DPM: Page-by-Page Notes

Page 1

Overview of the Dual Process Motivational Model (DPM) of Ideology and Prejudice

Early empirical observations of prejudice highlighted two patterns:
- Targeted groups vary across societies (specificity of prejudice).
- Individuals vary in their general tendency toward prejudice or tolerance (generality of prejudice).
Two kinds of theories emerged:
- Societal/intergroup theories: explain prejudice toward specific groups due to intergroup relations (e.g., competition, threat, inequality).
- Individual-difference theories: explain generalized prejudice through stable personality traits, values, motives, or ideological beliefs.
The DPM integrates both levels: two motivational orientations underlie generalized prejudice, and social/intergroup factors activate these orientations, producing both specific and generalized prejudice.
Core contributions of the DPM (three interrelated explanatory lines):
1) Two major social attitude dimensions anchored in motivational goals/values.
2) How these two motivationally based dimensions are shaped by different social/psychological bases.
3) Why and how these two motivational dimensions cause prejudice, including their interaction with social/intergroup causes.

Key terms to preview

RWA: Right-Wing Authoritarianism
SDO: Social Dominance Orientation
DW: Dangerous World beliefs (social threat worldview)
CW: Competitive World beliefs (competitive/ dominance worldview)

These ideas set up the three major sections of the DPM analysis, which will be elaborated in the following pages.

Notes

From the outset, the authors emphasize that prejudice can be both targeted (specific) and widespread (generalized) within a society, aligning with Pettigrew’s notion of specificity of prejudice and Allport’s notion of generalized prejudice (historical anchors).
The DPM is designed to explain stable individual differences (e.g., RWA/SDO) and how situational/intergroup factors (threat, competition, inequality) activate and interact with these dispositions to produce prejudice.

Page 2

DPM 1: Two Motivationally Based Ideological Attitude Dimensions

Foundational empirical work that motivated the DPM:
- McFarland (1998; McFarland & Adelson, 1996) and Altemeyer (1998) showed that general prejudice/tolerance is primarily predicted by two dimensions: RWA and SDO, with relatively little added value from other psychological factors.
Definitions of the two dimensions:
- RWA (Right-Wing Authoritarianism): A threat-driven attitude expressing commitment to collective security, obedience to authorities, conformity to traditional norms; reflects a preference for coercive social control and conformity to established authorities.
- SDO (Social Dominance Orientation): A competitiveness-oriented attitude expressing a preference for hierarchy in intergroup relations and dominance over lower-status groups; reflects a preference for unequal rather than equal intergroup relations.
Measurements and origins:
- RWA scale developed by Altemeyer (1981) to measure authoritarian attitudes (obedience, submission to authorities, conformity to traditional norms).
- SDO scale developed by Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, and Malle (1994) to measure a general attitudinal orientation toward intergroup relations (hierarchical vs. egalitarian).
Key meta-analytic confirmations and causal evidence:
- Large body of research supports that RWA and SDO robustly predict prejudice (e.g., Proch, 2013; Sibley & Duckitt, 2008).
- Longitudinal studies suggest causal links: RWA/SDO influence prejudice over time (e.g., Asbrock, Sibley, & Duckitt, 2010; Duriez et al., 2007; Kteily et al., 2011; Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007a).
Relationship to broader values:
- RWA correlates with conservation-focused values (Conformity, Tradition, Security) versus openness to change.
- SDO correlates with self-enhancement values (Power, Achievement) versus self-transcendence (Universalism, Benevolence).
Conceptualization in the DPM:
- RWA and SDO are two broad, motivationally based social attitude dimensions that capture stable dispositions and their expression under social conditions.
Notes on robustness and boundaries:
- Some studies report modest additional effects (e.g., Neuroticism with RWA; Openness with SDO) but these are typically weak and not consistently replicated.

Key figures and relationships

RWA ↔ Conservatism (Conformity/Tradition/Security) vs Openness (Self-Direction, Stimulation, Hedonism)
SDO ↔ Self-Enhancement (Power/ Achievement) vs Self-Transcendence (Universalism/ Benevolence)
RWA and SDO are thus conceptualized as two broad, motivational dimensions with distinct motivational goals and social bases.

