The dual process model of ideology and prejudice: a longitudinal test during a global recession.

This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University] On: 05 November 2014, At: 06:26 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

The Dual Process Model of Ideology and Prejudice: A Longitudinal Test During a Global Recession a

Chris G. Sibley & John Duckitt

a

a

University of Auckland Accepted author version posted online: 07 Jan 2013.Published online: 13 May 2013.

To cite this article: Chris G. Sibley & John Duckitt (2013) The Dual Process Model of Ideology and Prejudice: A Longitudinal Test During a Global Recession, The Journal of Social Psychology, 153:4, 448-466, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2012.757544 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2012.757544

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 06:26 05 November 2014

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Journal of Social Psychology, 2013, 153(4), 448–466 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC


The Dual Process Model of Ideology and Prejudice: A Longitudinal Test During a Global Recession CHRIS G. SIBLEY JOHN DUCKITT University of Auckland

ABSTRACT. This study tested the pathways between personality, social worldviews, and ideology, predicted by the Dual Process Model (DPM) of ideology and prejudice. These paths were tested using a full cross-lagged panel design administered to a New Zealand community sample in early 2008 (before the effects of the global financial crisis reached New Zealand) and again in 2009 (when the crisis was near its peak; n = 247). As hypothesized, low openness to experience predicted residualized change in dangerous worldview, which in turn predicted right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). Low agreeableness predicted competitive worldview, which in turn predicted social dominance orientation (SDO). RWA and SDO also exerted unexpected reciprocal effects on worldviews. This study provides the most comprehensive longitudinal test of the DPM to date, and was conducted during a period of systemic instability when the causal effects predicted by the DPM should be, and were, readily apparent. Keywords: Dual Process Model, personality, prejudice, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation

A GREAT DEAL OF RESEARCH over the past few decades has shown that two relatively stable individual difference dimensions, Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), are powerful predictors of generalized prejudice and ethnocentrism (Altemeyer, 1998). In addition, recent research has also begun to indicate that the relationships of RWA and SDO with outcomes such as prejudice and ethnocentrism are not just correlational but do appear to be causal. Longitudinal studies, for instance, have consistently shown significant cross-lagged effects of RWA and SDO on prejudiced attitudes with reversed cross-lagged effects typically non-significant (Asbrock, Sibley, & Address correspondence to Chris G. Sibley, University of Auckland, Department of Psychology, Human Sciences Building, 10 Symonds St., Auckland 6449, New Zealand; [email protected] (e-mail). 448


Sibley & Duckitt

449

Duckitt, 2010; Kteiley, Sidanius & Levin, 2011; Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007a; Thomsen et al., 2010). A critical question is therefore: what are the psychological bases of RWA and SDO? Various studies have shown that RWA and SDO show high levels of stability over time (see Kteiley et al., 2011; Sibley & Liu, 2010). A plausible possibility, given the stability of SDO and RWA, is that basic personality factors may be important determinants. Sibley and Duckitt (2008) conducted a meta-analysis encompassing 71 studies and 22,068 participants supporting this possibility. Their results indicated that RWA was predicted by low openness to experience and high conscientiousness, while SDO was predicted by low agreeableness and also weakly by low openness. However, two important issues remain to be clarified. One issue is that of whether these effects are causal, and second, if causality can be assumed, how are these effects transmitted from these personality dimensions to RWA and SDO? The issue of causality is fundamental. It seems theoretically plausible that basic personality dispositions, which are generally assumed to be formed relatively early in life, should be developmentally and thus causally prior to RWA and SDO. This is based in part on the premise that SDO and RWA tend to be conceptualized and measured as social beliefs, attitudes, and values, and are therefore generally assumed to be formed somewhat later in life—perhaps, as Altemeyer (1998) suggested, in late adolescence. This is consistent with research by Hooghe and Wilkenfeld (2008), which indicated that political attitudes follow a developmental trajectory and gain coherence during late adolescence and young adulthood. Nevertheless, such evidence is at best only suggestive that personality should develop coherence prior to SDO and RWA, and hence influence the development of these latter traits. It is possible, and has indeed been argued by some, that RWA and SDO may themselves express basic personality dispositions (e.g., Altemeyer, 1998), or may exist in a reciprocal causal relationship with other personality traits such as empathy (Sidanius, Kteily, Sheehy-Skeffington, Ho, Sibley, & Duriez, in press). If this is the case, then it would seem most likely that the relationships between Big Five personality and RWA and SDO may be correlational or bidirectional. The second issue concerns how these effects, if causal, might be transmitted from Big Five personality dimensions to RWA and SDO. Two kinds of causal models have been proposed or seem implied in the research literature. One can be termed a direct effects model in which Big Five personality variables are modelled as simply having direct and unmediated causal effects on RWA and SDO (e.g., Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje, & Zakrisson, 2004). A second is that proposed by the Dual Process Model (DPM) of ideology and prejudice, which suggests that the causal effects of Big Five personality (or personality variables closely related to the Big Five dimensions) on RWA and SDO are partly or wholly mediated through two specific sets of worldview beliefs, which are themselves important proximal determinants of RWA and SDO (Duckitt, Wagner, du Plessis, & Birum, 2002;

450

The Journal of Social Psychology

Perry, Sibley & Duckitt, 2013; Sibley & Duckitt, 2009; Van Hiel, Cornelis, & Roets, 2007). The DPM therefore suggests that a more complex set of causally interrelated variables than those envisaged by a direct effects model are necessary to understand the ways in which basic personality dimensions such as the Big Five influence RWA and SDO.


