Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 (2007) 877883

www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp

Authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice:

EVects of various self-categorization conditions
Vincent Dru
Universit de Paris-X-Nanterre, France

Received 29 June 2005; revised 30 August 2006

Available online 27 November 2006
Communicated by Spencer

Abstract

One hundred and seventy nine students Wrst answered RWA and SDO scales were assigned to experimental conditions that primed
diVerent forms of self-categorization, and Wnally responded for prejudice scales for three target ethnic groups. The results showed Wrst,
that RWA and SDO correlate with prejudice in a control condition. Second, RWA and SDO correlated diVerently with prejudice depend-
ing on the way in which membership to social group was primed. When a prime as member of a group oriented to devotion to the in-
group norms and values was used, the correlation of RWA and in-group identiWcation with prejudice was signiWcant, but when a prime as
member of a competitive group was used, only SDO correlated signiWcantly with prejudice. The results were discussed as identifying two
diVerent schemas of social categorization according to which RWA and SDO expressed sets of social beliefs and attitudes relevant for
inter-group relations.
2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction describes various levels of self-categorization, the study

The origins of prejudice and ethnocentrism (Sumner,
1906) have been studied using multiple approaches (Duc-
kitt, 1992). Such studies are based on diVerent levels of
analysis (Doise, 1986) either identifying the cause of preju-
dice as certain personality and attitudinal variables (Duriez
& Van Hiel, 2002; Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje, & Zakris-
son, 2004) or as salient features of intergroup relationships
(LeVine & Campbell, 1972; Tajfel, 1981). Some theorists
(Tajfel, 1981) of prejudice have opposed the reliance on
such varied levels of analysis whereas others suggest that
diVerent analyses are complementary and can be useful in
studying intergroup relationships (Duckitt, 1992; Mackie &
Smith, 1998). Based on a self-categorization approach
(Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) which
This research was supported by the Laboratory Sport & Culture,
UFR-STAPS, Universit de Paris-X-Nanterre, France. The authors are
grateful to M. Asthon, John Duckitt, Bo Ekehammar, Pierre Vrignaud
and to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.
E-mail addresses: dru@u-paris10.fr, druvincent@wanadoo.fr
reported here examines the social conditions under which
attitudinal variables as authoritarianism and social domi-
nance orientation will correlate with prejudice.
Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), following the
Adorno et al.s study (1950) has been one recent theory of
individual diVerences in prejudice. Altemeyer (1981) has
deWned RWA as the co-variation of three attitudinal clus-
ters named conventionalism, authoritarian submission and
authoritarian aggression. Most recently, an additional indi-
vidual-level variable has been proposed as a determinant of
prejudice. Social dominance theory (SDT, Pratto, Sidanius,
Stallworth, & Malle, 1994; Pratto, Stallworth, & Conway-
Lanz, 1998) proposes that social attitudes are inXuenced by
the individuals beliefs about the appropriate structure of
social groups and their relationships in a particular social
system. Social dominance orientation (SDO, Sidanius &
Pratto, 1999) is an individual variable focusing on the gen-
eral tendency to favor hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing
myths that support group inequalities instead of egalitar-
ian considerations (hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing
myths).

