European Journal of Personality

Eur. J. Pers. 24: 324340 (2010)

Published online 24 November 2009 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/per.746

Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance

Orientation and the Dimensions of Generalized Prejudice:
A Longitudinal Test

FRANK ASBROCK1*, CHRIS G. SIBLEY2 and JOHN DUCKITT2

1
Department of Psychology, Philipps-University of Marburg, Germany
2
Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract
A Dual Process Model (DPM) approach to prejudice proposes that there should be at least
two dimensions of generalized prejudice relating to outgroup stratification and social
perception, which should be differentially predicted by Right-Wing Authoritarianism
(RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). The current study assessed the causal
effects of SDO and RWA on three dimensions of prejudice using a full cross-lagged
longitudinal sample (N 127). As expected, RWA, but not SDO, predicted prejudice
towards dangerous groups, SDO, but not RWA, predicted prejudice towards derogated
groups, and both RWA and SDO predicted prejudice towards dissident groups. Results
support previously untested causal predictions derived from the DPM and indicate that
different forms of prejudice result from different SDO- and RWA-based motivational
processes. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: Dual Process Model; Right-Wing Authoritarianism; Social Dominance

Orientation; generalized prejudice; longitudinal

INTRODUCTION

Following from the seminal works of Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford
(1950) and Allport (1954/1979) more than half a century ago, research has repeatedly
shown that individuals who are prejudiced towards one minority group also tend to be more
prejudiced towards other minorities. This consistency in prejudiced attitudes seems to
occur irrespective of specific group characteristics. Indeed, Allport (1954/1979) argued
that prejudice towards multiple different outgroups are often so highly correlated as to
constitute a generality of prejudice. He concluded: One of the facts of which we are most
certain is that people who reject one out-group will tend to reject other out-groups. If a

*Correspondence to: Frank Asbrock, Department of Psychology, Philipps-University of Marburg, Gutenbergstr.

18, 35032 Marburg, Germany. E-mail: asbrock@staff.uni-marburg.de

Received 29 April 2009

Revised 18 September 2009
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 19 September 2009
 Dimensions of generalized prejudice 325

person is anti-Jewish, he is likely to be anti-Catholic, anti-Negro, anti any out-group

(Allport, 1954/1979, p. 68).
Two individual differences constructs, Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA; Altemeyer,
1981) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle,
1994) have been shown to be strong and complementary predictors of generalized prejudice
in the decades following Allports observation. Recent research also supports Allports
conceptualization (e.g. Backstrom & Bjorklund, 2007; Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje, &
Zakrisson, 2004; Zick, Wolf, Kupper, Davidov, Schmidt, & Heitmeyer, 2008). However, the
idea of a single or unidimensional model of generalized prejudice has been recently
challenged by a number of theorists, including Glick and Fiske (1996) in their research on
sexism, as well as research on the Stereotype Content Model (Fiske, Xu, Cuddy, & Glick,
1999) and our own recent research derived from the Dual-Process Motivational Model
(DPM; Duckitt, 2001). This DPM proposes that RWA and SDO express motivational goals
made chronically salient for individuals by their personalities and social worldviews. RWA
and SDO also function as differential predictors of prejudice in immediate social contexts.
Based on this individual difference perspective of prejudice, Duckitt and Sibley (2007)
differentiated three factors of generalized prejudice against different groups. As expected,
they found that RWA predicted prejudice towards dangerous groups, SDO predicted
prejudice towards derogated groups and both predicted prejudice towards dissident groups.
The present study provides the first longitudinal test of the causal relation of RWA and
SDO with these three factors of generalized prejudice. While Duckitt and Sibley (2007)
concentrated on establishing the three different prejudice factors and their concurrent
association with RWA and SDO, we focus on the causal prediction of these different
prejudices by testing predictions derived from the Dual-Process Motivational Model
regarding the effects of RWA and SDO on different dimensions of generalized prejudice
over time. In doing so, this study is not only one of the first to test the prediction of the
three generalized prejudice factors, but also one of the first to present longitudinal tests of the
hypothesized effects of RWA and SDO on prejudice of any kind (cf. Duriez, Vansteenkiste,
Soenens, & De Witte, 2007; Sibley & Duckitt, in press; Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007a).

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE BASES OF PREJUDICE

The generalized prejudice hypothesis has been supported by a plethora of studies (e.g.
Backstrom & Bjorklund, 2007; Bierly, 1985; Bratt, 2005; Ekehammar et al., 2004;
Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov, & Duarte, 2003; McFarland, 2003, Zick et al., 2008).
These studies typically show high correlations between attitude measures referring to
different outgroups, indicating that persons reporting favourable attitudes towards some
outgroups tend to be generally more favourable towards other outgroups, while persons
who are hostile or prejudiced towards certain outgroups tend to be generally less favourable
towards others. As mentioned above, generalized prejudice is independently predicted by
both SDO and RWA (e.g. Altemeyer, 1998; Duckitt, Wagner, du Plessis, & Birum, 2002;
Ekehammar et al., 2004; Lippa & Arad, 1999; McFarland, 2003; Whitley, 1999). RWA
represents a covariation of authoritarian aggression, authoritarian submission and
conventionalism (Altemeyer, 1981) and is derived from early work on the Authoritarian
Personality (Adorno et al., 1950). SDO describes a general preference for hierarchies
versus egalitarian relations between social groups (Pratto et al., 1994). Numerous
independent studies have now shown that RWA and SDO explain up to 50% of the variance

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 324340 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
326 F. Asbrock et al.

in generalized prejudice with no other psychological individual difference variables adding

notably to variance predicted (Altemeyer, 1998; Ekehammar et al., 2004; McFarland,
2003; but see Roets, van Hiel, & Cornelis, 2006).
There remains lively debate about what the RWA and SDO scales actually measure,
however (see Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin, 2006; Reynolds, Turner, Haslam, & Ryan, 2001).
Some theorists described them as personality dimensions (Altemeyer, 1998), conceptu-
alized as generalized behavioural dispositions. This perspective originates from the early
theoretical work by Adorno et al. (1950). However, as Duckitt (2001) has argued, items
from the SDO and RWA scales reflect statements of social attitudes rather than general
behavioural dispositions and therefore he conceptualized them as broad ideological-
attitude dimensions (see Sibley & Duckitt, 2008, for a detailed discussion of this issue).
Not surprisingly, SDO and RWA are most strongly correlated with other indices of social
attitudes rather than general behavioural tendencies, which would be indicative of broad
personality dimensions (Duriez & van Hiel, 2002; Heaven & Conners, 2001; Saucier,
2000; Sibley & Duckitt, 2008).