The Dual Process Model of Ideology and Prejudice The DPM, which is diagrammatically summarized in Figure 1, proposes that RWA and SDO express two distinct sets of motivational goals or values that are made chronically salient for individuals by particular social worldview beliefs, which are in turn products of their personalities and their socialization in, and exposure to, particular social environments. According to Duckitt (2001), high RWA expresses the value or motivational goal of establishing and maintaining collective security, order, cohesion, and stability (as opposed to individual freedom, autonomy and self-expression), which is made chronically salient for individuals by the socialized belief that the social world is an inherently dangerous, unpredictable, and threatening (as opposed to a safe, stable, and secure) place. According to the DPM, a dangerous worldview derives from individuals’ personalities, and from their exposure to, and socialization in, social environments that appear to be dangerous, threatening, and unpredictable.

Social/group context: Dangerous/threatening

Worldview: Dangerous

Personality: Low Openness High Conscientiousness (Social conformity) Personality: Low Agreeableness (Tough-mindedness)

Ideological attitudes: RWA

Perceived threats to collective security Right-wing politics Nationalism Ethnocentrism Prejudice

Worldview: Competitive jungle

Ideological attitudes: SDO

Competitiveness over group dominance

Social/group context: Group dominance, inequality, competition

FIGURE 1. A dual process motivational model of the impact of personality, social environment, and social worldview beliefs on the two ideological attitude dimensions of RWA and SDO and their impact on socio-political behaviour and attitudes as mediated through perceived social threat or competitiveness over group dominance, power, and resources (adapted from Duckitt & Sibley, 2010, p. 1868).


Sibley & Duckitt

451

The predisposing personality trait dimension that causes people to adopt this belief in a dangerous world and thus be high in RWA was initially labelled in the DPM as social conformity (as opposed to autonomy). In Big-Five terms social conformity was seen as combining low openness and high conscientiousness. The updated DPM posits that people low in openness (and possibly also high in conscientiousness) should tend to be more sensitive to signals of danger and threat in both the physical and social environment (Duckitt & Sibley, 2009, 2010a). This premise is consistent with models of the evolved basis of species-wide variation in personality, and openness specifically, which suggest that low and high openness should have been equally adaptive in different ecological niches (Nettle, 2006; Penke, Denissen, & Miller, 2007). The fitness of low versus high openness should have depended on the balanced trade-off in costs and benefits from novel behaviours that could lead to positive outcomes (more likely in safe environments) or increase the risk of negative outcomes (more likely in dangerous environments; see Ashton & Lee, 2007). Low openness (and possibly high conscientiousness) should thus predispose the individual to adopt a more lenient threshold for detecting (rightly or wrongly) both realistic and symbolic threats to the existing social order (Sibley, Osborne & Duckitt, 2012). This should consequently cause such persons to be more likely to perceive outgroups that espouse values different from their own as threatening ingroup values and norms, thus increasing RWA via increased dangerous worldview (Duckitt & Sibley, 2009, 2010a). These effects should be particularly pronounced during times of uncertainty and upheaval, as such contexts should signal possible changes in the level of social danger. In addition to this indirect or mediated effect on RWA, low openness and high conscientiousness should also cause the individual to prefer order, structure, stability, and security more generally, and not only in response to the increased likelihood of perceiving danger and threat, which should increase RWA independent of dangerous worldview. SDO, on the other hand, stems from the social worldview belief that the world is a ruthlessly competitive jungle in which might is right, the strong win, and the weak lose; as opposed to a place of cooperative harmony, in which people care for, help, and share with each other. The DPM posits that competitive worldview makes the value or motivational goals of power, dominance, and superiority over others chronically salient for individuals, which are then expressed attitudinally in high SDO. The DPM posits that people low in agreeableness should tend to be more sensitive to signals of competition and the risk of, versus opportunity for, the exploitation of others in the social environment (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008). People high in agreeableness should, in contrast, tend to be more tender-minded toward others, be less likely to perceive competitive situations as zero-sum, and should generally be less ruthless in competitive situations when attempting to achieve self-interested goals—at least when social norms do not explicitly allow for more negative evaluations of others (Graziano, Bruce, Sheese & Tobin, 2007;


