European Journal of Personality

Eur. J. Pers. 15: 4956 (2001)

Right-Wing Authoritarianism,
Social Dominance Orientation and Personality:
An Analysis Using the IPIP Measure
PATRICK C. L. HEAVEN
*
and SANDRA BUCCI
Department of Psychology, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
Abstract
Although both right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation
(SDO) have been found to predict racial and intergroup prejudice, previous research has
suggested that RWA and SDO have quite distinct psychological features. We therefore
examined the Big Five personality correlates of these two measures using facet scales from
the International Personality Item Pool measure. Respondents were 220 university
undergraduate volunteers. Signicant sex differences were noted with respect to SDO and
some facet scales. A series of analyses supported the view that RWA and SDO are aligned
with different personality traits, while the discussion centred on the psychological prole
of authoritarians and dominators. Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
There are several psychological theories of prejudice (see Duckitt, 1992 for a review), and
one major approach follows a reductionist course that seeks explanations in the
functioning of the individual. This view emphasizes the role that personality traits play in
determining prejudice and it is perhaps right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social
dominance orientation (SDO) that are most inuential at present (see, for instance,
Altemeyer, 1981, 1988, 1996, 1998; Sidanius, 1993). Indeed, there is a growing number of
studies in the contemporary literature documenting the importance of these factors as
inuential predictors of prejudice (e.g. Doty, Winter, Peterson and Kemmelmeier, 1997;
Haddock, Zanna and Esses, 1993; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth and Malle, 1994; Verkuyten
and Hagendoorn, 1998; Whitley, 1999).
Whereas SDO is viewed as the extent `. . . to which one desires that one's ingroup
dominate and be superior to outgroups' (Pratto et al., 1994, p. 742), Altemeyer (1981) sees
RWAas comprising authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism.
The original formulation of The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick,
Levinson and Sanford, 1950) highlighted the role of psycho-dynamic inuences on
Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 22 November 1999
Accepted 24 May 2000
*Correspondence to: P. C. L. Heaven, Department of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Northelds Ave,
Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia. E-mail: patrick_heaven@uow.edu.au
the individual that, it was believed, predisposed one to become prejudiced. A crucial
component in the formation of the prejudiced personality, it was argued, was the nature of
the parent-child relationship such that the harsh treatment of children was said to lead to
authoritarianism. By contrast, social learning would appear to be central to understanding
the genesis of RWA. Thus, Altemeyer (1981) suggests that children learn that those in
authority have our best interests at heart, but also that authorities should always be obeyed.
It is these forces, he suggests, that `coalesce' into a personality trait during the teenage years
(but see McCourt, Bouchard, Lykken, Tellegen and Keyes, 1999 for a contrary view).
Research evidence indicates that high RWA individuals tend to favour traditional values,
are submissive to those in authority, and act aggressively toward outgroups. Not only is
RWA closely related to conservative ideology (Altemeyer, 1998; Lambert and Chasteen,
1997), it is also suggested that high RWAs are easily attracted to fringe political move-
ments on the right (Altemeyer, 1996). On the other hand, SDO appears to deal more
specically with group inequalities and a belief that some groups are inherently superior to
other groups. SDO is grounded in social dominance theory (Sidanius, 1993), which argues
that societies are group based with clearly dened social hierarchies, which are usually
dened along gender and/or racial lines. Indeed, it is argued that there is `ideological
consensus', such that these social hierarchies are in a state of equilibrium thereby
promoting a reduction in inter-group conict (Pratto et al., 1994).
Perhaps not surprisingly, those at the apex of the social hierarchy tend to score higher on
SDO than do members of other groups, which may reect their desire to maintain their
dominant position. For example, evidence shows that American whites score higher on
SDO than do AfricanAmericans, while men usually score higher on SDO than do women
(Sidanius, 1993). Similarly, white South African students scored higher on SDO than did
their black counterparts (Heaven, Caputi, Greene and Stones, 2000).
Although both SDO and RWA have been found to predict prejudice, they are themselves
only moderately correlated, thereby functioning relatively independently of each other and
each explaining unique portions of the variance of prejudice (Altemeyer, 1998; Pratto
et al., 1994). Altemeyer (1998) recently suggested that SDO is the `other authoritarian
personality' and noted that, whereas right-wing authoritarians are high on submission to
authorities, SDO types do not submit to others. Unlike RWA individuals, SDO people are
not religious, politically conservative, or self-righteous. However, they are prejudiced, and
it has been suggested that their prejudice as measured by the SDO scale `. . . does not have
the same psychological roots that previous studies have unearthed in right-wing
authoritarians' (Altemeyer, 1998, p. 61).
