Varieties of Group Self-Centeredness and Dislike of the Specific Other

Abstract

This investigation tests relationships between three kinds of group self-centeredness and their relationship with negativity towards specific outgroups. A questionnaire study with 270 undergraduates focused on three prominent kinds of group self-centeredness: ethnocentrism, fundamentalism, and anthropocentrism. Although overall ethnocentrism, fundamentalism, and anthropocentrism were positively intercorrelated, fundamentalism was positively associated with one ethnocentrism dimension (intragroup) and negatively with the other (intergroup). A path analysis showed that each kind of group self-centeredness was related only to negativity to specific and relevant outgroups and not to other outgroups. Implications of the research, particularly for the study of religiosity and prejudice, are discussed. Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1950) assumed that ethnocentric individuals are particularly prone to be centered on various ingroups and to have generalized negativity towards all those considered as outgroups. This paper will test this idea further by focusing more specifically on three historically and cross-culturally prominent kinds of group self-centeredness, 1 that is, self-centeredness based on one's ethnic group (ethnocentrism), religious group (fundamentalism), and on the human species (anthropocentrism). Although Adorno et al. (1950) focused on human ingroups and outgroups, our analysis will extend their idea to anthropocentrism and dislike of other species. Like ethnic group and religious group selfcenteredness, anthropocentrism involves a clear ingroup and outgroup category, and giving more importance to the ingroup over the outgroup. In addition, implicit in Adorno et al.'s (1950) writings is the suggestion that the outgroups that people reject are based on the relevant ingroup on which they are centered. However, they did not pursue this idea further. Accordingly, we will investigate it, particularly because of its relevance to the study of religiosity and prejudice.

What Is and Is Not Ethnocentrism? A Conceptual Analysis and Political Implications

“…To draw a parallel with narcissism (which can be seen as an individual‐level analogue to ethnocentrism): in the same way as narcissism (personal self‐centeredness) is different to misanthropy (hostility to others) and self‐esteem (positive evaluation of oneself), ethnocentrism is different to outgroup negativity (hostility to other groups) and mere ingroup positivity (positive evaluation of one's own group). A similar analogy can also be made in relation to anthropocentrism (human self‐centeredness; see Bizumic & Duckitt, 2007), in which anthropocentrism can be clearly differentiated from hostility to other species and positive evaluation of all humans.…”

“…Recently, however, a series of studies by Bizumic, Duckitt, Popadic, Dru, and Krauss (2009), Bizumic and Duckitt (2007, 2008), Bizumic, Smithson, and Van Rooy (2010), and Howle and Bizumic (2011) attempted to clarify this concept and study it empirically. Bizumic et al.…”

“…'s (2009) research in New Zealand, the United States, Serbia, and France provided empirical evidence that supported the proposed reconceptualization. Additional research in Australia and New Zealand showed that reconceptualized ethnocentrism was related to different kinds of discriminatory and self‐sacrificial behaviors (Bizumic et al., 2010), different kinds of personal (narcissism; Bizumic & Duckitt, 2008) and group kinds of self‐centeredness (anthropocentrism and fundamentalism; Bizumic & Duckitt, 2007), and that its expressions reacted differently to different kinds of threats (Howle & Bizumic, 2011).…”

Toward a psychology of human–animal relations.

“…In contrast, animal rights activists-who tend to be more sensitive to the needs of ani mals-also tended to endorse more liberal theological beliefs . In correlational studies, most mea sures of personal religiosity were associated positively with anthropocentrism, the ideology that humans are inherently su perior to animals and nature (Bizumic & Duckitt, 2007;Chan dler & Dreger, 1993). As well, the more people endorsed the theory of natural evolution (i.e., and to view species as inter connected) rather than creationism, the more likely they were to advocate in favor of animal rights (DeLeeuw et al, 2007).…”

Educational Environment, Ethnocentrism, and Prejudice Towards Indonesian Chinese

“…It is mainly influenced by social interactions with the object of prejudice, either originating from the internal individual or the outside individual (Hadjar, 2010). The internal factors which influence prejudices to others are namely: authoritarian personality (Asbrock, Christ, Duckitt, & Sibley, 2012;Johnson et al, 2011), introverted personality (Hadjar, 2010), social dominance orientation (Costello & Hodson, 2011;Ho et al, 2012), religious orientation (Bukhori, 2011), fundamentalism (Bukhori, 2012;Bukhori & Hassan, 2016;Putra & Wongkaren, 2010), and ethnocentrism (Bizumic & Duckitt, 2007). In contrast, the external factors affecting prejudice to the others are namely: social identity (Ali, Indrawati, & Masykur, 2010;Barlow, Louis, & Terry, 2010;Bukhori & Hassan, 2016), level of education (Iglic, 2010), interactions (Binder et al, 2009) and school or college milieu (Hadjar, 2010;Raihani, 2011).…”