The connections between personality, ideology and (counter-)empathic emotions depend on the target

OBJECTIVES

Examine the group-specific connections between personality, ideology, and the moral emotions of empathy and schadenfreude.

BACKGROUND

Empathy and schadenfreude are emotions that often lead to moral prosocial or spiteful harmful behaviors respectively. An outstanding question is what motivates feelings of empathy and schadenfreude towards people from different groups. Here we examine two prominent motivators of emotions: personality traits and ideology. Previous work has found that people's ideological orientations towards respecting traditionalism (RWA) and preferences about group-based hierarchy (SDO) can impact intergroup emotions. Further, personality traits of low agreeableness, low openness, and high conscientiousness uniquely engender SDO and RWA.

METHOD

In the research presented here (Study 1 n = 492; Study 2 n = 786), we examine the relationships between personality traits, ideology, and emotions for groups that are perceived to be dangerous and competitive. We hypothesize that SDO and RWA will relate to reduced empathy and increased schadenfreude but towards unique groups. SDO will relate to reduced empathy and increased schadenfreude towards competitive, low-status groups while RWA will relate to reduced empathy and increased schadenfreude towards threatening groups. We further extend past work by investigating left-wing authoritarianism as well.

RESULTS

We find broad support for our expectation that the relationships between personality and emotions, as well as ideology and emotions, depend on the specific group in question.

CONCLUSIONS

These results help expand the dual process motivational model of prejudice and suggest the importance of specifying a target group when assessing relationships between personality, ideology, and emotions.

The psychological causes and societal consequences of authoritarianism

Over the past two decades, citizens’ political rights and civil liberties have declined globally. Psychological science can play an instrumental role in both explaining and combating the authoritarian impulses that underlie these attacks on personal autonomy. In this Review, we describe the psychological processes and situational factors that foster authoritarianism, as well as the societal consequences of its apparent resurgence within the general population. First, we summarize the dual process motivational model of ideology and prejudice, which suggests that viewing the world as a dangerous, but not necessarily competitive, place plants the psychological seeds of authoritarianism. Next, we discuss the evolutionary, genetic, personality and developmental antecedents to authoritarianism and explain how contextual threats to safety and security activate authoritarian predispositions. After examining the harmful consequences of authoritarianism for intergroup relations and broader societal attitudes, we discuss the need to expand the ideological boundaries of authoritarianism and encourage future research to investigate both right-wing and left-wing variants of authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism weakens democratic institutions and fosters societal divisions. In this Review, Osborne et al. describe the psychological processes and situational factors that give rise to authoritarianism, as well as the societal consequences of its apparent resurgence within the general population.

The effect of perceived threat on human rights: A meta-analysis

Individuals express support for civil liberties and human rights, but when threatened tend to restrict rights for both others and themselves. However, the question of whether or not rights are restricted to punish others or protect ourselves remains unclear. This meta-analysis integrates the findings of the effect of perceived threats on support for restrictions of civil liberties from 1997 to 2019. It includes 163 effect-size estimates from 46 different articles involving 91,716 participants. The presence of threat increased support for restrictions against outgroup members significantly more than ingroup members, providing a possible punitive explanation for support for restrictions of civil liberties. These findings contribute to the debate on rights and their relationship with deservingness, suggesting that we delineate those who deserve human rights and those who do not.

Threats to human rights: A general review

It has been seventy years since signing the Declaration of Human Rights, yet human right violations are still happening across the globe. This review asks the question – what is the impact of perceived threat on changing support for human rights into support for not-all-humans’ rights? In approaching human rights violations with a four-level model – institutions, cultures, groups, and individuals –, issues of capabilities, historical emotions, connectedness, and personality emerge. At the heart of these is the impact perceived threat has at each level within each issue. Limitations of current work, disagreements across the literature, and future directions are discussed.

Is empathy one of the Big Three? Identifying its role in a dual-process model of ideology and blatant and subtle prejudice

In the field of the social psychology of prejudice, John Duckitt's Dual-Process Cognitive-Motivational Model of Ideology and Prejudice has gained a firm grounding over the past decade and a half, while empathy has become one of the most powerful predictors of prejudice, alongside right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. This study integrates empathy into the dual-process model, exploring the effects of this variable, along with the impact of personality and ideological attitudes, on prejudice in both its blatant and subtle forms. A cross-sectional research design was used to collect data from 260 university students by self-report measures. Despite its cross-sectional nature, a pattern of causal relationships was hypothesized according to experimental and longitudinal findings from previous studies. The path analysis results show that in the model fitted to the data, empathy does not have any direct impact on prejudice, although it plays a significant role in the prediction of prejudice towards a particular immigrant group. On the other hand, the dual-process model is confirmed in the explanation of blatant prejudice and, in a weaker and indirect way, of subtle prejudice; sustaining the distinctive nature of these constructs on some differential predictors and paths. In the discussion, this study proposes that when ideological and personality-based variables are both included in the model, general empathy is not so robust in the explanation of prejudice, since some of the empathetic components might become diluted among other covariates. But even so, its indirect effectiveness through personality and ideological attitudes remains relevant.