DIMENSIONS OF GENERALIZED PREJUDICE: A DUAL-PROCESS

MOTIVATIONAL MODEL PERSPECTIVE

Duckitt (2001, 2006) proposed a causal model of the combined effects of individual
differences and situational processes on prejudice. While the first stage of the model
focuses on the personality and socio-structural geneses of RWA and SDO, the second stage,
which is of interest for the present study, concentrates on the hypothesized effects of RWA
and SDO on prejudice.
The Dual Process Model (DPM) posits that low openness to experience is the
predisposing personality dimension underlying RWA. This predisposition leads to the
perception of the social world as a threatening and dangerous place and the motivational
goal of maintaining and establishing social order, cohesion and security. Therefore, people
high in RWA should be prejudiced against groups that are perceived as threatening social
order, stability and security. This includes realistic threats from violence, crime or
economic decline, as well as symbolic threats to collective values and culture (cf. Stephan
& Renfro, 2003). Both, realistic and symbolic threats have been shown to play an important
role in predicting prejudice towards outgroups (e.g. Stephan, Renfro, Esses, Stephan, &
Martin, 2005).
On the other hand, the model proposes that SDO reflects a competitive-driven
motivation for dominance, superiority and power over other groups. The underlying
personality dimension is low agreeableness. A DPM perspective emphasizes that people
high in SDO should therefore not necessarily be prejudiced against the same outgroups as
people high in RWA, but rather against groups that are perceived as socially subordinate
and low in status and power. These groups would be devalued in order to maintain and
justify social hierarchies and intergroup dominance. Research has shown that SDO predicts
the utilization of prejudice against socially subordinate groups to legitimize inequality and
to maintain social hierarchies (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In addition, directly competing
outgroups or groups that challenge social inequalities should also elicit SDO-motivated
prejudice, because people high in SDO perceive the world as a competitive jungle. This
perception can involve zero-sum beliefs, that is, the belief that the more an outgroup
obtains the less is available for ones own group (Esses, Jackson, & Armstrong, 1998).

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 324340 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 Dimensions of generalized prejudice 327

However, such directly competing groups also present a (realistic) threat to social order and
stability, and in certain cases should therefore also elicit RWA-driven prejudice.
Predictions derived from the DPM therefore imply that prejudice is multidimensional in
nature. These different dimensions of prejudice should generally reflect negative attitudes
towards groups seen as threatening or dangerous and groups seen as competitive and weak.
The possibility of different dimensions of generalized prejudice derived from a DPM
perspective was first articulated by Duckitt et al. (2002, p. 88), who discussed how SDO
and RWA should result in the differential categorization of social group relations in terms
of us, who are superior, strong, competent and dominant (or should be) and them,
who are inferior, incompetent and worthless and them, who are bad, dangerous,
immoral and deviant and who threaten us, who are normal, morally good, decent
people. The DPM proposes that RWA and SDO should predict prejudice towards different
social groups to the extent that they are based on different social stratifications and
perceptions relating to threat versus competition.
A variety of evidence supports this differential pattern of associations, although research
assessing whether SDO and RWA causally affect or produce change in different forms of
prejudice remains limited. Duckitt (2006), for example, reported that RWA, but not SDO,
was correlated with prejudice towards groups that were perceived as socially deviant, but
not low in status (rock stars and drug dealers). This effect was fully mediated by the
perception of these groups as a social threat. On the other hand, SDO, but not RWA, was
correlated with prejudice towards outgroups perceived as socially subordinate, but not
deviant (housewives and physically disabled people), and this association was mediated by
the perception of competitiveness over relative dominance towards these groups. Similarly,
although it was not the focus of their research, Sibley, Robertson, and Wilson (2006)
reported in a meta-analysis of the associations between SDO and RWA with different
aspects of prejudice that SDO tended to be more strongly associated with racism and
hostile forms of sexism towards women, whereas RWA tended to be more strongly
associated with prejudice towards homosexuals and also benevolent sexism (see also
Sibley et al., 2007a).
Experimental evidence also provides support for the differential effect of SDO and RWA
on different dimensions of prejudice (Cohrs & Asbrock, 2009; Dru, 2007; Thomsen,
Green, & Sidanius, 2008). Thomsen et al. (2008), for instance, reported that RWA and SDO
predicted prejudice against immigrants for very different reasons: People high in RWA
supported ethnic persecution of, and aggression towards, immigrant group members when
they were described as not intending to assimilate to the host nations values (and thus
presumably represented a threat to social order and to societal values). People high in SDO,
on the other hand, supported aggression towards immigrant group members when they
were described as wanting to assimilate, and thus presumably represented a threat to social
hierarchy and status differences. Moreover, Cohrs and Asbrock (2009) reported two studies
in which they showed that RWA was particularly effective as a predictor of prejudice
towards members of a target outgroup when manipulations of the outgroup emphasized
potential social threat and difference from others. In a related vein, Dru (2007) reported that
RWA predicted prejudice when participants were primed to think about ingroup norms and
values, whereas SDO predicted prejudice when a competitive group identity was salient.
The differential association of SDO and RWA with prejudice towards different social
groups is also indirectly supported by inspection of studies examining more generalized or
broad-bandwidth forms of prejudice. As Duckitt and Sibley (2007) argued, many of these
studies have measured prejudice by assessing negative attitudes towards different groups