Page 3

DPM 2: Social and Psychological Bases of Ideological Attitudes

How DW and CW emerge:
- The DPM posits two worldview beliefs that chronically activate RWA and SDO:
- DW (Dangerous World) beliefs: Social threat beliefs about the world being dangerous and unpredictable; linked to RWA.
- CW (Competitive World) beliefs: Beliefs about a ruthlessly competitive social world where the strong win and the weak lose; linked to SDO.
Personality bases of the two orientations:
- RWA is associated with social conformity tendencies in the Big Five: low Openness and high Conscientiousness.
- SDO is associated with a tough-minded/competitive worldview: low Agreeableness and, in HEXACO, low Honesty-Humility.
Developmental causal sequence posited by the DPM:
- Early personality traits shape DW and CW beliefs, which in turn crystallize into values and ideological attitudes (RWA/SDO) in adolescence/adulthood.
- The model allows for reciprocal effects: once values/attitudes crystallize, they can influence lifestyle, friendships, and even worldviews and personality dispositions.
Mechanisms of influence:
- DW beliefs are promoted by socialization in a world perceived as dangerous; they feed into RWA by elevating perceived threats to social order.
- CW beliefs arise from a perception of the world as a competitive jungle; they feed into SDO by elevating the importance of power and dominance.
Moderated and mediated pathways:
- Social threat (DW) and competitive threat (CW) interact with personality to produce RWA/SDO, with some causal directions possibly bidirectional.
Summary of causal sequences (high level):
- Personality factors → DW/CW worldviews → RWA/SDO ideological attitudes → Prejudice (generalized and specific).
Important note on reciprocal causality:
- The model allows for reciprocal causal effects, e.g., crystallized values influencing worldviews or lifestyle, which in turn reinforce dispositions.
Visuals described (Figure 9.1 in text):
- DW and CW beliefs are positioned as mediators between personality/social context and RWA/SDO.
- DW is linked to threats to social order; CW is linked to competitiveness and domination. Both feed into their respective ideological attitudes and downstream prejudice.

Page 4

Diagrams and illustrative structure of the DPM

Figure 9.1 (as described in text) lays out the dual process structure showing how personality and social/world beliefs influence the two ideologies (RWA and SDO) via two worldview beliefs (DW and CW).
The model also ties these ideological attitudes to prejudice outcomes. The diagram emphasizes that of the two worldview beliefs, DW is more predictive of RWA, while CW is more predictive of SDO.
Key takeaways from the figure:
- Social threat and danger cues elevate DW, which in turn elevates RWA.
- Intergroup competition and perceived dominance elevate CW, which in turn elevates SDO.
- The two worldview beliefs are distinct but can co-occur, especially in traditional or hierarchical societies, leading to correlated RWA and SDO in some contexts.

Notes

The figure also implies that environmental and intergroup conditions can modulate the strength of RWA and SDO by altering the salience of DW and CW beliefs.
This page sets the stage for the detailed connection between personality, worldview beliefs, and prejudice across subsequent pages.

Page 5

Further specification of DW/CW mechanisms and developmental implications

Underlying trait interpretations:
- DW-beliefs: connected to a “Dangerous world” schema, which ties to a high threat perception and a preference for social order and safety.
- CW-beliefs: connected to a “Competitive world” schema, which ties to a belief in social hierarchy and dominance.
Personality correlates (summary):
- DW-related pathways: Low Openness and high Conscientiousness (i.e., social conformity, preference for order).
- CW-related pathways: Low Agreeableness (Low Honesty-Humility in HEXACO) and a tough-minded worldview (perceiving life as a competitive jungle).
Developmental sequence specifics:
- Early childhood dispositions (e.g., Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness) contribute to the formation of DW and CW beliefs in later childhood/early adolescence.
- These worldview beliefs then influence the crystallization of RWA/SDO during mid-to-late adolescence and early adulthood.
Social environmental modifiers:
- Social threats (e.g., perceived danger, societal instability) increase DW and thereby RWA.
- Competitive threats (e.g., perceived competition over resources, status) increase CW and thereby SDO.
Potential reciprocal relationships:
- Changes in RWA/SDO could feed back to affect worldview salience and related personality expressions through life experiences and social choices.
Core causal predictions restated:
- Two distinct trait-based pathways: Openness/Conscientiousness → DW → RWA; Agreeableness/Honesty-Humility → CW → SDO.
- Worldview beliefs (DW, CW) mediate the effect of personality on ideological attitudes, and worldview beliefs themselves are shaped by personality and environment.

