Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Predict Outsiders' Responses to an External Group Conflict: Implications for Identification, Anger, and Collective Action

Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 303-332

  Saeri, Alexander K ^a   Iyer, Aarti ^a   Louis, Winnifred R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTHORITARIANISM; BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; COLLECTIVE ACTION; GROUP BEHAVIOR; IDEOLOGY; PATH ANALYSIS; PSYCHOLOGY; SOCIAL CONFLICT;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84951877390     PISSN: 15297489     EISSN: 15302415     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/asap.12081     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
2. Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Arbuckle, J. L. (2012). Amos (Version 21.0). Chicago: SPSS.
4. Bliuc, A.-M., McGarty, C., Reynolds, K., & Muntele, D. (2007). Opinion-based group membership as a predictor of commitment to political action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(1), 19-32. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.334.
5. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980.
6. Byrne, B. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
7. Chandler, J., Mueller, P., & Paolacci, G. (2014). Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavior Research Methods, 46(1), 112-130. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7.
8. Crump, M. J. C., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PloS One, 8(3), doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057410.
9. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16-29. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16.
10. Deaux, K., Reid, A., Martin, D., & Bikmen, N. (2006). Ideologies of diversity and inequality: Predicting collective action in groups varying in ethnicity and immigrant status. Political Psychology, 27(1), 123-146. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00452.x.
11. Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(5), 410-436. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1995.1018.
12. Duckitt, J. (2006). Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(5), 684-696. doi: 10.1177/0146167205284282.
13. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007). Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21(2), 113-130. doi: 10.1002/per.614.
14. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). A dual-process motivational model of ideology, politics, and prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 98-109. doi: 10.1080/10478400903028540.
15. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010a). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1861-1893. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x.
16. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010b). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation differentially moderate intergroup effects on prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 24(7), 583-601. doi: 10.1002/per.772.
17. Ellemers, N., Doosje, B., Van Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. (1992). Status protection in high status minority groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(2), 123-140. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420220203.
18. Federico, C. M., & Sidanius, J. (2002). Racism, ideology, and affirmative action revisited: The antecedents and consequences of "principled objections" to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 488-502. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.488.
19. Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 213-224. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1753.
20. Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Levin, S., Thomsen, L., Kteily, N., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2012). Social dominance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 583-606. doi: 10.1177/0146167211432765.
21. Hornsey, M. J., Blackwood, L., Louis, W., Fielding, K., Mavor, K., Morton, T., O'Brien, A., Paasonen, K.-E., Smith, J., & White, K. M. (2006). Why do people engage in collective action? Revisiting the role of perceived effectiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1701-1722. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00077.x.
22. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.
23. Iyer, A., Schmader, T., & Lickel, B. (2007). Why individuals protest the perceived transgressions of their country: The role of anger, shame, and guilt. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(4), 572-587. doi: 10.1177/0146167206297402.
24. Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307-337. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600.
25. Klandermans, B., & Oegema, D. (1987). Potentials, networks, motivations, and barriers: Steps towards participation in social movements. American Sociological Review, 52(4), 519-531. doi: 10.2307/2095297.
26. Leach, C. W., Iyer, A., & Pedersen, A. (2007). Angry opposition to government redress: When the structurally advantaged perceive themselves as relatively deprived. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(1), 191-204. doi: 10.1348/014466606X99360.
27. Leach, C. W., Snider, N., & Iyer, A. (2002). "Poisoning the consciences of the fortunate": The experience of relative advantage and support for social equality. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 136-163). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press (http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2002-00369-007).
28. Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., Ouwerkerk, J. W. & Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144-165. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144.
29. Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198-1202.
30. Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2014). Statistical analysis with missing data. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
31. Mallett, R. K., Huntsinger, J. R., Sinclair, S., & Swim, J. K. (2008). Seeing through their eyes: When majority group members take collective action on behalf of an outgroup. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11(4), 451-470. doi: 10.1177/1368430208095400.
32. Mavor, K. I., Louis, W. R., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). A bias-corrected exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of right-wing authoritarianism: Support for a three-factor structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(1), 28-33. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.006.