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 324340 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
328 F. Asbrock et al.

that tend to be low in power and status but that are also seen as threatening to the ingroups
norms and values. For example, Ekehammar et al. (2004) as well as Backstrom and
Bjorklund (2007) found generalized prejudice factors for racism, sexism, and prejudices
against homosexuals and mentally disabled people. In a recent study, Zick et al. (2008)
reported a strong single factor solution representing generalized prejudice which they
referred to as a Syndrome of Group-Focused Enmity. This syndrome subsumes eight
different kinds of prejudice (racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, homo-
phobia, prejudices against homeless people, sexism and endorsement of precedence rights
of the established). However, these forms of prejudice are arguably all directed towards
groups that are perceived as threatening social values and security as well as competing and
challenging the ingroups status and power, and hence should result jointly from threat-
based (RWA) and competition-based (SDO) motivations.
Research focusing on social groups that are potentially seen as both competing with but
also threatening the ingroup is important, given that members of such groups are
undoubtedly the major targets of prejudices and discrimination in societies all over the
world. Nevertheless, untangling the multidimensional structure of prejudiced attitudes
remains an important goal, both with regard to theory development, and also for applied
research aiming to reduce prejudice towards social groups that may be discriminated
against in more subtle ways that are not readily congruent with definitions of prejudice as
antipathy. Good examples for the importance of distinguishing between different
dimensions of prejudice are given by, for instance, Pettigrew and Meertens (1995)
differentiation of subtle and blatant prejudice and by Glick and Fiskes (1996) compelling
research on ambivalent sexism.
Duckitt and Sibley (2007) sought to address this at a broad level by assessing the factor
structure of attitude ratings towards multiple social groups and categories. In an initial
exploration of this issue, Duckitt and Sibley (2007) analysed warmth ratings of 24 social
groups. Consistent with theoretical distinctions derived from the DPM, they extracted a
three-factor solution that differentiated prejudice towards social groups and categories seen
as dangerous, derogated and dissident. Dangerous groups, according to the model referred
to those that are perceived as socially threatening, but not subordinate (e.g. terrorists, drug
dealers, those who make society dangerous). Derogated groups referred to those perceived
as socially subordinate, but not threatening (e.g. housewives, unemployed and obese
people) and dissident groups referred to those seen as directly competing with the ingroup
and therefore as socially threatening and also possibly as subordinate (e.g. protestors,
feminists and those who criticize authorities). It is important to note that these groups or
categories were chosen on the basis of their typicality for the stigma of inferiority
(derogated groups), threat (dangerous groups) or both (dissident groups). This procedure
ensured that the specific content of each factor was met by the social groups, even though
some groups might seem rather odd targets of prejudice on a first glance. However, one
should keep in mind that the predictions of the DPM generalize not only to groups that are
typically targets of prejudice (e.g. ethnic minorities, immigrants, women), but any groups
seen as competitive (either in terms of ability to compete or as taking resources away from
the dominant majority) or as threatening (either in terms of actual risk or danger and in
terms of moral deviance).
As outlined above, a core premise of the Dual-Process Motivational Model is that RWA
should produce increased prejudice towards dangerous groups, SDO should produce
increased prejudice towards derogated groups, and SDO and RWA should jointly predict
prejudice towards dissident groups, because of the different underlying motivational goals

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 324340 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 Dimensions of generalized prejudice 329

of both ideological attitude dimensions. Prejudice against dissident groups is driven by

both of these motivational goals simultaneously. The cross-sectional data reported by
Duckitt and Sibley (2007) and Duckitt (2006) provide promising initial support for this
causal model of the differential effects of SDO and RWA, but it is important to recognize
that this prior work was cross-sectional in nature. Critically, the inference of causality
based on modelling cross-sectional data assumes that the observed covariances have been
produced by a causal process occurring over some previous timeframe. However, when
dealing with cross-sectional data the ordering of variables is necessarily based on a priori
assumptions. In fact, almost all research on the relation of individual differences and
generalized prejudice is based on the modelling of cross-sectional data (e.g. Backstrom &
Bjorklund, 2007, Ekehammar et al., 2004; McFarland, 2003) and therefore lacks any
information about the causal direction. As mentioned above, there is recent experimental
support for the DPM, indicating that RWA and SDO elicit prejudice for different reasons
(Cohrs & Asbrock, 2009; Dru, 2007; Thomsen et al., 2008). However, these studies did not
directly test the hypothesis that RWA and SDO differentially affect individual differences
in prejudice towards groups seen as dangerous, derogated or dissident.
Longitudinal designs have only very rarely been used to analyse the relationship of
RWA, SDO and prejudice. To our knowledge there are only two published studies that
apply longitudinal designs. In an analysis of ambivalent sexism in men Sibley et al. (2007a)
reported that RWA (but not SDO) predicted change in benevolent sexism over time,
whereas SDO predicted change in hostile sexism over the same timeframe. Secondly,
Duriez et al. (2007) presented evidence suggesting that Time 2 SDO predicted concurrent
(Time 2) levels of racism when controlling for earlier (Time 1) racism in an adolescent
sample. In our opinion, the use of longitudinal designs represents an obvious, and critical,
next step for research testing the various causal pathways proposed by the DPM given that
many of the slow-changing socio-structural and individual difference-based processes
proposed by the model are not readily amenable to experimental manipulation.