452


see also Crandall, Eshleman & O’Brien, 2002). This should cause people low in agreeableness to increase in competitive worldview over time, leading to a consequent increase in SDO; particularly during periods of economic uncertainty as such periods should signal change in the possible allocation and relative ratio of resources available across society. This view of agreeableness is also consistent with models of the evolved basis of species-wide variation in personality (see Penke et al. 2007). As with species-wide variation in openness, variation in agreeableness should occur to the extent that this trait was equally adaptive in different ecological niches (Nettle, 2006). Variation in Agreeableness, and related traits such as honesty-humility in the HEXACO model of personality structure, should have occurred because of the balanced trade-offs from behaviours that maximized gains through exploiting others (and other groups) in short-term exchanges versus increased gains through long-term mutual co-operation (see Ashton & Lee, 2007; Sibley et al., 2010). A low level of trait agreeableness in the Big-Five framework should thus predispose the individual to adopt a more lenient threshold for detecting signals of possible competition and the opportunity to exploit others. The Issue of Causality Research evidence bearing on the relationship between personality and RWA and SDO, and more specifically on the DPM, has thus far been largely correlational. Structural equation modelling with large data sets assessing all the variables proposed by the DPM has shown good fit for obtained data to the theoretically proposed causal model, with all hypothesized paths clearly significant (Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt et al, 2002; Sibley & Duckitt, 2009; Sibley, Harding, Perry, Asbrock, & Duckitt, 2010; Van Hiel et al., 2007). These studies therefore suggest that the more complex DPM, which incorporates dangerous and competitive worldviews, provides a more complete representation of how basic personality dispositions might causally affect RWA and SDO. However, because of the purely cross-sectional correlational nature of these data, none of this research has directly assessed the issue of causality. A major problem in testing causal relationships among relatively stable individual difference variables lies in the difficulty of adequately manipulating such variables to observe effects experimentally. Indeed, in our view the experimental research in this area, including our own, simply indicates that temporarily heightening the salience of particular worldviews can shift SDO and RWA or related social categorizations in the short-term (e.g., Cohrs & Asbrock, 2009; Cohrs, Asbrock, & Sibley, 2012; Duckitt & Fischer, 2003; Duckitt & Sibley, 2010b). While informative about salience effects, this research does not directly speak to the effects of systemic or societal-wide shifts on ideology. Longitudinal research designs in which cross-lagged effects can be tested over time provide less control than experimental designs because they cannot conclusively exclude the


Sibley & Duckitt

453

possibility that significant cross-lagged effects might reflect the action of extraneous variables. Nevertheless, they do provide a stronger test of causal hypotheses than is possible with cross-sectional correlational data, and they allow us to go beyond the study of temporarily induced salience manipulations. A related problem, and one that is more unique to models like the DPM that aim to incorporate the effects of systemic change and large-scale social factors, is that causal effects may only be apparent, or at least most easily detected, when societal or systemic conditions have changed over the timeframe examined. The DPM for instance, predicts that worldviews should predict SDO and RWA, but given that worldviews are in turn partially dependent upon actual social conditions (in concert with personality), their causal effect should be most readily detected when levels of inequality, competition, danger or moral diversity have changed. This can make it exceedingly difficult to test predictions derived from the DPM regarding socio-structural cause, and also for other related theories, given that one is arguably reliant on observing causal effects over periods where societal conditions have changed. Prior longitudinal studies provide promising evidence for the proposed cross-lagged effects of both Big-Five personality (Perry & Sibley, 2012; Sibley & Duckitt, 2010b), and related traits such as empathy (Sidanius et al., in press) on SDO and RWA. However, research on the full DPM using a full cross-lagged panel design remains lacking. Overview of the Present Study The present study tested the full set of possible causal pathways between BigFive personality, social worldviews and SDO and RWA proposed by the DPM. The study sampled members of the general community in a large New Zealand city. We employed a full cross-lagged panel design with two waves administered roughly one year apart. The study therefore provides the first longitudinal test of all pathways between personality, social worldviews, and SDO and RWA proposed by the DPM, and does so using a general community sample. The study timeframe was fortuitous in being able to capitalize on recent events to examine change during a period where the causal mechanisms proposed by the DPM should be readily apparent: before versus during the onset of the 2007/2008 global financial crisis. The first wave of the study was administered in January/February 2008. This was directly before the effects of the global financial crisis became salient in NZ. The second wave of the study was collected in March/April 2009, during a period where the effects of the global recession were readily felt in New Zealand and were exerting a clear and detrimental effect on the nation’s economy and society. The causal pathways proposed by the DPM, and evaluated in our longitudinal model, are summarized in Figure 1. Crosslagged paths formally predicted by the DPM are represented using solid lines in Figure 2.

454


.76** Openness to Experience

.51**

–.10*

–.15** Dangerous Worldview

.77**

.11** .23**

.69** Right-Wing Authoritarianism

–.16**


Conscientiousness

.61**

.43**

.11**

Competitive Worldview

–.17** –.11**

.53** .13** .16** .17**

Social Dominance Orientation

–.10*

Agreeableness

FIGURE 2. Diagram of significant standardized path coefficients for crosslagged effects controlling for other effects. (Note. This model shows all significant and marginally significant cross-lagged effects of each variable in the model on all other variables in the model over the one-year period (from January/February 2008 to March/April 2009). Circles denote the cross-time stability of each measure controlling for all other variables in the model. Predicted paths are shown in bold. Non-predicted paths are dashed. ∗ p < .05, ∗∗ p < .01, N = 247).

