Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation: Relationships With Various Forms of Racism

Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation: Relationships With Various Forms of Racism

ALAIN VAN HIELl AND IVAN MERVIELDE Department of Developmental, Personality, and Social Psycholog?,

Ghent University Ghent, Belgium

Previous research revealed that right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) are strongly related to racism. However, this line of inquiry neglected to study these relationships for various forms of racism. In Study I , it was found in a Flemish heterogeneous adult sample ( N = 146) that RWA and SDO bore about equally strong relationships with biological racism, symbolic racism, ethnocentrism, and aversive racism. Study 2 revealed in a heterogeneous adult sample (N = l76), also administered in Flanders (Belgium), that RWA was positively related to both subtle and blatant prejudice, whereas SDO was positively related only to blatant prejudice. Moreover, RWA differentiates better between different types of racists composed on the basis of scores on the racism dimensions. The implications of these results for RWA- and SDO-based prejudice are discussed.

The relationship between right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), as well as their joint and differential relationships with values (Altemeyer, 1998; Duriez & Van Hiel, 2002; Duriez, Van Hiel, & Kossowska, 2005; McFarland, 1998, 1999; McFarland & Adelson, 1996), ideology (Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt, Wagner, du Plessis, & Birum, 2002; Duriez et al., 2005), and cognition (Van Hiel, Pandelaere, & Duriez, 2004) has elicited a great deal of interest recently. Part of this enthusiasm derives from the fact that these two dispositions independently predict racial prejudice, often explaining 50% or more of the variance (e.g., Altemeyer, 1998; Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2002). Moreover, RWA and SDO also have been reported to be strongly related to prejudice vis-a-vis homosexuals (e.g., Whitley, 1999; Whitley & Lee, 2000), as well as to antifeminism (e.g., Altemeyer, 1998; Bates & Heaven, 2001).

Nevertheless, an important omission in this line of research is the comparison of the predictive strength of RWA and SDO for various forms of racism. Are there forms of racism that are typical for one of these dispositions? Or are both dispositions equally strong predictors for all forms of racism? In order to answer

'Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alain Van Hiel, Department of Developmental, Personality, and Social Psychology, H. Dunantlaan 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. E- mail: Alain.VanHiel@,UGent.be

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2005, 35, 1 1 , pp. 2323-2344. Copyright 8 2005 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

2324 VAN HlEL AND MERVIELDE

these questions, Study 1 compares the links of RWA and SDO to anti-minority and pro-minority attitudes (Katz & Hass, 1988), as well as to biological racism, symbolic racism, ethnocentrism, and aversive racism, which are the facet scales constituting Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn’s (1 993) integrative model of racism. In Study 2, the relationships of RWA and SDO with Pettigrew and Meertens’ ( I 995) blatant and subtle prejudice scales are assessed.

Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation

Right-wing uuthoritarianism (RWA; Altemeyer, 198 1) is defined as the cova- riation of (a) a strict adherence to conventional norms and values (conventionalism); (b) an uncritical subjection to authority (authoritarian submission); and (c) feelings of aggression toward norm violators (authoritarian aggression). In previous research, the authoritarianism concept has been used widely to explain pro-fascist attitudes. politico-economic conservatism, prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination, and intergroup conflict (e.g., Altemeyer, 198 I , 1996).

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is considered “a general attitudinal orientation toward intergroup relations, reflecting whether one generally prefers such relations to be equal, versus hierarchical” (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994, p. 742). SDO thus reflects an individual’s tendency to classify social groups along a superiority-inferiority dimension and to favor policies that maintain social inequality. Researchers reported strong correlations between SDO and general conservative beliefs, such as ethnic prejudice, political and economic conservatism, and right-wing political party preferences (for an overview, see Pratto, 1999).

Altemeyer (1 998), McFarland (1 999), and Duriez and Van Hiel (2002) have argued that although both constructs are similarly related to right-wing beliefs and prejudice, they also show some marked differences. RWA is negatively related to moral consistency and level of education; and positively related to age, religiosity, and cultural conservatism. In contrast, SDO is negatively related to age, and positively related to economic conservatism. Using Schwartz’s (1992) Values Inven- tory, Altemeyer (1998), McFarland ( I 999), and Duriez and Van Hiel (2002) also report that authoritarians and social dominators adhere to other value types. RWA was shown to bear positive relationships with conservation value types of tradition, conformity, and security; whereas SDO was positively related to self- enhancement value types of power, achievement, hedonism, and stimulation.

RWA and SDO have been characterized in terms of the five-factor model as well. Right-wing beliefs and authoritarianism, on the one hand, have been characterized primarily in terms of low openness to experience (e.g., McCrae, 1996; Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2004; Van Hiel, Mervielde, & De Fruyt, 2004). SDO, on the other hand, has been reported to bear substantial negative correlations with agreeableness (e.g., Heaven & Bucci, 2001; Lippa & Arad, 1999).

AUTHORITARIANISM AND SOCIAL DOMINANCE 2325

Although RWA and SDO seem to constitute different roots of prejudice, their relationship seems to fluctuate across cultures. According to Duckitt (2001 ; Duckitt et al., 2002), these differences result from differences in sociopolitical context. RWA and SDO were found to be strongly related in Belgium (Duriez & Van Hiel, 2002; Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2002), the United Kingdom, Gennany, and New Zealand (Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt et al., 2002); whereas only a weak relation was obtained in the United States, South Africa (Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt et al., 2002), Poland, and the Ukraine (Duriez et al., 2005; Van Hiel & Kossowska, in press).

Relationships With Racism

Altemeyer (1998), Duckitt (2001; Duckitt et al., 2002), Lippa and Arad (1999), McFarland (1999), Van Hiel and Mervielde (2002), and Whitley (1999) compared the predictive validity of RWA and SDO for racism. It was found that both concepts independently predicted racism, but most of these studies used different racism scales.

