Ideology: Liberalism, conservatism, and the darker side of politics

Ideology:Liberalism, conservatism, and the darker side of politics

Ideology • A set of beliefs, attitudes, ideas, values etc. • Politics, religion, and other social attitudes. • A meaningful predictor! • eg: Have sports-related décor in your bedroom? Like classical music? Enjoy getting drunk?

The Plan 1. Background • Liberalism vs. Conservatism • Ideology and the Big Five 2. The Dark Side: RWA & SDO • Theory: Altemeyer’s RWA, Sidanius & Pratto’s SDO • Cohrs et al. (2005a): Values and post 9/11 attitudes • Cohrs et al. (2005b): Support for war • Altemeyer (2004): The “Double Highs” 3. Are there more factors? • Saucier (2000): Isms & the structure of social attitudes 4. Conclusions & directions for future research

Liberalism vs. Conservatism • Left-Right distinction: • 1789 French Legislative Assembly • Left-wingers (liberals): progressive, egalitarian • Right-wingers (conservatives): traditional, religious, supportive of the status quo

Ideology typically predicted by Openness and Conscientiousness; to a lesser extent, Agreeableness. Carney et al. (in press): Ideology & The Big 5

Ideology & The Big 5 (cont’d) Goldberg’s (1999) IPIP Openness to Values Facet- LIBERALISM + keyed • Tend to vote for liberal political candidates. • Believe that there is no absolute right or wrong. • Believe that criminals should receive help rather than punishment. – keyed • Believe in one true religion. • Tend to vote for conservative political candidates. • Believe that too much tax money goes to support artists. • Believe laws should be strictly enforced. • Believe that we coddle criminals too much. • Believe that we should be tough on crime. • Like to stand during the national anthem.

The Plan 1. Background • Liberalism vs. Conservatism • Ideology and the Big Five 2. The Dark Side: RWA & SDO • Theory: Altemeyer’s RWA, Sidanius & Pratto’s SDO • Cohrs et al. (2005a): Values and Post 9/11 attitudes • Cohrs et al. (2005b): Support for war • Altemeyer (2004): The Double Highs 3. Are there more factors? • Saucier (2000): Isms & the structure of social attitudes 4. Conclusions & directions for future research

The Dark Side: RWA & SDO

Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) • Origins in Adorno et al.’s (1950) F Scale • Altemeyer’s (1981) RWA: • Authoritarian Submission • Authoritarian Aggression • Conventionalism • e.g., “Once our government leaders give us the go ahead, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.”

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle (1994) • Hierarchy vs. Equality • e.g., “some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.” • r = ~.20 with RWA. • Politically conservative, but not religious.

Cohrs et al. (2005a) Post 9/11 Attitudes • RWA, SDO, and values as predictors of post 9/11: • Attitudes towards Islam • Support for war • RWA, SDO  Differential motivations? • Altemeyer: 2 sides of the authoritarian coin. • Lippa & Arad (1999), Duriez & Van Hiel (2002): Different basis for prejudice (conformity vs. superiority). • Duckitt (2001): Dual process model of ideology and prejudice

Cohrs et al. (2005a) Post 9/11 Attitudes (cont’d) Proposed motivational goals: • RWA: social control and security (vs. autonomy and individual freedom). • Threat-based motivation • SDO: superiority, power, and dominance (vs. egalitarian concern for others). • Cold-hearted motivation

Cohrs et al. (2005a) Post 9/11 Attitudes (cont’d) Schwartz Value Circumplex:

Cohrs et al. (2005a) Post 9/11 Attitudes (cont’d) Value Hypotheses: • RWA will be related to conservation values. • SDO will be related to self-enhancement values. Post 9-11 Attitude Hypotheses: • RWA will predict fearfulattitudes towards Islam. • SDO will predict lack of concern for negative consequences of war. • RWA and SDO will equally predict: • General stereotypical attitudes towards Islam. • General support for military response to Sept. 11.

Cohrs et al. (2005a) Post 9/11 Attitudes (cont’d) Method • Participants: N = 1,552 (14 -75 yrs, M= 30.50). Measures: • German RWA, SDO, Schwartz PVQ. • Attitudes toward Islam: • Threat-related(e.g. “The large number of Koran schools and mosques in Germany shows how much we are already infiltrated by Islam.”) • Stereotypical(e.g. “Basically, the fundamental human rights are respected in Islamic societies as much as in others.” -reversed) • Attitudes toward a military response to Sept. 11th: • Concern for human costs (e.g., “Military action causes enormous suffering for innocent people.”) • General support for a military response (e.g., “There should be military action against those immediately responsible.”)

