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

2. Outline
Introduction
Hypotheses
Design
Results
Conclusions
Questions

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

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

17. 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

18. 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*

19. 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*

20. 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

21. 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

22. SEM analysis Tested hypothesised model using AMOS V22
Initial model proved a poor fit: χ2 (240) = , 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) = , CFI = .943, RMSEA = .062 (90% C.I.: .055, .070)

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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. Questions