Altemeyer (1 998) and McFarland (1 998, 1999; McFarland & Adelson, 1996) administered an anti-Black prejudice scale that consisted of eight items from McConahay’s ( 1 986) modern and traditional racism scales. Duckitt (200 1; Duckitt et al., 2002) used a number of self-written evaluative statements with respect to minority groups. Duriez and Van Hiel (2002) used a scale consisting of xenophobia and racism items, whereas Van Hiel and Mervielde (2002) assessed four traditional and symbolic racism items adapted from Kinder and Sears (1 98 1). Finally, Whitley (1999) assessed positive and negative stereotypical items of Black Americans based on Judd, Park, Ryan, Brauer, and Krauss (1995).

In sum, the relationship between RWA and SDO on the one hand and racism on the other hand has been documented repeatedly, but previous research has neglected to compare the strength of these relationships for various forms of racism. The use of various racism scales makes it difficult to assess whether RWA and SDO are particularly related to distinctive forms of racism.

Traditional and Modern Forms of Racism

People tend to associate prejudice with claims that the White race is superior and beliefs that people of different races should be segregated. Research in north- ern America, however, reveals that because of the changing social climate, people tend to endorse to a much lesser extent these overt, traditional signs of racism. Consequently, some call this kind of prejudice “old-fashioned” and contrast it with more subtle, covert forms of racism.

Modem prejudice or subtle prejudice refers to a form of racism that surfaces in less direct ways whenever it is safe, socially acceptable, or easy to


rationalize (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 1999). According to Devine, Plant, and Blair (200 I) , the more subtle forms of racism have been referred to as modern racism (McConahay, 1986), symbolic racism (Kinder & Sears, 1986), ambivalent racism (Katz & Hass, 1988), and aversive racism (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986) in the United States. However, in Western Europe, the term subtle racism is used to capture these more hidden forms of prejudice (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). However, research efforts to develop measures of old-fashioned and modem racism have evolved independently. Hence, a general framework integrating these various prejudice dimensions is not available.

In the present studies, we will investigate whether RWA and SDO are related to the racism dimensions, which form the basis of the well-accepted prejudice models of Katz and Hass (1988) and Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn (1993; for Study l), and Pettigrew and Meertens (1 995; for Study 2). Because these models are more or less representative for prejudice research, we will first describe their content.

Katz and Hass ( 1988) distinguished between anti-Black and pro-Black dimensions that underlie prejudice. The anti-Black items refer to a view of Blacks as having no respect for themselves, and lacking community feeling and positive attitudes with respect to education and work. The pro-Black items attribute Blacks’ low status as a result of being socially and economically discriminated against. According to Katz and Hass, these two dimensions refer to the conflicting values of egalitarianism and individualism, producing ambivalent attitudes to Blacks.

Pettigrew and Meertens ( 1995) distinguished between three acceptable, ostensibly nonprejudicial expressions of prejudice. First, defense of tradition refers to the belief that out-group members do not succeed in society because they endorse defective values that differ from the in-group’s traditional values. Second, exaggeration of cultural differences refers to the overstatement of actual group differences, which depicts the out-group as a people apart. Third, denial of positive emotions refers to the fact that modern racists hide their positive emotions with respect to out-groups for themselves. The latter measure is less obtru- sive than asking respondents to report negative feelings toward out-group members. In sum, these three facet scales reflect the contemporary socially accepted forms of rejecting minorities.

Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn (1 993) developed a model in which four alternative expressions of racism are arrayed on a single dimension that runs from blatant racism through subtle racism to egalitarianism. The most extreme racist position is called biological racism, which refers to a belief in White supremacy. Those who adhere to this form of racism agree that differences between racial groups are innate. Symbolic racistn-the second form of racism on the cumulative dimension-also refers to an eagerness to discriminate, but symbolic racists do so because they believe that minorities’ different moral


values threaten their own culture. The third form of racism-ethnocentrism- does not imply the wish for racial segregation, but instead is characterized primarily by the differentiation between in-groups and out-groups, as well as by the demand for the submission of out-groups. Finally, aversive racism-the least severe sort of prejudice-refers to reluctance to interact with out-group members. People who do not score high on either of these facet scales are labeled egalitarians.

In the first study, we investigate the relationships between RWA and SDO on the one hand, and Katz and Hass’s ( 1 988) pro- and anti-minority scales and the racism scales of Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn’s (1 993) integrative model on the other. In the second study, we assess whether RWA and SDO are related to blatant and subtle prejudice, using Pettigrew and Meertens’ (1 995) subtle prejudice facet scales: defense of tradition, exaggeration of cultural differences, and denial of positive emotions.

Study 1

In the first study, we administered the racism measure of Katz and Hass (1988), assessing modern racism; and Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn’s ( 1 993) measure, which integrates various forms of racism. The predictions with respect to the relationships of RWA and SDO with the racism dimensions of Katz and Hass are straightforward. Katz and Hass reported that anti-Black prejudice is related primarily to the Protestant work-ethic scale representing cultural conservatism issues, whereas the pro-Black dimension is negatively related to humanitarianism-egalitarianism, which is closely tied to SDO (Duckitt, 200 1). Thus, Duckitt considers the Protestant work ethic and humanitarianism-egalitarianism dimensions as referring to RWA and SDO, respectively. Therefore, he asserts that anti-Black prejudice should be related to RWA, whereas pro-Black prejudice should bear a significant relationship with SDO. Because these relationships are robust, the Katz and Hass scales allow for testing the cross-cultural stability of these relationships in the Flemish context.

According to Duckitt (200 1 ), the differential correlations of RWA and SDO with various forms of racism depend on their capacity to elicit threat-driven motives and dominance-driven motives, respectively. Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn (1 993) explicitly ordered the various forms of racism according to their potential to elicit threat and dominance motivations. They assumed that superiority is a component of biological and symbolic racism, as well as ethnocentrism, whereas superiority is not typical for aversive racism. In the case of biological racism, superiority translates into biological superiority; in the case of symbolic racism and ethnocentrism, superiority takes the form of assumed cultural supremacy. Given the fact that these forms of racism reflect dominance-


oriented motives, one would predict particularly strong relationships between these scales and SDO (Duckitt, 2001).

Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn ( 1993) viewed threat as characteristic for all forms of racism, although threat manifests itself in various ways. In the case of biological racism, out-groups are seen as a biological threat, and intergroup conflict represents a racial problem. In the case of symbolic racism and ethnocentrism, the out-group poses a cultural threat, and the conflict is experienced as a societal problem. In the case of aversive racism, contact with members of out- groups is considered threatening, and this is considered to be a social problem. According to Duckitt (2001), threat is typical for RWA-based prejudice. Thus, because all these forms of racism are assumed to be instigated by threat, one expects them to correlate strongly with RWA.

I n sum, we expect a particularly strong positive relationship between RWA and anti-minority prejudice, whereas SDO should be particularly related to pro- minority prejudice. Moreover, both RWA and SDO are expected to correlate strongly with biological and symbolic racism, as well as with ethnocentrism. However, for aversive racism, a strong relationship should be expected only with RWA, but not with SDO.

Method

Suniple. Data on a Flemish adult sample were collected by undergraduates who asked their neighbors to participate in order to obtain a heterogeneous sample. Participants completed the questionnaires at their homes; and 2 weeks after receiving the materials, questionnaires were returned to the students in a sealed envelope in order to guarantee anonymity. If the questionnaires were not yet completed, students made another appointment to collect the data. A total of 200 questionnaires was distributed.

The final sample ( N = 146) consisted of 73 males, 67 females, and 6 persons who did not specify their gender who had a mean age of 37.42 years (SD =

14.34). Of these participants, 64% attended higher education, while 36% left school at the age of 18 years or earlier; and 54% indicated a position ( 1 to 4) on the left side of a 9-point left-right political orientation self-placement scale, 22% indicated a neutral stance (5 ) , and 24% indicated a position (6 to 9) on the right side of the scale.

Measures. Participants completed a 12-item RWA scale (Altemeyer, 1981 ; translated into Dutch by Meloen, 1991; Cronbach’s a = .82) and a 14-item SDO scale (Pratto et al., 1994; translated by Van Hie1 & Duriez, 2002; a = .86). The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) through 3 (neutrd) to 5 (strongly agree).

Katz and Hass’s (1988) pro-Black and anti-Black items were translated and adapted to the Flemish situation. Most importantly, immigrants instead of Blacks


were used as the ethnic target group. The pro-immigrant scale and the anti- immigrant scale showed sufficient internal consistency (a = .8 1 and .75, respectively; 10 items each). These items also were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) through 3 (neutral) to 5 (strongly agree).

The racism scales (Kleinpenning & Hagendoorn, 1993) also proved to be internally consistent. Cronbach’s alphas for the facet scales of biological racism, symbolic racism, ethnocentrism, and aversive racism were .79, 33 , .66, and .66, respectively. Immigrants were the target group. Participants expressed agreement on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strong@ agree), with the exception of the aversive racism items, which were rated on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (very annoying) to 9 (very pleasant).

Results

Means and standard deviations are reported in Table 1. A significant positive correlation between RWA and SDO was obtained ( r = .43). As can be seen in Table 1, the correlations between RWA and anti-immigrant attitudes and between SDO and pro-immigrant attitudes were particularly high. In particular, when comparing the strength of the correlations, it became apparent that RWA was more related to anti-immigrant attitudes than was SDO (z = 1.82, p < .05, one- tailed); and that SDO was significantly more strongly related to pro-immigrant attitudes than was RWA (z = 2.69, p < .Ol). This pattern of results was replicated when partial correlations were calculated. That is, the correlation between RWA and anti-immigrant attitudes remained significant after statistical correction for SDO, and the correlation between SDO and pro-immigrant attitudes remained significant after statistical correction for RWA. In sum, all of these results corroborate our expectations.

Table 1 also reveals that RWA as well as SDO were strongly related to the four forms of racism of Kleinpenning and Hagendoom’s (1 993) model. Strong relationships for RWA and SDO were expected for biological and symbolic racism and ethnocentrism, but not for aversive racism. Comparisons of the relative strength of the RWA and SDO correlations did not yield significant differences; and when statistically controlled for each another, the RWA and SDO correlations remained significant for all racism facet scales. Thus, the results only par- tially corroborated our expectations because a differential effect with respect to aversive racism was not noted.

Given the fact that the racism facet scales are assumed to represent consecutive steps in ethnic attitudes, we composed groups with various types of racists. Those who scored below or equal to the neutral point on all forms of racism were classified as egalitarians; while those who scored below or equal to the midpoint of all scales, except the aversive racism scale, were assigned to the category aversive racists. Those who scored below or equal to the midpoint of all scales,


Table 1

Means, Correlations, and Partial Correlations of R WA, SDO, Anti- and Pro-MinoriQ Attitudes, and Pettigrew and Meertens ( I 995) Racism Scales: Study I

Correlation Partial correlation

Scale M SD RWA SDO RWAa SDOb

Biological 3.26 1.45 .59,*** SO,*** .48*** .34*** Symbolic 3.88 2.10 .57,*** .53,*** .44*** .38*** Ethnocentrism 5.40 1.54 .52,*** .45,*** .41*** .29*** Aversive 5.06 1.63 .46,*** .51,*** .31*** .39*** Pro-immigrant 3.3 1 0.56 -.45,*** -.63b*** -.25** -.54*** Anti-immigrant 2.88 0.52 .56,*** .43b*** .46*** .25**

Notc. RWA = right-wing authoritarianism; SDO = social dominance orientation. Scores for biological racism, symbolic racism, ethnocentrism and aversive racism; range = 1 to 9. Scores for pro- and anti-immigrant scales: range = 1 to 5 . Different subscripts indicate significant differences in the magnitude of the relationships with RWA and SDO. aRWA correlations partialled for SDO. bSDO correlations partialled for RWA. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

except the aversive racism and ethnocentrism scale, were assigned to the ethno- centrist group. Those who scored higher than the midpoint on all scales, except the biological racism scale, were assigned to the category symbolic racists. Finally, those who scored higher than the midpoint on all scales were assigned to the category biological racists.