Cohrs et al. (2005a) Post 9/11 Attitudes (cont’d) Results: RWA, SDO, & Values Self-transcendence Conservation Self-Enhancement

Cohrs et al. (2005a) Post 9/11 Attitudes (cont’d)

Cohrs et al. (2005a) Post 9/11 Attitudes (cont’d) Summary & Conclusions: • RWA, not SDO  conservation values and threat-related prejudice towards Islam. • But overlap! • RWA and SDO predicted self-enhancement (vs. self-transcendence) values and lack of concern for human costs. • Note: RWA, SDO r = .56 (p < .001).

Cohrs et al. (2005b) Support for War • Goal: a more comprehensive model predicting militaristic attitudes. • 3 Levels of analysis: • Values (self-enhancement, self-transcendence, & conservation) • General ideological attitudes (RWA, SDO) • Specific attitudes (threat, concern for human costs)

Cohrs et al. (2005b) Support for War (cont’d) Hypotheses: • Self-enhancement and conservation values will affect attitudes towards war. • Mediational model 1: • Conservation values  RWA  militaristic attitudes • Self-enhancement values  SDO  militaristic attitudes • Mediational model 2: • Conservation values  threat perceptions  militaristic attitudes • Self-enhancement values  low concern for human costs  militaristic attitudes

Cohrs et al. (2005b) Support for War (cont’d) Study 1 (Mediational model 1) • Participants: N = 1,548 (14 -75 yrs, M = 30.53 yrs. 50/50 men & women) • Measures: • German translations of the Schwartz PVQ, RWA, SDO. • Dependent variables: • Generalized militaristic attitudes (10 items; e.g., “War is an indispensable means to solve international conflicts”) • Attitude towards the Kosovo War (2 items; e.g., “In my opinion it was wrong of NATO to intervene militarily in Kosovo in 1999”) • Attitude towards the Afghanistan War (3 items; e.g., “There should be military actions against those immediately responsible.”)

Cohrs et al. (2005b) Support for War (cont’d) Results: Self-Enhancement Values & Militaristic Attitudes

Cohrs et al. (2005b) Support for War (cont’d) Results: Conservation Values & Militaristic Attitudes

Cohrs et al. (2005b) Support for War (cont’d) ps < .001 RWA and SDO partially mediate the relationship between values and militaristic attitudes

Cohrs et al. (2005b) Support for War (cont’d) Study 2 (Mediational model 2): • Participants: N = 540 participants. 15-75 years (M = 31.96). ~50/50 men & women. 50.6% also participated at Time 1. • Measures: • German translation of the Schwartz SVS • Threat of Terrorism (4 items; e.g. “I don’t feel that my everyday life is disturbed by terrorist attacks” -reversed) • Concern for Human Costs (4 items; e.g., “Military action has led to tremendous suffering of innocent human beings”) • Dependent variable: Attitude toward the Afghanistan War (3 items; e.g., “By and large, I consider the military action in Afghanistan justified.”)

Cohrs et al. (2005b) Support for War (cont’d) ps < .001, except threat-militaristic attitudes (p < .05) Threat from terrorism and concern for human costs partially mediate the relationship between values and militaristic attitudes

Cohrs et al. (2005b) Support for War (cont’d) Conclusions • Support for war linked to conservation and self-enhancement (vs. transcendence) values. • Universalism values = most important buffer. • RWA, SDO  differential, but overlapping effects on attitudes towards war. • Peace efforts may need to address both routes: • Power, superiority, lack of concern for human costs. • Conformity and vulnerability to threat.

Summary of Cohrs et al. Studies • Attitudes towards war have many facets, but are relatively similar in their underpinnings. • RWA, conservative values  go to war to reduce threat. • Willing to sacrifice others for security. • Autonomyand liberalism  opposition to war. • SDO, self-enhancement values  domination of others, no matter what the costs. • Willing to sacrifice others for personal gain. • Egalitarian outlook (universalism values)  opposition to war.

Altemeyer (2004): The Double Highs

Altemeyer (2004): The Double Highs (cont’d) • But, r = .20 • 5-10% of UofM intro psych students are high on both RWA and SDO (yikes!) • 3 Questions: • Are “Double Highs” doubly prejudiced? • Paradox 1 : Do they want to dominate or submit? • Paradox 2: Are they religious or non-religious?