Page 6

Structural equation modeling (SEM) and stability of effects

Use of SEM to test the full DPM: Several studies have employed SEM to model the complete set of proposed relations among personality traits, DW/CW, RWA/SDO, and prejudice, using samples from Belgium, Italy, New Zealand, and the United States.
Robust findings across cross-national samples (with minor variations):
- The strongest predictors of RWA were low Openness (global r ≈ -0.36) and to a lesser extent high Conscientiousness (global r ≈ 0.15).
- The strongest predictor of SDO was low Agreeableness (global r ≈ -0.29).
- DW beliefs were strongly linked to RWA, while CW beliefs were strongly linked to SDO.
Additional modeling findings:
- Conscientiousness showed weaker (and sometimes inconsistent) predictive power for RWA/SDO in SEM analyses compared to Openness and Agreeableness/Honesty-Humility.
- The model consistently showed that the effects of personality on prejudice were largely mediated by RWA and SDO, supporting the mediation aspect of the DPM.
HEXACO extensions:
- Studies incorporating HEXACO dimensions found that low Openness best predicts RWA, while low Honesty-Humility best predicts SDO, aligning with the broader DPM predictions.
Worldviews measures:
- Measures of DW and CW were found to be differentially associated with RWA and SDO across multiple samples, reinforcing the distinct nature of the two worldview dimensions.

Notes

SEM studies reveal asymmetries: Openness has a more direct effect on RWA, whereas Agreeableness/Honesty-Humility effects on SDO are more mediated through CW beliefs.
The stability of DW and CW beliefs across time is discussed, but the model allows for shifts due to changes in environment and life events.

Page 7

Personality measures and alternative trait approaches

Beyond the Big Five: Several studies used observer ratings and HEXACO dimensions, confirming the same basic pattern as Big Five-based findings.
Specific trait subcomponents:
- For RWA, Openness subtraits (cognition, curiosity) tend to be stronger predictors than experiential aspects of Openness.
- For SDO, Agreeableness subtraits (e.g., empathy/compassion) are the most predictive indicators.
HEXACO findings reinforce the Big Five results: low Openness predicts RWA; low Honesty-Humility predicts SDO.
Social worldview measures:
- DW beliefs correlate with RWA (r ≈ 0.37 on average across 46 studies); CW beliefs correlate with SDO (r ≈ 0.53) and show weaker associations with RWA.
Refinements of worldview measures:
- Perry, Sibley, and Duckitt (2013a) refined DW/CW measures to reduce item-content overlap and replicated meta-analytic patterns.
- Perry, Sibley, & Duckitt (2013b) introduced frequency-estimation indices to gauge people’s estimates of dangerous/competitive behaviors in society; these indices showed the expected covariation patterns: DW predicts RWA, CW predicts SDO.

Notes

The domain specificity of threat vs competition is robust across diverse measurement methods.
External (societal) threat indices consistently predict RWA/SDO better than internal (psychological) threat indices when controlling for external threat.

Page 8

Meta-analytic support and threat specificity

Two major meta-analyses synthesized correlational data:
- Sibley & Duckitt (2008): 71 studies, 22,068 participants.
- Proch (2013): 1,115 studies across 60 years.
Consistent findings across meta-analyses:
- RWA is strongly predicted by low Openness, modestly by high Conscientiousness.
- SDO is strongly predicted by low Agreeableness.
- The effects of Big Five dimensions on prejudice are largely mediated by RWA and SDO (i.e., the link from personality to prejudice passes through the ideological attitudes).
- DW beliefs are more strongly associated with RWA; CW beliefs more strongly associated with SDO (DW with RWA ≈ 0.37; CW with SDO ≈ 0.53).
Societal threat vs internal threat:
- Both meta-analyses found that external societal threats predict RWA/SDO, while internal threats do not, when external threat is controlled.
Additional nuance:
- Some small, inconsistent correlations outside the main pattern (e.g., Neuroticism with RWA, Openness with SDO) may reflect confounds or measurement nuances, but the central pattern remains robust.