It turned out to be difficult to differentiate between the aversive racists (only 4 participants were assigned to this category) and the ethnocentrism category ( N = 9), and 39 participants were unclassifiable when these two categories were treated as two distinct classes. Therefore, we collapsed the two latter categories. As a result, only 4 participants could not be assigned to a category (e.g., because they scored higher than 5 on symbolic racism and scored less than 5 on biological racism) .

Two univariate ANOVAs were conducted with RWA, F(3, 138) = 20.09, p < ,001; and SDO, F(3, 138) = 14.46, p < .001, as the dependent variables. As can be seen in Table 2, the consecutive racial categories evinced higher mean scores for all scales. Duncan post hoc analyses reveal that RWA better differentiated the various racism types than did SDO. That is, RWA significantly differentiated between (a) egalitarians and the combined category of aversive


Table 2

Mean Differences Between Types of Racism Based on Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn ( I 993) for R WA and SDO: Study 1

Aversive racists/ Symbolic Biological

Egalitarians ethnocentrists racists racists

Scale M SD M SD M SD M SD

RWA 2.30, 0.54 2.56, 0.53 2.98, 0.63 3.42, 0.67 SDO 1.84, 0.50 2.12, 0.59 2.53, 0.60 2.75b 0.80 N 57 46 22 17

Note. RWA = right-wing authoritarianism; SDO = social dominance orientation. Differ- ing subscripts refer to significant differences.

racists and ethnocentrists, (b) symbolic racists, and (c) biological racists, whereas SDO failed to differentiate significantly between symbolic racists and biological racists.

Finally, we calculated partial correlations for each racism item. Table 3 shows the 10 best differentiating items between RWA and SDO. Five of these items are strongly related to RWA, but not to SDO. The other five items are particularly related to SDO. As has been hypothesized by Duckitt (2001), one high- correlating RWA item explicitly refers to out-group threat. The other items refer primarily to the fact that if out-group members do not behave according to our rules and norms, they should be brought back in line. High-correlating racism items of SDO refer primarily to the fact that minorities are not really discriminated against, but that they just are not good enough to obtain a better place in our society. Duckitt also mentioned disdain and the inability to recognize positive traits in minority members as particularly related to SDO.

Discirssion

The present study reveals that RWA is clearly related to anti-immigrant attitudes in particular, whereas SDO relates primarily to pro-immigrant attitudes. This result corroborates Duckitt’s (200 1) assumptions, and it underlines the cross-cultural stability of this relationship, even though the out-group in the present study is not the Black American group, but instead Arab and Turk minorities who migrated in the last four decennia to Flanders.

RWA and SDO were about equally related to biological racism, symbolic racism, ethnocentrism, and aversive racism. This result does not entirely corroborate


Table 3

Correlates of R WA ad SDO: Best Discriminating Racism Items

Item RWA SDO

All these different cultures in Belgium are a threat to our own culture. (symbolic racism)

Differences between ethnic groups are innate. (biological racism) .

The Belgian government is not authorized to exclude ethnic groups from our country on the basis of their behavior. (ethnocentrism)

their way up to better jobs. (anti-immigrant)

had better attitudes about learning. (anti-immigrant)

because of their skin color. (pro-immigrant)

immigrants face. (anti-immigrant)

all the obstacles they face. (pro-immigrant)

show. (pro-immigrant)

Belgian people. (biological racism)

lmmigrants should take jobs that are available and then work

Children of immigrants would do better in school if their parents

Too may immigrants still lose out on jobs and promotions

Many Belgians show a lack of understanding ofthe problems

It is surprising that immigrants do as well as they do, considering

lmmigrants have more to offer than they have been allowed to

Interbreeding with ethnic minorities is an enrichment to the

.43

.37

.25

.25

.22

-.22

.09

-.Oh

-.02

.I4

.I5

-.02

.05

.oo

-.I 1

-.42

.39

-.36

-.35

.34

Note. RWA = right-wing authoritarianism; SDO = social dominance orientation.

our expectations because we expected correlations of differential strength for aversive racism. The results also reveal that RWA better distinguished between the various racism types than did SDO. An alternative explanation of the weaker power of SDO to distinguish between the various types of racism is the fact that SDO usually yields lower mean scores and, consequently, shows less variance than does RWA. However, the variances of these two variables were comparable in the present research; hence, the restriction of range effect cannot account for the present results.

Finally, our results reveal that the highest correlating racism items of RWA and SDO did not belong to one particular facet scale, but instead constituted


various scales. Racism items that strongly correlated with RWA refer to out- group threat and a demand for the appropriate behavior of out-group members. SDO-related items primarily refer to the fact that out-group members have little to offer and, as a consequence, high SDO scorers believe that the weak position of minority groups is not caused by discrimination.

According to Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn (1 993), the cumulative dimension of prejudice proceeds from the most modem to the oldest forms of racism. That is, racism begins with private rejection of out-group members (i.e., aversive racism) and ends with public rejection of the out-group (i.e., symbolic racism and biological racism). In the research literature, the distinction between old- fashioned or biological racism and modern or symbolic racism has attracted attention repeatedly (e.g., Coenders, Scheepers, Sniderman, & Verberk, 200 1 ; Kinder & Sears, 1981; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995; Sniderman & Tetlock, 1986). However, the present results suggest that Kleinpenning and Hagendoom’s (1 993) symbolic racism scale is closely tied to biological racists’ beliefs. Hence, in order to distinguish better between old-fashioned and modern prejudice, Pettigrew and Meertens’ (1995) blatant and subtle prejudice scales will be administered in Study 2.

Study 2

Study 2 addresses the question as to whether RWA and SDO are related differentially to blatant prejudice and Pettigrew and Meertens’ ( 1 995) subtle prejudice dimensions. There is a host of evidence pointing toward a significant relationship between RWA and SDO and measures of blatant prejudice. These studies generally have administered racism measures targeting xenophobia, segregation of races, and other signs of overt racist behavior (e.g., Altemeyer, 1981; Duriez & Van Hiel, 2002; Meloen, Van der Linden, & De Witte, 1996; Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2002).

