right wing authoritarianism
Recently Published Documents

Sex dolls are beginning to become more mainstream, both in the public’s consciousness and in academic research. However, there is no current systematic examination of public attitudes toward sex dolls within the peer-reviewed literature, which represents a barrier to the efficient study on this topic. In this paper we report the development and initial validation of such a measure. Using an international public sample (N = 377) we found that public attitudes toward sex doll owners were underpinned by three factors: ‘Acceptability of Doll Ownership’, ‘Doll Owners as Immoral’, and ‘Doll Owners as Dysfunctional’. Scores on each of these factors, which make up the Sex Doll Ownership Attitudes Scale (SDOAS), were predicted by participant sex, religiosity, permissive sexual attitudes, right-wing authoritarianism, and the endorsement of moral intuitions that favor personal liberty. We present a full form 66-item version of the SDOAS, as well as an 18-item short form which both possess strong psychometric properties. We highlight potential future uses of the SDOAS as this emerging field of study continues to rapidly grow.

Although children are overall sensitive to inequality and prefer fair allocation of resources, they also often display ingroup favouritism. Inquiring about the factors that can shape the tension between these two driving forces in children, we focused on the role of parents. Extending the limited literature in this field, the present work examined whether individual differences in 3-to 11-year-old White children’s (N = 154, 78 boys) evaluations of fair versus pro-ingroup behaviours in an intergroup context vary as a function of both mothers’ and fathers’ social dominance orientation (SDO), right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and moral foundations. Parents completed a questionnaire. Children were presented with a scenario in which two ingroup members distributed candies to two other children, one White and one Black, either in an egalitarian way or displaying a clear ingroup favouritism. Afterwards, their attitudes towards the two ingroup members who had distributed the candies were assessed through both an Implicit Association Test and explicit questions. Although children displayed on average an explicit preference for the fair over the pro-ingroup target, this preference did not emerge at the implicit level. Most importantly, both children’s explicit and implicit attitudes were related to mothers’ SDO, indicating that at increasing level of mothers’ SDO children’s inequality aversion tended to drop. Overall, these results emphasize the relevance of mothers’ support for social hierarchy in relation to the way in which children balance the two competing drives of equality endorsement and pro-ingroup bias.

This study aimed to examine the degree of homogeneity versus heterogeneity of individuals’ political information environments across offline and online media types and relations with sociodemographic variables, personality, and political attitudes. In two online surveys, German participants (sample 1: N = 686; sample 2: N = 702) provided information on sociodemographic variables, consumption of political news, and voting intentions, and completed the Big Five Inventory and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scales. Results revealed that absolutely homogeneous political news consumption was evident for a small proportion of individuals (2.04% and 0.43%). Openness (positively) and Agreeableness (negatively) exhibited significant associations with the degree of heterogeneity of political information environments across samples. No consistent patterns of relations with either the ideological attitudes of RWA and SDO or voting intentions were observed. The findings shed light on the existence of absolutely homogeneous political information environments and “who” might be prone to a more homogeneous versus more heterogeneous information environment.

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) consists of two factors: authoritarianism—the tendency to venerate and submit to established authorities—and conventionalism—the propensity to protect traditional values. By focusing on ancestor and nature worship in Japan, this study highlighted the construct of RWA in terms of two aspects of spirituality: feelings of respect for and connectedness to higher order entities, and feelings of universality and oneness with others. Study 1 (cross-sectional) indicated that the tendencies of ancestor worship predicted higher levels of authoritarianism, while those of nature worship predicted lower levels of conventionalism, even when controlling for general attitudes toward religious symbols. Study 2 (experimental) showed that while the recollection of spiritual experiences did not directly affect RWA, indirect routes via feelings of spirituality existed. Specifically, the recollection of an ancestor worship experience increased feelings of respect/connectedness for ancestors, which were related to higher levels of authoritarianism, and that of a nature worship experience increased feelings of universality/oneness under nature, which were associated with lower levels of conventionalism. These results provide a more nuanced understanding of RWA through demonstrating that RWA might be specifically associated with these two aspects of spirituality.

The meta-analytic study was aimed at determining the link between Right-wing Authoritarianism and Five-factor Personality models. The study included a total of 18 papers, with a total sample of 42,732 respondents from different populations. The analysis was conducted using method by Hunter and Schmidt. The results showed that Right-wing Authoritarianism achieves a negative correlation of low intensity with Neuroticism (r = -.03, p < .001), Extraversion (r = -.04, p < .001) and Agreeableness (r = -.06, p < .001). There is also some bias in publishing the results of the survey when it comes to these three personality traits. Conscientiousness is at a low positive correlation with Right-wing Authoritarianism (r = .13, p < .001), while the correlation of openness to experience with Right-wing Authoritarianism is close to the level of medium negative correlation (r = -.27, p < .001). It also found the moderator’s effecton the operationalization ofpersonality and population models when it comes to the relationship of authoritarianism and the trait of openness to experience, as well as the moderate effect of theoperationalization of right-wing authoritarianism on the correlation between neuroticism and right-wing authoritarianism. Key words: Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Five-Factor model, Big Five model, metaanalysis