THE PRESENT STUDY

The present study tests the differential effects of SDO and RWA on prejudice predicted by
the DPM using a longitudinal (6-month) cross-lagged panel design. The analysis of
longitudinal data provides important strengths for assessing causal relations that are not
subject to the same criticisms as analyses of cross-sectional data. For instance, the use of
longitudinal panel data, such as we present here, allowed us to assess simultaneous change
in both the hypothesized direction (SDO and RWA predicting change in different
dimensions of prejudiced attitudes) but also the reverse directions (individual differences in
prejudice predicting change in SDO and RWA). The observation of significant cross-lagged
effects also strengthens claims of causality because it addresses (in part) the possibility that
associations observed in cross-sectional data may result from an unidentified third variable.
Our study is the first to directly test the causal relation of RWA, SDO and the three
dimensions of generalized prejudice derived from the DPM (Duckitt, 2001, 2006; Duckitt
& Sibley, 2007). We test this model using a sample of undergraduate students who were
sampled at two times 6 months apart.
As mentioned above, there is hardly any longitudinal research on the causal relation of
RWA, SDO and prejudice. Therefore, the choice of an appropriate time lag is quite tricky.
Sibley et al. (2007a) found their effects over a 5-month period, and Duriez et al. (2007)

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 324340 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
330 F. Asbrock et al.

examined change and stability over a 12-month period. There are only few additional
longitudinal studies on prejudice, and most of them examine intergroup contact effects
(Binder et al., 2009). A longitudinal study on the relation of prejudice and discriminatory
intentions shows that prejudice is rather stable over three annual measurement points in a
representative population sample (Wagner, Christ, & Pettigrew, 2008). Finally, in an
analysis of the same dataset, Zick et al. (2008) showed a high stability for the Syndrome of
Group-Focused Enmity over three annual measurement points. However, since we
employed an undergraduate student sample, the time lag of 6 months seems appropriate,
because this period seems to be critical for change in social attitudes. In addition to the
promising results from Altemeyer (1988), Peterson and Lane (2001) and Sibley et al.
(2007a) reported decreases in RWA for students over the 4 years in college. Sidanius,
Sinclair, and Pratto (2006) found a similar annual decrease in SDO over five measurement
points in 4 years of college. Guimond et al. (2003) observed similar effects, with SDO
decreasing over the years of college studybut only for students taking arguably liberal
and less financial-oriented subjects (such as psychology). Students taking law, in contrast,
increased in their level of SDO over the college years.
Following the reasoning outlined by Duckitt and Sibley (2007), we hypothesized that
RWA but not SDO would predict change in prejudice towards groups seen as dangerous
over time, whereas SDO but not RWA would predict change in derogated group prejudice
over time. We expected that both SDO and RWA would predict change in dissident
group prejudice over time. Finally, for the purposes of completeness we also present
additional analyses consistent with earlier unidimensional conceptualizations of
generalized prejudice, in which we tested the cross-lagged effects of SDO and RWA
on an aggregate prejudice measure in which we collapsed attitudes towards these three
types of social groups into a single broad-bandwidth generalized prejudice factor. As with
previous research, we expected that when treated in this way, SDO and RWA would both
predict change in this generalized unidimensional index of generalized prejudice.

METHOD

Participants
Participants were undergraduate students enrolled in consecutive first and second semester
undergraduate papers. Data were collected from 376 participants (140 male, 236 female;
Mage 19.79, SD 4.24) during the first testing phase administered at the start of 1st
semester paper (209 White/European, 24 Maori/Pacific Nations, 99 Asian, 30 Indian,
14 other). One hundred and twenty seven (34%) people were also enrolled in a 2nd
semester paper, and participated during the second phase 6 months later (46 male,
81 female; 63 White/European, 7 Maori/Pacific Nations, 38 Asian, 12 Indian, 7 other).

Materials and procedure

During both phases, measures were included in a larger series of randomly ordered survey
packets. These other packets differed in content across the two phases, and were unrelated
to the current research. The entire set of survey packets took approximately 20 minutes to
complete during both phases. Data were matched using confidential student identification

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 324340 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 Dimensions of generalized prejudice 331

numbers. Students received partial course credit for participation. Data from this sample
has not been previously published.
SDO and RWA were each measured during both phases using an identical set of eight
balanced items from the respective scales developed by Sidanius and Pratto (1999) and
Altemeyer (1996). The SDO scale included items such as Some groups of people are
simply inferior to other groups (protrait), and No one group should dominate in society
(contrait). The RWA scale contained items such as The only way our country can get
through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in
power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas (protrait), and Our country
needs free thinkers who will have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets
many people (contrait). Items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and were averaged so that higher scores represented higher
levels of SDO and RWA, respectively.
Generalized prejudice towards dangerous, derogated and dissident groups was measured
at both times using a revised version of the scale originally developed by Duckitt
and Sibley (2007). The authors initially argued for two clear factors (dangerous and
derogated groups), and raised the possibility of a third factor representing dissident groups.
We revised this initial scale to, in our opinion, more clearly and accurately represent each
of these three types of groups theorized by Duckitt and Sibley (2007). As with the earlier
version of the scale, for each factor we included two-to-three items referring to abstract
representations of social groups (e.g. people who make our society dangerous for others,
in the case of the dangerous groups factor) as well as specific social groups that should
relate to this same factor (e.g. drunk drivers, again in the case of the dangerous groups
factor). The abstract items provided anchors that helped define the content of each factor.
This also increased the variability in the level of specificity versus abstraction of the items
included in each factor, which should therefore provide, in our opinion, a more
representative indicator of prejudice towards a given type of social group less limited by the
specific and concrete groups used as indicators.
Participants rated the warmth versus coldness of their feeling towards 21 different groups
and social categories on a scale ranging from 1 (very cold) to 7 (very warm). This measure is
similar to the affective thermometer used initially by Duckitt and Sibley (2007). For ease of
interpretation, ratings of each group were reverse scored and averaged so that higher scores
represented more negative (cold) feelings towards dangerous, derogated and dissident
groups, respectively. Note that we recommend administering the scale so that warmth is at
the high end and coldness at the low end, and then reverse coding scores to index prejudice.
The dimensional structure of the revised generalized prejudice scale was examined using
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with Maximum Likelihood Estimation and oblique
(direct oblimin) rotation. This analysis was conducted using all available data collected at
Time 1 (N 376). Results supported the hypothesized three-factor solution, as the
eigenvalues displayed a steep drop after the third factor had been extracted (eigenvalues:
5.66, 2.87, 1.83, 1.09, 0.99, 0.94, 0.76). Parallel analysis supported this interpretation, as
only the first three eigenvalues were above the 95th percentile for eigenvalues expected by
chance based on random data with the same sample size and number of items (parallel
eigenvalues: 1.93, 1.82, 1.74, 1.68, 1.62, 1.57, 1.52). Factor loadings (from the pattern
matrix) for this three-dimensional (dangerous, derogated and dissident groups) solution are
presented in Table 1. Analysis of the factor correlation matrix indicated that dangerous and
derogated groups prejudice was reasonably weakly related (r .18), and these two
dimensions were both moderately associated with dissident groups prejudice (rs .35 and

