Notes on the Dual Process Model, Midterm prep, lab intro structure, and intergroup contact (lecture summary)

Midterm logistics and scope

• The midterm is open-book, multi-choice, and uninvigilated.
• It will cover content from Brian and the instructor up to today, plus the readings.
• It’s essential to do the readings; this is highlighted as a major tip for success.
• Date: end of next week (check the course outline for exact timing during lecture time).
• The midterm will include material from the readings and lectures in this block; readings are emphasized as important.
• The same block of lectures (up to today) will be assessed in the written assignment (which also covers the dual process model).
• The next block of lectures (three hours after today) will cover discrimination and stereotypes, continuing from the dual process model.
• A future exam question will cover content from the next lecture onwards (not today’s content per se). The final exam will not assess the dual process model again; there will be new content to read for next week.
• Any questions about the midterm? The teacher is available for clarifications.
• The instructor also notes that final exams will not revisit the dual process model; students should prepare for new material.

Lab report introduction structure (live, off-the-cuff guidance)

• The instructor demonstrates how to structure an introduction if you have your data and you’ve seen parts of the dual process model.
• The goal is to write a clear, broad introduction that sets up premises, definitions, and where you’re going with hypotheses and testing.
• Analogy used: an introduction is like a map telling you where you’re trying to get to and how you’re testing it.
• Core elements to include in the intro:
  • Define the two predictors: Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA).
  • Define the two outcome domains of prejudice: negative evaluations of immigrant groups (anti-immigrant attitudes) and prejudice toward sexual minorities (sexual prejudice).
  • Indicate the data source and context (e.g., New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study; cross-sectional, with multiple regression).
  • State upfront caveats and the cross-sectional nature of the test.
  • Subheading 1: The Dual Process Model (theoretical model).
  • Describe the two processes: competition for resources (dominance) and threat to group norms (threat).
  • Introduce SDO (competition/dominance motive) and RWA (threat/authoritarian motive).
  • Version of the discussion might include:
    • SDO literature: how personality relates to competition, hierarchy, and power.
    • RWA literature: threat-based processes and moral/norm enforcement.
  • Subheading 2: Prejudice outcomes (the two domains).
  • For anti-immigrant attitudes: discuss how researchers measure, NZ context, and relevant data.
  • For sexual prejudice: discuss how it’s measured and related NZ context.
  • Subheading 3: Overview and guiding hypotheses (the present study).
  • General expectation: STO and RWA jointly predict most prejudice forms.
  • Hypothesized nuances:
    • Immigrant prejudice: STO is predicted to be a stronger driver due to economic/competition concerns;
    • Sexual prejudice: RWA is predicted to be a stronger driver due to value/norm differences.
  • Provide alternative (contrasting) predictions and possible scenarios where the opposite would occur.
  • State the plan to test with regression and, if appropriate, discuss potential alternative models.
  • Subheading 4: Presenting the logic, hypotheses, and tests (brief).
  • The instructor emphasizes writing in a clear, logical sequence and trying to avoid repetition.
• Practical tips for the lab report intro:
  • Start with broad definitions and contexts before narrowing to hypotheses.
  • Use a coherent flow between paragraphs and subheadings; include definitions up top and then empirical strategy.
  • If citing prior literature, make calls back to definitions when discussing findings.
  • When describing data sources (like NZ studies), be explicit about the context and variables used (e.g., threat, competition motives, etc.).
  • Consider including caveats about cross-sectional data and measurement limitations.
  • Use a clean, manuscript-style structure (intro, theory, methods, expected results, discussion) but adapt to the lab report format.
• Example scaffolding an introduction:
  • Paragraph 1: Broad context, two predictors, two prejudice outcomes, definitions, and the aims.
  • Paragraph 2: Data source, study design (cross-sectional, multiple regression), caveats, NZ context.
  • Subheading 1: The Dual Process Model – outline premises and literature for SDO and RWA, and their relevance to prejudice.
  • Paragraphs under Subheading 1: delve into SDO literature (dominance/power, competition over resources) and RWA literature (threat, conformity, submission to group norms).
  • Paragraphs under Subheading 1: link to prior research showing how SDO predicts prejudice in competitive domains and how RWA predicts prejudice when threat to norms is salient.
  • Subheading 2: Prejudice outcomes – define anti-immigrant prejudice and sexual prejudice, discuss NZ context, and summarize relevant research findings.
  • Subheading 3: Overview and guiding hypotheses – present the present study’s logic and concrete hypotheses, including potential contrasts.
• The instructor notes that this is a distilled version of an honors/PhD-level talk, which should help you master the structure for future reports.
• Time estimate: sketching the introduction can take substantial time; the example given took ~18 minutes in the session.