<p>Science is recognised and accepted as an important tool for understanding the world in which we live, yet some people hold beliefs that go against the best available scientific evidence. For example, many people believe human-caused climate change is not occurring, or that vaccines are ineffective and dangerous.  Previous research has investigated a range of possible drivers of this ‘rejection of science’ (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2013), including ignorance, distrust of scientists, and ideological motivations. The studies in this thesis extend this line of inquiry, focusing first on the role of perceptions of scientific agreement. I report experimental evidence that people base their beliefs on ‘what they think scientists think’ (Study 1). However, an analysis of longitudinal data (Study 2) suggests that our personal beliefs may also skew our perceptions of scientific agreement. While the results of Study 1 and Study 2 somewhat conflict, they do converge on one finding: perceptions of consensus alone do not fully explain rejection of science.  In the remainder of the thesis I cast a wider net, examining how ideological beliefs are linked to rejection of science. Study 3 draws on social media data to reveal that political ideology is associated with rejection of science in the context of who people choose to follow on the platform Twitter. A final set of studies (4, 5, and 6) examine the role of two motivational antecedents of political ideology, Right-wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), in rejection of science across five publicly debated issues. I also explore several potential mediators which might explain these effects. I report, for the first time, that RWA and SDO predict rejection of science across a range of issues and one mediator emerges as a consistent link: distrust of scientists. People who are less opposed to authoritarian (RWA) or hierarchical (SDO) values are less trusting of scientists and, in turn, more likely to reject specific scientific findings. I discuss potential strategies to address or circumvent this ideologically-motivated distrust of science.  Taken as whole, this thesis extends our understanding of why people disagree with an established scientific consensus on socially important issues. Knowledge of the scientific consensus matters, but our deeper beliefs about society can also draw us closer to, or push us further from evidence-based conclusions.</p>

<p>Science is recognised and accepted as an important tool for understanding the world in which we live, yet some people hold beliefs that go against the best available scientific evidence. For example, many people believe human-caused climate change is not occurring, or that vaccines are ineffective and dangerous.  Previous research has investigated a range of possible drivers of this ‘rejection of science’ (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2013), including ignorance, distrust of scientists, and ideological motivations. The studies in this thesis extend this line of inquiry, focusing first on the role of perceptions of scientific agreement. I report experimental evidence that people base their beliefs on ‘what they think scientists think’ (Study 1). However, an analysis of longitudinal data (Study 2) suggests that our personal beliefs may also skew our perceptions of scientific agreement. While the results of Study 1 and Study 2 somewhat conflict, they do converge on one finding: perceptions of consensus alone do not fully explain rejection of science.  In the remainder of the thesis I cast a wider net, examining how ideological beliefs are linked to rejection of science. Study 3 draws on social media data to reveal that political ideology is associated with rejection of science in the context of who people choose to follow on the platform Twitter. A final set of studies (4, 5, and 6) examine the role of two motivational antecedents of political ideology, Right-wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), in rejection of science across five publicly debated issues. I also explore several potential mediators which might explain these effects. I report, for the first time, that RWA and SDO predict rejection of science across a range of issues and one mediator emerges as a consistent link: distrust of scientists. People who are less opposed to authoritarian (RWA) or hierarchical (SDO) values are less trusting of scientists and, in turn, more likely to reject specific scientific findings. I discuss potential strategies to address or circumvent this ideologically-motivated distrust of science.  Taken as whole, this thesis extends our understanding of why people disagree with an established scientific consensus on socially important issues. Knowledge of the scientific consensus matters, but our deeper beliefs about society can also draw us closer to, or push us further from evidence-based conclusions.</p>

Using combined data from the British Election Study, British Social Attitudes Survey, Census, and the Cambridge Personality and Social Dynamics Research Group, a preregistered large-n regression design demonstrates the continued presence of neighbourhood effects in British elections. In addition to conventional demographic approaches, neighbourhood effects of personality dimensions and ideological orientations are demonstrated. For example, living in an area high on Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) is positively associated with one's likelihood of voting Conservative, regardless of one's own RWA. These findings are consistent with models in which aggregate psychological phenomena influence individual decision making, either in elections, or in domestic migration preferences. The research furthers the integration of social psychological theory with electoral analysis, but further work is required to understand the causal mechanism behind neighbourhood effects.

We conducted a randomized controlled experiment to investigate the role of descriptive captions (positively and negatively worded) and ideological beliefs (Right Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation) on viewers’ evaluations of two popular British Royal family members namely Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton. Participants included 300 undergraduate students from Dunedin, New Zealand who were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions: (1) Pro-Kate, (2) Anti-Kate, (3) Pro-Meghan or (4) AntiMeghan captions accompanying the parallel images of these Royal members. We also included several distractor variables about other Royal family members and traditions. Outcomes were recorded as evaluations of six royal members (Charles, Diana, William, Harry, Kate, and Meghan). We found no significant effect of caption manipulation on outcome evaluations of Meghan and Kate. However, social dominance negatively correlated with Meghan and Harry whereas authoritarianism positively correlated with ratings of Charles. Our results indicate that a one-off exposure to biased media regarding celebrities may not significantly alter audience’s evaluations of them, but ideological beliefs may influence this process, nonetheless.