Openness and Intellect Differentially Predict Right-Wing Authoritarianism Victoria Hotchin June 9, 2017 Supervisors: Keon west, Agnieszka Golec De Zavala

Outline Introduction Hypotheses Design Results Conclusions Questions

Introduction Why do some people show prejudice while others don’t? Combination of personality and social influences Dual Process Model of prejudice: two paths via Right- Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) RWA strongly influenced by Big Five personality factor of Openness/Intellect

Openness/Intellect Big 5 personality dimension Describes tendency towards aesthetic and cognitive exploration Low Openness/Intellect: resistant to change, novelty, alternative perspectives Link between Openness/Intellect and prejudice mediated by RWA

Openness/Intellect Prior research on Openness/Intellect and RWA typically uses NEO-PI-R and BFI scales But these have content overlap with measures of prejudice and social attitudes New scale to measure the Big Five: the Big Five Aspect Scales (DeYoung, 2007) Two aspects per factor: Openness and Intellect

Openness and Intellect Openness: aesthetic, sensory and perceptual exploration Intellect: abstract reasoning, cognitive exploration Show differential relationships with other variables (achievements in art, science, verbal/non-verbal intelligence) But little research with regard to RWA

Openness, Intellect and RWA Hirsh and colleagues (2010): Openness predicted liberalism/conservatism, but not Intellect Both Openness and Intellect predicted values of order/traditionalism Sibley and Duckitt (2010) meta-analysis using proxy measure of Openness and Intellect: Intellect was the stronger predictor of RWA Openness had weaker but still significant relationship

Openness, Intellect and RWA Mixed findings so far Openness and Intellect appear to be related to different aspects of authoritarianism But previous research suffered from methodological issues New research is needed to establish the relative contributions of Openness and Intellect Using a new measure of RWA

Right-Wing Authoritarianism RWA is typically measured using Altermeyer’s 1981 scale But this scale contains methodological issues: Multi-dimensional but treated as uni-dimensional Many items assess 2/3 concepts simultaneously Aggression largely portrait items; Conventionalism largely contrait Very few items assessing Submission Some items assess prejudice towards particular groups

Tripartite RWA New Tripartite scale developed (Duckitt, 2010): Conservatism (submission) Traditionalism (conventionalism) Authoritarianism (aggression) Balanced subscales, 12 items each Not known how Openness and Intellect relate to these subscales Conservatism RWA Authoritarian Aggression Traditionalism

Tripartite RWA Openness/Intellect factor related to all three subscales But no testing at aspect level yet Also no testing of mediators of Openness/Intellect and RWA at aspect level But prior research indicates Intellect (but not Openness) is related to Dangerous World Perception Dual Process Model indicates this worldview is a precursor to RWA

RWA and Prejudice RWA is established as a mediator of relationship between Openness and Prejudice But not clear which target groups this relates to – generalized prejudice? The Dual Process Model predicts prejudice toward different groups: RWA predicts prejudice towards Dissident and Dangerous groups SDO predicts prejudice towards Disadvantaged groups

RWA and Prejudice Research with the Tripartite RWA indicates that: Conservatism predicts prejudice towards Dissident groups Authoritarian Aggression predicts prejudice towards Dangerous groups Traditionalism does not predict either

RWA and Prejudice No studies have yet examined how Openness and Intellect relate to the Tripartite RWA or prejudice towards these groups No studies have examined potential mediators of these relationships at aspect level The present study aimed to bridge these gaps

Hypotheses Openness will predict Conservatism Intellect will predict Traditionalism Both Openness and Intellect will predict Authoritarian Aggression Dangerous World Perception will mediate Intellect-Traditionalism and Intellect-Authoritarianism relationships RWA subscales will mediate relationships between Openness/Intellect and prejudice

Hypothesised model RWA Authoritarianism Prejudice Dissident groups Intellect Openness Conservatism Traditionalism Dangerous groups Dangerous World View