The present study further examines the psychological roots of RWA and SDO by
determining their relationships with the ve major personality dimensions. As far as can be
established only one report has provided information on the Big Five correlates of RWA.
Altemeyer (1996) reported that high RWA individuals were low on the fth factor labelled
Openness/Culture/Intellect with correlations ranging from 0.30 to 0.57. High RWA
scores were also found to be signicantly positively associated with Conscientiousness
and Extraversion/Surgency. In summary, as no evidence has yet been presented regarding
the Big Five correlates of SDO, this research was designed to determine the extent to
which both RWA and SDO are linked to the ve major personality dimensions.
The following hypotheses guided the present study.
1. Men will score signicantly higher than women will on SDO (Sidanius, 1993).
2. RWAwill be signicantly positively associated with Conscientiousness and Extraversion
50 P. C. L. Heaven and S. Bucci
Copyright #2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 15: 4956 (2001)
and signicantly negatively associated with Openness to Experience (Altemeyer, 1996).
3. Given that SDO individuals desire to dominate others (particularly members of
outgroups, Sidanius, 1993) and are also unempathic toward others (Pratto et al., 1994),
it was predicted that SDO will be signicantly negatively associated with Agree-
ableness.
METHOD
Participants
Respondents were 220 psychology students who volunteered to participate in a study of
social attitudes. All respondents were enrolled in social science courses. Of the original
sample, ve were excluded from analysis for exceeding acceptable levels on the social
desirability scale. This left a sample of 215 participants (145 females; 70 males). This
gender imbalance reects the different enrolment patterns in psychology for men and
women. It is not suggested, however, that the sample is representative of all university
students.
Materials
Students were provided with a test booklet containing the following measures.
1. International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1999). The IPIP inventory,
available on the Internet, is designed to measure the ve major personality domains,
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscien-
tiousness. Like the NEO inventory (Costa and McCrae, 1985), the IPIP comprises facet
scales for each of the major domains. The IPIP facets have been found to correlate quite
highly with the equivalent NEO facets with most correlations higher than 0.90 (after
correction for attenuation). For the sake of brevity, not all facets were used in this
research. Those that were used together with their alpha coefcients and their NEO
equivalents are shown in Table 1. Most of the face scales had adequate levels of internal
consistency, the lowest being 0.71 for Liberalism.
2. Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA; Altemeyer, 1981). Respondents completed the
21-item RWA scale said to measure authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression,
and conventionalism. This measure has been shown to have excellent internal consis-
tency and validity (e.g. Altemeyer, 1981; Doty et al., 1997; Duckitt, 1992) including
among Australian samples (Heaven, 1997). High scores indicate high levels of RWA
and respondents indicated their level of agreement on a ve point Likert scale.
Cronbach's alpha was found to be 0.91.
3. Social dominance orientation (SDO; Pratto et al., 1994). This is a 14-item measure that
assesses attitudes to intergroup relations as well as one's tendency to endorse hierarchy-
enhancing myths. Respondents indicated their responses on a ve point Likert scale. On
the present occasion Cronbach's coefcient alpha was 0.90.
4. Social desirability response set (Hays, Hayashi and Stewart, 1989). This scale
measures the extent to which participants respond in a socially desirable man-
ner. Responses were indicated on a ve point Likert scale. Five respondents
with total scores 2 standard deviations above the mean were excluded from the
study.
Right-wing authoritarianism 51
Copyright #2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 15: 4956 (2001)
RESULTS
RWA and SDO were signicantly correlated, r212 0:38; p < 0:001. Although this is
higher than that reported by Altemeyer (1998), it is not very much higher than the 0.20
found by Whitley (1999) in his replication sample.
Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations on all the measures for men and
women. In order to determine gender differences, two one-way MANOVAS with sex as
the independent measure were computed. In both instances, alpha level was set at 0.01. In
the rst analysis RWA and SDO were entered as the dependent variables. The overall
model was signicant, Wilks' 0:965; F2; 211 3:80; p < 0:05 and further analysis
revealed that men scored signicantly higher than did women on SDO, F1; 212
7:54; p < 0:01, which is in line with previous studies (e.g. Sidanius, 1993) and supports the
rst hypothesis. There were no signicant gender differences on the RWA measure, thus
supporting Altemeyer (1998). The column eta squared (
2
) shows that the sex difference
accounted for 3.4 per cent of the variance of SDO and only 0.8 per cent of the variance of
RWA.