Notes

The convergent evidence across correlational and structural approaches strengthens the DPM’s claim that two distinct motivational paths underlie generalized prejudice.

Page 9

Longitudinal and cross-lagged evidence in SEM studies

Cross-lagged longitudinal findings across multiple samples (Sibley & Duckitt, 2010, 2013; Sibley et al., 2007a; Sidanius et al., 2012):
- Predicted causal directions largely supported:
- Low Openness → higher DW beliefs → higher RWA.
- Higher DW beliefs → higher RWA.
- Low Agreeableness (or its subcomponents) → higher CW beliefs → higher SDO.
- CW beliefs → higher SDO.
- Some effects not supported: Conscientiousness did not reliably predict DW or RWA in these longitudinal tests.
- Reciprocal effects observed: SDO can influence Agreeableness (negative) and, in some samples, CW → Agreeableness (negative); RWA and DW can show limited reciprocal effects in one sample.
Overall interpretation:
- The causal chain from Openness → DW → RWA and from Agreeableness → CW → SDO is supported across multiple longitudinal designs.
- The specific Conscientiousness → DW/RWA path is not consistently supported, suggesting weaker or non-causal links for that pathway.
- Reciprocal effects exist but are relatively limited; the strongest pattern is the directional influence from personality/worldviews to ideology and then to prejudice.

Notes

The longitudinal findings provide robust support for the DPM’s causal predictions, with some nuance regarding the role of Conscientiousness and reciprocal causation.

Page 10

Additional longitudinal patterns and cross-lag results

Across four studies and five samples, the following cross-lag effects were significant and consistent with the DPM:
- Openness (low Openness) at time 1 predicts higher DW beliefs at time 2, which predicts higher RWA at time 3.
- DW beliefs predict RWA over time (DW → RWA).
- Agreeableness (low Agreeableness or related compassion/empathy components) predicts CW beliefs, which predict higher SDO over time (CW → SDO).
- Some reciprocal effects observed: SDO on lower Agreeableness in personality, higher RWA on DW in some samples, higher CW on SDO in multiple samples.
The one pathway predicted by the DPM but not found: Conscientiousness predicting DW and RWA in the longitudinal data (not significant in the tested samples).
Implications:
- The DPM’s core causal structure (Openness → DW → RWA and Agreeableness → CW → SDO) is largely validated longitudinally.
- Conscientiousness may have a weaker causal role or operate through other, indirect routes that require larger samples or different measures to detect.
Overall conclusion for the longitudinal literature:
- The DPM’s causal predictions are broadly supported by cross-lagged longitudinal analyses, with modest exceptions and some room for refinement.

Page 11

Supporting evidence from non-big-five personality measures and worldviews

Beyond Big Five, studies using HEXACO dimensions corroborate the same patterns:
- Low Openness predicts RWA; low Honesty-Humility predicts SDO.
Worldview measures:
- DW beliefs show substantial correlations with RWA (approx. 0.37) and minimal with SDO.
- CW beliefs show strong correlations with SDO (approx. 0.53) and weaker with RWA.
Longitudinal and cross-lag approaches using different measures continue to support the DPM’s core assertions about differential prediction patterns:
- Threat-related external factors are particularly predictive of RWA, whereas competitive/dominance cues are more predictive of SDO.
Emerging methodological refinements:
- Perry, Sibley, & Duckitt (2013a) refined social worldview measures to remove item-content overlap, strengthening discriminant validity between DW and CW.
- Perry, Sibley, & Duckitt (2013b) introduced frequency-estimation measures to assess people’s schemas about dangerous/competitive social behaviors; results aligned with DW–RWA and CW–SDO linkages.

Notes

The body of evidence remains consistent across measurement approaches (self-report, observer ratings, HEXACO dimensions) and across diverse samples.

