The “Prejudiced Personality” Revisited: (Low) Agreeableness is Associated with Generalized Prejudice, but Openness is Not JARRET T. CRAWFORD THE COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY MARK J. BRANDT TILBURG UNIVERSITY

A trait-based approach to prejudice  The Prejudiced Personality : “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 person is anti-Jewish, he is likely to be anti-Catholic, anti- Negro, anti any out-group.” (Allport, 1954, p. 68)  Hodson & Dhont (2015)—some traits are consistently associated with prejudice against multiple outgroups:  Authoritarianism  Political conservatism  Religiosity  Disgust sensitivity  Threat sensitivity  Low cognitive ability  (Low) Openness and Agreeableness

(Low) Openness & Agreeableness are related to generalized prejudice  Generalized prejudice expressed toward multiple groups  Sibley & Duckitt (2008) meta-analyzed 25 studies (N = 4,713) including Big Five traits and measures of target-specific and generalized prejudice  Openness r = -.30  Conscientiousness r =.02  Extraversion r = -.07  Agreeableness r = -.22  Neuroticism r = -.01

Defining vs. Operationalizing Prejudice  Most well-accepted definitions of prejudice are broad (Stangor, 2009):  “a negative evaluation of a group or of an individual on the basis of group membership” (Crandall et al., 2002, p. 359)  However, generalized prejudice has been operationalized narrowly towards socially disadvantaged and low status groups:  Ethnic and racial minorities, women, immigrants, sexual minorities, disabled, Muslims, poor/unemployed people, elderly people (e.g., Akrami et al., 2011; Bergh et al., 2012; Duckitt & Sibley, 2007; Ekehammar & Akrami, 2003)  Thus, mismatch between broad definition but narrow operationalization of prejudice

Replicated in e.g., Chambers et al., 2013; Crawford, 2014; Crawford et al., 2014; Crawford et al., 2015; Crawford & Pilanski, 2014; Iyengar & Westwood, 2014; van Prooijen et al., 2015; Wetherell et al., 2013 Ideological Conflict Perspective (Brandt et al. 2014, CDPS)  Low status and socially disadvantaged groups associated with liberal policies or liberal themselves (e.g., Chambers et al., 2013)  Conservatism does not predict prejudice per se; ideology-prejudice relationship depends on target’s political orientation  Worldview conflict (dissimilarity in beliefs/values)  Requires inclusion of targets from both left (e.g., gay men and lesbians; welfare recipients) and right (e.g., Evangelical Christians; Wall Street executives)

An ideological conflict approach to Big Five & generalized prejudice  Are Openness and/or Agreeableness still associated with generalized prejudice under an inclusive operationalization?  Are Conscientiousness, Extraversion, or Neuroticism now associated with generalized prejudice under an inclusive operationalization?

Studies 1 and 2  Study 1: nationally representative sample—2012 American National Election Studies (ANES) Time-Series (n = 5,510)—examined prejudice against 24 mostly heterogeneous target groups  Study 2: community sample from Mechanical Turk (n = 617) examined prejudice against 20 target groups drawn from previous ideological conflict studies  Both studies used Ten-item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling et al., 2003) to measure Big Five traits  Both studies used Feeling thermometer ratings (0 – 100; reverse scored) to measure prejudice  Generalized prejudice: average prejudice rating across all groups within each study

Study 1 & 2 Results Partial correlations between trait & prejudice while controlling for the other four traits OCEAN Study ***-.19***.04* Study *-.19***-.02

Study 3  Study 3: community sample from MTurk (n = 509)  44-item Big Five Inventory (John & Srivistava, 1999) instead of TIPI  Tested potential moderation of effects of:  Openness (perceived conventionality; Brandt et al., 2015)  Agreeableness (perceived warmth towards others; Graziano et al., 2007; Yarkoni et al., 2015)  Extraversion (perceived assertiveness)  Perceived worldview conflict as possible mediator  Openness-prejudice relationships partially explained by worldview conflict (Brandt et al., 2015)  10 target groups to reduce participant fatigue

Study 3 Results Partial correlations between trait & prejudice while controlling for the other four traits Target GroupPersonality Trait OCEAN Atheists-.23*** **.02 Gay men and lesbians-.18*** *-.12*-.20*** Poor People ***-.13** Pro-choice activists-.14** Welfare recipients ***-.11* Anti-gay activists.19*** ** Investment bankers Evangelical Christians.15** ***.02 Pro-life activists.20*** ***.01 Wealthy people Generalized Prejudice ***-.05