In the second MANOVA the IPIP facet scales were entered as the dependent measures
and sex as the independent factor. The overall model was signicant, Wilks' 0:749;
F11; 202 4:61; p < 0:001. It was found that women scored signicantly higher than
mean on dutifulness, morality, cooperation, sympathy, artistic interests, and emotionality.
The percentage of variance accounted for by the sex difference ranged from 3.1 per cent
for dutifulness to 8.6 per cent for sympathy.
Correlation analyses
The various facet scales were combined to form composite measures of A, C, N and O,
with assertiveness representing the E dimension. Table 3 shows the Pearson and partial
correlations (controlling for gender) between RWA, SDO, and the personality domains.
After controlling for gender, high RWAwas found to correlate signicantly positively with
C, r211 0:19; p < 0:01, and negatively with O, r211 0:39; p < 0:001, lending
Table 1. IPIP facets, alpha coefcients and NEO-PI-R equivalents
Facet scale No. of items Alpha coefcient NEO-PI-R
Orderliness (C) 10 0.87 Order
Dutifulness (C) 10 0.76 Dutifulness
Achievement-striving (C) 10 0.87 Achievement striving
Self-efcacy (C) 10 0.82 Competence
Trust (A) 10 0.89 Trust
Morality (A) 10 0.82 Straightforwardness
Cooperation (A) 9 0.78 Compliance
Sympathy (A) 10 0.79 Tender-Mindedness
Anger (N) 10 0.84 Angry hostility
Self consciousness (N) 10 0.87 Self-consciousness
Assertiveness (E) 10 0.90 Assertiveness
Artistic interests (O) 10 0.88 Aesthetics
Emotionality (O) 10 0.83 Feelings
Adventurousness (O) 10 0.87 Actions
Intellect (O) 10 0.86 Ideas
Liberalism (O) 8 0.71 Values
52 P. C. L. Heaven and S. Bucci
Copyright #2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 15: 4956 (2001)
partial support to the second hypothesis. SDO correlated signicantly negatively with O,
r211 0:23; p < 0:01 and A, r211 0:39; p < 0:001, thus supporting the third
hypothesis.
As it could be argued that the facet scales Liberalism (O) and Sympathy (A) share some
conceptual overlap with RWA and SDO respectively, the correlation analyses were re-run
without these facet scales included in the composite measures (the so-called short scales).
Table 3 shows that this had a negligible effect on the correlations. Thus, Liberalism and
Sympathy do not respectively underpin the signicant associations between RWA and O
and between SDO and A.
Finally, Table 4 presents the partial correlations of SDO and RWA with the IPIP facet
scales. For SDO the effects of RWA have been partialled out, while for RWA, SDO has
Table 3. Pearson (and partial correlations controlling for gender) between RWA, SDO and
composite personality domains
Scale No. of items Alpha Correlations
RWA SDO
N 20 0.85 0.00 (0.01) 0.01 (0.04)
E (Assertiveness) 10 0.90 0.01 (0.03) 0.07 (0.05)
O 48 0.91 0.40
**
(0.39
**
) 0.26
**
(0.23
*
)
O (short version) 40 0.90 0.32
**
(0.31
**
) 0.24
**
(0.22
**
)
A 39 0.89 0.11 (0.08) 0.42
**
(0.39
**
)
A (short version) 29 0.87 0.05 (0.02) 0.24
**
(0.22
**
)
C 40 0.90 0.17
*
(0.19
*
) 0.04 (0.01)
Partial correlations are in brackets.

p < 0:01:

p < 0:001.