Altemeyer (2004): The Double Highs (cont’d) Q1: How prejudiced are they? • Manitoba Ethnocentrism • E.g., “Arabs are too emotional, and don’t fit in well in our country” • Hostility toward Homosexuals • e.g., “Homosexuals should be locked up to protect society”) • Attitudes toward women in general • e.g., “Over the past few years, women have gotten more from the government than they deserve” • Attitudes toward Quebec Francophones • e.g., “The French in Quebec are selfish, spoiled and greedy”)

Altemeyer (2004): The Double Highs (cont’d) • * Sig. diff from all other groups • † Sig. diff from all but High SDOs

Altemeyer (2004): The Double Highs (cont’d) Paradox 1 : Dominate or Submit? • “How much power, ability to make adults do what you want, do you want to have when you are 40 years old?” • Power Mad Scale • e.g. “Do you enjoy having the power to hurt people when they anger or disappoint you?”) • Social Inequality Scale • e.g. “Equality is one of those nice-sounding names for suckers. Actually, only fools believe in it.”

Altemeyer (2004): The Double Highs (cont’d) Note: Double High mean sig. different from all groups except the High SDOs (p < .05)

Altemeyer (2004): The Double Highs (cont’d) Double High mean sig. different from others (p < .05)

Altemeyer (2004): The Double Highs (cont’d) • Paradox 1 solved: Double highs want to dominate. • They are just as power hungry as SDOs • “They believe in submission, but they want to be the ones submitted to”

Altemeyer (2004): The Double Highs (cont’d) Paradox 2 : Religious or Non? • Childhood Religious Emphasis • e.g., How often they went to church • Religious Self-Perception • e.g., “How religious would you say you are in terms of your beliefs?” • Self- reported Church attendance in a month • Religious Fundamentalism • e.g., “God has given mankind a complete, unfailing guide to happiness and salvation, which must be totally followed”

Altemeyer (2004): The Double Highs (cont’d) Double Highs are less religious than High RWAs, but more religious than High SDOs or others.

Altemeyer (2004): The Double Highs (cont’d) • Paradox 2 solved: Double-Highs seem to be pretty religious people. • Only on the surface? • Score highly on “Exploitive Manipulative Amoral Dishonesty items” • E.g. “The best reason for belonging to a church is to project a good image and have contact with some of the important people in your community”

Altemeyer (2004): The Double Highs (cont’d) Conclusions • Double highs appear to have the worst qualities of RWAs and SDOs. • Especially likely to be prejudiced • Want to dominate others (like SDOs) • Religious (like RWAS), but use religion to manipulate people (like SDOs) • Likely to see them leading right-wing extremist groups.

Saucier (2000): Isms • So far, we have focused on: • 3 constructs: conservatism, RWA, & SDO • Specific attitudes • Values • Overall structure? Other dimensions? • Lexical approach may be useful. “Isms”

Saucier (2000): Isms (cont’d) Study 1: Factor Structure of Isms Method: • Word-selection: all –isms in American Heritage Dictionary, filtered for relevance (Total: 374 def’n). • Questionnaire Construction: created an attitude item for each ism definition. • Data collection: 500 intro psych students rated their agreement with the ism statements. • Factor analysis on their responses.

FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 Gammadeltaisms (γδ) Alphaisms (α) Betaisms (β) Gammaisms (γ) Deltaisms (δ)

Saucier (2000): Isms (cont’d) Study 2: Further interpretation of isms • Measures: • Isms: SDI-B, SDI-C, Composite score • Conservatism: 30 items from Wilson’s (1973) C-Scale • Authoritarianism: RWA scale (Altemeyer, 1997) • Machiavellianism: Mach-IV • e.g., “The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear”. • Lexical Big5 + Openness: Mini-Markers + IPIP Openness • Religiousness: Religious? Nonreligious? - 9nt scale

Saucier (2000): Isms (cont’d)

Saucier (2000): Isms (cont’d) Isms & the Big 5: • Openness the strongest predictor. • + gammadeltaisms, gammaisms, and deltaisms • - alphaisms, betaisms • Agreeableness a lesser predictor. • +alphaisms, gammadeltaisms • - betaisms

Ideology: Liberalism, conservatism, and the darker side of politics