Although RWA and SDO relate significantly to blatant prejudice, there is no direct evidence on the relationship between RWA and SDO and subtle racism. Moreover, Study 1 showed that RWA and SDO were related differentially to Katz and Hass’s ( I 988) subtle prejudice dimensions. Hence, it is worthwhile to explore further the possible relationships between RWA and SDO and Pettigrew and Meertens’ (1 995) racism questionnaire, which is an alternative measure for subtle prejudice.

Method

Sample. Data on an adult sample were collected by undergraduates who asked their neighbors to participate in order to obtain a heterogeneous sample. The pro- cedure was analogous to Study 1. The sample ( N = 176) consisted of 99 males, 69 females, and 8 persons who did not specify their gender who had a mean age of


38.66 years (SD = 15.07). Of these participants, 66% attended higher education, while 34% left school at the age of 18 years or earlier; 45% indicated a position (1 -4) on the left side of a 9-point left-right political orientation self-placement scale, 25% indicated a neutral stance (5), and 30% indicated a position (6-9) on the right side of the scale.

Measures. Unless otherwise indicated, all items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (conipletely opposed) to 3 ( n e i r t d ) to 5 (conipletely in ugree- rnent). Participants completed an 1 I -item RWA scale (Altemeyer, 198 1 ; translated by Meloen, 1991; a = .74), a 14-item SDO scale (Pratto et al., 1994; translated by Van Hie1 & Duriez, 2002; a = .79), and an 8-item racism scale (Duriez & Hutsebaut, 2000; a = .86).

In order to measure subtle prejudice, an adapted version of Pettigrew and Meertens’ (1 995) questionnaire was administered. The four items that constitute the traditional-values facet were translated into Dutch (a = .74). The items tap- ping the exaggeration of cultural differences (e.g., “There are huge differences between immigrants and Belgian people with respect to their religious beliefs and practices”; a = .62) and the denial of positive emotions (e.g., “Sometimes I feel admiration for immigrants living here”; a = .61) were rewritten so that we were able to anchor these statements by slrongly disagree and strongly agree. The total score on subtle prejudice also was calculated (a = .SO).

Results

Means and standard deviations are reported in Table 4. A positive, significant correlation between RWA and SDO was obtained (Y = .28), but the strength of this relationship is moderate when compared to previous studies in Flanders (Duriez et al., 2005). As can be seen in Table 4, RWA and SDO were strongly and positively correlated with blatant prejudice. However, with respect to subtle prejudice, strong correlations were obtained only for RWA, but the SDO/subtle- prejudice relationship was much weaker. Painvise comparison of the strength of these correlations2 reveals that the magnitude of the RWA and SDO relationships with blatant prejudice did not differ significantly. but RWA proved to be more strongly related to the traditionalism and positive-emotions facet scales, as well as to the total score on subtle prejudice.

As can be seen in Table 4, when statistically controlled for SDO, RWA was related positively to both blatant and subtle prejudice; as well as to the facet scales of tradition, exaggeration of cultural differences, and denial of positive

’Because correlations in one sample are being compared, we used a formula devised by McNemar ( I 969):

t=(rI2-r13)*SQRT[(N-3)*(1 +rz3)]/SQRT[2*(1 - r 2 1 2 - r 2 1 3 - t % 3 ) +

2 * (r12 * ri3 *


Table 4

Means, Correlations, and Partial Correlations of R WA, SDO, and Blatant and Subtle Racism: Study 2

Correlations Partial correlations

Scale M SD RWA SDO RWAa SDOb

Blatant prejudice 2.03 0.77 .49,*** .43,*** .44*** .35*** Subtle prejudice 3.07 0.57 .48,*** .19b* .48*** .04 Traditionalism 3.26 0.79 .49,*** .26b*** .47*** .I2 Cultural

differences 3.49 0.66 .28,*** .IS,* .26*** . I0 Positive emotions 2.47 0.51 .36,*** .0ob .39*** - .13

~

Note. KWA = right-wing authoritarianism; SDO = social dominance orientation. Differ- ent subscripts indicate significant differences in the magnitude of the relationships with RWA and SDO. aRWA correlations partialled for SDO. bSDO correlations partialled for KWA. *p < .05. ***p < ,001.

emotions. When controlled for RWA, SDO bore out significant correlations with blatant prejudice, but not with subtle prejudice. Moreover, the correlations between SDO controlled for RWA and the facet scales of subtle prejudice were not significant. In sum, the present results unambiguously show that RWA and SDO are related to blatant racism and that only RWA is related significantly to subtle prejudice.

There has been considerable debate about the question whether Pettigrew and Meertens’ ( 1995) subtle prejudice dimension constitutes a separate dimension or represents a particular position on one continuum. In order to investigate this issue in detail, we performed a principal components analysis of the blatant and subtle prejudice items. The scree plot reveals that two or three dimensions were needed to represent the correlations among the items. As can be seen in Table 5 , items constituting the blatant racism scale loaded on the first component accounting for 32.92% of the total variance, whereas the traditionalism and cultural differences items loaded on the second dimension accounting for 10.07% of the total variance. The correlation between the two oblimin rotated dimensions was positive and significant ( r = .32, p < .OOl) . These results thus substantiate the validity of distinguishing between blatant and subtle prejudice, although it should be mentioned that three of the four positive emotion items had their highest loadings on the wrong dimension.


Table 5

Principal Factors of the Blatant Racism Items and Pettigrew and Meertens ’ (I 995) Subtle Racism Items: Study 2

Two-component Three-component solution solution

Item I 11 1 11 i11

Blatent 1 Blatant 2 Blatant 3 Blatant 4 Blatant 5 Blatant 6 Blatant 7 Blatant 8 Tradition 1 Tradition 2 Tradition 3 Tradition 4 Cultural differences 1 Cultural differences 2 Cultural differences 3 Cultural differences 4 Positive emotions I Positive emotions 2 Positive emotions 3 Positive emotions 4

.67

.72

.79

.75

.75

.63

.68

.52

.63

.40

.42

.43

.24

.03

.25

.30

.59

.62

.54

.02

.30

.14

.33

.33

.17

.09

.48 -.oo .48 .68 .70 .53 .38 .62 .67 .61 .34 .23 .30 .48

.74

.77

.75

.75

.79

.61

.6I

.42

.57

.38

.35

.37

.27 -.O 1 .2 1 .16 .34 .39 .28

-.15

.33

.16

.33

.34

.19

.09

.47 -.03 .48 .69 .70 .53 .40 .63 .68 .60 .29 .19 .25 .46

.20

.26

.48

.38

.33

.38

.47

.49

.41

.2 1

.3 1

.32

.04

.03

.15

.37

.78

.78

.79

.29

Note. Loadings greater than .40 appear in italics.