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 324340 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
332 F. Asbrock et al.

Table 1. Groups and factor loadings for the three-dimensional model of generalized prejudice
Dangerous Groups
People who make our society dangerous for others .90 .01
.14
Violent criminals .74 .05
.05
Drunk drivers .72
.03
.08
People who disrupt safety and security in our society .72
.03 .05
Gang members .66 .07 .01
Drug dealers .58
.02 .19
People who behave in immoral ways .53
.03 .23
Derogated Groups
Physically unattractive people
.01 .75
.04
Obese people .11 .65
.16
People who in appearance or performance just do not make the grade .03 .64 .12
Mentally handicapped people
.16 .61
.03
Psychiatric patients
.01 .52 .18
People who just seem to be losers .13 .47 .07
Unemployed people .29 .30 .11
Dissident Groups
People who criticize those in authority .06
.14 .67
Protestors
.04 .11 .62
People who cause disagreement in our society .16
.07 .56
Atheists
.00 .01 .52
Gay rights activists
.09 .14 .47
Feminists
.00 .22 .35
Prostitutes .28 .09 .32

Note: Loadings are pattern matrix coefficients. Loadings > .30 are shown in bold.

.34, respectively). Descriptive statistics and internal reliability estimates for the three
prejudice subscales are presented in Table 2.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of the scale was also conducted using an
independent, and previously unpublished, sample of 370 undergraduates (120 men,

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations between Time 1 and Time 2 measures of SDO, RWA
and generalized prejudice towards dangerous, derogated and dissident groups
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time 1 SDO
Time 1 RWA .25
Time 1 Derogated prejudice .38
.10
Time 1 Dangerous prejudice
.05 .23 .15
Time 1 Dissident prejudice .40 .54 .31 .43
Time 2 SDO .62 .11 
.23
.19 .20
Time 2 RWA .27 .79
.09 .13 .54 .25
Time 2 Derogated prejudice .39
.05 .60
.05 .21

.23
.05
Time 2 Dangerous prejudice .08 .33 .12 .57 .43 .01 .26 .10
Time 2 Dissident prejudice .48 .54 .19 .25 .74 .28 .55 .33 .39
M 2.44 3.11 3.93 6.12 3.99 2.51 3.13 4.00 6.09 4.00
SD 1.05 1.05 .70 .72 .79 .99 .94 .66 .63 .71
a .84 .72 .77 .77 .73 .87 .69 .78 .73 .71
skewness .93 .12
.68
1.32 .03 .86 .13
.98
.72
.29
kurtosis 1.18
.69 1.84 2.92 1.55 .98
.77 2.53 .16 1.31

Note: Analyses based on the 127 participants for whom full data were available at both time points.

p < .05

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 324340 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 Dimensions of generalized prejudice 333

250 women, Mage 20.35, SDage 5.40). Cronbachs as for the dangerous (a .78),
derogated (a .77) and dissident groups (a .68) scales indicated adequate internal
reliability in this confirmatory sample. Fit indices for the hypothesized three-factor
solution (shown in Figure 1), in which items assessing dangerous, derogated or dissident
groups were allowed to relate only to their hypothesized latent factor and the three latent
factors were allowed to freely correlate, approached acceptable levels. However, the
RMSEA was marginally higher than the typical rule-of-thumb criteria of < 0.06
recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999) (x2(186) 525.03, standardized Root Mean

Figure 1. Diagram and standardized parameter estimates for hypothesized three-factor model of generalized
prejudice tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis. (Note. Item numbers refer to the items as listed in Table 1,

p < .05)

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 324340 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
334 F. Asbrock et al.

Square Residual (sRMR) 0.077, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

(RMSEA) 0.070).
Importantly, x2 difference tests indicated that this three-factor solution provided a
significantly better fit than a unidimensional solution in which ratings of all groups loaded
on a single generalized prejudice dimension (x2diff(3) 1340.05, p < .01; indices for
alternative single-factor model: x2(189) 1865.09, sRMR 0.17, RMSEA 0.16). The
hypothesized three-factor model also provided a significantly better fit than alternative
two-factor models in which (a) dangerous groups loaded on one factor and dissident and
derogated groups loaded on the other (x2diff(1) 368.93, p < .01; indices for alternative
two-factor model: x2(188) 893.96, sRMR 0.099, RMSEA 0.10), (b) derogated
groups loaded on one factor and dissident and dangerous groups loaded on the other
(x2diff(1) 426.96, p < .01; indices for alternative two-factor model: x2(188) 951.99,
sRMR 0.10, RMSEA 0.10) or (c) dissident groups loaded on one factor and dangerous
and derogated groups loaded on the other (x2diff(1) 866.05, p < .01; indices for
alternative two-factor model: x2(188) 1391.08, sRMR 0.13, RMSEA 0.13). Taken
together, EFA and CFA analyses of two large independent undergraduate samples provide
good support for the revised set of 21 groups and social categories assessing generalized
prejudice towards distinct dangerous, derogated and dissident groups.