0022-1031/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.008
878 V. Dru / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 (2007) 877883
Some important investigations have demonstrated that
RWA and SDO were the most important predictors of
prejudice. McFarland and Adelson (1996) and Altemeyer
(1998) reported that no other individual variables were
found to explain additional variance in prejudice over the
contributions of RWA and SDO. When these constructs
are entered in a regression equation, they together
accounted both for more than 50% of variance in prejudice
as assessed by various measures. Moreover, RWA and
SDO could not be confounded as possible predictors of
prejudice because they usually do not correlate one to the
other and they usually diVerentiate one to the other in pre-
dicting several criteria (Heaven & Connors, 2001). Theoret-
ically, Altemeyer (1998) identiWed RWA and SDO as a
submissive and a dominant authoritarian personality,
respectively, with diVerent consequences. Recent studies
stipulated that RWA and SDO might not be considered as
personality dimensions (Duckitt, 2001; Stone, Lederer, &
Christie, 1993, p. 232). They are usually considered as large
sets of social beliefs and attitudes.
In the domain of social attitudes and world-views, Duc-
kitt (2001) have suggested some important distinctions
between RWA, SDO and two motivational goal-schemas
for prejudice. One motivational schema has been identiWed
as a search for control and security, expressing the social
and cultural values of conformity, traditionalism and
respect for in-group norms. Another motivational schema
has been identiWed as a search for superiority and domi-
nance between groups and for strong interest for winning.
The social dominance scale uses to correlate with measures
representing competitiveness and competitive-jungle
worldviews. These motivational schemas might also corre-
spond with two diVerent kinds of national identiWcation,
named as patriotism and nationalism (Baughn & Yaprak,
1996; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989). Mummendey, Klink,
and Brown (2001) have shown that patriotism parallels an
evaluative and aVective attachment to the country (values
an in-group norms) whereas nationalism corresponds to a
competitive identiWcation to the nation (an us Wrst
national orientation).
This dual model of prejudice has similarities with diVer-
ent studies about intergroup relations. In this domain, real-
istic conXict theory (RCT) suggests that prejudice is the
result of a realistic competition for scarce resources
between groups (LeVine & Campbell, 1972) and social
identity theory (SIT, Tajfel, 1981) postulates that a strong
need for a positive identiWcation to in-group norms and
values is responsible for greater prejudice. More recently,
an important distinction between a social and a realistic
competitive strategy has been made with the use of the con-
textual model of inter-group diVerentiation elaborated by
Scheepers, Spears, Doojse, and Manstead (2002). These
authors argued that inter-group diVerentiation and preju-
dice could serve two diVerent functions. The Wrst one is an
identity function (illustrated by the SIT) which appeared to
be the primary motivation to improve the in-group position
through the use of intergroup diVerentiation (social compe-
tition) whereas an instrumental function (illustrated by the
RCT) might be involved when meaningful inter-group con-
ditions are salient such as competitive circumstances (real-
istic competition). The identity and the instrumental
functions parallel the conceptual view proposed by Duckitt
(1989,2001) in identifying RWA as an orientation to
ingroup norms and values and SDO as an intergroup and
competitive orientation.
Unfortunately, the researches using the RWA and SDO
scales in studying prejudice within these orientations and
functions have used mainly correlational data and SEM
analyses. In a search of a distinction between these scales in
an experimental way, but also to assess causality between
RWA, SDO and prejudice depending of diVerent social ori-
entations and contexts, news designs are needed.
In this methodological direction, recent studies have
examined the inXuence of self-categorization conditions on
the correlation between RWA, SDO and prejudice. Self
Categorization Theory (SCT, Turner et al., 1987) distin-
guishes personal identity and interpersonal relationships
from collective or social identity and inter-group relation-
ships. SCT postulates that behaviours, cognitions and feel-
ings will be determined by diVerent levels of cognitive
categorization of the self. During everyday life situations,
individuals might meet some conditions of personal catego-
rization or social categorization. Thus, when an individual
is self-categorized as a person, attributes of the personal
identity will be activated and individuals will react to social
stimuli according to their personality and attitudes. At the
opposite, when an individual is self-categorized as member
of a group, attributes of their social identity, social identiW-
cation and in-group stereotypes will be activated and indi-
viduals will evaluate social stimuli according to their group
membership. Following this theory, RWA and SDO, as
personal attributes and individual attitudes towards social
issues, will be the stronger predictors of prejudice when a
personal categorization is activated, whereas in-group iden-
tiWcation, as the strength of attachment to the social group,
and in-group stereotypes will be the best predictors of prej-
udice when a group categorization is activated.
In this area, it must be noted that the results appeared
with a lot of inconsistencies (Heaven & Quintin, 2003; Rey-
nolds, Turner, Haslam, & Ryan, 2001; Verkuyten & Hagen-
doorn, 1998). Heaven and Quintin (2003) showed hat RWA
and SDO correlated signiWcantly with prejudice in personal
and social identities conditions. Verkuyten and Hagendo-
orn (1998) found that RWA and SDO correlated signiW-
cantly with prejudice only in a personal identity condition.
Finally, Reynolds et al. (2001) showed that RWA corre-
lated with prejudice in some particular primes of group