Table 2. Means and standard deviations for men and women on personality facets
Scale Midpoint Men Women F
2
Mean SD Mean SD
RWA 63 52.85 14.96 50.11 14.14 1.75 0.008
SDO 42 32.27 11.83 28.21 9.39 7.54
**
0.034
Orderliness (C) 30 31.12 8.15 33.10 8.68 2.62 0.013
Dutifulness (C) 30 39.10 5.29 41.00 4.84 6.97
**
0.031
Achievement striving (C) 30 36.75 7.32 39.09 5.91 6.37 0.034
Self-efcacy (C) 30 37.79 5.94 37.05 5.01 0.94 0.004
Trust (A) 30 34.16 7.76 35.88 7.03 2.70 0.014
Morality (A) 30 35.43 6.93 39.20 5.80 17.85
**
0.081
Cooperation (A) 27 29.70 6.04 32.96 6.37 13.14
**
0.051
Sympathy (A) 30 33.81 6.34 37.99 5.79 23.56
**
0.086
Anger (N) 30 24.93 5.79 26.03 7.58 2.85 0.008
Self-consciousness (N) 30 27.09 6.49 29.01 8.91 2.66 0.009
Assertiveness (E) 30 35.12 7.39 33.17 8.00 3.03 0.012
Artistic interests (O) 30 36.09 8.09 40.39 6.80 16.89
**
0.075
Emotionality (O) 30 34.93 7.46 37.75 6.09 8.86
**
0.035
Adventurousness (O) 30 37.28 7.75 38.44 6.50 1.34 0.006
Intellect (O) 30 34.77 7.69 33.97 7.21 0.55 0.002
Liberalism (O) 24 21.75 5.55 22.70 5.07 1.56 0.004

p < 0:05;

p < 0:01.
Right-wing authoritarianism 53
Copyright #2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 15: 4956 (2001)
been partialled out. Given the relatively large number of correlations presented here, the
alpha level was set at 0.01. The results point to the distinguishing features of RWA and
SDO: RWA individuals rated themselves as dutiful and low on intellect and liberalism.
There was also a trend to rate themselves as being orderly, achievement striving,
moralistic, and cooperative as well as low on trust, emotionality, and adventurousness. By
contrast, SDO individuals rated themselves as low on dutifulness, morality, cooperation,
sympathy, and artistic interests. There was also a trend to view themselves as low on trust
and achievement striving.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate the personality correlates of SDO and RWA.
Although both individual difference measures have in past research been found to be
powerful predictors of prejudice, they were only moderately related in this sample, sharing
just over 14 per cent of the variance. As expected, men were found to score signicantly
higher than women on the SDO measure supporting earlier studies (Sidanius, 1993). One
explanation for this, according to social dominance theory, is that men who are at the apex
of the social hierarchy want to perpetuate their dominance over women.
The results reported here support the view expressed by Altemeyer (1998) that RWA
and SDO are distinct measures. From Table 3 it would appear that both of these measures
were negatively associated with Openness, but that RWA was positively aligned with
Conscientiousness and SDO with low Agreeableness. RWAs and SDOs are opposed to
novel experiences; in particular, they tend not to endorse artistic and intellectual pursuits.
This nding with regard to RWA supports that recorded by Altemeyer (1996), who
attributed this result to the rigid cognitive style of RWAs and their lack of cognitive
complexity. Similarly, Billings and colleagues (cited by Altemeyer, 1996) noted that
RWAs lack imagination and have a need for structure and order in their environment.
McHoskey (1996) found that RWA was signicantly negatively related to a relativistic
Table 4. Partial correlations of RWA and SDO with IPIP facet scales
Variable RWA(controlling for SDO) SDO (controlling for RWA)
Orderliness 0.16 0.01
Dutifulness 0.20
**
0.22
**
Achievement striving 0.16 0.13
Self-efcacy 0.05 0.01
Trust 0.13 0.15
Morality 0.16 0.32
**
Cooperation 0.16 0.33
**
Sympathy 0.01 0.42
**
Anger 0.05 0.10
Self-consciousness 0.03 0.07
Assertiveness 0.05 0.08
Artistic interests 0.16 0.19
**
Emotionality 0.15 0.09
Adventurousness 0.15 0.02
Intellect 0.25
**
0.10
Liberalism 0.49
**
0.01

p < 0:01:
54 P. C. L. Heaven and S. Bucci
Copyright #2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 15: 4956 (2001)
ethical stance. In other words, RWAs tended to reject open-mindedness and a sceptical
attitude, which is in accordance with the present ndings.
