Skip to main content

Opposing Paths to Ideology: Group-Based Relative Deprivation Predicts Conservatism Through Warmth Toward Ingroup and Outgroup Members

Abstract

Group-based relative deprivation (GRD) is a critical predictor of support for social change. Because resistance to change and acceptance of inequality are core features of a conservative ideology, we predicted that GRD would negatively correlate with conservatism. Moreover, given the central role affect plays in bridging the association between experiences with inequality and group-based responses, we expected that this hypothesized relationship would be mediated by intergroup emotions. We tested these hypotheses in a large national sample of Māori (N = 685)—the indigenous peoples of New Zealand. As predicted, GRD was indirectly associated with conservatism through participants’ warmth toward the majority outgroup (i.e., New Zealand Europeans) and the minority ingroup (i.e., Māori): whereas GRD was negatively correlated with warmth toward outgroup members, GRD was positively correlated with warmth toward the ingroup. In turn, warmth toward the (a) outgroup and (b) ingroup was positively and negatively associated with conservatism, respectively. Similar results were obtained when replacing conservatism with participants’ (a) satisfaction with the government and (b) support for New Zealand’s main center-right political party. Our findings demonstrate the complex relationship between GRD and political beliefs, while also highlighting the crucial role of emotions in connecting GRD with group-based attitudes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Because people tend to offer similar affective ratings for ingroup and outgroup members (see Sears & Savalei, 2012), we also estimated the residual correlation between participants’ warmth toward the majority outgroup and minority ingroup. Removal of this residual correlation from our model does not, however, substantively alter the results presented below.

  2. 2.

    We ran an additional set of analyses to examine the possibility that participants’ political ideology was indirectly associated with their experience of GRD via warmth toward the (a) majority outgroup and (b) minority ingroup (after controlling for our covariates). These analyses indicated that political conservatism was positively associated with warmth toward the majority outgroup (B = 0.104, SE = .047, p = .026) but was unassociated with warmth toward the minority ingroup (B = −0.070, SE = .043, p = .105). In turn, warmth toward the (a) majority outgroup and (b) minority ingroup was negatively and positively associated with GRD, respectively (B = −0.343, SE = .053, p < .001 vs. B = 0.461, SE = .062, p < .001, respectively). Inspection of the separate mediational pathways indicated that warmth toward the majority outgroup mediated the relationship between conservatism and GRD (B = −0.036, SE = .016, p = .041), but that the mediational pathway between conservatism and GRD through warmth toward the minority ingroup was unreliable (B = −0.032, SE = .020, p = .108). A comparison between these two mediational pathways indicated that they were of similar magnitude (B contrast = −0.003, SE = .032, p = .922).

References

  1. Abrams, D., & Grant, P. R. (2012). Testing the social identity relative deprivation (SIRD) model of social change: The political rise of Scottish nationalism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(4), 674–689. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02032.x.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice (25 th anniversary ed.). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Publishing, L.L.C.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, C. J., & Singer, M. M. (2008). The sensitive Left and the impervious Right: Multilevel models and the politics of inequality, ideology, and legitimacy in Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 41(4–5), 564–599. doi:10.1177/0010414007313113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Becker, J. C., Wright, S. C., Lubensky, M. E., & Zhou, S. (2013). Friend or ally: Whether cross-group contact undermines collective action depends on what advantaged group members say (or don’t say). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(4), 442–455. doi:10.1177/0146167213477155.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bernburg, J. G., Thorlindsson, T., & Sigfusdottir, I. D. (2009). Relative deprivation and adolescent outcomes in Iceland: A multilevel test. Social Forces, 87(3), 1223–1250. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307–324. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chirumbolo, A., & Leone, L. (2010). Personality and politics: The role of the HEXACO model of personality in predicting ideology and voting. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(1), 43–48. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen, S., Alper, C. M., Doyle, W. J., Adler, N. E., Treanor, J. J., & Turner, R. B. (2008). Objective and subjective socioeconomic status and susceptibility to the common cold. Health Psychology, 27(2), 268–274. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.27.2.268.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Crosby, F. J. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83(2), 85–113. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.83.2.85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2007). Intergroup contact and attitudes toward the principle and practice of racial equality. Psychological Science, 18(10), 867–872. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01993.x.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., Tredoux, C., Tropp, L., Clack, B., & Eaton, L. (2010a). A paradox of integration? Interracial contact, prejudice reduction, and perceptions of racial discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 66(2), 401–416. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01652.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dixon, J., Tropp, L. R., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2010b). “Let them eat harmony”: Prejudice-reduction strategies and attitudes of historically disadvantaged groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(2), 76–80. doi:10.1177/0963721410363366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Doosje, B., van den Bos, K., Loseman, A., Feddes, A. R., & Mann, L. (2012). “My in-group is superior!”: Susceptibility for radical right-wing attitudes and behaviors in Dutch youth. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 5(3), 253–268. doi:10.1111/j.1750-4716.2012.00099.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ellemers, N., & Bos, A. E. R. (1998). Social identity, relative deprivation, and coping with the threat of position loss: A field study among native shopkeepers in Amsterdam. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(21), 1987–2006. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01357.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Federico, C. M., Deason, G., & Fisher, E. L. (2012). Ideological asymmetry in the relationship between epistemic motivation and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 381–398. doi:10.1037/a0029063.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Federico, C. M., & Sidanius, J. (2002). Racism, ideology, and affirmative action revisited: The antecedents and consequences of “principled objections” to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 488–502. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.488.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fraley, R. C., Griffin, B. N., Belsky, J., & Roisman, G. I. (2012). Developmental antecedents of political ideology: A longitudinal investigation from birth to age 18 years. Psychological Science, 23(11), 1425–1431. doi:10.1177/0956797612440102.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Grant, P. R., & Brown, R. (1995). From ethnocentrism to collective protest: Responses to relative deprivation and threats to social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(3), 195–212. doi:10.2307/2787042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Grofman, B. N., & Muller, E. N. (1973). The strange case of relative gratification and potential for political violence: The V-curve hypothesis. American Political Science Review, 67(2), 514–539. doi:10.2307/1958781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Guimond, S., & Dambrun, M. (2002). When prosperity breeds intergroup hostility: The effects of relative deprivation and relative gratification on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(7), 900–912. doi:10.1177/014616720202800704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Harding, J. F., Sibley, C. G., & Robertson, A. (2011). New Zealand = Māori, New Zealand = bicultural: Ethnic group differences in a national sample of Māori and Europeans. Social Indicators Research, 100(1), 137–148. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9608-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Harris, R., Cormack, D., Tobias, M., Yeh, L.-C., Talamaivao, N., Minster, J., & Timutimu, R. (2012). The pervasive effects of racism: Experiences of racial discrimination in New Zealand over time and associations with multiple health domains. Social Science and Medicine, 74(3), 408–415. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.004.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Harris, R., Tobias, M., Jeffreys, M., Waldegrave, K., Karlsen, S., & Nazroo, J. (2006). Effects of self-reported racial discrimination and deprivation on Māori health and inequalities in New Zealand: Cross-sectional study. The Lancet, 367(9527), 2005–2009. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68890-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hayes, A. F., Preacher, K. J., & Myers, T. A. (2011). Mediation and the estimation of indirect effects in political communication research. In E. P. Bucy & R. L. Holbert (Eds.), The sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 434–465). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Houkamau, C. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). The multi-dimensional model of Māori identity and cultural engagement. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 39(1), 8–28.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Huang, Y., Osborne, D., Sibley, C. G., & Davies, P. G. (2014). The precious vessel: Ambivalent sexism and opposition to elective and traumatic abortion. Sex Roles. doi:10.1007/s11199-014-0423-3.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61(7), 651–670. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.651.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 126–136. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00070.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Koomen, W., & Fränkel, E. G. (1992). Effects of experienced discrimination and different forms of relative deprivation among Surinamese, a Dutch ethnic minority group. Journal of community & applied social psychology, 2(1), 63–71. doi:10.1002/casp.2450020106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Krynen, A., Osborne, D., Duck, I., Houkamau, C. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). Measuring psychological distress in New Zealand: Item response properties and demographic differences in the Kessler-6 screening measure. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 42(1), 69–83.

