Many studies have focused on mediated paths by which social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) predict prejudice; fewer have identified factors that moderate their effects. We applied social cognitive domain theory to test whether different ways of reasoning about antigay discriminatory acts moderated the association between SDO, RWA, and condoning antigay discrimination. Moral reasoning (e.g., emphasizing fairness, equality) and personal reasoning (e.g., emphasizing individual interests, qualifications) attenuated the association between SDO, RWA, and condoning discriminatory resource denial in general and religious-specific contexts. Conventional reasoning (e.g., emphasizing group norms, rules) magnified the association between SDO, RWA, and condoning resource denial, but only in a religious-specific context. Findings highlight the need to examine moderators of SDO and RWA effects in effort to disrupt discrimination by those most likely to engage in it.
AbramsD.PalmerS. B.RutlandA.CameronL.van de VyverJ. (2014). Evaluations of and reasoning about normative and deviant ingroup and outgroup members: Development of the black sheep effect. Developmental Psychology, 50, 258–270. doi:10.1037/a0032461
2.
AbramsD.RutlandA.PelletierJ.FerrellJ. M. (2009). Children’s group nous: Understanding and applying peer exclusion within and between groups. Child Development, 80, 224–243. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01256.x
3.
AdornoT.Frenkel-BrunswikE.LevinsonD.SanfordN. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: Harper.
4.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5.
AltemeyerB. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
6.
AsbrockF.ChristO.DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2012). Differential effects of intergroup contact for authoritarians and social dominators: A dual process model perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 477–490. doi:10.1177/0146167211429747
7.
BurdetteA. M.EllisonC. G.HillT. D. (2005). Conservative Protestantism and tolerance. toward homosexuals: An examination of potential mechanisms. Sociological Inquiry, 75, 177–196. doi:10.1111/j.1475–682X.2005.00118.x
8.
CohrsJ. C.IblerS. (2009). Authoritarianism, threat, and prejudice: An analysis of mediation and moderation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 81–94. doi:10.1080/01973530802659638
9.
DaddisC.BrunellA. B. (2015). Entitlement, exploitativeness, and reasoning about everyday transgressions: A social domain analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 58, 115–126. doi:10.1016/j.jpr.2015.07.007
10.
DhontK.van HielA. (2012). Intergroup contact buffers against the intergenerational transmission of authoritarianism and racial prejudice. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 231–234. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.008
11.
DhontK.van HielA.HewstoneM. (2014). Changing the ideological roots of prejudice: Longitudinal effects of intergroup contact on social dominance orientation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 27–44. doi:10.1177/1368430213497064
12.
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). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
13.
DuckittJ. (2006). Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 684–696. doi:10.1177/0146167205284282
14.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2007). Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21, 113–130. doi:10.1002/per.614
15.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2010). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation differentially moderate intergroup effects on prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 24, 583–601. doi:10.1002/per.772
16.
DuckittJ.WagnerC.du PlessisI.BirumI. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 75–93. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.83.1.75
17.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141
18.
HaidtJ. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon/Random House.
19.
HaidtJ.GrahamJ. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116. doi:10.1007/s11211–007–0034-z
20.
HaslamN.LevyS. R. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality: Structure and implications for prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 471–485. doi:10.1177/0146167205276516
21.
HelwigC. (1995). Social context and social cognition. In KillenM.HartD. (Eds.), Morality in everyday life: Developmental perspectives (pp. 166–200). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
22.
HodsonG.CostelloK. (2007). Interpersonal disgust, ideological orientations, and dehumanization as predictors of intergroup attitudes. Psychological Science, 18, 691–698. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9280.2007.01962.x
23.
HornS. S.SzalachaL. A. (2009). School differences in heterosexual students’ attitudes about homosexuality and prejudice based on sexual orientation. European Journal of Developmental Science, 3, 64–79. doi:10.3233/DEV-2009-3108
24.
HornS. S.SzalachaL. A.DrillK. (2008). Schooling, sexuality, and rights: An investigation of heterosexual students’ social cognition regarding sexual orientation and the rights of gay and lesbian peers in school. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 791–813. doi:10.1111/j.1540–4560.2008.00589.x
25.
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
26.
KillenM. (2007). Children’s social and moral reasoning about exclusion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 32–36. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8721.2007.00470.x
27.