membership. One possible reason for examining these
inconsistencies is to look at the diVerent instructions given
to the participants to prime group membership. Looking to
the diVerent conditions of identity salience manipulated by
Verkuyten and Hagendoorn (1998) and Heaven and Quin-
tin (2003), it must be observed that some fundamental and
distinct dimensions of inter-group relationships are
 V. Dru / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 (2007) 877883
involved in the social and national identity salience, for
example. Here is the cover story usually used to prime
social and national identity:
People belong to all kinds of groups, such as sport
clubs, political parties, religious groups, and also to a
nation. These groups diVer from each other and also
can compare themselves with others. One sports club
can compare itself with another, one political party
with another, and one national group with another.
The next few questions are about your national
group.
It can be seen that the national and social identity condi-
tion have made salient a comparative context focusing
mainly on some competitive orientations. The reference to
a sport club or a political party primed mainly a search for
scarce resources, such as a victory in a competition.
The research conduced by Reynolds et al. (2001) primed
group memberships that where based on central values and
ideologies for authoritarianism; that is those which
described traditional inter-group categorizations like the
diVerent relationships between gender and aged groups.
Some comparative contexts involving diVerent age and sex-
ual groups are salient questions for authoritarians because
relationships between males and females and respect for
older groups are part of some conservative attitudes. This
research did not used SDO scale, but it showed that RWA
scale correlated signiWcantly with prejudice in these speciWc
group memberships.
The study reported here was aimed at establishing that
RWA and SDO might correlate with prejudice in some
diVerent conditions of self-categorization. As RWA and
SDO may be considered as attitudinal constructs close to
two basic dimensions of inter-group relationships, they
may be expected to correlate diVerently with prejudice in
two corresponding primed self-categorization conditions.
The Wrst condition of self-categorization will prime an
attachment to in-group norms and values which will be
connected to social identiWcation and social identity pro-
cesses. RWA has been conceptualized as the co-variation of
conventionalism, authoritarian submission, and aggression,
and Duckitt (1989) has proposed a new view of authoritari-
anism, conceiving it as an unconditional and strong identi-
Wcation with in-group authorities (conventionalism and
authoritarian submission) combined with aggressive and
hostile attitudes and behaviors toward out-groups
(authoritarian aggression), when the inter-group context is
threatening to the in-groups social identity. It is expected
that RWA will correlate with prejudice in this Wrst condi-
tion, a result that would be consistent with the identity
function deWned by Scheepers et al. (2002). Such orienta-
tions are typical of cultural and religious groups. The sec-
ond condition of self-categorization will prime a
competitive orientation in belonging to social groups which
are involved in the search of resources as material beneWts,
territory, and victory. Such orientations are typical of polit-
ical and sport groups for whom defeating the opponent is
879
of great importance. This kind of primed membership will
correspond to the instrumental function identiWed by
Scheepers et al. (2002). It is expected that SDO will corre-
late with prejudice in this condition, as Duckitt (2001) has
shown that this social attitude is connected to a competi-
tive-jungle worldview which orients individuals to see the
world as a permanent battle for resources and a struggle for
life.
To sum, the main hypothesis for this research is that
RWA and SDO will correlate with prejudice in two diVer-
ent conditions of self-categorization as group members. In
a condition of self-categorization as a member of an iden-
tity or cultural group, it is predicted that RWA will corre-
late with prejudice, but that SDO will not. In a condition of
self-categorization as a member of a competitive group, it is
predicted that SDO will correlate with prejudice, but that
RWA will not.
Method
Participants
One hundred and seventy nine French physical educa-
tion and psychology students (age mean, 20.91 years,
SD D 1.63) from the north of France were involved in the
study after they voluntarily agreed to participate. The par-
ticipants were randomly assigned to three experimental
conditions. One control condition (N D 59, 41 males and 18
females) did not prime any group membership. Two other
conditions primed either a group-based value membership
(N D 60, 41 males and 19 females) or a competitive group
membership (N D 60, 40 males and 20 females, note here
that the proportions of males and females were quite simi-
lar across experimental conditions).
Materials and procedure
Participants in the three conditions were invited to
answer similar questionnaires in Section 1 of the experi-
ment. Ten items from the French version of RWA (Dru,
2003) were randomly selected from the complete version
(30 items). Half of the selected items were reverse-keyed
items, to control for possible acquiescence response bias.
The internal consistency reliability was acceptable (Cron-
bach  D .73). In the same manner, ten items from the
French version of SDO (Duarte, Dambrum, & Guimond,
2004) were also randomly selected (Cronbach  D .75).
Eight items were also selected from the French version
(Dru, 2004) of Multi-Group Ethnic Identity Measure
(MEIM) from Phinneys (1992) work to assess French in-
group identity (Cronbach  D .84).Some examples of items
are I have a clear sense of my ethnic background and what
it means for me and I have spent time trying to Wnd out
more about my ethnic group such as its history, customs,
and traditions. Participants answered these measures with