The three-component solution better distinguishes between blatant and subtle prejudice. Analogous to the two-component solution, the first factor primarily loads blatant items, whereas the traditionalism and cultural differences items loaded on the second component. Three out of four positive emotion items loaded on the third component, accounting for an additional 6.74% of the total variance. The correlations among the dimensions were significant and positive (rs > .23).


Table 6

Mean Differences Between Types of Racism Based on Pettigrew and Meertens (I 995) for R WA and SDO (Study 2)

Egalitarians Subtle racists Bigots

M SD M SD M SD

RWA 2.64, .72 3.20, .74 3.59, .55 SDO 2.49, .70 2.68, .60 3.00, .69 N 80 78 16

Note. RWA = right-wing authoritarianism; SDO = social dominance orientation. Differ- ent subscripts refer to significant differences.

Next, we computed the correlations between RWA and SDO and the factor scores on the three components. The relationships between KWA and SDO and the component scores on the blatant racism dimension were significant ( r = .44 and .52, respectively; p s < .OOl), but only RWA correlated significantly with the scores on the second dimension (r = .35, p < . O O l ) , whereas the SDO/subtle- prejudice correlation was nonsignificant (r = .04). Finally, RWA bore significant correlations with the scores on the third dimension ( r = .28, p < .001), whereas SDO did not show such a significant relationship ( r = .12, ns). These results thus further corroborate the conclusion that both RWA and SDO are comparably related to blatant prejudice, but that they are differentially related to subtle prejudice.

A typological analysis of racism (Table 6) shows that people who score below or equal to the midpoint on subtle and blatant racism were assigned to the egali- tarian category. People scoring high on subtle prejudice are classified as subtle racists if they do not score above the midpoint for blatant prejudice. Finally, people scoring high on both forms of racism are assigned to the category of bigots. Univariate analysis reveals significant effects on both RWA, F(2, 168) =

1 8 . 2 0 , ~ < .001; and SDO, F(2, 168) = 4.59,~ < .05. Post-hoc analysis reveals significant differences between bigots; who scored higher on RWA than subtle racists; who, in turn, scored higher on RWA than egalitarians. However, although SDO significantly distinguished between bigots and subtle racists, no significant differences between egalitarians and subtle racists were obtained.

We then calculated partial correlations for each racism item. In line with the previously reported results, there were two traditionalism items, two cultural differences items, and one positive emotion item that were particularly related to RWA. Also, one blatant racism item (“Islam threatens our Western culture”)


differentiated between RWA and SDO and was particularly related to RWA. There were no differentiating items that were particularly related to SDO.

Discussion

The present study reveals that RWA was related positively to both subtle and blatant prejudice, whereas SDO only showed a positive relationship with blatant prejudice. Moreover, typological analysis reveals that RWA distinguished particularly well between egalitarians, subtle racists, and bigots. RWA and SDO showed more or less comparable standard deviations (Table 6). Restriction of range effects are, therefore, unlikely to account for the lesser distinctive power of SDO.

General Discussion

In line with previous research (Duckitt, 2001), the results of Study 1 generally indicate that RWA and SDO are differentially related to pro- and anti-immigrant prejudice. This result illustrates that prejudice vis-a-vis immigrants in Flanders can be understood in similar terms as prejudice with respect to the Black minority in the United States. It also was shown that RWA and SDO have comparable relations with biological racism, symbolic racism, ethnocentrism, and aversive racism. Moreover, item-level analyses reveal that the best differentiating racism items did not pertain to one scale, but instead belonged to various facet scales.

In Study 2, it was revealed that RWA is related to both blatant and subtle prejudice, whereas SDO only relates to blatant prejudice. In this study, RWA consis- tently showed higher correlations and partial correlations than SDO with the subtle racism scales traditionalism and positive emotions. Moreover, factor analysis substantiated the validity of distinguishing between blatant and subtle prejudice.

In both studies, RWA distinguished better among the various types of racism than did SDO. This marked difference between RWA and SDO could not be explained by differences in the variance of these two measures.

In the remainder of this paper, we discuss the very nature of the racism scales used in previous research, as well as their relationship with RWA and SDO. We then discuss the differential relationships between RWA and SDO and blatant and subtle prejudice.

Different Kirids of Racism?

Which prejudice disposition-RWA or SDO-is the best predictor of prejudice? In the present studies, RWA was related more strongly to racism than was SDO. However, not all studies corroborate the superiority of RWA to predict racism. Using a general racism scale in six samples, Duriez et al. (2005) reported relationships of comparable strength for RWA and SDO among students


( N = 553) as well as among adults ( N = 684). Their general racism scale was con- structed to measure xenophobia (e.g., “In general, immigrants are not to be trusted”) and racism (e.g., “We have to keep our race pure and fight mixture with other races”). In sum, unlike the present studies, these results do not corroborate the idea that RWA is a stronger predictor of racism than is SDO.

One of the major aims of the present studies was to clarify the link of RWA and SDO to specific racism scales. However, it should be noted that there is ambi- guity with respect to the interpretation of various racism items used in previous research. A comparison, for example, between Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn (1993) and the classic versus symbolic distinction of Kinder and Sears (1981) clarifies this issue. First, Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn acknowledged that their symbolic racism scale is tied closely to biological racism and, therefore, should be considered a more or less harsh form of racism, whereas the symbolic racism items of Kinder and Sears allegedly tap a more lenient form of racism.

