Relation between College Students’ Conservatism and Negative Stereotypes about Social Groups
Abstract
:1. Relation between College Students’ Conservatism and Negative Stereotypes about Social Groups
The Relation between Political Attitudes and Negative Stereotypes about Social Groups
2. Method
2.1. Participants
2.2. Materials
2.3. Procedure
3. Results
3.1. Political Affiliation
3.2. Intercorrelations among Conservatism, Religiosity, GBJW, SDO, and the Big Five
3.3. Interrelations among Measures of Stereotypes: Modern Sexism and Feelings about Social Groups
3.4. Interrelations among Conservatism, Religiosity, GBJW, SDO, Big Five, and Measures of Stereotypes
3.5. Absolute Positivity and Negativity of Feelings about Social Groups
4. Discussion
4.1. Intercorrelations among Conservatism, Religiosity, GBJW, SDO, and the Big Five
4.2. Interrelations among Measures of Stereotypes: Modern Sexism and Feelings about Social Groups
4.3. Conservatism and Stereotypes
4.4. Religiosity and Stereotypes
4.5. GBJW and Stereotypes
4.6. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)
4.7. Big Five and Stereotypes
4.8. Democrats, Republicans, and Stereotypes
4.9. Limitations of This Research and Directions for the Future
5. Conclusions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Adorno, T. W., Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford. 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper. [Google Scholar]
- Baron, Jonathan, and John T. Jost. 2019. False equivalence: Are liberals and conservatives in the United States equally biased? Perspectives on Psychological Science 14: 292–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartusevičius, Henrikas, Florian van Leeuwen, and Michael B. Petersen. 2020. Dominance-driven autocratic political orientations predict political violence in western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) and non-WEIRD samples. Psychological Science, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Begeny, C. T., M. K. Ryan, C. A. Moss-Racusin, and G. Ravetz. 2020. In some professions, women have become well represented, yet gender bias persists—Perpetuated by those who think it is not happening. Science Advances 6: eaba7814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergh, Robin, Nazar Akrami, and Bo Ekehammar. 2012. The personality underpinnings of explicit and implicit generalized prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science 3: 614–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brandt, Mark J., and Jarret T. Crawford. 2019. Studying a heterogeneous array of target groups can help us understand prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science 28: 292–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brandt, Mark J., Christine Reyna, John R. Chambers, Jarret T. Crawford, and Geoffrey Wetherell. 2014. The Ideological-Conflict Hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23: 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Byrne, Donald. 1971. The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
- Carney, Dana R., John T. Jost, Samuel D. Gosling, and Jeff Potter. 2008. The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology 29: 807–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chambers, John R., Barry R. Schlenker, and Brian Collisson. 2013. Ideology and prejudice: The role of value conflicts. Psychological Science 24: 140–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Charlesworth, Tessa E. S., and Mahzarin R. Banaji. 2019. Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: I. Long-term change and stability from 2007 to 2016. Psychological Science 30: 174–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Crandall, Christian S., Jason M. Miller, and Mark H. White. 2018. Changing norms following the 2016 U.S. presidential election: The Trump effect on prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crawford, Jarret T., and Mark J. Brandt. 2019. Who is prejudiced, and toward whom? The Big Five traits and generalized prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeYoung, Colin G., Lena C. Quilty, and Jordan B. Peterson. 2007. Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93: 880–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dittmar, Helga, and Julie Dickinson. 1993. The perceived relationship between the belief in a just world and sociopolitical ideology. Social Justice Research 6: 257–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ditto, Peter H., Brittany S. Liu, Cory J. Clark, Sean P. Wojcik, Eric E. Chen, Rebecca H. Grady, Jared B. Celniker, and Joanne F. Zinger. 2018. At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science 14: 273–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Duckitt, John. 2001. A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Edited by Mark P. Zanna. San Diego: Academic Press, vol. 33, pp. 41–113. [Google Scholar]
- Duckitt, John. 2015. Authoritarian Personality. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Edited by J. D. Wright. Oxford: Elsevier, vol. 2, pp. 255–61. [Google Scholar]
- Duckitt, John, and Chris G. Sibley. 2009. A dual-process motivational model of ideology, politics, and prejudice. Psychological Inquiry 20: 98–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Everett, Jim A. 2013. The 12 Item Social and Economic Conservatism Scale (SECS). PLoS ONE 8: e82131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2020. 2018 Hate Crime Statistics. Available online: https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2018/topic-pages/victims (accessed on 17 October 2020).
