A Dual Group Processes Model of Individual Differences in Prejudice

Abstract

The study of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) as predictors of prejudice has represented an attempt to explain group dynamics in terms of individual traits. In contrast, I argue that the individual tendencies that predict prejudice are actually a product of group dynamics. This article critiques personality approaches, focusing primarily on authoritarianism and secondarily on social dominance, and defends a model that explains the 2 variables in terms of discrete group processes. According to the Dual Group Processes model, SDO reflects category differentiation, which involves the evaluation of individuals on the basis of their category membership. RWA reflects normative differentiation, which involves the evaluation of ingroup members on the basis of their prototypicality. Authoritarian aggression—whether against ethnic minorities or other targets—is conceptualized as an intragroup phenomenon, involving the rejection of perceived antinorm deviants who threaten the longevity or legitimacy of social norms.

Group domination and inequality in context: evidence for the unstable meanings of social dominance and authoritarianism

“…Our results raise problems for approaches that assume support for group-based dominance results from general psychological orientations, and are more consistent with the idea that group dominance attitudes emerge from specific contexts of intergroup relations (Kreindler, 2005;. These findings are consistent with a growing body of evidence suggesting that the meaning of group dominance is context-dependent (e.g., Verkuyten & Hagendoorn, 1998).…”

“…In addition, we found that heterosexism, religious fundamentalism, and conservatism were significantly related to SDO when participants considered equality for same-sex relationship partners, but not when participants considered equality for religious social service groups. Overall, our findings suggest that support for group dominance is best conceptualized in terms of specific social contexts, and thus attempts to locate a general psychological orientation toward group dominance are problematic (Kreindler, 2005;. In other words, it is hard to imagine any general psychological orientation toward an abstract concept like 'group equality' that would have a meaning independent of specific social contexts and identities.…”

The acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression scale: development and validation in German and English

“…In these respects, the AMMSA scale seems to function in a similar way as was shown for traditional rape myth scales [see Murnen et al, 2002]. As expected, lower positive correlations were found between AMMSA and constructs involving outgroup derogation, including right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation [see Kreindler, 2005], as well as between AMMSA and a general measure of the belief in a just world [Lerner, 1980]. The latter finding replicates a similar pattern found by Bohner [1998] using Costin's R scale.…”

Predicting dispositions toward inclusion of students with disabilities: the role of conservative ideology and discomfort with disability

“…First, the tendency among cultural conservatives to view the social world as a dangerous place might contribute to generalized prejudice against any and all groups that do not conform to societal ideals (Crowson and Brandes 2008)-physically or behaviorally. This might lead them to focus less on issues of common humanity and social welfare (i.e., universalism values) and more on differences and protecting their in-group against perceived out-group threats (Kreindler 2005), whatever they might be. From this perspective, culturally conservative preservice educators would be expected to exhibit both negative attitudes toward students with disabilities and oppose their inclusion in general education classrooms.…”