Page 12

Experimental evidence on threat, competition, and worldview mediators

Experimental manipulations have established causal links between social situational factors and ideology:
- Threat manipulations (e.g., dangerous future scenarios, terrorist threat cues) increase RWA; SDO is less affected under threat conditions unless competition cues are also present.
- Competitive/group dominance manipulations increase SDO; threat manipulations tend to elevate RWA, with threat effects often mediated by DW beliefs.
Key experimental results:
- Guimond et al. (2003): Assigning power roles (high vs. low) increases SDO for high-power position holders.
- Huang & Liu (2005); Schmitt et al. (2003): Salience of high-power group membership elevates SDO when competition is emphasized.
- De Oliveira et al. (2012); Morrison et al. (2009); Morrison & Ybarra (2008): Effects of competition on SDO are amplified when competition is framed as intergroup threat.
- Altemeyer (1988); Asbrock & Fritsche (2013); Fischer et al. (2010): Threat salience increases RWA.
- Napier (2014): Safety-related manipulations reduced threat-related responses (RWA) but did not affect economic conservatism (SDO analog).
- Duckitt & Fisher (2003); Jugert & Duckitt (2009): Threat manipulations increased RWA and/or reduced CW-mediated effects; threat effects on RWA were mediated by DW beliefs.
Summary implication:
- Experimental evidence supports the DPM predictions that social threat activates RWA and that group dominance/competition activates SDO, with mediation by the corresponding worldview beliefs (DW for RWA, CW for SDO).

Page 13

Additional experimental findings and mediational analyses

Summary of mediation and moderation findings:
- Threat increases RWA; mediation by DW beliefs is complete or substantial in some studies.
- Competitive cues increase SDO; mediation by CW beliefs is robust in several studies.
- In some experiments, threat manipulations did not alter SDO, and competition manipulations did not alter RWA, highlighting the moderator role of intergroup context.
Notable studies and outcomes:
- Duckitt (2006) showed that RWA predicted attitudes to socially threatening groups, with threat fully mediating the RWA effect; SDO predicted attitudes to low-status groups, with competitiveness mediating the SDO effect.
- Craig & Richeson (2014) found immigration policy support linked to both RWA and SDO, with RWA effects mediated by perceived cultural threat and SDO effects mediated by perceived competition.
- Other studies demonstrated that contextual framing (threat vs. competition) determines which ideology better predicts certain attitudes or policy preferences.
Overall takeaway:
- The data consistently support context-dependent moderation of the RWA/SDO–prejudice link, in line with the DPM’s predictions about motivational activation and differential mediation.

Page 14

Motivationally Based Differential Patterning of Prejudice

Core proposition: RWA and SDO index different motives for prejudice; these motives generate distinct patterns of outgroup hostility, which can sometimes overlap but often diverge.
Empirical demonstrations of differential patterns:
- RWA, but not SDO, predicts negative attitudes toward groups labeled as socially deviant or threatening traditional norms (e.g., groups that threaten ingroup norms).
- SDO, but not RWA, predicts negative attitudes toward groups that are socially subordinate and non-threatening (e.g., people with disabilities, housewives, unemployment beneficiaries).
Differential effects on gender attitudes and sexism:
- RWA better predicts benevolent sexism (BS), which supports traditional gender roles.
- SDO better predicts hostile sexism (HS), which involves competitive hostility toward women.
- Longitudinal follow-ups show cross-lag effects: RWA predicts BS; SDO predicts HS.
Differential effects on ethnocentrism:
- Intergroup ethnocentrism correlates more with SDO; intragroup ethnocentrism correlates more with RWA.
Implication for generalized prejudice:
- The DPM challenges the view of a single generalized prejudice factor; instead, there are multiple generalized prejudice dimensions that map differentially onto RWA and SDO.
Additional evidence on domain-specific prejudice:
- Stangor & Leary (2006) and related work show RWA more aligned with pro-ingroup attitudes, while SDO aligns more with anti-outgroup attitudes.
Implication for broader social outcomes:
- The two motives produce different prejudice profiles across ethno-cultural contexts, gender attitudes, and ethnocentrism dimensions, reinforcing the need to treat RWA and SDO as distinct, interacting forces rather than a single generalized prejudice construct.