Sample attrition
Sample attrition was due to the relatively low overlap between students who enrolled in
both first and second semester undergraduate papers at the university where this research
was conducted. The sample of people who participated at both times (n 127) did not
differ significantly from the sample who participated during only the first testing phase
(n 249) in gender (x2(1, n 376) .08, p .77) or ethnic group distribution (x2(4,
n 376) 4.57, p .34). People who participated at both times were, however, slightly
younger during the first phase of data collection (M 19.10, SD 2.11) than those who
participated only at Time 1 (M 20.16, SD 4.97; F(1,363) 5.22, p .02, partial
h2 .01). This might possibly have occurred because older participants tended to enrol in
only the first semester introductory paper (where Time 1 data was collected).
Importantly, analyses indicated that people who participated during only Time 1 did not
differ from people who participated during both phases in Time 1 measures of SDO
(F(1,363) 2.39, p .12, partial h2 < .01), RWA (F(1,363) 2.29, p .13, partial
h2 < .01) or generalized prejudice towards dangerous (F(1,363) 1.43, p .23, partial
h2 < .01), derogated (F(1,363) .34, p .56, partial h2 < .01) or dissident groups
(F(1,363) 1.61, p .21, partial h2 < .01).

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between Time 1 and Time 2 measures of
SDO, RWA and generalized prejudice towards dangerous, derogated and dissident groups
are presented in Table 2.
As inspection of Table 2 indicates, SDO and RWA were moderately correlated at Time 1
(r .25) and Time 2 (r .25). Moreover, examining the cross-sectional Time 1

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 324340 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 Dimensions of generalized prejudice 335

associations, results indicated that SDO (r .38) but not RWA (r
.10) was associated
with generalized prejudice towards derogated groups, RWA (r .23) but not SDO
(r
.05) was associated with generalized prejudice towards dangerous groups and SDO
(r .40) and RWA (r .54) were both associated with prejudice towards dissident groups.
As shown in Table 2, this pattern of effects was also replicated cross-sectionally amongst
these same measures at Time 2.

Cross-lagged analyses of a multidimensional model of generalized prejudice

Extending these cross-sectional analyses, we tested whether SDO and RWA differentially
predicted the three dimensions of generalized prejudice over time (6 months) using path
analysis. The hypothesized model is presented in Figure 2. As shown, this model allowed
all Time 1 measures to covary (as represented by the curved paths on the left of Figure 2).
The model also included stability coefficients, representing the cross-time stability of each
construct (represented by the horizontal paths). Finally, of critical importance, the model
tested the hypothesized cross-lagged effects of RWA on prejudice towards dangerous
groups over time, SDO on prejudice towards derogated groups over time and SDO and
RWA on prejudice towards dissident groups over time. Cross-lagged paths testing
longitudinal effects of variables at Time 1 on Time 2 outcomes are represented by the
diagonal paths in Figure 2. A significant cross-lagged path indicates that a given variable at
Time 1 predicted change in another variable measured 6 months later controlling the
stability of the outcome variable over that timeframe.
As hypothesized, SDO exerted a cross-lagged effect on prejudice towards derogated
groups (b .19, t 2.52, p .02), RWA exerted a cross-lagged effect on prejudice towards
dangerous groups (b .22, t 2.91, p < .01) and SDO and RWA exerted simultaneous
unique cross-lagged effects on prejudice towards dissident groups (b .22, t 3.35,
p < .01 and b .18, t 2.70, p < .01, respectively). Fit indices for the hypothesized model

Figure 2. Diagram outlining the path analysis used to test the cross-lagged effects of SDO, RWA and generalized
prejudice. p < .05

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 324340 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
336 F. Asbrock et al.

including these paths (see Figure 2) were marginal, particularly with regard to the RMSEA
(x2(26) 50.96, sRMR 0.050, RMSEA 0.089). On this basis, we therefore conducted
univariate tests of the Lagrange multiplier to explore additional unmodelled paths. Tests of
the univariate Lagrange Multiplier (see Kline, 2005) identified three residual correlations
between Time 2 error terms (one between SDO and RWA, one between derogated and
dissident prejudice and one between RWA and dissident prejudice). These residual
associations presumably reflect change in the relations between these observed variables at
Time 2 that was unexplained by their Time 1 associations and the longitudinal paths
included in the model recognizing causal change over time. A revised model included these
three unexpected residual associations provided an excellent fit to the observed data
(x2(23) 24.85, sRMR 0.042, RMSEA 0.026).
Critically, additional analyses failed to identify any other unmodelled paths that
improved model fit. Thus, results indicated that our revised model including the
hypothesized paths and three residual associations reliably represented the covariances
between all Time 1 and Time 2 measures; that is, there were no other unmodelled
significant cross-lagged effects unidentified by our revised model. Importantly, the
hypothesized cross-lagged effects of SDO on prejudice towards derogated groups (b .21,
t 2.46, p .02), RWA on prejudice towards dangerous groups (b .22, t 2.91, p < .01)
and SDO and RWA on prejudice towards dissident groups (b .21, t 3.40, p < .01 and
b .20, t 3.19, p < .01, respectively) remained highly reliable when we included these
non-predicted residual associations between Time 2 measures.
To summarize, these results support the proposed differential causal effects of SDO and
RWA on groups categorized as derogated and dangerous, respectively. They also support
the predicted dual unique effects of SDO and RWA on groups seen as dissident and
emphasize that there were no other significant cross-lagged effects (such as alternative
paths from prejudice at Time 1 to SDO and RWA at Time 2) that would have significantly
improved model fit.

