Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2016-11
The Relationship between Right–wing Attitudes and Cognitive Style: A Comparison of Self–report and Behavioural Measures of Rigidity and Intolerance of Ambiguity
AdornoT. W., Frenkel–BrunswikE., LevinsonD. J., & SanfordR. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.
2.
AltemeyerB. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 47–92), 30. San Diego: Academic Press.
3.
AsendorpfJ., ConnerM., De FruytF., De HouwerJ., DenissenJ. J. A., FiedlerK., … WichertsJ. M. (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27, 108–119.
4.
BeggC. B., & MazumdarM. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50, 1088–1101.
5.
BoderD. P. (1942). Nazi Science. Chicago Jewish Form, 1, 23–29.
BrownR. W. (1965). Social psychology. New York: Free Press.
8.
CampbellD. T., & FiskeD. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
9.
CardN. (2012). Applied meta–analysis for social science research. New York: Guilford.
10.
ChirumboloA. (2002). The relationship between need for cognitive closure and political orientation: The mediating role of authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 603–610.
11.
CornelisI., & Van HielA. (2006). The impact of cognitive styles on authoritarianism based conservatism and racism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 37–50.
12.
CrowsonH. M. (2009). Does the DOG Scale measure dogmatism? Another look at construct validity. Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 265–283.
13.
DuckittJ. (2001). A dual–process cognitive–motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 41–113), 33. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
14.
DurrheimK. (1997). Theoretical conundrum: The politics and science of the authoritarian personality. Political Psychology, 18, 625–627.
15.
DurrheimK., & FosterD. (1997). Tolerance of ambiguity as a content specific construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 741–750.
16.
DuvalS., & TweedieR. (2000). A non–parametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta–analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 89–98.
17.
EavesL. J., EysenckH. J., & MartinN. G. (1989). Genes, culture and personality – an empirical approach. London: Academic Press.
18.
EggerM., SmithG. D., SchneiderM., & MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta–analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634.
19.
EpsteinS. (1979). Stability of behavior. 1. Predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097–1126.
20.
Frenkel–BrunswikE. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 19, 108–143.
21.
Frenkel–BrunswikE. (1954). Further explorations by a contributor to “The Authoritarian Personality.”. In ChristieR., & JahodaM. (Eds.), Studies in the scope and method of “The authoritarian personality” (pp. 226–275). New York: Free Press.
22.
FurnhamA. (2001). Self–estimates of intelligence: culture and gender difference in self and other estimates of both general and multiple intelligences. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1381–1405.
23.
GoughH. G., & SanfordR. N. (1952). Rigidity as a psychological variable. Unpublished manuscript, University of California Institute of Personality Assessment and Research.
24.
HedgesL. V., & VeveaJ. L. (1998). Fixed– and random–effects models in meta–analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486–504.
25.
HigginsJ. P. T., & ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta–analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1539–1558.
26.
JaenschE. R. (1938). Der Gegentypus. Leipzig: J.A. Barth.
27.
JostJ. T., GlaserJ., KruglanskiA. W., & SullowayF. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.
28.
JussimL., CrawfordJ. T., AnglinS. M., StevensS. T., & DuarteJ. L. (2016). Interpretation and methods: Towards a more effectively self–correcting social psychology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 116–133.
29.
KemmelmeierM. (1997). Need for closure and political orientation among German university students. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 787–789.
30.
KrugerJ., & DunningD. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence leas to inflated self–assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134.
31.
LevittE. E. (1956). The water–jar Einstellung test as a measure of rigidity. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 347–370.
32.
LevittE. E., & ZelenS. L. (1955). An investigation of the water–jar extinction problem as a measure of rigidity. Psychological Reports, 1, 331–334.
33.
LipseyM. W., & WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta–analysis. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
34.
LuchinsA. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 54, 248.
35.
LuchinsA. S. (1949). Rigidity and ethnocentrism: A critique. Journal of Personality, 17, 242–246.
36.
MullenB. (1989). Advanced basic meta–analysis. New York: Academic Press.
37.
OnraetE., Van HielA., DhontK., HodsonG., SchittekatteM., & De PauwS. (2015). The association of cognitive ability with right–wing ideological attitudes and prejudice: A meta–analytic review. European Journal of Personality, 29, 599–621.
38.
OnraetE., Van HielA., RoetsA., & CornelisI. (2011). The closed mind: ‘Experience’ and ‘cognition’ aspects of openness to experience and need for closure as psychological bases for right–wing attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 25, 184–197.
39.
RoetsA., KruglanskiA. W., KossowskaM., PierroA., & HongY.–y. (2015). The motivated gatekeeper of our minds: New directions in need for closure theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 221–283.
40.
RoetsA., Van HielA., & CornelisI. (2006). The dimensional structure of the need for cognitive closure scale: Relationships with “seizing” and “freezing” processes. Social Cognition, 24, 22–45.
41.
RothsteinP. R., SuttonA. J., & BorensteinM. (2005). Publication bias in meta–analyses. In RothsteinH. R., SuttonA. J., & BorensteinM. (Eds.), Publication bias in meta–analysis: Prevention, assessement, and adjustments (pp. 1–7). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
42.
SchroderH. M., & StreufertS. (1962). The measurement of four systems of personality structure varying in level of abstractness: Sentence completion method. ONR.: Princeton University.
43.
SternbergR. J., & GrigorenkoE. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style?American Psychologist, 52, 700–712.
44.
TetlockP. E. (1983). Cognitive style and political ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 118–126.
45.
TetlockP. E., HannumK. A., & MicheletiP. M. (1984). Stability and change in the complexity of senatorial debate: Testing the cognitive versus rhetorical style hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 979–990.
46.
Van HielA., CornelisI., RoetsA., & DeClerqB. (2007). A comparison of various authoritarianism scales in Belgian Flanders. European Journal of Personality, 21, 149–168.
47.
Van HielA., & MervieldeI. (2003). The measurement of cognitive complexity and its relationship with political extremism. Political Psychology, 24, 781–801.
48.
Van HielA., OnraetE., & De PauwS. (2010). The relationship between social–cultural attitudes and behavioral measures of cognitive style: A meta–analytic integration of studies. Journal of Personality, 68, 1765–1800.
49.
Van HielA., PandelaereM., & DuriezB. (2004). The impact of need for closure on conservative beliefs and racism: Differential mediation by authoritarian submission and authoritarian dominance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 824–837.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