The signicant link between RWA and dutifulness, as well as the tendency for RWAs to
be orderly and moralistic, accord with Altemeyer's (1996, 1998) observations of the RWA
person as very accepting of traditional values and institutional authorities, of someone who
is keen to follow the instructions of those in positions of power and inuence. By contrast,
the individual high on SDO has little sense of duty and lacks morality, cooperation, and
sympathy an altogether nastier person, who is more difcult to get along with. Such a
view is in line with earlier work in which Altemeyer (1998) found signicant links
between SDO, but not RWA, and Eysenck's psychoticism measure (Eysenck and Eysenck,
1975). Individuals scoring high on the psychoticism scale have been described as tough-
minded, unempathic, cold, aggressive, and hostile (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985; Eysenck
and Eysenck, 1975), not too far removed from SDOs, who have been shown here to be low
on cooperation, sympathy, and morality. It is therefore little surprise that SDOs not only
support hierarchy enhancing myths, but prefer also to remain at the apex of the social
hierarchy.
In conclusion, the results of the present study have made a useful contribution to our
knowledge of right-wing authoritarians and social dominators. Although both dislike
members of outgroups the way in which this is expressed is different. Altemeyer (1998)
has noted that RWAs are conservative, religious, and self-righteous, mixed with some
conscientiousness, some agreeableness but not much openness (Table 4). Submissiveness
would therefore come more easily to RWAs. SDOs dislike outgroups, but their attitude is
mixed with very little sympathy, morality, cooperation or dutifulness. They are low on
agreeableness and not at all likely to be submissive. As Altemeyer (1998, p. 87) explained:
Individuals high on SDO `. . .do not have the reverence for established authority that right-
wing authoritarians have . . .They are social dominators, pure and simple'.
REFERENCES
Adorno TW, Frenkel-Brunswick E, Levinson DJ, Sanford RN. 1950. The Authoritarian Personality.
Norton: New York.
Altemeyer B. 1981. Right-Wing Authoritariamsm. University of Manitoba Press: Winnipeg.
Altemeyer B. 1988. Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Jossey-
Bass: San Francisco.
Altemeyer B. 1996. The Authoritarian Specter. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Altemeyer B. 1998. The other `authoritarian personality'. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology 30: 4791.
Costa P, McCrae RR. 1985. The NEO Personality Inventory: Manual Form S and Form R.
Psychological Assessment Resources: Odessa, FL.
Doty RG, Winter DG, Peterson BE, Kemmelmeier M. 1997. Authoritarianism and American
students' attitudes about the Gulf War, 19901996. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
23: 11331143.
Duckitt J. 1992. The Social Psychology of Prejudice. Praeger: New York.
Eysenck HJ, Eysenck M. 1985. Personality and Individual Differences: A Natural Science Approach.
Plenum: New York.
Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG. 1975. Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Hodder and
Stoughton: London.
Goldberg LR. 1999. A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-
level facets of several Five-Factor models. In Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7, Mervielde
I, de Fruyt F, Ostendorf F (eds). Tilburg University Press: Tilburg; 728.
Right-wing authoritarianism 55
Copyright #2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 15: 4956 (2001)
Haddock G, Zanna MP, Esses VM. 1993. Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: the case of
attitudes to homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65: 11051118.
Hays RD, Hayashi T, Stewart AL. 1989. A ve-item measure of socially desirable response set.
Educational and Psychological Measurement 49: 629635.
Heaven PCL. 1997. Social identities and individual differences: relationships with prejudice.
Australian Journal of Psychology 49(Supplement): 37.
Heaven PCL, Caputi P, Greene R, Stones C. 2000. Level of social dominance orientation in three
cultures. Journal of Social Psychology 140: 530532.
Lambert AJ, Chasteen AL. 1997. Perceptions of disadvantage versus conventionality: political
values and attitudes toward the elderly versus blacks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
23: 469481.
McCourt K, Bouchard TJ, Lykken DT, Tellegen A, Keyes M. 1999. Authoritarianism revisited:
genetic and environmental inuences examined in twins reared apart and together. Personality and
Individual Differences 27: 9851014.
McHoskey J. 1996. Authoritarianism and ethical ideology. Journal of Social Psychology 136:
709717.
Pratto F, Sidanius J, Stallworth LM, Malle BF. 1994. Social dominance orientation: a personality
variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67:
741763.
Sidanius J. 1993. The psychology of group conict and the dynamics of oppression: a social domi-
nance perspective. In Explorations in Political Psychology, Iyengar S, McGuire W (eds). Duke
University Press: Durham, NC.
Verkuyten M, Hagendoorn L. 1998. Prejudice and self-categorization: the variable role of autho-
ritarianism and in-group stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24: 99110.
Whitley BE. 1999. Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77: 126134.
56 P. C. L. Heaven and S. Bucci
Copyright #2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 15: 4956 (2001)