Method Participants and Sampling Procedure Time 1 data were collected from 858 participants. Participants were first approached in public places within the greater Auckland region in January/February 2008 and invited to complete a questionnaire (Auckland is the largest city in New Zealand, with a population of about 1.1 million). Of those sampled at Time 1, 651 (76%) provided contact details (postal or email address) and indicated they were willing to be contacted the following year to complete the Time 2 questionnaire in March/April 2009. The Time 2 sample contained complete data from 247 respondents (retention = 38%; 247/651). The Time 2 sample comprised 71 men and 172 women (4 unreported) with a mean age of 32.40 (SD = 15.48). In terms of ethnicity, 52% (n = 129) self-identified as NZ European, 13% (n =31) identified as Maori, 13% (n = 32) identified as Pacific Nations, 15% (n = 36) identified as Asian, 3% (n = 7) identified as Indian, and 5% (n = 12) identified with the category “other” or did not report their ethnicity.1

Sibley & Duckitt

455


Questionnaire Measures Big-Five personality was indexed using 8-item scales from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) facet scales developed by DeYoung, Quilty and Peterson (2007). DeYoung and colleagues (2007) developed measures of two correlated narrow-bandwidth facets of each Big-Five dimension. We included four items measuring each facet, giving a total of eight items per broad-bandwidth Big-Five dimension. Items were rated on a scale from 1 (very inaccurate) to 7 (very accurate) and averaged to give scale scores. Dangerous and competitive worldviews were each indexed using 4 balanced items from the scales developed by Duckitt et al. (2002). SDO and RWA were each measured using 6 balanced items from Sidanius and Pratto (1999) and Altemeyer (1998), respectively. Items were rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and averaged to give scale scores. Descriptive statistics and internal reliabilities for all scales at both times are reported in Table 1. Results We regressed each Time 2 measure on the complete set of Time 1 measures. The models thus controlled for the across-time stability of each construct (by regressing each Time 2 measure on its corresponding Time 1 measure), and allowed us to detect whether other Time 1 measures predicted residual variation in each Time 2 measure controlling for the stability of that measure over the year. Significant cross-lagged paths observed using this approach provide evidence consistent with the possibility of a causal effect. Such cross-lagged effects do not rule out the possibility that other unidentified ‘third variable effects’ might be driving differential change in the measures over time; they do, however, provide substantially stronger evidence for causal effects than that provided by cross-sectional modeling of variables assessed at the same point in time. Critically, the regression models included both the paths predicted by the DPM, and also all paths not predicted by the DPM. Regression models predicting change and stability in agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness are presented in Table 2. The models explained 50% of the variance in Time 2 agreeableness (R2 = .50; F(7,239) = 34.22, p < .001), 62% of the variance in Time 2 conscientiousness (R2 = .62; F(7,239) = 54.43, p < .001) and 63% of the variance in openness (R2 = .63; F(7,239) = 58.70, p < .001). As reported in Table 2, there was some tentative evidence for a marginally significant cross-lagged effect of SDO (b = −.09, se = .04, β = −.10, t = –1.97, p = .050) and a significant effect of competitive worldview on agreeableness (b = –.08, se = .04, β = –.11, t = –2.02, p = .045). Regression models predicting change and stability in dangerous and competitive worldview are presented in Table 3. The models explained 46% of the variance in Time 2 dangerous worldview (R2 = .46; F(7,239) = 29.16, p < .001), 49% of

.115 .267 −.411 .206 −.035 −.016 −.027 −.172 .761 .184 .211 −.371 .113 −.084 −.110 .009 −.125 4.732 .846 .763

.187 −.192 .199 .067 −.324 .200 −.242 .122 .686 .097 −.167 .151 .066 −.401 .183 −.190 5.182 .730 .585

2.

−.240 .087 .146 −.014 .278 .017 .247 .162 .773 −.251 .021 .139 −.119 .221 .053 4.550 .982 .781

3.

4.

−.198 .153 .121 −.043 .071 −.389 −.157 −.248 .712 −.151 .137 .179 −.041 −.024 3.553 .912 .766

N = 247, r-values > .125 significant at p < .05.

1. Extraversion T1 2. Agreeableness T1 3. Conscientiousness T1 4. Neuroticism T1 5. Openness T1 6. Dangerous World T1 7. Competitive World T1 8. RWA T1 9. SDO T1 10. Extraversion T2 11. Agreeableness T2 12. Conscientiousness T2 13. Neuroticism T2 14. Openness T2 15. Dangerous world T2 16. Competitive world T2 17. RWA T2 18. SDO T2 Mean SD Cronbach’s alpha

1.

−.137 −.258 −.257 −.333 .201 .211 −.018 −.159 .790 −.266 −.357 −.302 −.247 5.021 .766 .579

5.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

.270 .302 .077 .164 .390 .230 −.012 .009 .026 −.159 .018 −.348 .103 −.298 .259 .134 .074 .277 .021 .261 .150 .126 .100 −.093 .060 −.437 −.239 −.325 −.130 −.239 −.276 −.290 .200 .266 .013 −.185 .612 .249 .417 .139 −.072 .012 .127 .161 .224 .611 .001 .427 −.134 −.466 −.047 .157 .339 .064 .790 .297 .045 .091 .259 −.099 .126 .374 .181 .609 −.131 −.305 .043 −.006 3.932 2.582 3.311 2.525 4.885 5.383 4.704 3.551 1.077 .919 1.129 .875 .917 .710 .976 1.024 .576 . 613 .722 .661 .780 .641 .773 .812

6.

