Advertisement

Evolutionary Psychological Science

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 29–41 | Cite as

Fundamental Social Motives Mediate the Associations that Dangerous and Competitive Social Worldviews Have with Ideological Attitudes

  • Virgil Zeigler-HillEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to examine the connections that dangerous and competitive social worldviews had with the ideological attitudes of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). More specifically, the focus was on the possibility that the associations that these social worldviews had with ideological attitudes may be mediated by the fundamental social motives in a sample of undergraduates (N = 485; 79% female). The results revealed partial support for the hypotheses such that the association that the competitive social worldview had with RWA was mediated by the status seeking motive, the affiliation motive, and the kin care motive, whereas the association that the competitive social worldview had with SDO was mediated only by the status seeking motive. In contrast, the fundamental social motives did not mediate the association that the dangerous social worldview had with RWA. Discussion focuses on the implications of these results for understanding the role that motivation may play in the connections between social worldviews and ideological attitudes.

Keywords

Social worldviews Fundamental social motives Dangerous Competitive Ideological attitudes 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ackerman, J. M., Becker, D. V., Mortensen, C. R., Sasaki, T., Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (2009). A pox on the mind: Disjunction of attention and memory in the processing of physical disfigurement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 478–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.Google Scholar
  3. Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, U. S., Perea, E. F., Becker, D. V., Ackerman, J. M., Shapiro, J. R., Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (2010). I only have eyes for you: ovulation redirects attention (but not memory) to attractive men. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 804–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baer, D., & McEachron, D. L. (1982). A review of selected sociobiological principles: Application to hominid evolution: I. The development of group social structure. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 5, 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1995). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Beall, A. T., & Tracy, J. L. (2017). Emotivational psychology: How distinct emotions facilitate fundamental motives. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11, e12303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Becker, D. V., Anderson, U. S., Neuberg, S. L., Maner, J. K., Shapiro, J. R., Ackerman, J. M., Schaller, M., & Kenrick, D. T. (2010). More memory bang for the attentional buck: Self-protection goals enhance encoding efficiency for potentially threatening males. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 182–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bugental, D. B. (2000). Acquisition of the algorithms of social life: a domain-based approach. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 187–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Confer, J. C., Easton, J. A., Fleischman, D. S., Goetz, C. D., Lewis, D. M., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). Evolutionary psychology: controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations. American Psychologist, 65, 110–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition, 31, 187–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: a sociofunctional threat-based approach to “prejudice”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 770–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crowson, H. M. (2009). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation as mediators of worldview beliefs on attitudes related to the war on terror. Social Psychology, 40, 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Curran, P. G. (2016). Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 4–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Andrade, R. (1992). Schemas and motivation. In R. D’Andrade & C. Strauss (Eds.), Human motives and cultural models (pp. 23–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dallago, F., Mirisola, A., & Roccato, M. (2012). Predicting right-wing authoritarianism via personality and dangerous worldview beliefs: direct, indirect, and interactive effects. Journal of Social Psychology, 152, 112–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Duckitt, J., & Fisher, K. (2003). The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24, 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). A dual-process motivational model of ideology, politics, and prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice. Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duckitt, J., Bizumic, B., Krauss, S. W., & Heled, E. (2010). A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: the authoritarianism–conservatism–traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31, 685–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fincher, C. L., & Thornhill, R. (2012). Parasite-stress promotes in-group assortative sociality: the cases of strong family ties and heightened religiosity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Griskevicius, V., & Kenrick, D. T. (2013). Fundamental motives: how evolutionary needs influence consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 372–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: a new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haselton, M. G., & Nettle, D. (2006). The paranoid optimist: an integrative evolutionary model of cognitive biases. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., Foels, R., & Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1003–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huang, J. L., Curran, P. G., Keeney, J., Poposki, E. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2012). Detecting and deterring insufficient effort responding to surveys. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D., Iyer, R., & Haidt, J. (2012). Disgust sensitivity, political conservatism, and voting. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 537–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jost, J. T., & Amodio, D. M. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jugert, P., & Duckitt, J. (2009). A motivational model of authoritarianism: integrating personal and situational determinants. Political Psychology, 30, 693–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kenrick, D. T., Li, N. P., & Butner, J. (2003). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: individual decision rules and emergent social norms. Psychological Review, 110, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. (2010a). Renovating the pyramid of needs: contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 292–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Griskevicius, V., Becker, D. V., & Schaller, M. (2010b). Goal-driven cognition and functional behavior: the fundamental-motives framework. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 63–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leone, L., Desimoni, M., & Chirumbolo, A. (2012). HEXACO, social worldviews and sociopolitical attitudes: a mediation analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 995–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maesschalck, D., Jouan-Rimbaud, D. L., & Massart, D. L. (2000). The Mahalanobis distance. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 50, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Robertson, T. E., Hofer, B., Neuberg, S. L., Delton, A. W., Butner, J., & Schaller, M. (2005). Functional projection: how fundamental social motives can bias interpersonal perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., Rouby, D. A., & Miller, S. L. (2007). Can’t take my eyes off you: attentional adhesion to mates and rivals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maner, J. K., Miller, S. L., Moss, J. H., Leo, J. L., & Plant, E. A. (2012). Motivated social categorization: fundamental motives enhance people's sensitivity to basic social categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 70–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marjanovic, Z., Holden, R., Struthers, W., Cribbie, R., & Greenglass, E. (2015). The inter-item standard deviation (ISD): An index that discriminates between conscientious and random responders. Personality and Individual Differences, 84, 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12, 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17, 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Miller, S. L., Maner, J. K., & Becker, D. V. (2010). Self-protective biases in group categorization: threat cues shape the psychological boundary between “us” and “them”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 62–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mortensen, C. R., Becker, D. V., Ackerman, J. M., Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (2010). Infection breeds reticence: the effects of disease salience on self-perceptions of personality and behavioral avoidance tendencies. Psychological Science, 21, 440–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Neel, R., Kenrick, D. T., White, A. E., & Neuberg, S. L. (2016). Individual differences in fundamental social motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 887–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nesse, R. M. (2005). Natural selection and the regulation of defenses: a signal detection analysis of the smoke detector principle. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 88–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., & Schaller, M. (2011). Human threat management systems: self-protection and disease avoidance. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 1042–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness. Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108, 483–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Perry, R., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013a). A comparison of broad-bandwidth and frequency-specific measures of competitive and dangerous worldviews. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 284–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Perry, R., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013b). Dangerous and competitive worldviews: a meta-analysis of their associations with social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B. (1994). Social dominance orientation: a personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ross, M. (1993). The culture of conflict. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schaller, M. (2006). Parasites, behavioral defenses, and the social psychological mechanisms through which cultures are evoked. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 96–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schaller, M., & Park, J. H. (2011). The behavioral immune system (and why it matters). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & Mueller, A. (2003). Fear of the dark: interactive effects of beliefs about danger and ambient darkness on ethnic stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 637–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 609–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shook, N. J., Ford, C. G., & Boggs, S. T. (2017). Dangerous worldview: a mediator of the relation between disgust sensitivity and social conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 252–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2009). Big-five personality, social worldviews, and ideological attitudes: further tests of a dual process cognitive-motivational model. Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 545–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Effects of dangerous and competitive worldviews on right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation over a five-month period. Political Psychology, 28, 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Strauss, C. (1992). Models and motives. In R. D’Andrade & C. Strauss (Eds.), Human motives and cultural models (pp. 1–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Terrizzi, J. A., Shook, N. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (2013). The behavioral immune system and social conservatism: a meta-analysis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thornhill, R., & Fincher, C. L. (2014). The parasite-stress theory of sociality, the behavioral immune system, and human social and cognitive uniqueness. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8, 257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tybur, J. M., Merriman, L. A., Hooper, A. E. C., McDonald, M. M., & Navarrete, C. D. (2010). Extending the behavioral immune system to political psychology: are political conservatism and disgust sensitivity really related? Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. van Leeuwen, F., & Park, J. H. (2009). Perceptions of social dangers, moral foundations, and political orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 169–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weber, C., & Federico, C. M. (2007). Interpersonal attachment and patterns of ideological belief. Political Psychology, 28, 389–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zeigler-Hill, V., & Hobbs, K. A. (2017). The darker aspects of motivation: pathological personality traits and the fundamental social motives. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 36, 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zeigler-Hill, V., Vrabel, J. K., McCabe, G. A., Cosby, C. A., Traeder, C. K., Hobbs, K. A., & Southard, A. C. (in press). Narcissism and the pursuit of status. Journal of Personality.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyOakland UniversityRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations