Abstract
In our study we investigated how individualizing and binding moral foundations partially mediate the relationship between the attitudinal clusters of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. We found that binding moral foundations partially mediate the association between RWA and negative attitudes towards dissident and dangerous groups, while individualizing moral foundations had a positive relationship with the evaluations of all three clusters of dissident, dangerous, and derogated outgroups, and partially mediated the effects of both SDO and RWA. Based on these results we claim that intergroup attitudes are at least partly determined by moral concerns, and different personal needs activate or inhibit different moral concerns. Furthermore, while individualizing moral foundations seem to have a universal prejudice reducing effect, the effect of binding foundations is selective, increasing prejudice principally against dangerous and derogated outgroups that threaten one’s personal need for security and certainty.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As it can be seen, in case of homeless people we found a high cross-loading on Factor 2 and 3. As an explanation, it has to be noted that the Hungarian authorities made several legal steps towards the criminalization of the homeless in the recent years, that could result in an unfavourable image of this group as dangerous criminals.
References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Basic Books.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
Altemeyer, R. A. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47–92.
Asbrock, F., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2010). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice: a longitudinal test. European Journal of Personality, 24, 324–340.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209.
Bandura, A. (2016). On structural evil: disengaging from our moral selves. New York: Worth Publishers.
Bernáth, G., & Messing, V. (2015). Bedarálva: A menekültekkel kapcsolatos kormányzati kampány és a tőle független megszólalás terepei. Médiakutató, 16, 7–17.
Bostyn, D. H., Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2016). Right-wing attitudes and moral cognition: are right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation related to utilitarian judgment? Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 164–171.
Cantal, C., Milfont, T. L., Wilson, M. S., & Gouveia, V. V. (2015). Differential effects of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on dimensions of generalized prejudice in Brazil. European Journal of Personality, 29, 17–27.
Duckitt, J. (2001). A cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 41–113.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007). Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21, 113–130.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). A dual process motivational model of ideological attitudes and system justification. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 292–314). New York: Oxford University Press.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: a dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861–1894.
Enyedi, Z. (1996). Tekintélyelvűség és politikai-ideológiai tagolódás. Századvég, 2, 135–155.
Federico, C. M., Ekstrom, P., Tagar, M. R., & Williams, A. L. (2016). Epistemic motivation and the structure of moral intuition: dispositional need for closure as a predictor of individualizing and binding morality. European Journal of Personality, 30, 227–239.
Federico, C. M., Weber, C. R., Ergun, D., & Hunt, C. (2013). Mapping the connections between politics and morality: the multiple sociopolitical orientations involved in moral intuition. Political Psychology, 34, 589–610.
Glózer, R. (2013). A “cigányok” mint ellenség diszkurzív konstrukciói a hazai online szélsőjobboldali médiában. In M. Bogdán, M. Feischmidt, & Á. Guld (Eds.), “Csak másban”: Romareprezentáció a magyar médiában (pp. 123–140). Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: the pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. (2009). Liberals and conservatives use different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046.
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366–385.
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116.
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2009). Planet of the Durkheimians, where community, authority, and sacredness are foundations of morality. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 371–401). New York: Oxford University Press.
Jackson, L. E., & Gaertner, L. (2010). Mechanisms of moral disengagement and their differential use by right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation in support of war. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 238–250.
Kugler, M., Jost, J. T., & Noorbaloochi, S. (2014). Another look at moral foundations theory: do authoritarianism and social dominance orientation explain liberal-conservative differences in “moral” intuitions? Social Justice Research, 27, 413–431.
Ligeti, G. (2006). Sztereotípiák és előítéletek. In T. Kolosi, I. G. Tóth, & G. Vukovich (Eds.), Társadalmi riport 2006 (pp. 373–389). Budapest: TÁRKI.
Low, M., & Wui, M. G. L. (2015). Moral foundations and attitudes towards the poor. Current Psychology. doi:10.1007/s12144-015-9333-y.
Macho, S., & Ledermann, T. (2011). Estimating, testing, and comparing specific effects in structural equation models: the phantom model approach. Psychological Methods, 16, 34–43.
Milojev, P., Osborne, D., Greaves, L. M., Bulbulia, J., Wilson, M. S., Davies, C. L., et al. (2014). Right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation predict different moral signatures. Social Justice Research, 27, 149–174.
Murányi, I., & Sipos, F. (2012). Nemzeti radikálisok tekintélyelvűsége: szociális dominancia orientáció és ellentörténelem. Metszetek, 1, 32–56.
Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: an introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 1–20.
Pratto, F., & Cathey, C. (2002). The role of social ideologies in legitimizing political attitudes and public policy. In V. Ottati, R. S. Tindale, J. Edwards, F. B. Bryant, L. Heath, D. C. O’Connell, Y. Suarez Balcazar, & E. J. Posavac (Eds.), The social psychology of politics (pp. 135–155). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: a personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.
Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age modeling internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32, 531–565.
Sibley, C. G., Harding, J. F., Perry, R., Asbrock, F., & Duckitt, J. (2010). Personality and prejudice: extension to the HEXACO personality model. European Journal of Personality, 24, 515–534.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: an intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Simonovits, B. (2016). Mass-migration related fear in contemporary Hungary: the social bases of realistic and symbolic threats. In B. Simonovits & A. Bernát (Eds.), The social aspects of the 2015 migration crisis in Hungary (pp. 57–71). Budapest: TÁRKI.
Smith, I. H., Aquino, K., Koleva, S., & Graham, J. (2014). The moral ties that bind... Even to out-groups the interactive effect of moral identity and the binding moral foundations. Psychological Science, 25, 1554–1562.
Zick, A., Wolf, C., Küpper, B., Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Heitmeyer, W. (2008). The syndrome of group-focused enmity: the interrelation of prejudices tested with multiple cross-sectional and panel data. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 363–383.
Acknowledgements
Anna Kende was supported by the Bolyai scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
Márton Hadarics declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Anna Kende declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hadarics, M., Kende, A. The Dimensions of Generalized Prejudice within the Dual-Process Model: the Mediating Role of Moral Foundations. Curr Psychol 37, 731–739 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9544-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9544-x