Meta-analyses show that low levels of Openness and Agreeableness correlate with generalized prejudice. However, previous studies narrowly assessed prejudice toward low-status, disadvantaged groups. Using a broad operationalization of generalized prejudice toward a heterogeneous array of targets, we sought to answer two questions: (a) Are some types of people prejudiced against most types of groups? and (b) Are some types of people prejudiced against certain types of groups? Across four samples (N = 7,543), Openness was very weakly related to broad generalized prejudice, r = −.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) [−.07, −.001], whereas low Agreeableness was reliably associated with broad generalized prejudice, r = −.23, 95% CI [−.31, −.16]. When target characteristics moderated relationships between Big Five traits and prejudice, they implied that perceiver–target dissimilarity on personality traits explains prejudice. Importantly, the relationship between Agreeableness and prejudice remained robust across target groups, suggesting it is the personality trait orienting people toward (dis)liking of others.
AdornoT. W.Frenkel-BrunswikE.LevinsonD. J.SanfordR. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
2.
AkramiN.EkehammarB.BerghR. (2011). Generalized prejudice: Common and specific components. Psychological Science, 22, 57-59.
3.
AkramiN.EkehammarB.BerghR.DahlstrandE.MalmstenS. (2009). Prejudice: The person in the situation. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 89-897.
4.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
5.
AronsonE.WilsonT. D.AkertR. M. (2010). Social psychology (7th ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
6.
AshtonM. C.LeeK.de VriesR. (2014). The HEXACO honesty-humility, agreeableness, and emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 139-152.
7.
BerghR.AkramiN.EkehammarB. (2012). The personality underpinnings of explicit and implicit generalized prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 614-621.
8.
BerghR.AkramiN.SidaniusJ.SibleyS. (2016). Is group membership necessary for understanding generalized prejudice? A re-evaluation of why prejudices are interrelated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 367-395.
9.
BrandtM. J. (2017). Predicting ideological prejudice. Psychological Science, 28, 712-722.
10.
BrandtM. J.ChambersJ. R.CrawfordJ. T.WetherellG.ReynaC. (2015). Bounded openness: The effect of openness to experience on intolerance is moderated by target group conventionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 549-568.
11.
BrandtM. J.CrawfordJ. T. (2016). Answering unresolved questions about the relationship between cognitive ability and prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 884-892.
12.
BrandtM. J.ProulxT. (2016). Conceptual creep as a human (and scientific) goal. Psychological Inquiry, 27, 18-23.
13.
BrandtM. J.ReynaC.ChambersJ.CrawfordJ.WetherellG. (2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 27-34.
14.
BrownR. (2010). Prejudice: Its social psychology (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
15.
ByrneD. (1969). Attitudes and attraction. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 35-89). New York, NY: Academic Press.
16.
ChambersJ. R.SchlenkerB. R.CollissonB. (2013). Ideology and prejudice: The role of value conflicts. Psychological Science, 24, 140-149.
17.
CorrellJ.JuddC. M.ParkB.WittenbrinkB. (2010). Measuring prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination. In DovidioJ. F.HewstoneM.GlickP.EssesV. M. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 45-62). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
18.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
19.
CrandallC. S.EshlemanA.O’BrienL. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359-378.
20.
CrawfordJ. T.BrandtM. J.InbarY.ChambersJ. R.MotylM. (2017). Social and economic ideologies differentially predict prejudice across the political spectrum, but social issues are most divisive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 383-412.
21.
CrawfordJ. T.PilanskiJ. M. (2014). Political intolerance, right and left. Political Psychology, 35, 841-851.
22.
CuddyA. J.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61-149.
23.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2007). Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21, 113-130.
24.
EkehammarB.AkramiN. (2003). The relation between personality and prejudice: A variable- and a person-centred approach. European Journal of Personality, 17, 449-464.
25.
EkehammarB.AkramiN. (2007). Personality and prejudice: From Big Five personality factors to facets. Journal of Personality, 75, 899-926.
26.
EkehammarB.AkramiN.GyljeM.ZakrissonI. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big Five personality, social dominance orientation, or right-wing authoritarianism?European Journal of Personality, 18, 463-482.
27.
FatkeM. (2017). Personality traits and political ideology: A first global assessment. Political Psychology, 38, 881-899.
28.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
29.
FlynnF. J. (2005). Having an open mind: The impact of openness to experience on interracial attitudes and impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 816-826.
30.
GoslingS. D.RentfrowP. J.SwannW. B.Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528.
31.
GrayH. M.GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619.
32.
GrazianoW. G.BruceJ.SheeseB. E.TobinR. M. (2007). Attraction, personality, and prejudice: Liking none of the people most of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 565-582.
33.
HirshJ. B.DeYoungC. G.XuX.PetersonJ. B. (2010). Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: Associations of agreeableness with political ideology and moral values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 655-664.
34.
HodsonG.DhontK. (2015). The person-based nature of prejudice: Individual difference predictors of intergroup negativity. European Review of Social Psychology, 26, 1-42.
35.
JayaratneT. E.YbarraO.SheldonJ. P.BrownT. N.FeldbaumM.PfefferC. A.PettyE. M. (2006). White Americans’ genetic lay theories of race differences and sexual orientation: Their relationship with prejudice toward blacks, and gay men and lesbians. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 77-94.
36.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102-138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
37.
KammrathL. K.ScholerA. A. (2011). The Pollyanna myth: How highly agreeable people judge positive and negative relational acts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1172-1184.
38.
KellerJ. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 686-702.
39.
KochA.ImhoffR.DotschR.UnkelbachC.AlvesH. (2016). The ABC of stereotypes about groups: Agency/socioeconomic success, conservative-progressive beliefs, and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 675-709.
40.
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.
41.
Parks-LeducL.FeldmanG.BardiA. (2015). Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 3-29.
42.
SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 248-279.
43.
SuhayE.BrandtM. J.ProulxT. (2017). Lay belief in biopolitics and political prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 173-182.
44.
Van HielA.MervieldeI. (2004). Openness to experience and boundaries in the mind: Relationships with cultural and economic conservative beliefs. Journal of Personality, 72, 659-686.
45.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1-48.
46.
WeinerB. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
47.
WeinerB.PerryR. P.MagnussonJ. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 738-748.
48.
WetherellG.BrandtM. J.ReynaC. (2013). Discrimination across the ideological divide: The role of value violations and abstract values in discrimination by liberals and conservatives. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 658-667.
49.
WilliamsM. J.EberhardtJ. L. (2008). Biological conceptions of race and the motivation to cross racial boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1033-1047.
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.