−.252 −.329 −.279 −.272 5.207 .799 .691

14.

.180 .410 .087 4.019 1.331 .759

15.

.060 .429 2.401 .931 .642

16.

TABLE 1. Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for All Measures at Time 1 (January/February 2008) and Time 2 (March/April 2009)


18.

.232 3.302 2.471 1.191 .963 .765 .732

17.

456 The Journal of Social Psychology

Sibley & Duckitt

457

TABLE 2. Cross-Lagged Regression Models Testing the Prospective Effects of the Time 1 Measures on Time 2 Personality Dimensions Reassessed One Year Later Model predicting Time 2 agreeableness


Time 1 measures Constant Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness to experience Dangerous worldview Competitive worldview Right-wing authoritarianism Social dominance orientation +p

b

β

Model predicting Time 2 conscientiousness

t

β

b

t

Model predicting Time 2 openness to experience β

b

t

2.42 1.70 1.51 .01 .01 .11 .59 .61 11.75∗∗ −.05 −.04 −.81 .03 .04 .87 .77 .77 18.02∗∗ −.02 −.03 −.66 .02 .03 .51 −.08 −.06 −1.40 .80 .76 17.36∗∗ .01 .02 .41 −.02 −.02 −.38 .01 .01 .24 .09 .08 1.73 −.03 −.04 −.77 −.08 −.11 −2.02∗ .00 .00 .04 .06 .07 1.46 −.05 −.07 −1.57 −.09 −.10 −1.97+

−.07 −.07 −1.44

−.01 −.01

−.12

= .05, ∗ p < .05, ∗∗ p < .01, N = 247.

TABLE 3. Cross-Lagged Regression Models Testing the Prospective Effects of the Time 1 Measures on Time 2 Social Worldviews Reassessed One Year Later Model predicting Time Model predicting Time 2 dangerous worldview 2 competitive worldview Time 1 measures Constant Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness to experience Dangerous worldview Competitive worldview Right-wing authoritarianism Social dominance orientation ∗p

b

β

t

b

β

t

1.55 .05 .01 −.25 .63 .14 .27 −.12

.03 .01 −.15 .51 .10 .23 −.08

.47 .23 −2.72∗∗ 9.73∗∗ 1.73 4.12∗∗ −1.39

3.06 −.21 −.06 −.20 .06 .43 −.08 .18

−.17 −.06 −.16 .11 .43 −.10 .17

−3.15∗∗ −1.22 −3.11∗∗ 2.12∗ 7.87∗∗ −1.77 3.23∗∗

< .05, ∗∗ p < .01, N = 247.

the variance in Time 2 competitive worldview (R2 = .49; F(7,239) = 32.70, p < .001). As reported in Table 3, we found evidence for the cross-lagged effects predicted by the DPM. Low openness significantly predicted dangerous worldview (b = –.25, se = .09, β = –.15, t = –2.72, p = .007), and low agreeableness


458


significantly predicted competitive worldview (b = –.18, se = .06, β = –.17, t = –3.23, p < .001). Dangerous worldview was also significantly predictive of competitive worldview (b = .09, se = .04, β = –.11, t = 2.12, p = .035). Low Openness predicted competitive worldview (b = –.20, se = .06, β = –.16, t = –3.11, p = .002) independent of agreeableness. Unexpectedly, RWA predicted dangerous worldview (b = –.20, se = .06, β = –.16, t = –3.11, p = .002) and SDO predicted competitive worldview (b = –.20, se = .06, β = –.16, t = –3.11, p = .002). Regression models predicting change and stability in RWA and SDO are presented in Table 4. The models explained 66% of the variance in Time 2 RWA (R2 = .66; F(7,239) = 66.53, p < .001), and 40% of the variance in Time 2 SDO (R2 = .40; F(7,239) = 22.51, p < .001). As reported in Table 4, we found evidence for the cross-lagged effects predicted by the DPM. Dangerous worldview predicted RWA, as expected (b = .12, se = .05, β = .11, t = 2.68, p = .008). Competitive worldview predicted SDO, also as expected (b = .17, se = .05, β = .16, t = 2.71, p = .007). Consistent with expectations, low openness (b = −.15, se = .07, β = –.10, t = –2.28, p = .023) and SDO (b = .18, se = .06, β = .13, t = 3.04, p = .003) also both predicted RWA. Figure 2 presents a diagram of all significant cross-lagged effects of each variable in the model on all other variables in the model over the one-year period. The circles in Figure 2 represent the cross-time stability of each measure controlling for all other variables in the model. Cross-lagged paths formally predicted by the DPM are represented by solid lines. Dashed paths represent non-predicted crosslagged paths. The figure provides an easily digestible overview of all predicted and non-predicted significant paths observed in our regression models. As can

TABLE 4. Cross-Lagged Regression Models Testing the Prospective Effects of the Time 1 Measures on Time 2 SDO and RWA Reassessed One Year Later Model predicting Time 2 RWA Time 1 measures Constant Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness to experience Dangerous worldview Competitive worldview Right-wing authoritarianism Social dominance orientation ∗p

< .05, ∗∗ p < .01, N = 247.