    Google Scholar 

  34. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 229–245. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.229.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  37. Napier, J. L., & Jost, J. T. (2008). Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Psychological Science, 19(6), 565–572. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02124.x.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., Devos, T., Lindner, N. M., Ranganath, K. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 36–88. doi:10.1080/10463280701489053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Olson, J. M., Roese, N. J., Meen, J., & Robertson, D. J. (1995). The preconditions and consequences of relative deprivation: Two field studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(11), 944–964. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02384.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Osborne, D., & Davies, P. G. (2012). When benevolence backfires: Benevolent sexists’ opposition to elective and traumatic abortion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(2), 291–307. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00890.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Osborne, D., Huo, Y. J., & Smith, H. J. (2014). Organizational respect dampens the impact of group-based relative deprivation on willingness to protest pay cuts. British Journal of Social Psychology. doi:10.1111/bjso.12069.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Osborne, D., Sears, D. O., & Valentino, N. A. (2011). The end of the solidly Democratic South: The impressionable-years hypothesis. Political Psychology, 32(1), 81–108. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00796.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Does personality matter? Openness correlates with vote choice, but particularly for politically sophisticated voters. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(6), 743–751. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). Through rose-colored glasses: System-justifying beliefs dampen the effects of relative deprivation on well-being and political mobilization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(8), 991–1004. doi:10.1177/0146167213487997.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2014). Within the limits of civic training: Education moderates the relationship between openness and political attitudes. Political Psychology. doi:10.1111/pops.12070.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Osborne, D., Sibley, C. G., & Sengupta, N. K. (in press). Income and neighbourhood-level inequality predict self-esteem and ethnic identity centrality through individual- and group-based relative deprivation: A multilevel path analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology.

  47. Osborne, D., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (2012). More than a feeling: Discrete emotions mediate the relationship between relative deprivation and reactions to workplace furloughs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 628–641. doi:10.1177/0146167211432766.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Osborne, D., Wooton, L., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). Are liberals agreeable or not? Politeness and compassion differentially predict political conservatism via distinct ideologies. Social Psychology, 44(5), 354–360. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Osborne, D., Yogeeswaran, K., & Sibley, C. G. (in press). The efficacy-apathy model of political mobilization. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology.

  50. Pedersen, A., & Walker, I. (1997). Prejudice against Australian Aborigines: Old-fashioned and modern forms. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(5), 561–587. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199709/10)27:5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., Wagner, U., Meertens, R. W., Van Dick, R., & Zick, A. (2008). Relative deprivation and intergroup prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 64(2), 385–401. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00567.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 57–75. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420250106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., & Conway-Lanz, S. (1998). Social dominance orientation and the ideological legitimization of social policy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(20), 1853–1875. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01349.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of attitudes to social inequality in twentieth-century England. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20(1), 114–121. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02261.x.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sahar, G., & Karasawa, K. (2005). Is the personal always political? A cross-cultural analysis of abortion attitudes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(4), 285–296. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2704_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Schmitt, M., Maes, J., & Widaman, K. F. (2010). Longitudinal effects of egoistic and fraternal relative deprivation on well-being and protest. International Journal of Psychology, 45(2), 122–130. doi:10.1080/00207590903165067.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sears, D. O., & Savalei, V. (2012). The blanket even-handedness bias in evaluations of racial and ethnic groups. Paper presented at the 70th annual conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.