the use of a nine point likert scale (from strong disagree-
ment to strong agreement).
880 V. Dru / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 (2007) 877883
Section 2 of the experiment was composed by the
diVerent experimental conditions before answering the
prejudice scales. A Wrst experimental condition was
named the group-based values and norms condition.
Salience to group values was primed with the use of the
following cover story:
People belong to diVerent social groups depending of
the importance given to their social lifestyle, their cul-
tural values and norms or to their patriotic view of their
country. These persons shared with each other a strong
attachment and devotion to their country, and to their
in-group values, norms and customs. For example, a per-
son belonging to an ethnic group will need to meet other
group members to share some common cultural tradi-
tions. A religious person will need to meet other religious
members to share their faith and beliefs. The next few
questions are about this kind of groups to which you
would belong.
To strengthen the prime of group-based values and
norms, participants were invited to answer eight items
derived from the Triandis collectivism scale (Triandis,
1995) and reported by Oseyrman (1993, p. 966), which
assesses how individuals behave in congruence with the
behaviours that the collective expects asks and demands.
One example of items are A mature person understands
that he must act in accordance with the honors of the
group and Without group loyalty there is no self-actual-
ization.
A second experimental condition was named the com-
petitive group membership condition. A strong competitive
orientation for resources and for winning was primed with
the use of the following cover story:
People belong to diVerent social groups like sport
club or political parties. These persons shared with
each other a strong need to defeat an opponent
belonging to another competing group and have
nationalistic aims for their country to become a supe-
rior nation. More precisely, a sport team is involved in
a competition to search the win and to become supe-
rior to the other opponent team. A political party is in
conXict with other parties to win the elections. The
next few questions are about this kind of groups to
which you would belong.
To strengthen the prime of this competitive group orien-
tation, participants were invited to answer six items of the
Brown et al. (1992) autonomous-relational scale which
assesses how individuals evaluate the in-group and its out-
comes with reference to out-groups and their outcomes.
Despite the fact that the relational orientation described
here has been proposed by Brown et al. (1992) to assess the
degree to which individual adopt a comparative orienta-
tion, this comparative orientation is not completely similar
to a competitive orientation. However, the autonomous-
relational scale was constructed to assess not only this com-
parative orientation, but also a competitive orientation
with a need to get superior outcomes over other groups
through a quest of the win. Examples of items from this
scale conWrm this view: To what degree were you experi-
encing feelings of competitiveness between your group and
other groups? To what degree were you concerned about
your groups success of failure? or To what degree were
you thinking about whether your groups performance will
be superior or inferior to that of other groups? This scale
was used in an aYrmative wording for the research pre-
sented here.
Finally for this section, the control condition did not
present any group identity prime. Participants answered the
questionnaires as a large attitudinal survey asking them to
report their opinions on various issues.
Section 3 was similar for the three experimental condi-
tions and invited participants to answer the same six
items (three reverse-keyed) to assess prejudice towards
each of three ethnic minority groups: Arab people, Black
people and Asian people. These items have been taken
from a larger pool of items used in prejudice studies
(Duckitt, Callaghan, & Wagner, 2005, p. 645) and deWni-
tively presented as a generalized group attitude scale.
Their adaptation for French people was done following
the back translation procedure. Examples of items for
Arab people (worded analogously for the other ethnic
groups) are: It really upsets me to hear anyone say
something negative about the Arab people (reversed); I
can understand people having a negative attitude to the
Arab people. A nine-point likert scale was used for each
prejudice score. Internal consistency reliabilities were
acceptable for the scales involving these three ethnic
groups (Arab people,  D .74, Black people,  D .69, Asian
people,  D .73). An overall aggregated prejudice measure
has been also computed ( D .74) because each prejudice
score was expected to correlate signiWcantly one to the
other. Just in the control condition (without any kind of
primed membership) prejudice towards Blacks people
was linked to prejudice towards Arab (r D .62, p < .000,
N D 59) and Asian people (r D .44, p < .001, N D 59). Prej-
udice towards Arab people correlated signiWcantly with
prejudice towards Asian people (r D .57, p < .000, N D 59).
Section 4 contained two control questions to verify that
the two membership experimental conditions have been
understood. Participants were invited to indicate Wrst the
importance for them (respectively scored 1, not important
to 9, very important) of their group values and norms when
responding in the section three (To what degree did you
consider the importance of your groups social values and
norms when answering the previous section just?). The
second question was about the degree of competitiveness
and superiority of their group (To what degree did you
consider the competitiveness and superiority of your group
when you answered the previous section?). Responses
were scored 1 (as weakly competitive) to 9 (as strongly
competitive).
All participants answered the questionnaires anony-
mously in small classes (N D 1030) at the University.
 V. Dru / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 (2007) 877883 881