- Graham, Jesse, Jonathan Haidt, and Brian A. Nosek. 2009. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96: 1029–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hirsh, Jacob B., Colin G. DeYoung, Xiaowen Xu, and Jordan B. Peterson. 2010. Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: Associations of agreeableness with political ideology and moral values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36: 655–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ho, Arnold K., Jim Sidanius, Nour Kteily, Jennifer Sheehy-Skeffington, Felicia Pratto, Kristin E. Henkel, Rob Foels, and Andrew L. Stewart. 2015. The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 109: 1003–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hodson, Gordon, and Kristof Dhont. 2015. The person-based nature of prejudice: Individual difference predictors of intergroup negativity. European Review of Social Psychology 26: 1–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- John, Oliver P., Laura P. Naumann, and Christopher J. Soto. 2008. Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. Edited by Oliver P. John, Richard W. Robins and Lawrence A. Pervin. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 114–58. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, Jeffrey M. 2010. Americans’ Opposition to Gay Marriage Eases Slightly. Gallup Poll. Available online: http://www.gallup.com/poll/128291/americans-opposition-gay-marriage-eases-slightly.aspx (accessed on 24 May 2010).
- Jost, John T., Jaime L. Napier, Hulda Thorisdottir, Samuel D. Gosling, Tibor P. Palfai, and Brian Ostafin. 2007. Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political conservatism or ideological extremity? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33: 989–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jost, John T., Joanna Sterling, and Chadly Stern. 2018. Getting closure on conservatism, or the politics of epistemic and existential motivation. In The Motivation-Cognition Interface. Edited by Catalina E. Kopetz and Ayelet Fishbach. New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 56–87. [Google Scholar]
- Kraus, Michael W., Ivuoma N. Onyeador, Natalie M. Daumeyer, Julian M. Rucker, and Jennifer A. Richeson. 2019. The misperception of racial economic inequality. Perspectives on Psychological Science 14: 899–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lipkus, Isaac. 1991. The construction and preliminary validation of a Global Belief in a Just World Scale and the exploratory analysis of the Multidimensional Belief in a Just World Scale. Personality and Individual Differences 12: 1171–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mallinas, Stephanie R., Jarret T. Crawford, and Shana Cole. 2018. Political opposites do not attract: The effects of ideological dissimilarity on impression formation. Journal of Social and Political Psychology 6: 49–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pratto, Felicia, Jim Sidanius, Lisa M. Stallworth, and Bertram F. Malle. 1994. Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67: 741–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- PRRI Staff. 2020. Dueling Realities: Amid Multiple Crises, Trump and Biden Supporters See Different Priorities and Futures for the Nation. October 19. Available online: https://www.prri.org/research/amid-multiple-crises-trump-and-biden-supporters-see-different-realities-and-futures-for-the-nation/ (accessed on 10 October 2020).