Second, the items pertaining to Kleinpenning and Hagendoom’s (1 993) aversive racism scale closely correspond to the classic racism scale of Kinder and Sears (1981). These sorts of ambiguities even lead to further contradictions. In particular, third, Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn asserted that aversive racism (also known as classic racism) is considered a more modem form of racism than is symbolic racism on their cumulative dimension. Conversely, according to Kinder and Sears, symbolic racism is more modern than classic racism (also known as aversive racism).

In sum, there are at least three inconsistencies between Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn (1993) and Kinder and Sears (1981) on what constitutes modern or subtle racism. To give another example, Katz and Hass (1988) explicitly distinguished between anti- and pro-Black scales, which are related to RWA and SDO, respectively; whereas McConahay (1 986) lumped together items that could belong to these two facet scales in one measure of modem racism.3 In sum, these two different views on racism are illustrative for the lack of consensus on what constitutes racism and subtle prejudice (e.g., Sniderman & Tetlock, 1986). More- over, there is no consensus with respect to which and how many dimensions underlie racism. Of course, the lack of consensus on what constitutes modem or subtle racism makes it difficult to study its relationships with RWA and SDO.

Besides the confusion with respect to these various racism scales, Study I also shows that the relative predictive power of RWA and SDO is item-specific and does not generalize over items that belong to a single scale. In other words, some items that constitute one scale may be predominantly related to RWA, whereas other items of the same scale may be primarily related to SDO. I t follows that typical RWA- or SDO-based prejudice is better characterized by

3 N ~ t surprisingly. then, Pratto et al. (1994, 2000) reported strong correlations between SDO and modem racism.


searching for the core of the differentially related items, rather than by using the facet scales. Such an item-level analysis seems to confirm Duckitt's (2001) description of RWA-based prejudice as threat-driven. That is, out-groups that threaten in-group values and security elicit RWA-based prejudice, which is translated into negative attitudes toward the out-group. When looking at Table 3 , RWA-based prejudice reads as:

Their culture is deficient, and this is so because they do not want to live according to our rules. However, if they do not behave as we do, then we have to take measures to bring them back in line.

Moreover, one item in Study 1 explicitly addressed threat and indeed showed the strongest relationships with RWA. Thus, it seems as if the present results corroborate Duckitt's (200 I ) characterization of RWA-based prejudice. However, it should be noted also that the other items that stress the importance for minorities to conform to traditions and in-group rules are not really implied by Duckitt's theory and, therefore, extend our perspective on RWA-based prejudice.

According to Duckitt (2001; Duckitt et al., 2002), RWA and SDO are sup- posed to underlie two sorts of racism. When the out-groups are of unequal status and intergroup competition involves dominance and power, SDO-based prejudice is generated. In the case of low-status out-groups, SDO-based prejudice translates into disdain and a lack of positive feelings. In the present investigation, SDO-based prejudice reads as follows:

There is no discrimination. They simply do not have much to offer. If they do not succeed in our society, don't blame us.

Thus, these results also seem to corroborate Duckitt (2001) because items that are highly related to SDO are related to disdain for immigrants. In addition, these items also seem to imply the denial of the fact that immigrants are discriminated against.4

Differential Relationships Between R WA and SDO and Blatant and Siibtle Racism

The present results reveal higher mean scores-I point on a 5-point scale- for the subtle prejudice scales than for the blatant scale. The subtle prejudice scales yielded mean scores well above the neutral point, attesting to the fact that these scales tend to elicit less resistance to endorsement. In other words, the scale measures acceptable responses and, therefore, constitutes a less reactive measure

"Denial of discrimination is a facet scale of McConahay's (1986) Modern Racism Scale. Therc- fore, one should expect McConahay's scale to be significantly related with SDO (e.g., Pratto et al.. 1994, 2000).


of racial prejudice. Finally, factor analysis reveals that the blatant and subtle racism items loaded on separate dimensions, underscoring the validity of this distinction.

The present results also contribute to the debate on the conceptual distinction between blatant and subtle prejudice (Coenders et al., 2001; Pettigrew & Meertens, 2001). Coenders et al. asserted that Pettigrew and Meertens’ (1995) measure of blatant and subtle prejudice is invalid, primarily for psychometric reasons, but also because it fails to establish differential correlations with various social determinants, such as education, social position, and religiosity. Nonethe- less, if these two forms of prejudice would be truly distinct, one could expect them to have distinct correlates. This is exactly what the present research demon- strates. Hence, Coenders et al.’s position that the blatant and subtle prejudice scales measure one and the same thing is not substantiated by the present find- ings, but instead, the present results seem to corroborate Pettigrew and Meertens (1995,2001).

Finally, the strong correlations between RWA and Pettigrew and Meertens’ (1 995) traditionalism and positive emotions facet scales need further clarifica- tion. It was pointed out in the introduction that traditionalism or conventionalism is a core characteristic of authoritarianism. Other research that tried to identify differential correlations between RWA and SDO on the one hand and various external variables on the other also reported substantial correlations between traditionalism and RWA, but not for SDO (e.g., Altemeyer, 1998; Duriez & Van Hiel, 2002; McFarland, 1999). Not surprisingly, then, RWA did show a substantial correlation with subtle prejudice in general and the traditionalism facet scale in particular, whereas SDO showed much weaker correlations.

In order to compare the present results with Duckitt’s (2001) theory on RWA- and SDO-based prejudice, the denial of positive emotions facet scale is important. That is, according to Duckitt (also see Fiske, 1998), RWA-based prejudice refers to the hot emotions of fear, anger, and the like; whereas SDO-based prejudice refers to the cold feelings of disdain and the inability to experience positive emotions with respect to out-groups. Thus, Duckitt’s (200 1) perspective would predict that the denial of positive emotions should be related negatively to SDO, but not to RWA. However, contrary to Duckitt, it was revealed in Study 2 that the denial of positive facet scales was negatively related to RWA, whereas the SDO correlations were much weaker. Thus, the relationship between RWA, SDO, and the presence of negative and positive emotions with respect to out-groups cer- tainly requires further investigation.