Results Table 1
Correlations between prejudice scales and RWA, SDO and in-group iden-
tiWcation in three experimental conditions
Manipulation checks
Control Group Competitive
N D 59 Values N D 60 membership
Results from the Wrst control question showed that N D 60
participants assigned to the condition of competitive group
Attitudes to Arab people
membership considered their in-group values as less In-group identiWcation .17 .35 .08
important (M D 4.41, SD D 1.75, N D 60) than the partici- RWA .43 .39 .21
pants assigned to the condition of group-based values SDO .47 .18 .30
and norms (M D 6.45, SD D 2.32, N D 120, F(1,178) D 52.38, Mean prejudice score (and SD) 4.54 (.63) 4.17 (.92) 4.25 (1.09)
p < .000). It must be noted here that participants from the Attitudes to Black people
competitive group condition reported a moderate level of In-group identiWcation .00 .35 .15
importance to their in-group values (in the middle of the RWA .30 .37 .15
19 scale) showing that a competitive inter-group context SDO .46 .08 .42
Mean prejudice score (and SD) 3.86 (.78) 4.24 (1.02) 4.06 (.89)
of membership might inXuence some favourable in-group
evaluation (This is one hypothesis proposed by RCT; Dru, Attitudes to Asians
In-group identiWcation .18 .47 .00
2002; LeVine & Campbell, 1972, see also Dru, 2006).
RWA .27 .34 .14
Results from the second control condition have shown that SDO .44 .12 .26
participants assigned to the condition of group based Mean prejudice score (and SD) 3.64 (.65) 3.98 (.97) 3.75 (.71)
values and norms have considered their group as less Aggregated prejudice measure
competitive (M D 2.88, SD D 1.28, N D 60) than the In-group identiWcation .11 .40 .10
participants assigned to the condition of the competitive RWA .37 .38 .16
group condition (M D 6.08, SD D 2.68, N D 120, F(1,118) SDO .45 .14 .39
D 71.81, p < .000). Mean prejudice score (and SD) 4.01 (.68) 4.13 (.97) 4.02 (.90)