Condoning discrimination: The effects of dominance and authoritarianism are moderated by different ways of reasoning about antigay discriminatory acts

Many studies have focused on mediated paths by which social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) predict prejudice; fewer have identified factors that moderate their effects. We applied social cognitive domain theory to test whether different ways of reasoning about antigay discriminatory acts moderated the association between SDO, RWA, and condoning antigay discrimination. Moral reasoning (e.g., emphasizing fairness, equality) and personal reasoning (e.g., emphasizing individual interests, qualifications) attenuated the association between SDO, RWA, and condoning discriminatory resource denial in general and religious-specific contexts. Conventional reasoning (e.g., emphasizing group norms, rules) magnified the association between SDO, RWA, and condoning resource denial, but only in a religious-specific context. Findings highlight the need to examine moderators of SDO and RWA effects in effort to disrupt discrimination by those most likely to engage in it.

The enemy as animal: Symmetric dehumanization during asymmetric warfare

Historically, dehumanization has enabled members of advantaged groups to ‘morally disengage’ from disadvantaged group suffering, thereby facilitating acts of intergroup aggression such as colonization, slavery and genocide. But is blatant dehumanization exclusive to those at the top ‘looking down’, or might disadvantaged groups similarly dehumanize those who dominate them? We examined this question in the context of intergroup warfare in which the disadvantaged group shoulders a disproportionate share of casualties and may be especially likely to question the humanity of the advantaged group. Specifically, we assessed blatant dehumanization in the context of stark asymmetric conflict between Israelis (Study 1; N = 521) and Palestinians (Study 2; N = 354) during the 2014 Gaza war. We observed that (a) community samples of Israelis and Palestinians expressed extreme (and comparable) levels of blatant dehumanization, (b) blatant dehumanization was uniquely associated with outcomes related to outgroup hostility for both groups, even after accounting for political ideologies known to strongly predict outgroup aggression, and (c) the strength of association between blatant dehumanization and outcomes was similar across both groups. This study illuminates the striking potency and symmetry of blatant dehumanization among those on both sides of an active asymmetric conflict.

Emotion and aggressive intergroup cognitions: The ANCODI hypothesis

Previous research has suggested an important role for the emotion of hatred in intergroup aggression. Recent theoretical and empirical work has strongly suggested that the combination of anger, contempt, and disgust (ANCODI) comprise the basic elements of hatred, and are the key emotions associated with intergroup aggression. No study, however, has provided evidence that these emotions cause hostile cognitions about specific groups. We report two studies that provide initial evidence. In both, participants were members of ideologically motivated groups and were primed with ANCODI. In Study 1 participants primed with ANCODI produced more aggressive cognitions relative to their opponent outgroup than a neutral outgroup; this effect did not occur for participants primed with fear-sadness. In Study 2 participants primed with ANCODI engaged in more competitive decision making against their opponent outgroups than a neutral outgroup; this effect did not occur for participants primed with disgust only. These findings contribute to the literature on the role of emotion in intergroup aggression and hostility, and provide a more nuanced view of the role of emotions in intergroup relations, possibly identifying the basic emotional elements of hatred. Aggr. Behav. 43:93-107, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

You're inferior and not worth our concern: the interface between empathy and social dominance orientation

OBJECTIVE

This project was directed at examination of the potential reciprocal relationship between empathy and social dominance orientation (SDO), with the purpose of testing the predictions from Duckitt's highly influential dual process model of prejudice, and further examining the validity of the mere effect view of social dominance orientation.

METHOD

To examine this relationship, the authors employed cross-lagged structural equation modeling with manifest variables across two studies using large samples from different parts of the world. Study 1 consisted of data from two waves of 389 (83% female) Belgian university students, with each wave separated by 6 months. Study 2 consisted of two waves of data from a national probability sample of 4,466 New Zealand adults (63% female), with each wave separated by a 1-year interval.

RESULTS

Results supported our expectation of a reciprocal longitudinal relationship between empathy and SDO. Moreover, the results also revealed that SDO's effect on empathy over time tended to be stronger than empathy's effect on SDO over time, countering the predictions derived from the dual process model.

CONCLUSIONS

These results represent the first time the possible reciprocal effects of empathy and SDO on one another have been examined using panel data rather than less appropriate cross-sectional analysis. They suggest the need to reexamine some key assumptions of the dual process model and further question the mere effect view of SDO.