The Motivational Bases of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation: Relations to Values and Attitudes in the Aftermath of September 11,2001
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2005
The Motivational Bases of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation: Relations to Values and Attitudes in the Aftermath of September 11,2001
Research suggests that different motivational dynamics underlie right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). These differences may be framed in the theory of basic human values. RWA may trace back to conservation versus openness-to-change values, and SDO to self-enhancement versus self-transcendence values. Based on a large-scale German survey, associations of RWA and SDO with personal values and attitudes in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, were analyzed. Results indicated that RWA related more strongly than SDO to conservation values and threat-related attitudes toward Islam as an expression of the motivational goals of social control and security, whereas RWA and SDO related equally to self-enhancement versus self-transcendence values and concern for negative consequences of military action as an expression of the motivational goal of altruistic concern. Thus, the motivational bases of RWA and SDO appear to be only partly different.
Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.
2.
Aiello, A., Leone, L., & Chirumbolo, A. (2003, July). Validation of the utility of social dominance orientation in Italy. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Boston, July 16-19.
3.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
4.
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
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.
7.
Braithwaite, V. (1997). Harmony and security value orientations in political evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 401-414.
8.
Buchanan, T., & Smith, J. L. (1999). Using the Internet for psychological research: Personality testing on the World Wide Web. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 125-144.
9.
Cohrs, J. C., Kielmann, S., Moschner, B., & Maes, J. (2002). Befragung zum 11. September 2001 und den Folgen: Grundideen, Operationalisierungen und deskriptive Ergebnisse der ersten Erhebungsphase [Survey on September 11 and the consequences: Basic ideas, operationalizations, and descriptive results of the first wave of data collection](Berichteausder Arbeitsgruppe “Verantwortung, Gerechtigkeit, Moral”, No. 148). Trier: University of Trier, Faculty I—Psychology.
10.
Cohrs, J. C., & Moschner, B. (2002). Antiwar knowledge and generalized political attitudes as determinants of attitude toward the Kosovo War. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 8, 141-157.
11.
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41-113). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
12.
Duckitt, J., & Fisher, K. (2003). The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24, 199-222.
13.
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, 83, 75-93.
14.
Duriez, B., & Van Hiel, A. (2002). The march of modern fascism: A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1199-1213.
15.
Feldman, S. (2003a). Enforcing social conformity: A theory of authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 24, 41-74.
16.
Feldman, S. (2003b). Values, ideology, and the structure of political attitudes. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 477-508). New York: Oxford University Press.
17.
Funke, F. (2003). Die dimensionale Struktur von Autoritarismus [The dimensional structure of authoritarianism]. Unpublished dissertation, Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Germany.
18.
Funke, F. (2005). The dimensionality of right-wing authoritarianism: Lessons from the dilemma between theory and measurement. Political Psychology, 26, 195-218.
19.
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust Web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93-104.
20.
Heaven, P. C. L., & Connors, J. R. (2001). A note on value correlates of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 925-930.
21.
Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 209-232.
22.
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.
23.
McFarland, S. (2002). Prejudiced people: Individual differences in explicit prejudice. Unpublished manuscript, Western Kentucky University.
24.
McFarland, S. (2003). The effects of authoritarianism and social dominance upon American students’ attitudes toward attacking Iraq. Psicología Política, 27, 119-130.
25.
McFarland, S. G. (2005). On the eve of war: Authoritarianism, social dominance, and American students’ attitudes toward attacking Iraq. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 360-367.
26.
McFarland, S., & Adelson, S. (1996, June/July). An omnibus study of personality and prejudice. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Vancouver, Canada, June 30-July 3.
27.
Petzel, T., Wagner, U., Nicolai, K., & van Dick, R. (1997). Ein kurzes Instrument zur Messung der Autoritarismus-Neigung [A short instrument to measure authoritarian tendency]. Gruppendynamik, 28, 251-258.
28.
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. 31, pp. 191-263). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
29.
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, 741-763.
30.
Rohan, M. J., & Zanna, M. P. (1996). Value transmissions in families. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values (pp. 253-276). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
32.
Saucier, G. (2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 366-385.
33.
Schafer, J. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London: Chapman & Hall.
34.
Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & Kappen, D. M. (2003). Attitudes toward group-based inequality: Social dominance or social identity?British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 161-186.
35.
Schneider, J. F. (1997). Erfahrungen mit deutschsprachigen Versionen der Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale von Altemeyer [Experiences with German versions of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale by Altemeyer]. Gruppendynamik, 28, 239-249.
36.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical 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.
37.
Schwartz, S. H. (2005a). Basic human values: Their content and structure across cultures. In A. Tamayo & J. Porto (Eds.), Valores e comportamento nas organizacións [Values and behavior in organizations]. Petropolis, Brazil: Vozes.
38.
Schwartz, S. H. (2005b). Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory of universals in individual human values. In A. Tamayo & J. B. Porto (Eds.), Valores e comportamento nas organizacións [Values and behavior in organization]. Petropolis, Brazil: Vozes.
39.
Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 230-255.
40.
Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 519-542.
41.
Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 92-116.
42.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Six, B., Wolfradt, U., & Zick, A. (2001). Autoritarismus und Soziale Dominanzorientierung als generalisierte Einstellungen [Authoritarianism and social dominance orientation as generalized attitudes]. Zeitschrift für Politische Psychologie, 9, 23-40.
44.
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245-251.
45.
Stellmacher, J. (2004). Autoritarismus als Gruppenphänomen: Zur situationsabhängigen Aktivierung autoritärer Prädispositionen [Authoritarianism as a group phenomenon: On the situational activation of authoritarian predispositions]. Marburg, Germany: Tectum.
46.
Struch, N., Schwartz, S. H., & van der Kloot, W. A. (2002). Meanings of basic values for women and men: A cross-cultural analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 16-28.
47.
Van Hiel, A., & Mervielde, I. (2002). Explaining conservative beliefs and political preferences: A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 965-976.
48.
Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Lee, S. (2000). The relationship of authoritarianism and related constructs to attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 144-170.
49.
Zick, A., & Petzel, T. (1999). Authoritarianism, racism, and ideologies about acculturation. Politics, Groups, and the Individual, 8, 41-64.