p < .05.

Correlational and multiple regression analyses p < .01.

p < .001.

For all the participants (N D 179, taking from the three

experimental conditions), RWA and SDO correlated sig-
niWcantly (r D .39, p < .000). In addition RWA and in-group
identiWcation correlated signiWcantly (r D .25, p < .000).
SDO and in-group identiWcation also correlated signiW-
cantly (r D .21, p < .005). Before computing correlations
between the diVerent measures, Table 1 reported that no
diVerences in prejudice (for each group and for the aggre-
gated prejudice score) between the experimental conditions
appeared (Fs < 1).
Table 1 presents the correlation between the prejudice
measures, RWA, SDO and in-group identiWcation in the
three experimental conditions.
First, RWA and SDO correlated signiWcantly with the
prejudice scales in the control condition whereas in-group
identiWcation failed to correlate with these same measures
in that condition. Second, RWA, SDO and in-group identi-
Wcation correlated diVerently with prejudice depending on
the group membership conditions (values vs. competitive).
In-group identiWcation and RWA correlated signiWcantly
with prejudice scales when a membership to groups sharing
cultural and social values was salient whereas SDO corre-
lated with the same measures only in the competitive mem-
bership condition. Third, the three main results reported
above were replicated with the three diVerent ethnic groups.
These correlations between the RWA, SDO and prejudice
scores diVered signiWcantly from zero, whereas they mar-
ginally diVer in the predicted direction from one condition
to the other. In considering the aggregated measure, corre-
lation of RWA with prejudice was marginally higher that
the one calculated between SDO and prejudice in the group
values and norms condition (z D 1.38, p < .08). In the same
way, correlation of SDO with prejudice was also marginally
higher that the one calculated between RWA and prejudice
in the competitive membership condition (z D 1.34, p < .09).
Correlation of RWA with prejudice was marginally higher
in the group values and norms condition that the one calcu-
lated for the competitive condition (z D 1.27, p < .10). And
the correlation of SDO with prejudice was also marginally
higher in the competitive condition that the one calculated
for the group values and norms condition (z D 1.45, p < .07).
Finally, multiple regression analyses were conducted to
examine which variables were the best predictors of the
prejudice scales in each experimental condition. Multiple
regression analyses allowed examination of the relation of
each predictor variables (RWA, SDO and in-group identiW-
cation) with the prejudice measures while controlling for
the eVect of the other predictors. Table 2 displays these
results.
The results obtained by simple correlations (Table 1)
were partially replicated whenever all the betas value were
in the same direction, even if not always signiWcant. First, in
the control condition SDO was always the strongest predic-
tor of prejudice for the all three ethnic groups, whereas
RWA was a signiWcant predictor of prejudice towards Arab
people, and in-group identiWcation was never a signiWcant
predictor of prejudice towards the three ethnic groups
(despite a marginally signiWcant beta for Arab people).
Second, in-group identiWcation and RWA were signiWcant
882 V. Dru / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 (2007) 877883

Table 2 sets of social attitudes and beliefs, would be diVerently

Betas values from multiple regression analyses in three experimental con- operative in predicting prejudice in self-categorization con-
ditions
ditions involving two diVerent primes of membership.
Control Group Competitive Inspection of correlations of Table 1 and of beta values
N D 59 values N D 60 membership
N D 60
(Table 2) showed that RWA and in-group identiWcation
were signiWcant predictors of prejudice towards the ethnic
Attitudes to Arab people
groups when group values and in-group norms were
In-group identiWcation .26() .46 .03
RWA .36 .32 .07 primed whereas SDO failed to predict these same measures.
SDO .35 .24 .26() At the opposite, SDO correlated with, and predicted preju-
Attitudes to Black people
dice scores when a competitive membership was salient
In-group identiWcation .05 .49 .22 whereas RWA failed to predict prejudice in a competitive
RWA .18 .37 .04 context.
SDO .40 .01 .47 These results are consistent with the identiWcation of two
Attitudes to Asians diVerent kinds of social categorization schemas which have
In-group identiWcation .24 .40 .06 been identiWed by Duckitt (2001). The Wrst one is connected
RWA .20 .36 .01 to a motivation to avoid threatening social situations for
SDO .39 .10 .29
values and in-group norms. It will underlie a schema to
Aggregated prejudice measure consider out-groups as deviant, bad, and as threatening to
In-group identiWcation .19 .43 .13 conventional rules. RWA, as a speciWc set of social beliefs,
RWA .31 .34 .06
SDO .38 .08 .37
might identify this process. This kind of social categoriza-
()
tion is also close to the identity function of inter-group
p < .10.