33. Mazza, G. L., & Enders, C. K. (2014). Missing data analysis. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 627-652). New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. McDonald, R. I., Fielding, K. S., & Louis, W. R. (2012). Conflicting norms highlight the need for action. Environment and Behavior, 46(2), 139-162. doi: 10.1177/0013916512453992.
35. McDonald, R. I., Fielding, K. S., & Louis, W. R. (2013). Energizing and de-motivating effects of norm conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 39(1), 57-72. doi: 10.1177/0146167212464234.
36. Occupy Together. (2013). Learn about Occupy (http://www.occupytogether.org/aboutoccupy/).
37. Passini, S., & Morselli, D. (2013). The triadic legitimacy model: Understanding support to disobedient groups. New Ideas in Psychology, 31(2), 98-107. doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2012.06.002.
38. Perry, R., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). A dual-process model motivational model of social and economic policy attitudes. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 262-285. doi: 10.1111/asap.12019.
39. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741.
40. Reese, G., Proch, J., & Cohrs, J. C. (2014). Individual differences in responses to global inequality. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 14, 217-238. doi: 10.1111/asap.12032.
41. Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (1996). Self-category constructions in political rhetoric; an analysis of Thatcher's and Kinnock's speeches concerning the British miners' strike (1984-5). European Journal of Social Psychology, 26(3), 353-371. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199605)26:3<353::AID-EJSP757>3.0.CO;2-O
42. Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Antecedents of men's hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 160-172.
43. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
44. Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56(4), 319-331. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.4.319.
45. Stürmer, S., & Simon, B. (2004). Collective action: Towards a dual-pathway model. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 59-99. doi: 10.1080/10463280340000117.
46. Subašić, E., Reynolds, K. J., & Turner, J. C. (2008). The political solidarity model of social change: Dynamics of self-categorization in intergroup power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(4), 330-352. doi: 10.1177/1088868308323223.
47. Subašić, E., Schmitt, M. T., & Reynolds, K. J. (2011). Are we all in this together? Co-victimization, inclusive social identity and collective action in solidarity with the disadvantaged. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(4), 707-725. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02073.x.
48. Tea Party (2015). About Us (http://www.teaparty.org/about-us/).
49. Tewari, S., Khan, S., Hopkins, N., Srinivasan, N., & Reicher, S. (2012). Participation in mass gatherings can benefit well-being: Longitudinal and control data from a North Indian Hindu pilgrimage event. PLoS ONE, 7(10), doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047291.
50. Thomas, E. F., McGarty, C., & Mavor, K. I. (2009). Aligning identities, emotions, and beliefs to create commitment to sustainable social and political action. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 194-218. doi: 10.1177/1088868309341563.
51. Thomas, E. F., McGarty, C., & Mavor, K. I. (2010). Social psychology of Making Poverty History: Motivating anti-poverty action in Australia. Australian Psychologist, 45(1), 4-15. doi: 10.1080/00050060903447095.
52. Thomsen, L., Green, E. G. T., & Sidanius, J. (2008). We will hunt them down: How social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism fuel ethnic persecution of immigrants in fundamentally different ways. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(6), 1455-1464. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.06.011.
53. Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454-454. doi: 10.1177/0146167294205002.
54. van Zomeren, M. (2013). Four core social-psychological motivations to undertake collective action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(6), 378-388. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12031.
55. van Zomeren, M., Leach, C. W., & Spears, R. (2012). Protesters as "passionate economists": A dynamic dual pathway model of approach coping with collective disadvantage. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(2), 180-199. doi: 10.1177/1088868311430835.
56. van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504-535. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504.
57. van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Bettache, K. (2011). Can moral convictions motivate the advantaged to challenge social inequality? Extending the social identity model of collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 735-753. doi: 10.1177/1368430210395637.
58. van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 649-664. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.649.
59. Wright, S. C. (2009). The next generation of collective action research. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 859-879. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01628.x.
60. Wright, S. C., Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1990). Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 994-1003. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.994.