A Dual-Process Motivational Model of Ideology, Politics, and Prejudice

By J. Duckitt, Chris G. Sibley. 2009

419 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1c01809ed158503f187e939aabb4ef82b5a5fb68

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The power of Trump-speak: populist crisis narratives and ontological security (2019, background): “…predisposition chronically inclines individuals to hold and express negative attitudes towards ‘outgroups that seem to threaten collective security’ (Duckitt and Sibley 2009, 103) and to support, in turn, attitudes and behaviours that ‘enhance sameness and minimize diversity of people, beliefs,…”
Is the Relationship Between Pathogen Avoidance and Ideological Conservatism Explained by Sexual Strategies (2015, background): “…change (left-wing) versus advocating for tradition (rightwing), and 2) advocating for equality between individuals and groups (left-wing) versus tolerating inequality (right-wing; for overviews, see Duckitt & Sibley, 2009; Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003; Jost, Federico, & Napier, 2009).”
Right–Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Differentially Moderate Intergroup Effects on Prejudice (2010, background): “An alternative dual process motivational (DPM) approach sees RWA and SDO as expressing different sets of basic social values or motivational goals and therefore has somewhat different implications (Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt & Sibley, 2009).”
The Authoritarian Dynamic During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Effects on Nationalism and Anti-Immigrant Sentiment (2020, background): “…behind these dimensions are chronically salient, external conditions can heighten their activation, and both RWA and SDO appear to be reactive to external circumstances (Duckitt, 2001, 2006, 2009; Duckitt et al., 2010; Duckitt & Fisher, 2003; Duckitt & Sibley, 2009, 2010; Feldman & Stenner, 1997).”
The Mini-IPIP6: Validation and extension of a short measure of the Big-Six factors of personality in New Zealand. (2011, background): “Such persons should therefore support the existing social order to the extent that it facilitates these values and provides an explicit and easily comprehensible set of norms and mores for operating within society (Duckitt & Sibley, 2009, 2010; Sibley & Duckitt, in press).”
Cognitive ability and authoritarianism: Understanding support for Trump and Clinton (2017, background): “Conversely, social contexts defined as competitive and personality traits like toughmindedness position individuals to adopt a view that the world is competitive and governed by dominance and superiority, in turn leading to higher SDO (Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt & Sibley, 2009).”
Are Conservatives Less Likely to be Prosocial than Liberals? From Games to Ideology, Political Preferences and Votingg (2012, background): “…related vein, it is interesting to note that the Honesty–Humility dimension of judgement is also relevant to our understanding of prejudice, which is an important aspect of political preferences and ideology (Sibley, Harding, Perry, Asbrock, & Duckitt, 2010; see also Duckitt & Sibley, 2009, 2010).”
Collective Narcissism: Political Consequences of Investing Self‐Worth in the Ingroup’s Image (2019, background): “…conservatives were differentiated based on individuals’ preferences for specific arrangements that correspond to the “fiscal” or “economic” dimension versus the “social” dimension of political conservatism (Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt & Sibley, 2009; Feldman & Johnston, 2013; Weber & Federico, 2013).”