We introduce the balanced ideological antipathy (BIA) model, which challenges assumptions that right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) predict inter-group antipathy per se. Rather, the effects of RWA and SDO on antipathy should depend on the target’s political orientation and political objectives, the specific components of RWA, and the type of antipathy expressed. Consistent with the model, two studies (N = 585) showed that the Traditionalism component of RWA positively and negatively predicted both political intolerance and prejudice toward tradition-threatening and -reaffirming groups, respectively, whereas SDO positively and negatively predicted prejudice (and to some extent political intolerance) toward hierarchy-attenuating and -enhancing groups, respectively. Critically, the Conservatism component of RWA positively predicted political intolerance (but not prejudice) toward each type of target group, suggesting it captures the anti-democratic impulse at the heart of authoritarianism. Recommendations for future research on the relationship between ideological attitudes and inter-group antipathy are discussed.
AdornoT. W.Frenkel-BrunswikE.LevinsonD. J.SanfordR. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: Harper.
2.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
3.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
4.
AltemeyerB. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
AltemeyerB. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47-91). New York, NY: Academic Press.
6.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351-368.
7.
BrandtM. J.ReynaC.ChambersJ. R.CrawfordJ. T.WetherellG. (2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 27-34.
8.
ChambersJ. R.SchlenkerB. R.CollissonB. (2013). Ideology and prejudice: The role of value conflicts. Psychological Science, 24, 140-149.
9.
CrawfordJ. T. (2014). Ideological symmetries and asymmetries in political intolerance and prejudice toward political activist groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 284-298.
10.
CrawfordJ. T.BradyJ.PilanskiJ. M.ErnyH. (2013). Differential effects of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on political candidate support: The moderating role of message framing. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 1, 5-28. doi:10.5964/jspp.v1i1.170
11.
CrawfordJ. T.KayS.DukeK. E. (2015). Speaking out of both sides of their mouths: Biased political judgments within (and between) individuals. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 6, 422-430.
12.
CrawfordJ. T.PilanskiJ. M. (2014a). The differential effects of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on political intolerance. Political Psychology, 35, 557-576.
13.
CrawfordJ. T.PilanskiJ. M. (2014b). Political intolerance, right and left. Political Psychology, 35, 841-851.
14.
CrawfordJ. T.XhambaziE. (2015). Predicting political biases against the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements. Political Psychology, 36, 111-121.
15.
DuarteJ. L.CrawfordJ. T.SternC.HaidtJ.JussimL.TetlockP. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral & Brain Sciences. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S0140525X14000430
16.
DuckittJ. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41-113).
17.
DuckittJ.BizumicB. (2013). Multidimensionality of right-wing authoritarian attitudes: Authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism. Political Psychology, 34, 841-862.
18.
DuckittJ.BizumicB.KraussS. W.HeledE. (2010). A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31, 685-715.
19.
DuckittJ.FarreB. (1994). Right-wing authoritarianism and political intolerance among Whites in the future majority rule South Africa. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 735-742.
20.
DuckittJ.FisherK. (2003). The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24, 199-222.
21.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2007). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21, 113-130.
22.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861-1893.
23.
FeldmanS. (2001). Authoritarianism. In SmelserN. J.BaltesP. B. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (p. 971). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
24.
FeldmanS. (2003). Enforcing social conformity: A theory of authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 24, 41-74.
25.
Frenkel-BrunswikE.LevinsonD. J.SanfordR. N. (1947). The antidemocratic personality. In MaccobyE. E.NewcombT. M.HartleyE. L. (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 636-646). New York, NY: Henry Holt.
26.
FrimerJ. A.GaucherD. G.SchaeferN. K. (2014). Political conservatives’ affinity for obedience to authority is loyal, not blind. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1205-1214.
27.
FunkeF. (2005). The dimensionality of right-wing authoritarianism: Lessons from the dilemma between theory and measurement. Political Psychology, 26, 195-218.
28.
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.PrattoF.LevinS.ThomsenL.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ. (2012). Social dominance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 583-606.
29.
HodsonG.CostelloK. (2007). Interpersonal disgust, ideological orientations, and dehumanization as predictors of intergroup attitudes. Psychological Science, 18, 691-698.
30.
HortonJ. J.RandD. G.ZeckhauserR. J. (2011). The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 14, 399-425.
31.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. J. (2014). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 690-707.
32.
JohnsonM. K.LabouffJ. P.RowattW. C.Patock-PeckhamJ. A.CarlisleR. D. (2012). Facets of right-wing authoritarianism mediate the relationship between religious fundamentalism and attitudes toward Arabs and African Americans. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 51, 128-142.
33.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.
34.
MarcusG. E.SullivanJ. L.Theiss-MorseE.WoodS. L. (1995). With malice toward some: How people make civil liberties judgments. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
35.
MavorK. I.LouisW. R.SibleyC. 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, 28-33.
36.
MavorK. I.MacleodC. J.BoalM. J.LouisW. R. (2009). Right-wing authoritarianism, fundamentalism and prejudice revisited: Removing suppression and statistical artefact. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 592-597.
37.
SearsD. O.HenryP. J. (2003). The origins of symbolic racism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 259-275.
38.
SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 248-279.
39.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
40.
SkitkaL. J.LiuJ. H.YangY.ChenH.LiuL.XuL. (2013). Exploring the cross-cultural generalizability and scope of morally motivated intolerance. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 4, 324-331.
41.
StennerK. (2005). The authoritarian dynamic. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42.
StoufferS. A. (1955). Communism, conformity, and civil liberties. New York, NY: Doubleday.
43.
SuedfeldP. (2002). Postmodernism, identity politics, and other political influences in political psychology. In MonroeK. R. (Ed.), Political psychology (pp. 315-327). London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
SullivanJ. E.TransueJ. E. (1999). The psychological underpinnings of democracy: A selective review of research on political tolerance, interpersonal trust, and social capital. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 625-650.
45.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
46.
TagarM. R.FedericoC. M.LyonsK. E.LudekeS.KoenigM. A. (2014). Heralding the authoritarian? Orientation toward authority in early childhood. Psychological Science, 25, 883-892.
47.
TerrizziJ. A.Jr.ShookN. J.VentisW. L. (2010). Disgust: A predictor of social conservatism and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 587-592.
48.
TodosijevicB.EnyediZ. (2008). Authoritarianism without dominant ideology: Political manifestation of authoritarian attitudes in Hungary. Political Psychology, 29, 767-787.
49.
WetherellG.BrandtM. J.ReynaC. (2013). Discrimination across the ideological divide: The role of perceptions of value violations and abstract values in discrimination by liberals and conservatives. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 4, 658-667.
50.
WhitleyB. E.Jr.LeeS. E. (2000). The relationship of authoritarianism and related constructs to attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 144-170.
51.
YzerbytV. Y.DemoulinS. (2010). Intergroup relations. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1024-1083). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
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.