Moderation Analyses  Examined moderating effects of perceived conventionality, assertiveness, and warmth on each trait-prejudice and trait- worldview conflict relationship  No interactions with Agreeableness were significant  Openness x Conventionality  Neuroticism x Conventionality

Mediation of Worldview Conflict  High in Openness (+1 SD)  Low in Openness (-1 SD)  High in Neuroticism (+1 SD)  Low in Neuroticism (-1 SD) Prejudice Conventionality Worldview Conflict Conventionality Worldview Conflict Prejudice.14(.04)*** 3.61(.27)*** 3.56(.27)*** -.02(.04).15(.04)*** -.02(.05) 3.56(.27)*** Sobel 3.38(.15)*** -.50(.15) 3.61(.15)*** -.40(.18)

Meta-Analyses (total n = 7,040)

Implications  Low Openness does not orient people towards negative attitudes towards others  Openness-prejudice relationship function of perceived worldview conflict with conventional/unconventional targets (Brandt et al., 2015)  Low Agreeableness does orient people towards negative attitudes towards others  Consistent relationship across studies (MA r = -.19)  Relationship not moderated by worldview conflict, perceived warmth towards others, etc.  Unrelated to worldview conflict  Associated with prejudice against groups across political spectrum (e.g., liberals, conservatives, gay men/lesbians, Evangelicals)  Make operationalization of “generalized prejudice” consistent with broad definitions of “prejudice” to understand processes underlying prejudice

Thank you!

Operationalization of prejudice matters for conclusions about individual differences-prejudice relationships  Ideological conflict model perspective (Brandt, Reyna, Chambers, Crawford, & Wetherell, 2014):  Low status and socially disadvantaged groups tend to be associated with liberal policies or are politically liberal themselves (e.g., Chambers et al., 2013)  Conservatism does not predict prejudice per se; rather, the ideology- prejudice relationship depends on the political orientation of target  Worldview conflict (dissimilarity in beliefs/values)  This approach requires the inclusion of targets from across the political spectrum, from the left (e.g., gay men and lesbians; welfare recipients) to the right (e.g., Evangelical Christians; Wall Street executives)

Replicated in e.g., Crawford, 2014; Crawford et al., 2014; Crawford et al., 2015; Iyengar & Westwood, 2014; van Prooijen et al., 2015 Wetherell et al. (2013)Crawford & Pilanski (2014) Chambers et al. (2013) From Brandt et al CDPS

Study 1 Results Target GroupPersonality Trait OCEAN Atheists-.10***.09*** Feminists -.12***.06**-.04*-.11***-.02 Gay men and lesbians-.16***.08***-.08***-.10***-.01 Labor unions-.10***.10*** Liberals-.18***.12*** ***-.03 Muslims-.12***.07** ***.02 People on welfare-.08***.13*** ***.02 Poor people-.06**.07** ***-.01 Big business.06** * * Catholics.07**-.06**-.05*-.07**.03 Christian Fundamentalists.12*** *.003 Christians.08***-.06** -.14***.01 Conservatives.16***-.08***-.05*-.04*.01 Middle class people ***-.10***.02 Military.09***-.05*-.07***-.09***.01 Mormons.08***-.05* ***.05* Rich people ***-.07***.07** Tea Party.14***-.04* Working class people **-.07***-.12***-.01 Blacks-.07** ***.04 Whites.05*-.05*-.10***-.11***.03 Asians-.06** ***.08*** Hispanics-.07** ***.04 Illegal immigrants-.09***.12*** Generalized Prejudice ***-.19***.04* Partial correlations between trait & prejudice while controlling for the other four traits

Study 2 Results Partial correlations between trait & prejudice while controlling for the other four traits Target GroupPersonality Trait OCEAN Atheists-.16*** Feminists-.18*** **-.17*** Gays and lesbians-.25*** *-.15*** Poor people-.13** ***-.07 Pro-choice activists-.23*** ** Sluts-.17***.18*** Socialists-.15***.10* Unemployed people-.11** ***-.09* Labor unions-.08* Welfare recipients-.12**.15*** ***-.07 Anti-gay activists.18*** Bankers.12** *** Businesspeople *-.14** Elderly people ***-.06 Evangelical Christians.18*** *-.15***-.01 Pro-life activists.20***-.08* ***.10* Prudes Small business owners-.09* *-.01 Wall street executives.15*** ** Wealthy people *** * Generalized Prejudice *-.19***-.02

Future Directions  Moderation of Extraversion-prejudice and Agreeableness-prejudice relationships?  Extend from Big Five to HEXACO  Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness