Cohrs et al. (2012) Individual Differences in Ideological Attitudes & Prejudice (Edexcel A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes
Cohrs et al. (2012) Individual Differences in Ideological Attitudes & Prejudice
Background
Christopher Cohrs, Nicole Kämpfe-Hargrave and Rainer Riemann explored which aspects of personality could best predict prejudicial attitudes. Previous research had suggested that authoritarian personality types were associated with prejudice, but questions remained about which specific personality characteristics were most closely linked to prejudicial views.
The study focused on the five big personality dimensions (also known as the Big Five or OCEAN model) and their relationship with two ideological attitudes: right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). These ideological attitudes were thought to mediate the relationship between personality traits and prejudice.
The OCEAN model represents five fundamental personality dimensions: Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. This mnemonic helps recall all five traits that form the foundation of modern personality psychology.
A key issue with previous research was the over-reliance on self-report methods. When investigating socially undesirable traits like prejudice and aggression, participants may not wish to be seen as having such characteristics. This creates social desirability bias, where responses do not accurately reflect true attitudes. Cohrs and colleagues addressed this by using both self-reports and peer reports (reports from people who knew the participants well).
Key terms
Neuroticism: emotional instability characterised by anxiety, fear, depression and envy.
Extraversion: outgoing, sociable and active behaviour. Extraverted individuals seek excitement and may become easily bored.
Openness to experience: the extent to which a person is receptive to new experiences, adventure and ideas. This represents general curiosity and novelty-seeking.
Agreeableness: a measure of interpersonal warmth, including whether a person is willing to cooperate with others or prefers to compete.
Conscientiousness: a measure of dependability, organisation and self-discipline.
Ideological attitudes
Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA): individuals who demonstrate rigid and inflexible thinking and behaviour. They resist change and are unwilling to consider alternative opinions and values. They perceive the world as dangerous, which leads them to value stability, security and group cohesion. Such individuals tend to be aggressive towards subordinates whilst being submissive to authority figures. They are more likely to hold prejudiced views.
Social dominance orientation (SDO): individuals who are competitive and tough-minded. They prioritise their own interests and desire superiority and dominance over others. This orientation is associated with an ideology that supports prejudice.
The Dual-Process Model of Prejudice
This model proposes that prejudice operates through two pathways:
- RWA pathway: driven by a need for security, stability and conformity to group norms
- SDO pathway: driven by a desire for dominance, competition and group superiority
Both pathways can independently lead to prejudicial attitudes, explaining why prejudice can arise from different personality configurations.
Previous research had suggested that RWA was associated with openness to experience and conscientiousness, whilst SDO was associated with agreeableness. The current study aimed to test whether these associations could be replicated using a methodology that reduced social desirability bias.
Aims
The general aims were to examine whether the previously established correlations between the five big personality traits, RWA, SDO and prejudice could be found using self-reports, and whether these correlations could be validated by using peer reports.
The researchers used a dual-process model of prejudice, proposing that personality traits and ideological attitudes both mediate prejudice. They were particularly interested in testing the reliability of self-report methods by correlating them with peer reports.
Method
Study one
Participants: The study used opportunity sampling to gather participants from the German population by asking neighbours and acquaintances of the researchers to take part. After screening for eligibility (excluding those who were homosexual, not of German nationality, or lived with disability), 193 participants remained (125 female and 64 male). Each participant was paired with a peer who knew them well (97 males and 95 females).
Procedure: Participants completed a self-report questionnaire measuring their personality on modified versions of the personality questionnaire, as well as scales measuring RWA and SDO. They also completed a questionnaire measuring their prejudice towards gay people, disabled people and foreign people. Their associated peers completed similar questionnaires rating the participant's personality and attitudes.
The questionnaires were fully anonymised to reduce social desirability effects and encourage honest responses. This methodological decision was crucial for obtaining more truthful data about socially sensitive attitudes.
Study two
Participants: Half of the sample was gathered from the Jena Twin Registry of multiple births, whilst the other half consisted of volunteers recruited by calling or approaching them at twin clubs. A total of 424 participants were recruited, but only 371 had both self-reports and peer reports available for analysis.
