In their thought-provoking article, Dixon et al. outline the ways in which traditional methods of prejudice reduction, based on attempts to reduce negative evaluations of an out-group, may fail to produce the desired change to the structures, practices, and ideologies that maintain prejudice and discrimination – indeed, the authors note that such attempts sometimes entrench prejudice. They should be commended for their attempt to reconcile the prejudice-reduction literature with the larger goal of sociopolitical change. We were especially struck by their call for a more nuanced approach that included the role of positive emotions and motivation.
We argue that a full account of inequality and social change requires not only examination of institutional and social action, but also consideration of the personality processes and individual differences that influence people's willingness to support status-legitimizing ideologies. In the same way that personality variables can inform and contribute to our understanding of economic behaviour (Ferguson et al. Reference Ferguson, Heckman and Corr2011), integrating personality processes with support for structural inequalities and social change movements may lead to a deeper understanding of the person-level bases of these phenomena. We contend that consideration of the role of personality processes is essential; therefore, it follows that we should apply knowledge of these processes (including basic ones relating to emotion and motivation) to the wider prejudice literature.
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO; Pratto et al. Reference Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth and Malle1994) reflects individual differences in the endorsement of status-legitimizing ideologies, interpersonal dominance, and a preference for hierarchical stratification between groups. Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA; Altemeyer Reference Altemeyer1988; Reference Altemeyer and Zanna1998) reflects dispositions toward authoritarian submission (to authorities perceived as “legitimate”), a conventional worldview, and aggressiveness or punitiveness toward those who are perceived to challenge this authority or worldview. Both RWA and SDO are associated with increased prejudice toward out-groups, principally ethnic minorities, immigrants, and women (Ekehammar et al. Reference Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje and Zakrisson2004; Whitley Reference Whitley1999). Although RWA and SWO are moderately correlated and can predict generalised measures of prejudice, their origins and consequences differ. In particular, RWA is more likely to predict prejudice in response to a social or moral threat; SDO is more likely to predict prejudice when an out-group is viewed as competitive (Cohrs & Asbrock Reference Cohrs and Asbrock2009), such as when a minority group strives to end discriminatory practices.
Is it appropriate to connect these individual difference constructs to collective action and societal-level inequality? In support of this connection, Son Hing et al. (Reference Son Hing, Bobocel, Zanna and McBride2007) demonstrated that individuals high in SDO or RWA make decisions that are more unethical than others. Both variables predict willingness to oppose minority groups' collective action and decrease the likelihood of engaging in action against authority (Duncan Reference Duncan1999). Members of low-status groups who are high in SDO are likely to support inequality and favour high-status groups, to the extent to which they perceive the system to be legitimate (Jost & Burgess Reference Jost and Burgess2000).
These measures of prejudice must be motivated; but where should we look for this motivation? Certainly, there are beliefs, attitudes, and norms that are part of the fabric of a society, and to which, on average, members of society conform, but history is witness to the fact that people do not equally conform to norms supporting inequality: society evolves by people opposing them (e.g., racial discrimination in the United States and South Africa). The question is: Why do some people conform more than others?
The notion that individual differences between people, based on basic emotion and motivation processes, play no role in susceptibility to prejudice may be seen as somewhat fanciful (although it is far from being the whole story, and the extent of their influence is still open to debate). But, what are the bases of these causal processes? There are links to the five-factor model (FFM), with RWA and SDO linked, for example, to (lack of) openness to experience (Sibley & Duckitt Reference Sibley and Duckitt2008). However, the FFM does not provide links to the biologically based, causally efficient brain systems that may underpin basic emotion and motivation. One approach that addresses these systems is the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) of personality (Corr Reference Corr2008; Reference Corr and Corr2009), which provides a framework for understanding important aspects of the FFM (particularly extraversion and neuroticism) but, potentially, also the more complex personality variables that are associated with prejudice and support for structural inequality. Dixon et al. call for greater attention to considering positive aspects of prejudice and not exclusively negativity as the emotional and cognitive signatures of prejudice. We endorse their view that past research has downplayed the importance of positive emotions.
Recent data collected by Corr et al. (unpublished) in England (N = 110) replicated the association between SDO and RWA, whilst providing evidence that both measures are related to fundamental processes underlying emotion and motivation, as outlined by RST: SDO was positively associated with Defensive Fight (r = .24, p = .014) and Reward Interest (r = .19, p = .048); and RWA was positively associated with Defensive Fight (r = .30, p = .001), Reward Interest (r = .31, p = .001), Goal-Drive Persistence (r = .35, p = .001), Reward Reactivity (r = .34, p = .001) and Impulsivity (r = .22, p = .05), in addition to Fear (r = .19, p = .05).
Such data suggest that the endorsement of status-legitimizing ideologies and the willingness to accept and uphold societal inequality has an origin in the basic, biological determinates of personality, particularly those related to positive-approach motivation. These associations support the call by Dixon et al. for a more nuanced perspective on prejudice, replacing the notion of the bigoted person who needs (re)education and more contact with one that focuses more specifically on underlying emotion and motivation, including positive-approach drivers. This conclusion supports Dixon et al.'s contention that attempts at prejudice reduction by education and contact are not a panacea. It seems that both social dominators and authoritarian submissives will not relinquish their support for the status quo of inequality if their underlying emotions and motivations are not addressed. Although this nuanced picture complicates matters, it may lead ultimately to a fuller understanding of the causes of prejudice and how it might be ameliorated.