Model predicting Time 2 SDO

b

β

t

b

β

t

.39 .10 .01 −.15 .12 −.10 .73 .18

.06 .01 −.10 .11 −.08 .69 .13

1.47 .13 −2.28∗ 2.68∗∗ −1.69 15.72∗∗ 3.04∗∗

.63 −.03 .04 −.03 −.02 .17 .04 .58

−.02 .05 −.02 −.02 .16 .04 .53

−.37 .84 −.41 −.44 2.71∗∗ .69 9.10∗∗


Sibley & Duckitt

459

be clearly seen in Figure 2, all predicted effects were significant. We detected unexpected reciprocal effects of competitive worldview and SDO (marginally) on agreeableness. We also detected unexpected reciprocal effects of RWA and SDO on respective dangerous and competitive worldviews. Indeed, the standardized reciprocal effect of dangerous worldview on RWA was roughly twice the magnitude of that in the predicted direction leading from dangerous worldview to RWA (.23 versus .11). We tested the proposed causal pathways leading from (low) openness to dangerous worldview to resulting RWA, and from (low) agreeableness to competitive worldview to resulting SDO, by calculating Sobel’s z tests for these corresponding cross-lagged paths. For instance, to test the openness-dangerous worldview-RWA path, we calculated the Sobel’s z for the product of the cross-lagged paths of Time 1 openness on Time 2 dangerous worldview over time and the cross-lagged path of Time 1 dangerous worldview on Time 2 RWA. We took these estimates from our regression models controlling for all other cross-lagged paths and the test re-test stability of the measures. This method of assessment provides evidence supporting a longitudinal mediation model (see MacKinnon, 2008). We found tentative support for both predicted longitudinal mediation models. The pathway based on product terms for (low) openness to dangerous worldview perceptions to resulting RWA approached significance (Sobel’s z = 1.91, p = .056). The pathway based on product terms for (low) openness to dangerous worldview perceptions to resulting RWA was significant (Sobel’s z = 2.04, p = .041).

Discussion Duckitt’s (2001) DPM makes a number of explicit predictions about the causal processes through which personality and social worldviews should produce resulting individual differences in SDO and RWA. One challenge in testing causal predictions derived from the DPM is that many of the proposed constructs and processes are not readily amenable to experimental manipulation in laboratory settings. Rather, the DPM proposes causal effects that should generally occur over reasonably long time-frames and in response to, and possibly in interaction with, socio-structural changes in society (see Duckitt & Sibley, 2009, 2010a; Sibley et al., in press; Perry et al., 2013). The present study provided the first full longitudinal test of the causal relations between personality, social worldviews, and SDO and RWA proposed by the DPM over a one-year period. The study extended previous research in this area by testing a full cross-lagged model in a community sample (Sibley & Duckitt, 2010b; Perry & Sibley, 2012; see also Sidanius et al., in press). More importantly, the study capitalized on the onset of the global financial crisis in order to test processes hypothesized by the DPM at a time when they should have been readily apparent. That is, during the resulting

460


period of heightened economic instability, resource scarcity and general systemic uncertainty.


Overview of Predicted Longitudinal Effects Low openness predicted residualized change in dangerous worldview, and dangerous worldview prospectively predicted RWA over this same time-frame. Tests of longitudinal mediation also supported this causal sequence, with the longitudinal product term of these cross-lagged paths closely approaching significance at p < .06. These results are consistent with the premise that people low in openness should be more likely to identify with the existing social order as it provides a normative referent for existing social values and the way things should be, which in turn increases dangerous worldview beliefs, and consequent levels of RWA. Low agreeableness prospectively predicted residualized change in competitive worldview and competitive worldview prospectively predicted SDO. Tests of longitudinal mediation also supported this causal sequence. These results provide good support for the second causal sequence proposed by the DPM. They are consistent with the premise that people low in agreeableness should tend to view the world as a socially competitive Darwinist jungle in which might is right and winning is everything, which in turn heightens the motivational goal for intergroup dominance and superiority. Low openness also prospectively predicted RWA independent of its effect on dangerous worldview. This direct effect is consistent with the original DPM, which hypothesized that the earlier personality measure of social conformity should directly predict RWA independent of worldviews (Duckitt, 2001). This fits with the assertion made by the DPM that people low in openness should also tend to prefer order, structure, stability, and security independent of their threshold for detecting danger and threat in the social environment. This tendency to prefer order, structure and stability should directly predict RWA independent of dangerous worldview, to the extent that RWA reflects a motivational expression of this need for group structure and order that is partially independent of the response to perceived threat per se. This direct cross-lagged effect is also consistent with recent cross-sectional research by Jugert and Duckitt (2009), who reported that Social Conformity retained a direct association with RWA when controlling for dual indirect effects occurring though dangerous worldview and group identification. We made tentative predictions about the possible causal effect of conscientiousness on dangerous worldview and hence RWA. The two prior longitudinal studies have failed to detect cross-lagged effects of conscientiousness on RWA in undergraduates (Perry & Sibley, 2012; Sibley & Duckitt, 2010). Our results were consistent with these prior studies in failing to detect a significant cross-lagged effect. This suggests that conscientiousness does not causally affect