Procedure: As in Study one, participants and their peers completed modified versions of the personality, RWA and SDO scales. The prejudice questionnaire was adapted from Study one to include specific references to 'Turks' (the largest non-native group in Germany at the time), mental disability and wheelchair users, making the items more specific and concrete.
One twin completed the self-report questionnaire whilst the other twin (acting as a peer/acquaintance) completed a questionnaire rating their twin's personality and attitudes.
Results
Study two
The researchers found that associations between personality traits, RWA, SDO and prejudice were similar to those found in previous research:
- Lower openness to experience was associated with higher RWA scores
- Higher conscientiousness was associated with higher RWA scores
- Higher RWA scores were associated with higher prejudice levels
- Lower agreeableness was associated with higher SDO scores
- Higher SDO scores showed a positive correlation with prejudice
Key Finding: Peer Report Validation
The peer reports correlated with the self-reports, although not perfectly. This demonstrated that self-reports were a valid tool for investigating personality, attitudes and prejudice, whilst also showing that the two peer reports used in Study two helped reduce social desirability bias.
The diagram from the study showed the following pathways:
- Neuroticism, extraversion, openness, conscientiousness and agreeableness all connected to RWA
- RWA connected to prejudice
- Agreeableness also connected to SDO
- SDO connected to prejudice
Conclusion
Both self-reported and peer-reported data suggested that openness to experience and conscientiousness predicted RWA, and that RWA predicted prejudice. This was consistent with previous research. The study additionally detected that agreeableness and openness to experience were predictors of prejudice when using both self-reports and peer reports, which had been undetected by previous research in this area, possibly due to social desirability effects.
Interestingly, SDO did not predict prejudice in this study, though agreeableness did predict it.
Main Conclusion
The researchers concluded that peer reports are valuable when studying personality and prejudice because they can reduce the effects of social desirability bias. This makes them a useful complement to self-report measures.
Evaluation
Strengths
Large and diverse sample: The research used a very large sample of participants across both studies. They recruited from different sources (opportunity sampling and twin registries), meaning the degree to which findings can be generalised to the whole German population is reasonably strong.
Standardised method: Every participant received the same questionnaire in each of the studies, making the method standardised and replicable. This allows researchers to check for reliable findings across different samples.
Controlling for Social Desirability Bias
The study was specifically designed to test whether self-reported personality, attitudes and prejudice were susceptible to social desirability effects. By using one or two peers who knew the participant well, the researchers controlled for this bias. The rate of agreement between participant and peer responses was assessed when results were analysed. Participants were also asked to answer questions as honestly as possible and questionnaires were returned anonymously, further reducing social desirability effects.
Controlled for specific experiences: The researchers excluded participants who were non-native, disabled or homosexual from Study one. The questions used in the questionnaires were closed, Likert-style questions, meaning participants' answers were not open to interpretation during qualitative analysis. This meant their answers were restricted to preset responses, increasing the objectivity of data collection.
Weaknesses
Limited Generalisability
The data was only gathered from German natives, meaning findings cannot be generalised to non-native Germans or other cultures around the world. Cultural differences in how personality relates to prejudice may exist but were not captured by this study.
Dispositional focus: As with any individual difference or dispositional explanation of prejudice, this research can be criticised for ignoring social and cultural explanations of prejudice. By focusing primarily on personality characteristics, the study cannot explain widespread prejudices that have occurred throughout history or that vary significantly between cultures and time periods.
Questionnaire Limitations
The questions used in the questionnaires were closed and used a Likert-scale format. Whilst this reduces interpretation bias and increases objectivity, it also means that participants' responses were restricted to preset options. This may not fully capture the complexity and nuance of their actual attitudes and personality characteristics.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
- Cohrs et al. (2012) investigated links between the five big personality traits (OCEAN), ideological attitudes (RWA and SDO) and prejudice using both self-reports and peer reports
- Lower openness and higher conscientiousness predicted higher RWA; lower agreeableness predicted higher SDO; both RWA and agreeableness predicted prejudice
- Using peer reports alongside self-reports helped reduce social desirability bias, validating self-report data whilst controlling for the tendency to present oneself favourably
- The study used large German samples but findings cannot be generalised beyond German culture
- The dispositional approach can be criticised for neglecting social and cultural explanations for prejudice