In their thought-provoking article, Dixon et al. outline the ways in which traditional methods of prejudice reduction, based on attempts to reduce negative evaluations of an out-group, may fail to produce the desired change to the structures, practices, and ideologies that maintain prejudice and discrimination – indeed, the authors note that such attempts sometimes entrench prejudice. They should be commended for their attempt to reconcile the prejudice-reduction literature with the larger goal of sociopolitical change. We were especially struck by their call for a more nuanced approach that included the role of positive emotions and motivation.
We argue that a full account of inequality and social change requires not only examination of institutional and social action, but also consideration of the personality processes and individual differences that influence people's willingness to support status-legitimizing ideologies. In the same way that personality variables can inform and contribute to our understanding of economic behaviour (Ferguson et al. Reference Ferguson, Heckman and Corr2011), integrating personality processes with support for structural inequalities and social change movements may lead to a deeper understanding of the person-level bases of these phenomena. We contend that consideration of the role of personality processes is essential; therefore, it follows that we should apply knowledge of these processes (including basic ones relating to emotion and motivation) to the wider prejudice literature.
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO; Pratto et al. Reference Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth and Malle1994) reflects individual differences in the endorsement of status-legitimizing ideologies, interpersonal dominance, and a preference for hierarchical stratification between groups. Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA; Altemeyer Reference Altemeyer1988; Reference Altemeyer and Zanna1998) reflects dispositions toward authoritarian submission (to authorities perceived as “legitimate”), a conventional worldview, and aggressiveness or punitiveness toward those who are perceived to challenge this authority or worldview. Both RWA and SDO are associated with increased prejudice toward out-groups, principally ethnic minorities, immigrants, and women (Ekehammar et al. Reference Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje and Zakrisson2004; Whitley Reference Whitley1999). Although RWA and SWO are moderately correlated and can predict generalised measures of prejudice, their origins and consequences differ. In particular, RWA is more likely to predict prejudice in response to a social or moral threat; SDO is more likely to predict prejudice when an out-group is viewed as competitive (Cohrs & Asbrock Reference Cohrs and Asbrock2009), such as when a minority group strives to end discriminatory practices.
Is it appropriate to connect these individual difference constructs to collective action and societal-level inequality? In support of this connection, Son Hing et al. (Reference Son Hing, Bobocel, Zanna and McBride2007) demonstrated that individuals high in SDO or RWA make decisions that are more unethical than others. Both variables predict willingness to oppose minority groups' collective action and decrease the likelihood of engaging in action against authority (Duncan Reference Duncan1999). Members of low-status groups who are high in SDO are likely to support inequality and favour high-status groups, to the extent to which they perceive the system to be legitimate (Jost & Burgess Reference Jost and Burgess2000).
These measures of prejudice must be motivated; but where should we look for this motivation? Certainly, there are beliefs, attitudes, and norms that are part of the fabric of a society, and to which, on average, members of society conform, but history is witness to the fact that people do not equally conform to norms supporting inequality: society evolves by people opposing them (e.g., racial discrimination in the United States and South Africa). The question is: Why do some people conform more than others?
The notion that individual differences between people, based on basic emotion and motivation processes, play no role in susceptibility to prejudice may be seen as somewhat fanciful (although it is far from being the whole story, and the extent of their influence is still open to debate). But, what are the bases of these causal processes? There are links to the five-factor model (FFM), with RWA and SDO linked, for example, to (lack of) openness to experience (Sibley & Duckitt Reference Sibley and Duckitt2008). However, the FFM does not provide links to the biologically based, causally efficient brain systems that may underpin basic emotion and motivation. One approach that addresses these systems is the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) of personality (Corr Reference Corr2008; Reference Corr and Corr2009), which provides a framework for understanding important aspects of the FFM (particularly extraversion and neuroticism) but, potentially, also the more complex personality variables that are associated with prejudice and support for structural inequality. Dixon et al. call for greater attention to considering positive aspects of prejudice and not exclusively negativity as the emotional and cognitive signatures of prejudice. We endorse their view that past research has downplayed the importance of positive emotions.
Recent data collected by Corr et al. (unpublished) in England (N = 110) replicated the association between SDO and RWA, whilst providing evidence that both measures are related to fundamental processes underlying emotion and motivation, as outlined by RST: SDO was positively associated with Defensive Fight (r = .24, p = .014) and Reward Interest (r = .19, p = .048); and RWA was positively associated with Defensive Fight (r = .30, p = .001), Reward Interest (r = .31, p = .001), Goal-Drive Persistence (r = .35, p = .001), Reward Reactivity (r = .34, p = .001) and Impulsivity (r = .22, p = .05), in addition to Fear (r = .19, p = .05).
Such data suggest that the endorsement of status-legitimizing ideologies and the willingness to accept and uphold societal inequality has an origin in the basic, biological determinates of personality, particularly those related to positive-approach motivation. These associations support the call by Dixon et al. for a more nuanced perspective on prejudice, replacing the notion of the bigoted person who needs (re)education and more contact with one that focuses more specifically on underlying emotion and motivation, including positive-approach drivers. This conclusion supports Dixon et al.'s contention that attempts at prejudice reduction by education and contact are not a panacea. It seems that both social dominators and authoritarian submissives will not relinquish their support for the status quo of inequality if their underlying emotions and motivations are not addressed. Although this nuanced picture complicates matters, it may lead ultimately to a fuller understanding of the causes of prejudice and how it might be ameliorated.