RWA, SDO and race: A study of prejudice in South Africa

IF 1.8 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL

Journal of Social and Political Psychology Pub Date : 2022-05-19 DOI:10.5964/jspp.9353

Michael R Brubacher, J. Sidanius, F. Silinda

引用次数: 2

Abstract

Right-wing authoritarianism is concerned with adhering to conventional norms, while social dominance orientation supports racial hierarchy. As such, if conventional norms are opposed to racial hierarchy, it is possible that RWA and SDO would function in opposite directions. In South Africa, a normative view regarding equal civil rights across races has been promoted since the fall of apartheid. Therefore, RWA and SDO might have opposite relationships regarding beliefs in equal civil rights. To test this, South African undergraduates completed scales measuring RWA, SDO and two types of prejudice: beliefs in inequality regarding civil rights and desires for racial separation. For Black participants, RWA was a negative predictor of inequality regarding civil rights but was a positive predictor of racial separation. For White participants, these relationships involving RWA were nonsignificant. On the other hand, SDO was a positive predictor of both prejudices for both Black and White participants. Overall, SDO was a consistent predictor of prejudice while RWA was more variable and even supported egalitarian views.

查看原文本刊更多论文

RWA、SDO与种族:南非的偏见研究

右翼威权主义关注的是遵守传统规范，而社会主导取向支持种族等级制度。因此，如果传统规范反对种族等级制度，RWA和SDO可能会朝着相反的方向发挥作用。在南非，自种族隔离制度垮台以来，一直提倡关于不同种族平等公民权利的规范性观点。因此，RWA和SDO在平等公民权利信仰方面可能存在相反的关系。为了检验这一点，南非本科生完成了衡量RWA、SDO和两种类型偏见的量表：对公民权利不平等的信念和种族分离的愿望。对于黑人参与者来说，RWA是民权不平等的负面预测因素，但却是种族分离的积极预测因素。对于白人参与者来说，这些涉及RWA的关系并不显著。另一方面，SDO对黑人和白人参与者来说都是两种偏见的积极预测因素。总的来说，SDO是偏见的一致预测因子，而RWA的变量更大，甚至支持平等主义观点。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Social and Political Psychology Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

4.80%

发文量

审稿时长

40 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Social and Political Psychology (JSPP) is a peer-reviewed open-access journal (without author fees), published online. It publishes articles at the intersection of social and political psychology that substantially advance the understanding of social problems, their reduction, and the promotion of social justice. It also welcomes work that focuses on socio-political issues from related fields of psychology (e.g., peace psychology, community psychology, cultural psychology, environmental psychology, media psychology, economic psychology) and encourages submissions with interdisciplinary perspectives. JSPP is comprehensive and integrative in its approach. It publishes high-quality work from different epistemological, methodological, theoretical, and cultural perspectives and from different regions across the globe. It provides a forum for innovation, questioning of assumptions, and controversy and debate. JSPP aims to give creative impetuses for academic scholarship and for applications in education, policymaking, professional practice, and advocacy and social action. It intends to transcend the methodological and meta-theoretical divisions and paradigm clashes that characterize the field of social and political psychology, and to counterbalance the current overreliance on the hypothetico-deductive model of science, quantitative methodology, and individualistic explanations by also publishing work following alternative traditions (e.g., qualitative and mixed-methods research, participatory action research, critical psychology, social representations, narrative, and discursive approaches). Because it is published online, JSPP can avoid a bias against research that requires more space to be presented adequately.