Page 15

Differential activation by outgroup cues and intergroup dynamics

When an outgroup is encountered, the same target can elicit both threat and competitiveness cues, but the strength of RWA vs SDO responses depends on which cue dominates.
Key studies and findings:
- RWA tends to predict prejudice more strongly when the outgroup is framed as a threat to group norms, safety, or societal cohesion.
- SDO tends to predict prejudice more strongly when the outgroup is framed as a competitor over resources, status, or dominance.
- Both motives can be activated, but the resulting prejudice aligns with the dominant cue and the corresponding motivational orientation.
Implications for intergroup conflict and policy:
- Understanding which cue is salient in a given intergroup context can help predict which ideology will drive prejudice and which interventions (e.g., intergroup contact, threat-reduction messaging) are likely to be more effective for different individuals.

Page 16

Ethnocentrism and moral foundations (evidence of differential moral profiles)

Ethnocentrism dimensions linked to RWA/SDO:
- Intergroup (ingroup) ethnocentrism correlates more with SDO.
- Intragroup ethnocentrism correlates more with RWA.
Stangor & Leary and related work show that RWA is more associated with pro-ingroup attitudes, while SDO is more associated with anti-outgroup attitudes, aligning with their motivational bases (security/conformity vs dominance/inequality).
Moral foundations approach (Milojev et al., 2014): RWA and SDO predict distinct moral signatures:
- SDO: moderate support for multiple moral foundations.
- RWA: broadly high support across multiple foundations, with less differentiation.
Implication:
- The moral-context differences further illustrate that RWA and SDO represent different justificatory frameworks for prejudice and intergroup behavior, reinforcing the view that prejudice is motivated by distinct value-based logics.

Page 17

Motivated mediation and moral foundations (continued)

The Milojev et al. (2014) findings suggest that RWA and SDO are associated with different moral claim patterns, which may help explain why they predict different kinds of prejudice and respond differently to social conditions.
Implications for research and application:
- Interventions targeting prejudice may need to address distinct moral or value-driven justifications depending on whether individuals are higher in RWA or SDO.
- The moral foundations approach provides a complementary lens to personality/worldview models in understanding prejudice dynamics.

Page 18

Motivated mediation of attitudes on prejudice: Summary of mediating mechanisms

The DPM posits that RWA and SDO influence prejudice through different mediators:
- RWA effects on outgroup negativity are mediated by perceived social threat from the outgroup (DW beliefs).
- SDO effects on outgroup negativity are mediated by perceived competitiveness (CW beliefs) and the social dominance rationale.
Empirical support across multiple studies:
- RWA → perceived threat → outgroup negativity (strong mediation by threat cues).
- SDO → perceived competitiveness → outgroup negativity (competition cues mediate).
Combined RWA/SDO models:
- Studies using both RWA and SDO show differential mediation patterns, reinforcing the idea that the two ideological attitudes work through distinct motivational channels.
Example domains:
- Anti-immigrant attitudes: some studies show RWA mediated by threat perceptions; SDO mediated by perceptions of economic competition.
- Gender attitudes: RWA more linked to traditional gender roles; SDO more linked to dominance-oriented views.

Page 19

Intergroup contact and differential effects by RWA/SDO

Intergroup contact research within the DPM framework shows differential effects by RWA/SDO:
- Positive contact reduces prejudice more effectively for individuals high in RWA than for those high in SDO.
- For high-SDO individuals, contact effects on prejudice are weaker or sometimes non-significant; some studies even show greater reductions for low-SDO individuals.
Integrated perspective (Asbrock et al., 2012):
- Contact reduces prejudice over time for those high in RWA (via reductions in perceived threat).
- For those high in SDO, contact effects are weaker; reductions in prejudice occur more for those low in SDO.
Implications for policy and programs:
- Intergroup contact interventions may be more effective for reducing prejudice among authoritarians (RWA) than among social dominators (SDO).
- Programs aiming to reduce prejudice among high-SDO individuals may need to emphasize reduction of perceived dominance threats or provide alternative justifications for decreased dominance needs.

