The motivated social cognition (MSC) model of conservative ideology posits there are two core facets of conservative political ideology—endorsement of hierarchies and resistance to change. The present research tested the validity and reliability of a scale developed to measure resistance to change. Five studies support the validity, reliability, and factor structure of the Resistance to Change-Beliefs (RC-B) scale. Scores on the RC-B scale correlated with social and cognitive motivations as well as self-identified conservatism. RC-B also predicted more conservative stances on political issues and factor analyses supported the predicted internal structure of the RC-B scale. This provides the field with a validated instrument that avoids problems inherent in previous measures, can be used to test predictions from the MSC model, and has potential applications beyond political psychology.
AltemeyerB. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
2.
AltemeyerB. (2002). Dogmatic behavior among students: Testing a new measure of dogmatism. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 713-721. doi:10.1080/00224540209603931
3.
BonannoG. A.JostJ. T. (2006). Conservative shift among high-exposure survivors of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 311-323. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2804_4
4.
BrandtM. J.ReynaC. (2017). Individual differences in the resistance to social change and acceptance of inequality predict system legitimacy differently depending on the social structure. European Journal of Personality, 31, 266-278. doi:10.1002/per.2100
CrowsonH. M.BrandesJ. A. (2017). Differentiating between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton voters using facets of right-wing authoritarianism and social-dominance orientation: A brief report. Psychological Reports, 120, 364-373. doi:10.1177/0033294117697089
7.
DuckittJ. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41-113). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
8.
DuckittJ.BizumicB.KraussS. W.HeledE. (2010). A tripartite approach to Right-Wing Authoritarianism: The authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31, 685-715. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00781.x
9.
EriksonR. S.TedinK. L. (2003). American public opinion (6th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
10.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160.
11.
FunkeF. (2005). The dimensionality of right-wing authoritarianism: Lessons from the dilemma between theory and measurement. Political Psychology, 26, 195-218. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00415.x
12.
GorsuchR. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
GuilfordJ. P. (1954). Psychometric methods (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
16.
JacksonD. N. (1994). Jackson Personality Inventory - Revised Manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems, Inc.
17.
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 (pp. 102-138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
18.
JostJ. T.FedericoC. M.NapierJ. 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
19.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
20.
JostJ. T.NapierJ. L.ThorisdottirH.GoslingS. D.PalfaiT. P.OstafinB. (2007). Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political conservatism or ideological extremity?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 989-1007. doi:10.1177/0146167207301028
21.
KennyD. A.ZautraA. (2001). Trait–state models for longitudinal data. In CollinsL. M.SayerA. G. (Eds.), Decade of behavior: New methods for the analysis of change (pp. 243-263). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10409-008
22.
LudekeS. G.KlitgaardC. N.VitriolJ. (2018). Comprehensively-measured authoritarianism does predict vote choice: The importance of authoritarianism’s facets, ideological sorting, and the particular candidate. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 209-216. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.019
23.
NailP. R.McGregorI.DrinkwaterA. E.SteeleG. M.ThompsonA. W. (2009). Threat causes liberals to think like conservatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 901-907. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.013
24.
OregS. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 680-693. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680
25.
OregS.BayazitM.VakolaM.ArciniegaL.ArmenakisA.BarkauskieneR.. . . van DamK. (2008). Dispositional resistance to change: Measurement equivalence and the link to personal values across 17 nations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 935-944. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.935
26.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
27.
SarıbayS. A.Olcaysoy-ÖktenI.YılmazO. (2017). Kişisel ve toplumsal düzeylerde eşitliğe karşıtlık ve değişime direnmenin muhafazakârlıkla ilişkisi [The relationship between conservatism and opposition to equality and resistance to change at the personal and societal levels]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları/Turkish Psychological Articles, 39, 24-41.
28.
SaribayS. A.YilmazO. (2018). Relationships between core ideological motives, social and economic conservatism, and religiosity: Evidence from a Turkish sample. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 205-211. doi:10.1111/ajsp.12213
29.
SchwartzS. H.MelechG.LehmannA.BurgessS.HarrisM.OwensV. (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. doi:10.1177/0022022101032005001
30.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
31.
WebsterD. M.KruglanskiA. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049-1062. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049
WilsonG. D.PattersonJ. R. (1968). A new measure of conservatism. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7, 264-269. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1968.tb00568.x
34.
YilmazO.SaribayS. A. (2016). An attempt to clarify the link between cognitive style and political ideology: A non-western replication and extension. Judgment and Decision Making, 11, 287-300.
35.
YilmazO.SaribayS. A. (2018a). Lower levels of resistance to change (but not opposition to equality) is related to analytic cognitive style. Social Psychology, 49, 65-75. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000328
36.
YilmazO.SaribayS. A. (2018b). Moral foundations explain unique variance in political ideology beyond resistance to change and opposition to equality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1368430218781012
37.
ZárateM. A.ShawM. (2010). The role of cultural inertia in reactions to immigration on the U.S./Mexico border. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 45-57. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01632.x
38.
ZárateM. A.ShawM.MarquezJ. A.BiagasD. (2012). Cultural inertia: The effects of cultural change on intergroup relations and the self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 634-645. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.014
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.