Sibley & Duckitt

461

ideology or worldviews, or if it does, then the effect is extremely weak and moderated by unidentified factors. Finally, as expected, SDO predicted residualized change in RWA, and not the reverse. The DPM states that the association between SDO and RWA and the direction of their causal effect on one another should depend upon the social context (Duckitt, 2001; Mirisola, Sibley, Boca, & Duckitt, 2007). Our results thus support the argument that SDO (and not RWA) should have been the primary ideological dimension salient during our sample time-frame, most likely because of the increased salience of economic uncertainty and resource-scarcity. Of course, in other social contexts, such as terrorist attacks or other outgroup threats, RWA should take over as the primary ideological motivation driving prejudice, which should in turn exert a proximal effect on SDO. Overview of Non-Predicted Longitudinal Effects Contrary to expectations, dangerous worldview prospectively predicted competitive worldview. This suggests that a tendency to see the social world as dangerous may also lead people to adopt a more competitive dog-eat-dog worldview over time, even in periods of economic uncertainty. RWA also exerted a reciprocal effect on dangerous worldview, and SDO exerted a reciprocal effect on competitive worldview. This is not the first time such effects have been reported, as Sibley and colleagues (2007) also identified an unexpected reciprocal effect in which RWA prospectively predicted dangerous worldview. It seems that at least in certain contexts, there are reciprocal mutually reinforcing causal relationships between social worldviews and the motivational goals indexed by SDO and RWA. People high in the threat-driven motivation for collective security and social cohesion (RWA-based) and people high in the competitive-driven motivation for group-based dominance and superiority (SDO-based) may tend over time to perceive their social environment as more aligned with their initial motivational goals. A related possibility is that increases in SDO and RWA may also be partially driven by group-based socialization, such as membership in fundamentalist groups in the case of RWA or high-status groups in the case of SDO (Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov, & Duarte, 2003; Poteat, Espelage, & Green, 2007; see also Gatto, Dambrun, Kerbrat & De Oliveira, 2010). Poteat et al. (2007), for instance, showed that adolescents’ levels of SDO tended to become aligned over time with the average or overall level of SDO expressed by members of their peer group. Thus, those who belonged to social groups whose other members were high in SDO tended to become similarly high in SDO themselves. Such socialization effects might be at least partially independent of personality and increase SDO and RWA directly. This should then increase the extent to which people attend to and encode signals about their social environment that support and further heighten existing perceptions of the threat of danger and the risk of competitive exploitation. In addition, we suspect that such socialization effects may generally


462


be more pronounced in times of systemic uncertainty and threat, to the extent that group memberships generally become more important for fulfilling epistemic motives and providing social support in such contexts. The power of such socialization effects in times of economic turmoil and system insecurity might possibly account for why, in our data, the effects of RWA and SDO on social worldviews were stronger than the reverse predicted effects of worldviews on these dual motives. Unexpectedly, low openness also prospectively predicted competitive worldview over the one year period. Moreover, this cross-lagged effect was of a comparable magnitude to that of openness on dangerous worldview, and as with all our tests of cross-lagged paths, it occurred when controlling for the full set of Time 1 predictors. Although this finding was not predicted, it is not inconsistent with previous cross-sectional research. Both Van Hiel and colleagues (2007) and Sibley and Duckitt (2009) reported that openness was negatively correlated with dangerous but also competitive worldview. However, Sibley and Duckitt (2009) showed that this cross-sectional association disappeared when adjusting for the effects of the other Big-Five dimensions. In their meta-analysis, Sibley and Duckitt (2008) also reported that openness had a positive bivariate correlation with SDO, although this effect was fairly weak (r = –.16). Taken in combination with the current longitudinal data, these findings suggest that openness may have a weak direct effect on competitive worldview independent of agreeableness. Openness may thus impact indirectly on SDO, in addition to its effect on increased dangerous worldview and RWA. This might possibly occur because low openness causes people to “seize and freeze” on salient information about economic insecurity, in addition to the increased tendency for people low in openness to pay heightened attention to signals of social danger and moral threat indicative of the dangerous worldview construct. Finally, SDO and competitive worldview both exerted non-predicted reciprocal effects on agreeableness. The definition of SDO as a personality trait or a result of personality has long been contested. The definition of SDO as a personality trait implies that SDO may exert cross-lagged effects on other aspects of personality, to the extent that one would generally expect different dimensions of personality to impact on one another over time (Sidanius et al., in press). Other research in contrast, suggests the SDO may be a product of socialization processes and situational factors combined with personality traits, where such traits are formally operationalized as summaries of regularities in behaviour (Duckitt, 2001; Guimond et al. 2003; see also Sibley & Liu, 2010). Both positions seem to have merit based on the available research findings. On the one hand, Perry and Sibley (2012) failed to detect a reciprocal cross-lagged effect of SDO on agreeableness such as that observed here; instead they reported that agreeableness had a unidirectional effect on SDO. Results from two independent samples, in contrast, have shown a reciprocal pattern between SDO and indices of trait empathy (Sidanius et al., in press). Sidanius et al. (in press) suggest that SDO may exist in a complex reciprocal dynamic with other aspects of

Sibley & Duckitt

463

personality, such as trait empathy. Hence SDO may operate as both an outcome and also in some cases a cause of more clearly defined indicators of personality. It is early days yet for research seeking to untangle such effects, but we wonder if the reciprocal effect of SDO on agreeableness might be partially context dependent and be more likely to occur in situations of increased competitiveness and economic turmoil, such as those that occurred during the intervening period in our longitudinal study.