- Prusaczyk, Elvira, and Gordon Hodson. 2020. The roles of political conservatism and binary gender beliefs in predicting prejudices toward gay men and people who are transgender. Sex Roles 82: 438–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sibley, Chris G., and John Duckitt. 2008. Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review 12: 248–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Swim, Janet K., Kathryn J. Aikin, Wayne S. Hall, and Barbara A. Hunter. 1995. Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68: 199–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tajfel, Henry. 1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology 33: 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van der Toorn, Jojanneke, John T. Jost, Dominic J. Packer, Sharareh Noorbaloochi, and Jay J. van Bavel. 2017. In defense of tradition: Religiosity, conservatism, and opposition to same-sex marriage in North America. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 43: 1455–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wetherell, Geoffrey A., Mark J. Brandt, and Christine Reyna. 2013. Discrimination across the ideological divide: The role of value violations and abstract values in discrimination by liberals and conservatives. Social Psychological and Personality Science 4: 658–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
1 | Although Hispanic is officially considered an ethnicity rather than a race, so many of our participants spontaneously typed in “Hispanic” under the racial category “Other” that I decided to honor this self-categorization. |
Self-Identified Con. | 0.45 *** | ||||||||||
Social Conservatism | 0.38 *** | 0.63 *** | |||||||||
Economic Conserv. | 0.09 | 0.31 ** | 0.64 *** | ||||||||
Religiosity | 0.24 * | 0.32 ** | 0.41 *** | 0.41 *** | |||||||
GBJW | 0.45 *** | 0.46 *** | 0.31 ** | 0.08 | 0.04 | ||||||
SDO | 0.28 ** | 0.43 *** | 0.25 ** | 0.04 | 0.20 * | 0.49 *** | |||||
Agreeableness | −0.03 | 0.03 | −0.01 | −0.01 | −0.04 | 0.02 | −0.05 | ||||
Conscientiousness | 0.20 * | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.02 | 0.34 *** | 0.03 | 0.39 *** | |||
Extroversion | 0.04 | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.22 * | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.38 *** | 0.36 *** | ||
Neuroticism | −0.09 | −0.26 ** | −0.12 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.00 | −0.06 | 0.43 *** | 0.21 * | 0.26 ** | |
Openness New Ex. | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.35 *** | 0.20 * | 0.49 *** | 0.50 *** |
Modern Sexism | Selfidentified Conservatism | Social Conservatism | Economic Conservatism | Religiosity | GBJW | SDO | Agreeableness | Conscientiousness | Extroversion | Neuroticism |
Asians | 0.80 *** | ||||||||||||||
Atheists | 0.50 *** | 0.53 *** | |||||||||||||
Catholics | 0.44 *** | 0.66 *** | 0.29 ** | ||||||||||||
Caucasians | 0.51 *** | 0.66 *** | 0.40 *** | 0.56 *** | |||||||||||
Democrats | 0.51 *** | 0.39 *** | 0.49 *** | 0.26 ** | 0.22 * | ||||||||||
Lesbians | 0.53 *** | 0.57 *** | 0.67 *** | 0.22 * | 0.33 *** | 0.59 *** | |||||||||
Fundamentalist Christians | 0.41 *** | 0.49 *** | 0.22 * | 0.67 *** | 0.46 *** | 0.23 * | 0.25 ** | ||||||||
Hispanics | 0.78 *** | 0.79 *** | 0.54 *** | 0.57 *** | 0.66 *** | 0.50 *** | 0.57 *** | 0.47 *** | |||||||
Jews | 0.67 *** | 0.78 *** | 0.52 *** | 0.58 *** | 0.69 *** | 0.46 *** | 0.55 *** | 0.50 *** | 0.78 *** | ||||||
Male homosexuals | 0.58 *** | 0.51 *** | 0.68 *** | 0.22 * | 0.33 *** | 0.62 *** | 0.89 *** | 0.26 ** | 0.59 *** | 0.58 *** | |||||
Men | 0.56 *** | 0.58 *** | 0.23 * | 0.42 *** | 0.67 *** | 0.31 ** | 0.33 *** | 0.45 *** | 0.64 *** | 0.59 *** | 0.31 ** | ||||
Muslims | 0.72 *** | 0.74 *** | 0.55 *** | 0.50 *** | 0.47 *** | 0.55 *** | 0.66 *** | 0.43 *** | 0.75 *** | 0.80 *** | 0.70 *** | 0.55 *** | |||
Republicans | 0.17 | 0.35 *** | 0.20 * | 0.56 *** | 0.59 *** | −0.08 | 0.08 | 0.60 *** | 0.30 *** | 0.37 *** | 0.07 | 0.47 *** | 0.24 * | ||
Women | 0.71 *** | 0.66 *** | 0.33 *** | 0.34 *** | 0.46 *** | 0.40 *** | 0.49 *** | 0.34 *** | 0.66 *** | 0.66 *** | 0.46 *** | 0.64 *** | 0.67 *** | 0.13 | |