Key studies and models (illustrative overview from the lecture)

• Sam McFarland (early 2000s): Testing the Vigil/dual process model in a war context
  • Context: US attitudes toward going to war with Iraq, measured in the week before the 2003 invasion.
  • Core prediction: Both SDO and RWA should predict willingness to go to war, but via different routes.
  • RWA as predictor via threat framing (blind patriotism helps explain support when war framed as threat).
  • SDO as predictor via competition/hierarchy (economic/resources framing supports war for dominance).
  • A third mechanism: blind patriotism as a separate mediator linking both SDO and RWA to support for war.
  • Structural representation (conceptual, not exact numbers):
  • Threat and Dominance as mediators: D = a1SDO + a2RWA + εD; T = b1SDO + b2RWA + εT
  • Outcome: War Support = c1D + c2T + ε_P
  • Key findings described:
  • RWA predicted blind patriotism and threat-related beliefs contributing to support for war.
  • SDO predicted support in terms of resource/competition opportunities and also predicted reduced concern about human costs, which in turn increased support for war.
  • The model is typically presented as a path diagram with regression coefficients; SEM is the underlying framework, with regression coefficients often shown as standardized betas.
  • Takeaway: The dual process model can explain a range of collective actions beyond prejudice, including war support.
• John Duckett (NZ context): Sandrians experiment (fictitious immigrant group)
  • Design: Three conditions manipulating descriptives of Sandrian immigrants to induce perceived competition, disadvantage, or social threat; plus a control condition.
  • Hypotheses: SDO and RWA should predict opposition to Sandrian immigration across conditions, with pattern depending on the description:
  • Economic competition condition (Sandrians viewed as competing for jobs/resources): both SDO and RWA predict opposition, though the relative strength varies by condition.
  • Disadvantaged condition (Sandrians culturally similar but economically disadvantaged): Opposed by high SDO more strongly; RWAs less predictive in this condition.
  • Social threat condition (Sandrians culturally different, with norms and morals seen as different): RWAs predict stronger opposition; SDO less predictive.
  • Results (interpreted from the lecture):
  • In the control condition (no described threat/competition/disadvantage), neither SDO nor RWA significantly predicted opposition.
  • Economic competition: both SDO and RWA predict opposition; effect sizes present but not enormous.
  • Disadvantaged: opposition primarily predicted by SDO; RWA not significant.
  • Social threat: opposition predicted by RWA; SDO not significant.
  • Takeaway: The dual process model can flexibly predict prejudice toward fictitious groups under different situational cues, illustrating how SDO and RWA can be differentially activated by context.
• Perry (policy attitudes) and related structural equations
  • Distinguishes social policy attitudes (culture/value-oriented) from economic policy attitudes (resource/redistribution-oriented).
  • Predictions:
  • RWA is more strongly related to social policy attitudes (e.g., support for religious education and cultural norms).
  • STO/SDO is more related to economic policy attitudes (e.g., attitudes to redistribution, tax policy).
  • NZ data example: Both SDO and RWA predict opposition to immigration in New Zealand when immigration is treated as a general category; specific betas mentioned include roughly
  • STO → opposition to immigration: around
    eta_{STO
    ightarrow Immigration} \, \approx -0.14
  • RWA
    ightarrow immigration: around
    \beta_{RWA
    ightarrow Immigration} \approx -0.17
  • Additional model: a separate study linking Agreeableness to competitive worldview to STO then to policy attitudes (e.g., flat tax) demonstrating how personality traits feed into the dual-process dynamics.
• Intergroup contact theory (briefly covered at the end of the session)
  • Core idea: Under the right conditions, intergroup contact reduces prejudice by making outgroup members seem like individuals rather than abstract others.
  • Key question: For whom does contact work best – STO high/low, or RWA high/low?
  • Predicted pattern (intuitive): contact should reduce threat-based fears for high-RWA individuals, and should also reduce competitive perceptions in high-SDO individuals if the contact is positive and cooperative.
  • Longitudinal results discussed:
  • For high-RWA individuals, more contact over time predicts a decrease in prejudice toward migrants.
  • For STO individuals, contact predicts decreased prejudice primarily for those low in STO; high-STO individuals show weaker reductions, unless conditions emphasize shared goals and personal individuation.
  • Overall: positive contact reduces fear/threat perception, potentially reducing prejudice, but the effect is nuanced by individual differences (RWA vs STO) and context (shared goals, cooperation).
  • Practical takeaway: Intergroup contact can work, especially when designed to emphasize shared goals and individualized perception, but its effectiveness varies by personality/ideology and the contact context.