Page 20

Contextual moderation of RWA/SDO effects on prejudice and policy attitudes

The DPM predicts that contextual cues will modulate the strength of RWA and SDO’s effects on prejudice and related outcomes.
Examples of moderator-role investigations and findings:
- Cross-national meta-analyses (Cohrs & Stelzl, 2010): RWA is a stronger predictor of anti-immigrant attitudes in countries where immigrants are associated with crime increase; SDO is stronger in countries with higher immigrant unemployment (competition for jobs).
- Dru (2007) experimental study: Salience of ingroup security/norm preservation increases RWA as the predictor of anti-immigrant attitudes; salience of group competitiveness increases SDO as predictor.
- Duckitt & Sibley (2010b): In Sandrians-immigrant scenario manipulations, threat framing heightened RWA; low-status framing heightened SDO; threat+competition heightened both.
- Craig & Richeson (2014): Home-country immigrants’ attitudes linked to RWA via cultural threat; SDO linked to attitudes via perceived competition; immigrants to foreign countries affected by both pathways.
- Thomson, Green, & Sidanius (2008): Assimilating vs non-assimilating immigrants—RWA predicts negativity to non-assimilating immigrants; SDO predicts negativity to assimilating immigrants (reducing ingroup dominance threat).
Contextual framing and policy implications:
- Framing immigration or diversity in terms of threat to social cohesion tends to engage RWA more.
- Framing diversity in terms of competition/inequality tends to engage SDO more.

Page 21

Moderation of prejudice by contextual cues (continued) and moderating design considerations

Additional findings and nuanced points:
- Several studies report significant moderating effects for RWA/SDO with contextual variables, but a subset reports non-significant moderation, often in real-world groups with preexisting strong attitudes.
- Some null results may reflect methodological limits in detecting interactions (McClelland & Judd, 1993), or the difficulty of manipulating real-world intergroup dynamics.
Conceptual takeaway:
- The DPM predicts that the same social context can differentially activate RWA or SDO depending on whether threat or competition is salient, and this moderation is robust across studies that explicitly test the predictions.

Page 22

Integrated model of intergroup dynamics and motivation

The DPM emphasizes that prejudice arises from two universal human motives (fear and greed) as they are shaped by personality and social context.
The model integrates social intergroup dynamics (threat, inequality, competition) with individual dispositions to predict both generalized prejudice (RWA/SDO) and specific outgroup attitudes.
Practical implication:
- To reduce prejudice, interventions should consider both enhancing people’s sense of societal threat (which may spur RWA) and reducing perceived competition and inequality (which may spur SDO).
Theoretical implication:
- The DPM provides a coherent framework for understanding how values, worldviews, personality, and social context jointly contribute to prejudice and intergroup hostility.

Page 23

Contextual conditions that amplify or dampen effects

The DPM anticipates certain boundary conditions and boundary cases:
- When target groups are highly salient and the intergroup relations are already highly charged, detecting moderation effects may be difficult (ceiling effects).
- In cases where intergroup threat or competition cues are weak or ambiguous, RWA/SDO effects on prejudice may be small or nonsignificant.
Experimental and quasi-experimental work shows that when intergroup cues are manipulated to be clearly threatening or competitive, predicted moderation patterns become more detectable.
The model acknowledges potential alternative moderation pathways and the possibility that mediating variables (threat, competition) could themselves be moderated by other factors (e.g., culture, age, prior contact experience).

Page 24

Escalation and non-linear effects in threat sensitivity

A theoretical note on threat escalation:
- Cohrs & Ibler (2009) suggested that individuals high in RWA may overreact to relatively weak or ambiguous threats due to their threat-sensitivity; conversely, individuals low in RWA may display stronger responses to dramatic threats because prior threat perceptions were low and the disconfirming evidence is more striking.
- Longitudinal data indicate that people low in RWA can show larger increases in RWA after exposure to social threat, highlighting non-linear and dynamic aspects of threat processing.
Practical implication:
- In public policy or crisis communication, the same message may have different effects on prejudice depending on people’s existing RWA/SDO levels, so tailoring messages could influence outcomes.