Additional analyses testing a unidimensional model of generalized prejudice

Finally, we conducted additional analyses examining the cross-lagged effects of SDO and
RWA on a single unidimensional model of generalized prejudice (created by aggregating all
items from all three dimensions of generalized prejudice). As with the prior analyses, this
model controlled for the longitudinal stability of generalized prejudice. Not surprisingly,
SDO (b .24, t 3.53, p < .01) and RWA (b .16, t 2.42, p < .01) both predicted cross-
lagged change in this unidimensional measure. Moreover, individual differences in
generalized unidimensional prejudice did not predict cross-lagged change in SDO
(b
.06, t
.80, p .43) or RWA (b .02, t .19, p .85). These results are entirely
consistent with what one would expect given that this broad-bandwidth unidimensional
measure of generalized prejudice contained elements referring to social groups perceived as
dangerous, derogated and dissident, and should therefore result from the respective threat-
and competitive-driven motivational goals indexed by RWA and SDO.

DISCUSSION

This study modelled the longitudinal effects of RWA and SDO on three dimensions of
generalized prejudice over a 6-month period using an undergraduate sample. Our findings
supported predictions regarding the differential effects of SDO and RWA derived from

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 324340 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 Dimensions of generalized prejudice 337

Duckitts (2001) Dual-Process Motivational Model: RWA but not SDO exerted a
significant cross-lagged effect on prejudice towards groups seen as dangerous, SDO but not
RWA predicted prejudice towards derogated groups and SDO and RWA both exerted
unique cross-lagged effects on dissident group prejudice. Critically, we observed these
effects controlling for the stability of the three dimensions of generalized prejudice over
time. This study therefore represents one of the first longitudinal studies to document the
effects of SDO and RWA on prejudice over time (cf. Sibley et al., 2007a; Duriez et al.,
2007). These results provide promising support for one of the core predictions of the DPM:
That SDO and RWA should causally affect individual differences in prejudice towards
different types of social groups.
In addition to examining the effects of SDO and RWA on the three dimensions of
generalized prejudice, we also observed that RWA and SDO simultaneously predicted
change in prejudiced attitudes when such attitudes were modelled as representing a single
unidimensional construct aggregated from ratings of all three types of groups. This finding
therefore lends support to the argument made in prior research that SDO and RWA should
predict generalized prejudice as operationalized in a unidimensional approach (e.g.
Ekehammar et al., 2004). However, our findings extend this approach in important ways by
demonstrating more subtle and differentiated effects of SDO and RWA on different
dimensions of generalized prejudice as predicted by the DPM.
The use of a full cross-lagged panel design also allowed for a test for the reverse effects
of prejudice on RWA and SDO. As expected, tests of the Lagrange Multiplier indicted that
no other unexpected or reverse causal paths (e.g. from prejudice to SDO or RWA)
significantly improved model fit. This supports predictions derived from the DPM (Duckitt,
2001) and prior research on the prediction of differently motivated prejudices (Cohrs &
Asbrock, 2009; Dru, 2007; Duckitt, 2006; Duckitt & Sibley, 2007). Generalized prejudice
is not unidimensional, although it has often been treated as such in previous research (e.g.
Backstrom & Bjorklund, 2007, Bierly, 1985; Ekehammar et al., 2004; Guimond et al.,
2003; McFarland, 2003; Zick et al., 2008). People who are prejudiced against one group are
not necessarily prejudiced against any other outgroup, but rather will tend to be prejudiced
towards outgroups they also perceive as similarly threatening or socially subordinate. We
hasten to add that our study does not prove prior research wrong: These studies mostly
analysed groups that were perceived as socially threatening and subordinate, such as
different immigrant groups. There is good reason that many studies concentrated on these
groups, because in almost all societies they are the most likely targets of prejudice,
discrimination and violence. The reason for this might be that these groups are perceived as
a social threat and also as subordinate and challenging social hierarchies. Therefore they
are targets of prejudice for people high in SDO and RWA.
However, models that focus on just one dimension of generalized prejudice that is
predicted by RWA and SDO do not provide the whole picture. Much of the debate between
theorists in support of personality or group-process approaches regarding the true origin
of prejudice is based on one-sided views of this complex topic that do not consider the
interplay between individual motivations and situational factors. Our study strongly
supports the dual process perspective that individuals react differently to specific outgroups
and that these reactions are based on their motivated ideological attitudes. In order to
clarify this theoretical distinction between prejudices towards dangerous, derogated and
dissident groups, we included groups in our study that were perceived as distinctly
representing each of these three social categories, based on the initial scale developed by
Duckitt and Sibley (2007).

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 324340 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
338 F. Asbrock et al.

The second major contribution of our study is the support it provides for claims of
causality. This study is among the first formal tests of causality in the DPM ever (in line
with experimental studies by Cohrs & Asbrock, 2009; Dru, 2007, and another longitudinal
study by Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007b). RWA is based on the threat-driven motivation
to maintain social order and security. Consequently, RWA causally predicts prejudice
against groups that are perceived as a threat to the social order, namely dangerous and
dissident groups. On the other hand, SDO is based on a competitive-dominance driven
motivation for superiority over other groups, and therefore SDO causally predicts prejudice
against outgroups that are perceived as subordinate and a challenge to social hierarchies,
namely derogated and dissident groups. The effects we observed were equally strong in
magnitude, which indicates that neither SDO nor RWA is a stronger predictor of prejudice
than the other, but that it instead depends upon the nature of the social groups to which
prejudice is being expressed.
Finally, we would like to point out two limitations: Firstly, we employed an
undergraduate student sample to test our hypotheses. Even though this sample had the
advantage of being in an arguably critical period for attitude change and therefore being
ideal for our longitudinal design, students also hold generally lower levels of prejudice and
more liberal ideological attitudes than the average population. However, our focus was not
on mean levels of prejudice, but on the processes predicted by the DPM. Even in our
student sample we found enough variation in RWA, SDO and prejudice to test our
predictions. Further research, however, should replicate these findings with a general
population sample. Secondly, we relied on observed (mean) indictors rather than testing a
latent variable model. The use of latent variables would provide a stronger test of our model
as it would control for measurement error, thus providing a more accurate estimate of the
associations between constructs. However, our sample of 127 participants was simply too
small to provide enough power for this method of analysis. Additional research might also
consider studying the effects of potential sub-dimensions of RWA (aggression, submission,
conventionalism) and SDO (hierarchy vs. equality) on the three dimensions of generalized
prejudice. This might also add a new theoretical differentiation to the DPM, and we look
forward to seeing future research in this area
In conclusion, the present data tested the cross-lagged effects of SDO and RWA on three
dimensions of generalized prejudice over a six-month period in an undergraduate sample.
The DPM of ideology and prejudice is inherently a model of causal process, although
previous tests of the model have relied primarily on cross-sectional data. Our research
addressed one lacuna in this area, as we observed that, as expected, SDO predicted change
over time in prejudice towards derogated groups, RWA predicted change over the same
time period in prejudice towards derogated groups, and SDO and RWA both predicted
unique variation in changes in prejudice towards dissident groups. These results directly
replicate the patterns observed in cross-sectional research (Duckitt & Sibley, 2007) and
indicate that SDO and RWA do indeed appear to be two proximal causal individual
difference factors that predict change in prejudiced attitudes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors contributed equally to this paper. The preparation of the manuscript was
supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft with a post-doctoral scholarship
(GRK 884) to the first author.