KillenM.CooleyS. (2014). Morality, exclusion, and prejudice. In KillenM.SmetanaJ. G. (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (2nd ed., pp. 340–360). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
28.
KillenM.Lee-KimJ.McGlothlinH.StangorC. (2002). How children and adolescents evaluate gender and racial exclusion. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67(4, Serial No. 271). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3181568
29.
KillenM.RutlandA. (2011). Children and social exclusion: Morality, prejudice, and group identity. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
30.
KillenM.StangorC. (2001). Children’s social reasoning about inclusion and exclusion in gender and race peer group contexts. Child Development, 72, 174–186. doi:10.1111/1467–8624.00272
31.
KossowskaM.BukowskiM.van HielA. (2008). The impact of submissive versus dominant authoritarianism and negative emotions on prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 744–749. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.022
32.
LevinS.PrattoF.MatthewsM.SidaniusJ.KteilyN. (2013). A dual process approach to understanding prejudice toward Americans in Lebanon: An extension to intergroup threat perceptions and emotions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16, 139–158. doi:10.1177/1368430212443866
33.
McFarlandS. (2010). Authoritarianism, social dominance, and other roots of generalized prejudice. Political Psychology, 31, 453–477. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9221.2010.00765.x
34.
MiceliM. S. (2005). Morality politics vs. identity politics: Framing processes and competition among Christian right and gay social movement organizations. Sociological Forum, 20, 589–612. doi:10.1007/s11206–005–9059-y
35.
MøllerS. J.TenenbaumH. R. (2011). Danish majority children’s reasoning about exclusion based on gender and ethnicity. Child Development, 82, 520–532. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8624.2010.01568.x
36.
NucciL. (1996). Morality and the personal sphere of actions. In ReedE.TurielE.BrownT. (Eds.), Values and knowledge (pp. 41–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
NucciL. P. (2014). The personal and the moral. In KillenM.SmetanaJ. G. (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (2nd ed., pp. 538–558). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
38.
OlsonL. R.CadgeW.HarrisonJ. T. (2006). Religion and public opinion about same-sex marriage. Social Science Quarterly, 87, 340–360. doi:10.1111/j.1540–6237.2006.00384.x
39.
PoteatV. P.SpaniermanL. B. (2010). Do the ideological beliefs of peers predict the prejudiced attitudes of other individuals in the group?Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13, 495–514. doi:10.1177/1368430209357436
40.
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
41.
SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 248–279. doi:10.1177/1088868308319226
42.
SibleyC. G.RobertsonA.WilsonM. S. (2006). Social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects. Political Psychology, 27, 755–768. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9221.2006.00531.x
43.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF.BoboL. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 476–490. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.70.3.476
44.
SkitkaL. J. (2002). Do the means always justify the ends or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 452–461. doi:10.1177/0146167202288003
45.
SkitkaL. J.BaumanC. W.SargisE. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 895–917. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.88.6.895
46.
SmetanaJ. G. (2013). Moral development: The social domain theory view. In ZelazoP. D. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental psychology Vol. 1: Body and mind (pp. 832–866). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
47.
SmetanaJ. G.JambonM.BallC. (2014). The social domain approach to children’s moral and social judgments. In KillenM.SmetanaJ. G. (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (2nd ed., pp. 23–45). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
48.
TauschN.HewstoneM. (2010). Social dominance orientation attenuates stereotype change in the face of disconfirming information. Social Psychology, 41, 169–176. doi:10.1027/1864–9335/a000024
49.
TurielE. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
50.
TurielE. (2006). The development of morality. In DamonW. (Series Ed.) & EisenbergN. (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Volume 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 789–895). New York, NY: Wiley.
51.
TurielE. (2010). Snap judgment? Not so fast: Thought, reasoning, and choice as psychological realities. Human Development, 53, 105–109. doi:10.1159/000315167
52.
TurielE.HildebrandtC.WainrybC. (1991). Judging social issues: Difficulties, inconsistencies, and consistencies. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 56(Serial No. 224). doi:10.2307/1166056
53.
Van HielA.CornelisI.RoetsA. (2007). The intervening role of social worldviews in the relationship between the five-factor model of personality and social attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 21, 131–148. doi:10.1002/per.618
54.
WhitleyB. E. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126–134. doi:10.1037/0022–514.77.1.126
55.
ZakrissonI. (2005). Constructing a short version of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 863–872. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.026
