.
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. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in ex-
perimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Duckitt, J. (2004). The cultural bases of ethnocentrism and preju-
dice. In Y.-T. Lee, C. McCauley, F. Moghaddam, & S. Worchel
(Eds.), The psychology of ethnic and cultural conflict: Looking
through American and global chaos or harmony (pp. 155–174).
Westport, NY: Praeger.
Duckitt, J. (2006). Differential effects of Right Wing Authoritarian-
ism and Social Dominance Orientation on outgroup attitudes
and their mediation by threat from competitiveness to out-
groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,32, 684–
696.
Duckitt, J., & Fisher, K. (2003). The impact of social threat on
worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology,24,
199–222.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007). Right-Wing Authoritarianism,
Social Dominance Orientation and the dimensions of general-
ized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21, 113–130.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). A dual process model of ide-
ological attitudes and system justification. In J. T. Jost, A. C.
Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases
of ideology and system justification (pp. 292–313). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Duckitt, J., Sibley, C. G., & Nasoordeen, S. (2008). Right Wing
Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation moder-
ate the effects of immigrant characteristics on anti-immigrant
attitudes. Manuscript in preparation.
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., & Van Hiel, A. (2002). The march of modern fascism: A
comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarian-
ism. 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 im-
portance of the socio-political context and of political interest
and involvement. Political Psychology, 26, 299–320.
Eysenck, H. (1954). The psychology of politics. London: Routledge
and Keagan Paul.
Forsyth, D. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 175–184.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inven-
tory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.
Goertzel, T. (1987). Authoritarianism of personality and political
attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 7–18.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, per-
sonality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several
five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F.
Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp.
7–28). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Guimond, S., Dambrun, M., Michinov,N., & Duarte, S. (2003). Does
social dominance generate prejudice: Integrating individual and
contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 697–721.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Huang, L-L., & Liu, J. H. (2005). Personality and social structural
implications of the situational priming of social dominance
orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 267–
276.
Hughes, A. (1975). Psychology and the political experience. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., Sulloway, F. (2003). Political con-
servatism as motivatedsocial cognition. Psychological Bulletin,
129, 339–375.
Jugert, P., & Duckitt, J. (in press). A motivational model of au-
thoritarianism: Testing personal and situational determinants.
Political Psychology.
Katz, I., & Hass, R. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value
conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive
structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55,
893–905.
Kerlinger, F. (1984). Liberalism and conservatism: The nature and
structure of social attitudes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Krauss, S. (2002). Romanian authoritarianism 10 years after com-
munism. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1255–
1264.
Levin, S. (2004). Perceived group status differencesand the effects of
gender, ethnicity, and religion on social dominance orientation.
Political Psychology, 25, 31–48.
McCann, S. J. H. (1997). Threatening times, “strong” presidential
vote winners, and the victory margin, 1824–1964. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 160–170.
McCann, S. J. H., & Stewin, L. L. (1990). Good and bad years:
An index of American social, economic and political threat
(1920–1986). Journal of Psychology, 124, 601–617.
McFarland, S. (1998). Toward a typology of prejudiced persons.Pa-
per 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
108
Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009
DUAL-PROCESS MOTIVATIONAL MODEL
Iraq. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 360–
367.
McFarland, S. (2006). Prejudiced people: Individual differences in
explicit prejudice. Manuscript submitted for publication.
McFarland, S., & Adelson, S. (1996). An omnibus study of personal-
ity, values, and prejudice. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the International Society of Political Psychology, Vancouver,
Canada.
Middendorp, C. (1991). Ideology in Dutch politics. Assen, the
Netherlands: Van G. Corcum.
Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piec-
ing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social
dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experi-
mental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 191–263). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B. (1994). Social
dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting so-
cial and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 741–763.
Roccato, M., & Ricolfi, L. (2005). On the correlation between right-
wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 187–200.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and the closed mind. New York: Basic
Books.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free
Press.
Sales, S. (1973). Threat as a factor in authoritarianism. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 44–57.
Saucier, G. (1994). Separating description and evaluation in the
structure of personality attributes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 66, 141–154.
Saucier, G. (2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 366–385.
Schmitt, M., Branscombe, N., & Kappen, D. (2003). Attitudes
toward group-based inequality: Social dominance or social
identity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 161–
186.
Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values:
Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
25, pp. 1–65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a
theory of integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson,
& M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values: The Ontario
symposium. (Vol. 8, pp. 1–24), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008a). Personality and prejudice: A
meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 12, 248–279.
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (in press-a). Big-Five personality, so-
cial worldviews, and ideological attitudes: Further tests of a
dual process cognitive-motivational model. Journal of Social
Psychology.
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (in press-b). The personality bases
of ideology: A one-year longitudinal study. Journal of Social
Psychology.
Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M., & Duckitt, J. (2007a). Antecedents of
men’s hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of So-
cial Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 160–172.
Sibley,C. G., Wilson, M., & Duckitt, J. (2007b). Effects of dangerous
and competitive worldviews on Right Wing Authoritarianism
and Social Dominance Orientation over a five-month period.
Political Psychology, 28, 357–371.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup
theory of social hierarchyand oppression. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1994). Social dominance ori-
entation and the political psychology of gender: A case of
invariance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6,
998–1011.
Stangor, C., & Leary, M. (2006). Intergroup beliefs: Investigations
from the social side. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experi-
mental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 243–281). New York:
Academic.
Tomkins, S. (1964). The polarity scale. New York: Springer.
Triandis, H., & Gelfand, M. (1998). Converging measurement of
horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118–128.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture. London:
Brealey.
Van Hiel, A., Cornelis, I., & Roets, A. (2007). The intervening role of
social worldviews in the relationship between the Five-Factor
model of personality and social attitudes. European Journal of
Personality, 21, 131–148.
Van Hiel, A., & Kossowska, M. (2007). Contemporary attitudes and
their ideological representation in Flanders (Belgium), Poland,
and the Ukraine. International Journal of Psychology, 42, 16–
26.
Wilson, G. D. (Ed.). (1973). The psychology of conservatism.New
York: Academic.
109
Downloaded By: [University of Auckland] At: 00:59 7 August 2009