p < .05.
diVerentiation elaborated by Scheepers et al. (2002) and

p < .01. would correspond to the group values and norms primed

p < .001. condition. The second kind of social categorization is

predictors of prejudice scores towards the three ethnic
groups in the group values primed condition whereas SDO
did not correlate with these scores. Finally, SDO was the
unique predictor of prejudice in the condition of competi-
tive membership. For attitudes toward Arab people, the
beta value for SDO was only marginally signiWcant. How-
ever, with the use of the aggregated measure, in-group iden-
tiWcation and RWA were signiWcant predictors of prejudice
in the group values condition whereas SDO failed to do so.
This last measure was a signiWcant predictor of prejudice in
the competitive condition whereas RWA failed to do so.
Finally,t-tests were computed to compare the diVerent beta
values between conditions. The regression coeYcient for
RWA in the group values condition was marginally diVer-
ent from the one calculated for the competitive condition
(t(118) D 1.89, p D .06). The regression coeYcient for SDO
in the group values condition was signiWcantly diVerent
from the one calculated for the competitive condition
(t(118) D 2.15, p D .033). The regression coeYcient for RWA
in the group values condition was marginally diVerent from
the one calculated for the SDO scale in the same condition
(t(118) D 1.81, p D .072). And the regression coeYcient for
RWA in the competitive condition was signiWcantly diVer-
ent from the one calculated for the SDO scale in the same
condition (t(118) D 1.99, p D .048).
Discussion
The research presented in this article was aimed at study-
ing the eVects of various self-categorization conditions on
prejudice. The results are consistent with the main hypothe-
sis. It was proposed that RWA and SDO, as two diVerent
linked to a motivation for competition and social domi-
nance. It will underlie a schema to consider out-groups
along an inferior-superior dimension. SDO, as another set
of social beliefs about inequality, might identify this pro-
cess. This kind of social categorization is also close to the
instrumental function of inter-group diVerentiation elabo-
rated by Scheepers et al. (2002) and would correspond to
the competitive membership condition (See also Esses,
Jackson, & Armstrong, 1998 for their instrumental model
of group conXict).
The research presented in this article involved two diVer-
ent social attitudes (RWA and SDO) whereas the in-group
identiWcation measure used in this study was only of one
kind. The in-group identiWcation scale was taken from
Phinneys (1992) work and assessed a cultural identiWcation
to the in-group. This might be partially responsible for the
signiWcant correlation and beta value obtained for the links
between in-group identiWcation and prejudice in the group
values and in-group norms condition. Another interesting
avenue will not focus only on diVerent social attitudes,
diVerent kinds of social categorization, but also on various
forms of social identiWcation. It would be interesting to
study the eVect of two diVerent kinds of national identiWca-
tion, named as patriotism and nationalism (Baughn & Yap-
rak, 1996; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989; Mummendey
et al., 2001), which have been considered respectively to
parallel an evaluative and aVective attachment to the coun-
try (values an in-group norms) and a competitive identiWca-
tion to the nation (an us Wrst national orientation).
In a similar vein, a competitive group orientation might
also prime some diVerences in ethnic status and correla-
tions between SDO and prejudice in this context might be
higher for low status target groups than for high status
 V. Dru / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 (2007) 877883
(consistent with a group position model, Bobo, 1999).
DiVerential status and the search for a higher status might
be connected to competitiveness (realistic competition). An
in-group norms orientation might prime some diVerences in
beliefs and values and correlations between RWA and prej-
udice in this context would be higher for groups who
appear diVerent than for groups that are similar (consistent
with the similarity-attraction hypothesis, Smith & Kalin,
2006). Similarity and the search for some social diVerentia-
tion between groups in values and norms might be con-
nected to a positive social identity (social competition).
Status and similarity would be interesting moderators of
the link between SDO, RWA and prejudice respectively in
primed contexts of competition and norms and conformity.
Future research would be needed to address these diVerent
issues to extend in an experimental direction the potential
eVects of RWA and SDO on prejudice and their connection
to fundamental inter-group processes.
References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N.
(1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of
Manitoba Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other authoritarian personality. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 30, pp.
4792). San Diego: Academic Press.
Bobo, L. (1999). Prejudice as group position: Microfoundations of a socio-
logical approach to racism and race relations. Journal of Social Issues,
55, 445472.
Brown, R. J., Hinkle, S., Ely, P. G., Fox-Cardonne, D. L., Maras, P., & Tay-
lor, L. A. (1992). Recognizing group diversity: Individualist-collectivist
and autonomous-relational social orientations and their implications
for intergroup processes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 327
342.
Baughn, C., & Yaprak, A. (1996). Economic nationalism: Conceptual and