Modern Sexism | −0.15 | −0.04 | −0.07 | 0.10 | 0.16 | −0.22 * | −0.22 * | 0.03 | −0.04 | −0.11 | −0.27 ** | 0.08 | −0.16 | 0.29 ** | −0.23 * |
African Americans | Asians | Atheists | Catholics | Caucasians | Democrats | Female Homosexuals | Fundamentalist Christians | Hispanics | Jews | Male Homosexuals | Men | Muslims | Republicans | Women |
Modern Sexism | −0.15 | −0.04 | −0.07 | 0.10 | 0.16 | −0.22 * | −0.22 * | 0.03 | −0.04 | −0.11 | −0.27 ** | 0.08 | −0.16 | 0.29 ** | −0.23 * |
Self-identified Conservatism | −0.22 * | −0.14 | −0.33 *** | 0.12 | 0.11 | −0.59 *** | −0.44 *** | 0.17 | −0.22 * | −0.17 | −0.47 *** | 0.11 | −0.28 ** | 0.45 *** | −0.17 |
Social Conservatism | −0.05 | 0.04 | −0.30 ** | 0.35 *** | 0.18 * | −0.38 *** | −0.41 *** | 0.27 ** | 0.04 | 0.00 | −0.40 *** | 0.15 | −0.10 | 0.43 *** | −0.03 |
Economic Conserv. | 0.06 | 0.08 | −0.31 ** | 0.27 ** | 0.04 | −0.04 | −0.28 ** | 0.21 * | 0.03 | 0.13 | −0.24 * | 0.22 * | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.13 |
Religiosity | −0.07 | −0.01 | −0.39 *** | 0.08 | −0.05 | −0.23 * | −0.41 *** | 0.12 | 0.14 | −0.02 | −0.38 *** | 0.08 | −0.11 | 0.11 | −0.09 |
GBJW | −0.22 * | −0.16 | −0.16 | 0.02 | 0.11 | −0.35 *** | 0.11 | −0.28 ** | −0.20 * | −0.16 | −0.23 * | 0.00 | −0.24 ** | 0.30 ** | −0.27 ** |
SDO | −0.36 *** | −0.31 ** | −0.35 *** | −0.06 | −0.10 | −0.42 *** | −0.47 *** | −0.10 | −0.32 ** | −0.32 ** | −0.43 *** | −0.10 | −0.38 *** | 0.10 | −0.26 ** |
Agreeableness | 0.13 | 0.22 * | 0.08 | 0.14 | 0.22 * | −0.03 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.18 | 0.00 | 0.24 * | 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.20 * |
Conscientious-ness | 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.13 | −0.02 | 0.21 * | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.21 * |
Extroversion | 0.10 | 0.04 | −0.06 | 0.06 | −0.07 | 0.01 | −0.03 | 0.07 | −0.05 | 0.06 | −0.04 | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.02 | 0.18 |
Neuroticism | 0.04 | 0.17 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.21 * | 0.14 | 0.01 | 0.19 * | −0.13 | 0.04 |
Openness to New Experien. | 0.00 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.14 | −0.05 | 0.16 | 0.02 | −0.02 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.04 |
African Americans | Asians | Atheists | Catholics | Caucasians | Democrats | Female Homosexuals | Fundamentalist Christians | Hispanics | Jews | Male Homosexuals | Men | Muslims | Republicans | Women |
Social Group | Entire Sample | Democrats | Republicans |
---|---|---|---|
Women | 82.2 | 83.7 | 83.4 |
Hispanics | 75.0 | 78.3 | 74.7 |
Asians | 74.6 | 74.7 | 78.2 |
Men | 73.7 | 74.0 | 83.0 |
African Americans | 73.1 | 77.6 | 72.0 |
Caucasians | 70.9 | 66.3 ** | 84.3 |
Jews | 70.5 | 69.9 | 71.6 |
Catholics | 66.9 | 65.6 * | 79.6 |
Muslims | 66.3 | 70.9 * | 58.7 |
Female homosexuals | 63.5 | 71.6 ** | 45.9 |
Fundamentalist Christians | 62.3 | 62.4 | 73.5 |
Male homosexuals | 61.3 | 71.8 *** | 41.8 |
Democrats | 59.6 | 76.1 *** | 33.2 |
Republicans | 55.9 | 47.1 *** | 81.6 |
Atheists | 55.7 | 62.1 * | 43.3 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Beyer, S. Relation between College Students’ Conservatism and Negative Stereotypes about Social Groups. Soc. Sci. 2020, 9, 224. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9120224
Beyer S. Relation between College Students’ Conservatism and Negative Stereotypes about Social Groups. Social Sciences. 2020; 9(12):224. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9120224
Chicago/Turabian StyleBeyer, Sylvia. 2020. "Relation between College Students’ Conservatism and Negative Stereotypes about Social Groups" Social Sciences 9, no. 12: 224. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9120224