Page 25

Conclusions and challenges

The DPM synthesizes threat-driven (RWA) and dominance-driven (SDO) motives as two universal human goals that interact with the social environment to generate prejudice.
Strong empirical support across correlational, SEM, longitudinal, and experimental studies:
- Personality and worldview (DW, CW) predict ideological attitudes (RWA, SDO).
- The two ideological attitudes predict prejudice in largely distinct ways, with differential mediation by threat (DW) and competitiveness (CW).
- Social threats more strongly predict RWA; competitive threats more strongly predict SDO.
- External societal threats are more predictive than internal threat indicators for both RWA and SDO.
Key challenges and issues identified for future work:
- How intergroup dynamics and individual dispositions interact to generate prejudice (moderated mediation matters).
- The role of genetic factors and their mediation through traits, worldviews, and values.
- The role of cognitive abilities beyond Big Five in shaping ideological attitudes and prejudice, and how these effects are mediated.
- Integrating values more explicitly into the model; preliminary analyses suggest that modeling values separately from RWA/SDO may reveal important effects:
- Values (security/control vs power/dominance) might influence prejudice indirectly via worldviews and ideologies.
- Some findings suggest values predict prejudice mainly through ideological attitudes, while worldview beliefs mediate the effect of personality on prejudice, and values may be mediated by ideology.
Closing synthesis:
- The DPM provides an integrated account of how two basic human motives, their underlying personality bases, and social environmental cues jointly produce prejudice and intergroup hostility across individuals and societies.
- While the core propositions are well-supported, several empirical and theoretical issues require further clarification, including exact interaction patterns, genetic mediation, the explicit role of values, and cross-cultural generalizability.

Page 26

References (selected highlights)

Foundational works on authoritarianism, social dominance, and prejudice include: Adorno et al. (1950); Allport (1954); Altemeyer (1981, 1988, 1996, 1998).
Core DPM development and tests: Duckitt (2001); Duckitt, Wagner, du Plessis, & Birum (2002); Duckitt & Sibley (2007, 2009, 2010a, 2010b); Sibley & Duckitt (2008, 2009, 2010, 2013); Sibley et al. (2007a, 2007b); Leono et al. (2012); Perry, Sibley, & Duckitt (2013a, 2013b).
Meta-analyses on personality and prejudice: Sibley & Duckitt (2008); Proch (2013).
Worldviews and threat measures: Perry, Sibley, & Duckitt (2013a, 2013b).
Cross-cultural and experimental work: Dru (2007); Craig & Richeson (2014); Asbrock et al. (2012); Cohrs & Stelzl (2010).

Note

The above page-level notes summarize the major theoretical claims, key empirical findings, and methodological approaches used to test the DPM, as presented in the transcript. A comprehensive reading of the cited works will provide richer methodological detail and context for each finding.

Page 27

Additional notes on differential effects by domain

Ethnocentrism and sexism findings reinforce the DPM’s claim of distinct motivational bases for prejudice:
- RWA more strongly linked to pro-ingroup attitudes and benevolent sexism (BS) toward women.
- SDO more strongly linked to anti-outgroup attitudes and hostile sexism (HS) toward women.
The differential links between RWA/SDO and sexism support the idea that RWA aligns with security/conformity motives, while SDO aligns with dominance/inequality motives.

Page 28

Additional theoretical developments and model extensions

The DPM has undergone extensions to incorporate broader political and policy attitudes, showing differential patterns in policy support (e.g., war support mediated by threat vs human-cost considerations).
The model also interfaces with media effects and political communication, illustrating how RWA and SDO differentially respond to message framing and source cues.
The breadth of domains tested (immigration, diversity policies, same-sex relationships, affirmative action) underpins the model’s generalizability across social attitudes.

Page 29

Textual references and methodological notes

The references section lists an extensive set of primary sources, meta-analyses, and reviews that underpin the DPM.
Methodological approaches highlighted include: cross-sectional correlational analyses, structural equation modeling (SEM), longitudinal designs, and experimental manipulations.
The compilation includes core sources such as Duckitt (2001, 2006, 2009, 2010a, 2010b), Sibley & Duckitt (2008, 2009, 2010, 2013), Sidanius & Pratto (1999), Pratto et al. (1994), Altemeyer (1981).

Page 30

DPM: Page-by-Page Notes

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34