Design Participants: 301 adults age 18 – 76, recruited online Design: Correlational Measures: Big Five Aspect Scales, Dangerous World Perception, Tripartite RWA, Prejudice: Disadvantaged, Dissident, Dangerous groups Analysis: correlations, multiple regression, SEM

Results - correlations RWA Total RWA Conservatism RWA Authoritarian Aggression RWA Traditionalism Dangerous World Perception Openness/Intellect -.573** -.554** -.572** -.442** -.277** Openness -.476** -.480** -.485** -.333** -.113* Intellect -.445** -.413** -.436** -.375** -.321** Conscientiousness .338** .329** .318** .283** .075 Agreeableness -.056 .008 -.115* -.041 -.172** Neuroticism -.084 -.131* -.033 -.071 .235** Extraversion -.098 -.074 -.110 -.085 -.126*

Results - correlations Prejudice Dissident groups Dangerous groups Prejudice Disadvantaged groups RWA Conservatism .702** .327** .153** RWA Authoritarian Aggression .655** .376** .203** RWA Traditionalism .693** .286** .121*

Results - regression (% unique variance explained) RWA Total RWA Conservatism RWA Authoritarian Aggression RWA Traditionalism Dangerous World Perception Openness/Intellect 21% 22% 11% 3% Conscientiousness 5% 4% 2% Agreeableness - Neuroticism Extraversion Age 1% Gender

Results - regression (% unique variance explained) RWA Total RWA Conservatism RWA Authoritarian Aggression RWA Traditionalism Dangerous World Perception Openness 12% 14% 13% 5% - Intellect 8% 6% 9% Age 4% 2% 3% Gender

SEM analysis Tested hypothesised model using AMOS V22 Initial model proved a poor fit: χ2 (240) = 780.19, CFI = .892, RMSEA = .086 (90% C.I.: .079, .093) Modification indices suggested 3 changes Model was changed to reflect these New model proved a good fit: χ2 (241) = 525.40, CFI = .943, RMSEA = .062 (90% C.I.: .055, .070)

SEM analysis – original model Openness RWA Conservatism Prejudice Dissident groups RWA Authoritarianism Prejudice Dangerous groups Dangerous World View Intellect RWA Traditionalism

SEM analysis – new model .78 Openness -.32 RWA Conservatism .80 Prejudice Dissident groups -.13 .69 RWA Authoritarianism Prejudice Dangerous groups .40 .28 Dangerous World View .41 -.39 .42 Intellect RWA Traditionalism -.29

Results summary Hypotheses supported: Openness stronger predictor of Conservatism Intellect stronger predictor of Traditionalism Both Intellect and Openness predicted Authoritarian Aggression Dangerous World Perception mediated Intellect-Traditionalism and Intellect-Authoritarianism relationships RWA subscales mediated relationships between Openness/Intellect and prejudice

Discussion Conservatism = support for authority in order to achieve goals of stability and cohesion Openness = striving for aesthetic novelty, expression and exploration, tendency to question norms High Openness at odds with Conservatism Low Openness - Conservatism a strategy for meeting other needs

Discussion Traditionalism = clearly structured and unambiguous system of beliefs Intellect = tendency toward cognitive exploration Dangerous World Perception = fear of exploration High intellect - more able to assess risk accurately Low intellect - may believe exploration results in risk

Discussion Traditionalism predicted Conservatism Likely to lead to support for the status quo in societies where social norms reflect traditional values May not hold for minority groups with different traditions Traditionalism not inevitably linked with prejudice But may lead to uncritical support of status quo Resulting in prejudice towards dissidents and advocation of authoritarian aggression

Discussion Those who seek to preserve status quo could benefit from considering aspects of Openness/Intellect Exploration of alternative perspectives Recognition of the value of non-conformity

Conclusions First step in identifying relative roles of Openness and Intellect in predicting Tripartite RWA Openness and Intellect appear to have differential effects Previous research highlighted the role of Intellect But by using a multi-dimensional measure of RWA, the equally important role of Openness becomes clear

Questions