empirical development. Political Psychology, 17, 759778.
Doise, W. (1986). Levels of explanation in social psychology. Cambridge,
UK/Paris: Cambridge University Press/Maison des Sciences de
lHomme.
Dru, V. (2002). Dogmatism and competitive relationships between soccer
teams. International Journal of Group tensions, 31, 267284.
Dru, V. (2003). Relationships between an ego orientation scale and a
hypercompetitive scale: Their correlates with dogmatism and authori-
tarianism factors. Personality and Individual DiVerences, 35, 15091524.
Dru, V. (2004). Adaptation Franaise dune chelle didentiWcation cultu- Smith, S. M., & Kalin, R. (2006). Right-wing authoritarianism as a moder-
relle. [French adaptation of an ethnic identiWcation scale]. International
Review of Social Psychology, 17, 103118.
Dru, V. (2006). Behavioral responses to a threatened ethnic identity in a
sports setting. ConXict Management and Peace Science, 23, 2336.
Duarte, S., Dambrum, M., & Guimond, S. (2004). La domination sociale
et les mythes lgitimateurs : validation dune version franaise de
lchelle dorientation la domination sociale. [Social dominance Sumner, W. (1906). Folkways. New York: Ginn.
and legitimizing myths: Validation of a French form of the social
dominance scale]. International Review of Social Psychology, 17, 97
126.
Duckitt, J. (1989). Authoritarianism and group identiWcation: A new view
of an old construct. Political Psychology, 10, 6384.
Duckitt, J. (1992). Psychology and prejudice: A historical analysis and
integrative framework. American Psychologist, 47(10), 11821193.
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual process cognitive-motivational theory of ideol-
ogy and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41113). San Diego: Academic Press.
883
Duckitt, J., Callaghan, J., & Wagner, C. (2005). Group identiWcation and
outgroup attitudes in four South African ethnic groups. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 633646.
Duriez, B., & Van Hiel, A. (2002). The march of modern fascism: A com-
parison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Person-
ality and Individual DiVerences, 32, 11991213.
Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson, I. (2004). matters
more for prejudice: Big Wve personality, social dominance or right-
wing authoritarianism? European Journal of Personality, 18, 463482.
Esses, V., Jackson, L., & Armstrong, T. (1998). Intergroup competition and
attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model
of group conXict. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 699724.
Heaven, P. C. L., & Connors, J. R. (2001). A note on values correlates of
social dominance and right wing authoritarianism. Personality and
Individual DiVerences, 31, 925930.
Heaven, P. C. L., & Quintin, D. (2003). Personality factors predict preju-
dice. Personality and Individual DiVerences, 34, 625634.
Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and
nationalistic attitudes. Political Psychology, 10, 257274.
LeVine, R., & Campbell, D. (1972). Ethnocentrism, theories of conXict, eth-
nic attitudes, and group behavior. New York: Wiley.
Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (1998). Intergroup relations: Insights from a
theoretically integrative approach. Psychological Review, 105(3), 499
529.
McFarland, S., & Adelson, S. (1996). An omnibus study of personality, val-
ues, and prejudice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Inter-
national Society of Political Psychology, Vancouver, Canada.
Mummendey, A., Klink, A., & Brown, R. (2001). and patriotism: National
identiWcation and out-group rejection. British Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 40, 159172.
Oseyrman, D. (1993). The lens in personhood: viewing the self and others
in a multicultural society. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65, 9931009.
Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure. A new scale
for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156176.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B. (1994). Social domi-
nance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political
attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741763.
Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., & Conway-Lanz, S. (1998). Social dominance
theory and the legitimization of policy. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 20, 127150.
Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., Haslam, S. A., & Ryan, M. K. (2001). The
role of personality and group factors in explaining prejudice. Journal of
Experimental and Social Psychology, 37, 427434.
Scheepers, D., Spears, R., Doojse, B., & Manstead (2002). Integrating iden-
tity and instrumental approaches to intergroup diVerentiation : DiVer-
ent contexts, diVerent motives. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28, 14551467.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: an intergroup theory of
social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ator of the sililarity-attraction eVect. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 38, 6371.
Stone, W., Lederer, G., & Christie, R. (1993). The status of authoritarian-
ism. In W. Stone, G. Lederer, & R. Christie (Eds.), Strength and weak-
ness: The authoritarian personality today (pp. 229245). New York:
Springer.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: West-
view Press.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S.
(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Verkuyten, M., & Hagendoorn, L. (1998). Prejudice and self-categoriza-
tion: the variable role of authoritarianism and in-group stereotypes.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 99110.