Formulas and conceptual models (LaTeX)

• Dual process path model (conceptual):
  • Distal predispositions to prejudice
    $ext{D} = a<em>1 \, ext{SDO} + a</em>2 \, ext{RWA} + \, \varepsilon<em>D$$ext{T} = b</em>1 \, ext{SDO} + b<em>2 \, ext{RWA} + \, \varepsilon</em>T$
• Prejudice outcomes (mediated by D and T):
  $ext{P}<em>{Immigrant} = c</em>1 \, ext{D} + c<em>2 \, ext{T} + \, \varepsilon</em>{Imm}$
  $ext{P}<em>{Sexual} = d</em>1 \, ext{D} + d<em>2 \, ext{T} + \, \varepsilon</em>{Sex}$
• Cross-domain measurement (basic regression forms for simplicity):
  $ext{P}<em>{Immigrant} = \beta</em>{1} \, ext{SDO} + \beta<em>{2} \, ext{RWA} + \varepsilon$$ext{P}</em>{Sexual} = \gamma<em>{1} \, ext{SDO} + \gamma</em>{2} \, ext{RWA} + \varepsilon$
• Immigration attitudes in NZ study (example betas):
  $\beta<em>{STO\rightarrow Immigration} \approx -0.14$(standardized) $\beta</em>{RWA\rightarrow Immigration} \approx -0.17$(standardized)
• Intergroup contact (longitudinal effect; illustrative):
  $\Delta \text{Prejudice} = \beta<em>{\text{contact}} \cdot \, \text{Contact}</em>{t-1} + \beta<em>{\text{RWA}} \cdot \text{RWA} + \beta</em>{\text{STO}} \cdot \text{STO} + \beta<em>{\text{int}} \cdot (\text{RWA} \cdot \text{Contact}</em>{t-1}) + \varepsilon$

Connections to broader themes and relevance

• Foundational principles:
  • The dual process model integrates two distinct motivational sources of prejudice: competition for resources (SDO) and threat to group norms (RWA).
  • Prejudice can be understood as outcomes of these two interacting pathways rather than a single cause.
• Real-world relevance: Findings help explain why some groups’ prejudices shift differently across contexts (economic competition vs cultural threat) and how interventions like intergroup contact can be tailored to different ideological profiles.
• Ethical and practical implications:
  • When using fictitious groups (e.g., Sandrians) to study prejudice, researchers need careful debriefing and ethical safeguards since participants reveal baseline stereotypes and biases.
  • Policy implications: if targeting prejudice, interventions may need to be ideologically targeted (e.g., reducing threat perceptions among high-RWA individuals via positive intergroup experiences; addressing economic anxiety among high-SDO individuals via cooperative contact or resource-sharing programs).
• Connections to prior lectures and readings:
  • The midterm covers content and readings; the model’s predictions align with prior work on SDO and RWA across multiple domains (prejudice, attitudes toward immigration, sexual prejudice, and policy attitudes).
  • The intergroup contact findings extend classic contact theory by showing moderation by ideological variables (RWA and STO).

Practical implications for exam and assignments

• For the midterm, emphasize understanding of the dual process model, how SDO and RWA differently predict refugee/immigrant and sexual prejudice, and the role of threat vs competition.
• For the lab report, be able to articulate an introductory structure that situates the dual process model, defines constructs, sets up the two outcomes, and presents hypotheses clearly with NZ-context examples.
• For essays, use a path-analytic or SEM-style representation to illustrate relationships among SDO, RWA, the mediators (Competition and Threat), and prejudice outcomes; include both direct and indirect paths where relevant.
• When discussing intergroup contact, be able to describe how the effect of contact can vary by RWA/STO level, and how longitudinal data show differential slopes for high-RWA vs high-STO individuals.

Quick recall prompts

• What are the two core motivational dimensions in the dual process model, and what prejudice domains do they predict?
• How does the Sandrian immigrants study illustrate context-dependent effects of SDO and RWA?
• What are the predicted relationships between SDO/RWA and policy attitudes like flat tax or religious education?
• How does intergroup contact differentially affect high-RWA and high-STO individuals according to the longitudinal data discussed?
• Why is it important to reference readings in the midterm, and how should you structure your lab report introduction to align with the instructor’s guidance?

Ethical and epistemic notes

• The lecturer emphasizes clarity, plain-language explanations, and explicit caveats about study design (e.g., cross-sectional data, potential confounds).
• The use of fictitious groups in experiments is a methodological tool to isolate underlying motives (SDO/RWA) without confounds from real-world stereotypes, but still requires careful interpretation and ethical considerations.
• The goal is to learn a generalizable method for presenting arguments, not merely to reproduce the lecturer’s examples.

Final takeaway

• The dual process model offers a robust framework to understand prejudice across domains by combining competition (SDO) and threat (RWA) processes.
• Real-world data (NZ studies, international comparisons) support the idea that SDO and RWA jointly predict prejudice but with domain-specific tendencies (immigration vs. sexual prejudice) and context-dependent effects.
• Intergroup contact remains a powerful tool, but its effectiveness is moderated by ideological orientations; designs that emphasize shared goals and personal individuation tend to maximize impact, especially for high-RWA individuals.