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 324340 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 Dimensions of generalized prejudice 339

REFERENCES

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, N. (1950). The authoritarian
personality. New York: Harper.
Allport, G. W. (1954/1979). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Manitoba: The University of
Manitoba Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The Authoritarian specter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other authoritarian personality. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 4791). San Diego: Academic Press.
Backstrom, M., & Bjorklund, F. (2007). Structural modeling of generalized prejudice: The role of
social dominance, authoritarianism, and empathy. Journal of Individual Differences, 28, 1017.
Bierly, M. M. (1985). Prejudice toward contemporary outgroups as a generalized attitude. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 15, 189199.
Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., et al. (2009). Does contact
reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis
among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 96, 843856.
Bratt, C. (2005). The structure of attitudes toward non-western immigrant groups: Second-order
factor analysis of attitudes among Norwegian adolescents. Group Processes and Intergroup
Relations, 8, 447469.
Cohrs, J. C., & Asbrock, F. (2009). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and
prejudice against threatening and competitive ethnic groups. European Journal of Social Psychology,
32, 270289.
Dru, V. (2007). Authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice: Effects of various self-
categorization conditions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 877883.
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41113). San Diego:
Academic Press.
Duckitt, J. (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, 684696.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007). Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the
dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21, 113130.
Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and
prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 7593.
Duriez, B., & van Hiel, A. (2002). The march of modern fascism. A comparison of social dominance
orientation and authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 11991213.
Duriez, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & De Witte, H. (2007). The social costs of extrinsic
relative to intrinsic goal pursuits: Their relation with Social Dominance Orientation and racial and
ethnic prejudice. Journal of Personality, 75, 757782.
Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson, I. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big
Five personality, Social Dominance Orientation, or Right-Wing Authoritarianism? European
Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 463482.
Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes toward
immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues,
54, 699724.
Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. C., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and
interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social
Issues, 55, 473489.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and
benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491512.
Guimond, S., Dambrun, M., Michinov, N., & Duarte, S. (2003). Does social dominance generate
prejudice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 697721.

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 324340 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
340 F. Asbrock et al.

Heaven, P. C. L., & Connors, J. R. (2001). A note on the value correlates of social dominance
orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 925930.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.). New York:
Guilford.
Lippa, R., & Arad, S. (1999). Gender, personality, and prejudice: The display of authoritarianism and
social dominance in interviews with college men and women. Journal of Research in Personality,
33, 463493.
McFarland, S. (2003). Prejudiced people: Individual differences in explicit prejudice. Unpublished
manuscript.
Peterson, B. E., & Lane, M. D. (2001). Implications of authoritarianism for young adulthood:
Longitudinal analysis of college experiences and future goals. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27, 678690.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 5775.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup
relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271320.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. M. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A
personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 741763.
Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., Haslam, S. A., & Ryan, M. K. (2001). The role of personality and group
factors in explaining prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 427434.
Roets, A., Van Hiel, A., & Cornelis, I. (2006). Does materialism predict racism? Materialism as a
distinctive social attitude and a predictor of prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 20, 155168.
Saucier, G. (2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78, 366385.
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 248279.
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (in press) The ideological legitimation of the status quo: Longitudinal tests
of a social dominance model. Political Psychology.
Sibley, C. G., Robertson, A., & Wilson, M. S. (2006). Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing
Authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects. Political Psychology, 27, 755768.
Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007a). Antecedents of mens hostile and benevolent
sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 160172.
Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007b). Effects of dangerous and competitive worldviews
on Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation over a five-month period.
Political Psychology, 28, 357371.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sidanius, J., Sinclair, S., & Pratto, F. (2006). Social dominance orientation, gender, and increasing
educational exposure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 16401653.
Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, C. L. (2003). The role of threat in intergroup relations. In D. M. Mackie, &
E. R. Smith (Eds), From prejudice to intergroup relations. Different reactions to social groups
(pp. 191207). New York: Psychology Press.
Stephan, W. G., Renfro, C. L., Esses, V. M., Stephan, C. W., & Martin, T. (2005). The effects of threat
on attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 119.
Thomsen, L., Green, E. G. T., & Sidanius, J. (2008). We will hunt them down: How Social Dominance
Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism fuel ethnic persecution of immigrants in funda-
mentally different ways. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 14551464.
Wagner, U., Christ, O., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Prejudice and group-related behavior in Germany.
Journal of Social Issues, 64, 403416.
Whitley, B. E. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126134.
Zick, A., Wolf, C., Kupper, B., Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Heitmeyer, W. (2008). The syndrome of
group-focused enmity: The interrelation of prejudices tested with multiple cross-sectional and
panel data. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 363383.

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 324340 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per