References

Altemeyer, B. (1 98 1 ). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Canada: Univer- sity of Manitoba Press.


Altemeyer, B. (1 996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press.

Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47-92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bates, C., & Heaven, P. C. L. (2001). Attitudes toward women in society: The role of social dominance orientation and social values. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 11,43-49.

Brehm, S . S., Kassin, S. M., & Fein, S. (1999). Socialpsychology (4th ed.). New York, N Y Houghton-Mifflin.

Coenders, M., Scheepers, P., Snideman, P. M., & Verberk, G. (2001). Blatant and subtle prejudice: Dimensions, determinants, and consequences: Some com- ments on Pettigrew and Meertens. European Journal of Social Psychology,

Devine, P. G., Plant, A., & Blair, I. (2001). Classic and contemporary analyses of racial prejudice. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 198-2 17). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Duckitt, J . (200 1 ). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41-1 13). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Duckitt, J . , Wagner, C. , du Plesssis, I., & Birum, 1. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83,7593.

Duriez, B., & Hutsebaut, D. (2000). The relation between religion and racism: The role of post critical beliefs. Mental Health, Religion, and Culture, 3,

Duriez, B., & Van Hiel, A. (2002). The march of modern fascism: A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Personality and Zndi- vidual DiferenceJ , 32, I 199- 1 2 1 3.

Duriez, B., Van Hiel, A., & Kossowska, M. (2005). Authoritarianism and social dominance in western and eastern Europe: The importance of the sociopolitical context and political involvement. Political Psychology, 26,

Fiske, S. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.. Vol. 2, pp. 357-41 1). New York, N Y McGraw-Hill.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. ( 1 986). The aversive form or racism. In J. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61 -89). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Heaven, P. C. L., & Bucci, S. (2001). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and personality: An analysis using the IPIP measure. Euro- pean Journal of Personality Psychology, 1.5.49-56.

31, 281-297.

85-102.

299-320.


Judd, C. M., Park, B., Ryan, C. S., Brauer, M., & Kraus, S. (1995). Stereotypes and ethnocentrism: Diverging interethnic perceptions of Afkican American and White American youth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

Katz, E., & Hass, R. G. (1 988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of PersonaliQ and Social Psychology, 55, 893-905.

Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. 0. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

Kleinpenning, G., & Hagendoom, L. (1993). Forms of racism and the cumulative dimension of ethnic attitudes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56, 2 1-36.

Lippa, R., & Arad, S. (1999). Gender, personality, and prejudice: The display of authoritarianism and social dominance in interviews with college men and women. Journal of Research in Personality, 33,463-493.

McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modem racism, ambivalence, and the Modem Racism Scale. In J . F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discriminatiou, and racism (pp. 9 1-125). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

McCrae, R. R. (I 996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120,323-337.

McFarland, S . G. (1998, July). Toward a typology ofprejudiced persons. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Society for Political Psychology, Montreal, Canada.

McFarland, S. G. (1999, July). Personali@, values, and latentpi-ejudice: A test of a causal model. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Society for Political Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

McFarland, S. G., & Adelson, S. (1996, July). A n omnibus study ofpersonalitv, vul- ues, andprejudice. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Society for Political Psychology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

McNemar, Q. (1969). Psychological statistics (4th ed.). New York, N Y John Wiley & Son.

Meloen, J. D. (1991). Inventarisatie Nederlandse F-schalen 1959-1990 [List of Dutch F scales]. In P. Scheepers & R. Eisinga (Eds.), Onderdutiig en Intol- erant. Lacunes en controverses in autoritarisme-studies (pp. 186-222). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: ITS.

Meloen, J. D., Van der Linden, G., & De Witte, H. (1996). A test of the approaches of Adomo et al., Lederer, and Altemeyer of authoritarianism in Belgian Flanders: A research note. Political Psychology, 17, 643-656.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1 995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in west- em Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25,57-75.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (2001). In defense of the subtle prejudice concept: A retort. Europeun Journal of Social Psycholop, 31,299-309.

69,468-48 1.

chology, 40,4 14-43 1.


Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 3 1, pp. 19 1 - 263). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Pratto, F., Liu, J. H., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih, M., Bachrach, H., et al. (2000). Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of inequality across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 369-409.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personalif?? and Social Psychology, 67, 74 1-763.

Schwartz, S. H. ( I 992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theo- retical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Sniderman, P. M., & Tetlock, P. E. (1986). Reflections on American racism. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 173- 187.

Van Hiel, A,, & Duriez, B. (2002). Een meetinstrument voor individuele ver- schillen in sociale dominantie orientatie [A scale for measuring individual differences in social dominance orientation]. Nederlands 7'iJdschrift voor de Psychologie en haar Grensgebieden, 57, 1 14-1 16.

Van Hiel, A., & Kossowska, M. (in press). Contemporary attitudes and their ideological representation in Flanders (Belgium), Poland, and the Ukraine. International Journal of Psychology.

Van Hiel, A,, & Mervielde, I. (2002). Explaining conservative beliefs and political preferences: A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. JournuE of Applied Social Psychologv, 32,965-976.

Van Hiel, A., Lk Mervielde, I. (2004). Openness to experience and boundaries in the mind: Relationships with cultural and economic conservative beliefs. Journal of Personaliw, 72,659-686.

Van Hiel, A., Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (2004). The relationship between mal- adaptive personality and right wing ideology. Personality and Individual DIfi ferences, 36,405-41 7.

Van Hiel, A., Pandelaere, M., & Duriez, B. (2004). The impact of need for clo- sure on conservative beliefs and racism: Differential mediation by authoritarian submission and authoritarian dominance. Personalit)? and Social P~yvchology Bulletin, 30, 824-837.

Whitley, B. E. (1 999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psvchology, 77, 126- 134.

Whitley, B. E., & Lee, S. E. (2000). The relationship of authoritarianism and related constructs to attitudes to homosexuality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 144-1 70.

Date post:	13-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	independent
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation: Relationships With Various Forms of Racism

Documents