  61. Sengupta, N. K., Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2014). The status-legitimacy hypothesis revisited: Ethnic-group differences in general and dimension-specific system-justification in a New Zealand sample. British Journal of Social Psychology. doi:10.1111/bjso.12080.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Sengupta, N. K., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). Perpetuating one’s own disadvantage: Intergroup contact enables the ideological legitimation of inequality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(11), 1391–1403. doi:10.1177/0146167213497593.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Sibley, C. G., Harré, N., Hoverd, W. J., & Houkamau, C. A. (2011). The gap in the subjective wellbeing of Māori and New Zealand Europeans widened between 2005 and 2009. Social Indicators Research, 104(1), 103–115. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9729-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Sibley, C. G., Osborne, D., & Duckitt, J. (2012). Personality and political orientation: Meta-analysis and test of a threat-constraint model. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(6), 664–677. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Smith, H. J., Pettigrew, T. F., Pippin, G. M., & Bialosiewicz, S. (2012). Relative deprivation: A theoretical and meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(3), 203–232. doi:10.1177/1088868311430825.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Star, S. A., & Williams, R. M. (1949). The American soldier: Adjustment during Army life (Vol. 1). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Stürmer, S., & Simon, B. (2004a). Collective action: Towards a dual-pathway model. European Review of Social Psychology, 15(1), 59–99. doi:10.1080/10463280340000117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Stürmer, S., & Simon, B. (2004b). The role of collective identification in social movement participation: A panel study in the context of the German gay movement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 263–277. doi:10.1177/0146167203256690.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Taylor, M. C. (2002). Fraternal deprivation, collective threat, and racial resentment: Perspective on White racism. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 13–43). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Understanding the nature of fraternalistic deprivation: Does group-based deprivation involve fair outcomes or fair treatment? In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 44–68). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  71. van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). On conviction’s collective consequences: Integrating moral conviction with the social identity model of collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 52–71. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02000.x.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., & Leach, C. W. (2008). Exploring psychological mechanisms of collective action: Does relevance of group identity influence how people cope with collective disadvantage? British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(2), 353–372. doi:10.1348/014466607X231091.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Vanneman, R. D., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1972). Race and relative deprivation in the urban United States. Race, 13(4), 461–486. doi:10.1177/030639687201300404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Walker, I., & Mann, L. (1987). Unemployment, relative deprivation, and social protest. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13(2), 275–283. doi:10.1177/0146167287132012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Walker, I., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1984). Relative deprivation theory: An overview and conceptual critique. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23(4), 301–310. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1984.tb00645.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. White, P., Gunston, J., Salmond, C., Atkinson, J., & Crampton, P. (2008). Atlas of socioeconomic deprivation in New Zealand NZDep2006. Wellington: Ministry of Health.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Wright, S. C., & Lubensky, M. E. (2009). The struggle for social equality: Collective action versus prejudice reduction. In S. Demoulin, J.-P. Leyens, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Wright, S. C., & Tropp, L. R. (2002). Collective action in response to disadvantage: Intergroup perceptions, social identification, and social change. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 200–236). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Zagefka, H., Binder, J., Brown, R., & Hancock, L. (2013). Who is to blame? The relationship between ingroup identification and relative deprivation is moderated by ingroup attributions. Social Psychology, 44(6), 398–407. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Zucker, G. S. (1999). Attributional and symbolic predictors of abortion attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(6), 1218–1245. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02037.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Data collection for Time 3 of the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (NZAVS) was supported by University of Auckland FRDF (3624435/9853) and ECREA (3626075) grants awarded to Chris G. Sibley, a University of Auckland FRDF (3700683/9853) grant awarded to Danny Osborne, and Performance-Based Research Funds jointly awarded to Chris G. Sibley and Danny Osborne. Additional funding was provided by a Templeton World Charity Foundation Grant (ID: 0077).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danny Osborne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Osborne, D., Sibley, C.G. Opposing Paths to Ideology: Group-Based Relative Deprivation Predicts Conservatism Through Warmth Toward Ingroup and Outgroup Members. Soc Just Res 28, 27–51 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0227-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Relative deprivation
  • Conservatism
  • Affect
  • Ingroup
  • Outgroup
  • Ideology
  • Intergroup emotions