Right‐wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice against threatening and competitive ethnic groups

By J. Cohrs, Frank Asbrock. 2009

205 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ebbf9d1b1d85a4424206252352b0d4c83a6aeac6

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Right‐wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice: A longitudinal test (2010, background): “Experimental evidence also provides support for the differential effect of SDO and RWA on different dimensions of prejudice (Cohrs & Asbrock, 2009; Dru, 2007; Thomsen, Green, & Sidanius, 2008).”
Direct contact and authoritarianism as moderators between extended contact and reduced prejudice (2011, background): “It is important to note that, although a vast amount of research is available on the relationship between authoritarianism and intergroup threat (e.g., Cohrs & Asbrock, 2009; Duckitt, 2006; Hodson, Hogg, & MacInnis, 2009), studies on the relationship between authoritarianism and trust are scarce.”
A Dual-Process Motivational Model of Ideology, Politics, and Prejudice (2009, background): “Second, Cohrs and Asbrock (2009) investigated the effect of depicting an immigrant group (Turks) as either threatening or competitive on German students’ attitudes to that group.”
Right–Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Differentially Moderate Intergroup Effects on Prejudice (2010, background): “…where attitudes would tend to reflect well established beliefs about intergroup relations and manipulating the salience of these relations would tend to produce relatively weak effects that might not show differential moderation effects clearly (e.g. Cohrs & Asbrock, 2009; Esses et al., 1998).”
Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: a dual-process motivational model. (2010, background): “For example, the study by Cohrs and Asbrock (2009) did not find a significant interaction between SDO and depicting Turks as competitive on attitudes toward Turks, but their study did not manipulate intergroup competition from Turks.”
Socio-psychological barriers to peace making: An empirical examination within the Israeli Jewish Society (2011, background): “This tendency is expressed especially against rivals in conflict (Cohrs & Asbrock, 2009).”
An experimental approach to Intergroup Threat Theory: Manipulations, moderators, and consequences of realistic vs. symbolic threat (2018, unknown): “…have been used to heighten the perceived competitiveness of and hence realistic threat posed by specific subgroups rather than the entire outgroup (Cohrs & Asbrock, 2009), as well as to increase realistic threat from a fictitious outgroup (Stephan, Renfro, Esses, Stephan, & Martin, 2005; see also…”
Hierarchy in the mind: The predictive power of social dominance orientation across social contexts and domains (2012, background): “…SDO and outcomemeasures can in fact differ as a function of salient features of the social context (e.g., Lehmiller & Schmitt, 2007; Dru, 2007; Duckitt & Sibley, 2010; but see Cohrs & Asbrock, 2009, and Heaven& St. Quintin, 2003, who fail tofind evidence for moderating effects of context on SDO).”