What matters most to prejudice: Big Five personality, Social Dominance Orientation, or Right‐Wing Authoritarianism?

By B. Ekehammar, Nazar Akrami, Magnus Gylje, Ingrid Zakrisson. 2004

510 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aab7c3698211025da9f4eaaeb28b28c6998926eb

How researchers see this paper

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

In Clinical Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The role of ''dark personalities" (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), Big Five personality factors, and ideology in explaining prejudice (2009, methodology): “This dual-route model complements existing dualroute prejudice models (Duckitt, 2005; Ekehammar et al., 2004), incorporating not only subclinical dimensions but a key social psychological construct (intergroup threat) as a proximal prejudicepredictor (Duckitt, 2005; Riek et al.”
The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind (2008, background): “There is also some evidence that conservatives tend to score slightly higher than liberals on Conscientiousness (Caprara et al., 1999; Ekehammar et al., 2004; Gosling et al., 2003; Jost, 2006; Mehrabian, 1996; Van Hiel, Mervielde, & De Fruyt, 2004).”
The closed mind: ‘Experience’ and ‘cognition’ aspects of openness to experience and need for closure as psychological bases for right–wing attitudes (2011, background): “…models that explain racism often take the form of mediation models in which social attitudes (like RWA) ‘transmit’ the effects of openness (e.g. Ekehammar et al., 2004; Van Hiel et al., 2007) and NFC (e.g. Cornelis & Van Hiel, 2006; Crowson et al., 2005; Van Hiel et al., 2004) on prejudice.”
Right‐wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice: A longitudinal test (2010, background): “As mentioned above, generalized prejudice is independently predicted by both SDO and RWA (e.g. Altemeyer, 1998; Duckitt, Wagner, du Plessis, & Birum, 2002; Ekehammar et al., 2004; Lippa & Arad, 1999; McFarland, 2003; Whitley, 1999).”
Right–Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Differentially Moderate Intergroup Effects on Prejudice (2010, background): “24: 583–601 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/per 1981, 1996; Ekehammar et al., 2004; Pratto et al., 1994; Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2002, 2005).”
Personality, identity styles and authoritarianism: an integrative study among late adolescents (2006, background): “, 1997; Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2004), the dominance attitude (SDO) is characterized by low Openness to Experience (Heaven & Bucci, 2001) and low Agreeableness (Ekehammar et al., 2004; Heaven & Bucci, 2001; Lippa & Arad, 1999).”
Investigating the impact of personality and early life experiences on intercultural interaction in internationalised universities (2012, background): “Similarly, Ekehammar et al. (2004) found that right-wing authoritarian views and social dominance orientation are mediating variables between personality and prejudice, reporting from empirical data that the traits of agreeableness and openness are particularly influential.”
Cognitive ability, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation: A five-year longitudinal study amongst adolescents (2011, unknown): “Using structural equationmodelling, Ekehammar et al. (2004) found low A to have direct effects on SDO, whilst RWA was best predicted by C, E, and low O. Finally, a recent meta-analysis of 71 studies (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008) concluded that SDO was significantly related to low agreeableness and O,…”