Caveats and Conclusions Our study is not without its limitations. Our analyses of residualized change using a two-wave panel design provide a far stronger test of the causal effects than any analysis of cross-sectional data can conceivably achieve. Longitudinal designs also get at causal effects that are exceedingly difficult to tap experimentally in an ecologically valid manner, as one cannot manipulate economies or randomly allocate people to systemic social contexts. Nevertheless, our conclusions about cause based on cross-lagged analyses of data from two time points only hold to the extent that unidentified “third variables” exerted invariant effects on outcomes across time. If we assume that the effects of any unidentified “third variables” on the measured variables were invariant, then adjusting for a given Time 1 dependent variable should also control for the possible causal effects of other third variables on that outcome at subsequent times. This represents a considerable improvement in the validity of claims for causality than those based on cross-sectional data, but it is not as strong a test as would be provided by growth curve modelling of three or more time points (see Cole & Maxwell, 2003, for an excellent discussion of these and other issues relating to tests of cross-lagged effects using two-wave panel data). Our study breaks new ground in presenting the first full longitudinal test of the associations between the personality, social worldview and ideological components of the DPM. Moreover, our study sampled members of the community, rather than relying on undergraduates and examined change during a period of systemic economic uncertainty and increasing unemployment in 2008 to 2009. Consistent with hypotheses derived from the DPM, low openness predicted residualized change in dangerous worldview, which in turn predicted RWA; and low agreeableness predicted competitive worldview, which in turn predicted SDO. This study provides the most comprehensive longitudinal test of the DPM to date, and was conducted during a (hopefully) unique period of systemic instability when the causal effects predicted by the DPM should be, and were, readily apparent. NOTE 1. Portions of the Time 1 sample using measures relating to climate change (assessed in only a subset of the full sample) have been previously published by Milfont, Harré, Sibley, and Duckitt (2012). Correlations between Time 1 measures of personality and SDO

464


and RWA have also been reported by Sibley and Duckitt (2013). Analyses of longitudinal data from this sample have not been previously reported.


AUTHOR NOTES Chris G. Sibley is a Senior Lecturer of social psychology at the University of Auckland. His primary research interests are in prejudice, intergroup relations, environmental psychology, and quantitative methods and analysis. He is the Lead Investigator for the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study. John Duckitt is an Emeritus Professor in the School of Psychology at the University of Auckland. He is an expert on the personality and motivational bases of prejudice. REFERENCES Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Asbrock, F., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2010). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice: A longitudinal test. European Journal of Personality, 24, 324–340. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–166. Cohrs, J. C., & Asbrock, F. (2009). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice against threatening and competitive ethnic groups? European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 270–289. Cohrs, J. C., Asbrock, F., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Friend or foe, champ or chump? Social conformity and superiority goals activate warmth- versus competence-based social categorization schemas. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 471–478. Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediation models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558–577. Crandall, C. S., Eshleman, A., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359–378. DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big-Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896. Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna, (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). New York, NY: Academic Press. Duckitt, J., & Fisher, K. (2003). The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24, 199–222. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). A dual process motivational model of ideology, politics, and prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 98–109. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010a). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861–1894. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010b). Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation differentially moderate intergroup effects on prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 24, 583–601. Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 75–93.


Sibley & Duckitt

465

Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson, I. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big-Five personality, social dominance orientation, or right-wing authoritarianism? European Journal of Personality, 18, 46–482. Gatto, J., Dambrun, M., Kerbrat, C., & De Oliveira, P. (2010). Prejudice in the police: On the processes underlying the effects of selection and group socialisation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 252–269. Graziano, W. G., Bruce, J., Sheese, B. E., and Tobin, R.M. (2007). Attraction, personality, and prejudice: Liking none of the people most of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 556–582. Guimond, S., Dambrun, M., Michinov, N., & Duarte, S. (2003). Does social dominance generate prejudice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 697–721. Hooghe, M., & Wilkenfeld, B. (2008). The stability of political attitudes and behaviors across adolescence and early adulthood: A comparison of survey data on adolescents and young adults in eight countries. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 155–167. Jugert, P., & Duckitt, J. (2009). A motivational model of authoritarianism: integrating personal and situational determinants. Political Psychology, 30, 693–719. Kteily, N. S., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2011). Social Dominance Orientation: Cause or “mere effect”? Evidence for SDO as a causal predictor of prejudice and discrimination against ethnic and racial outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 208–214. MacKinnon, D.P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum. Milfont, T. L., Harré, N., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2012). Environmental generativity and the dilemma of climate change: Examining the effects of parental status on political party support. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2386–2504. Mirisola, A., Sibley, C. G., Boca, S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). On the ideological consistency between right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1851–1862. Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 61, 622–631. Penke, L., Denissen, J. J. A., & Miller, G. F. (2007). The evolutionary genetics of personality. European Journal of Personality, 21, 549–587. Perry, R., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Big-Five personality prospectively predicts social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 3–8. Perry, R., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013). Dangerous and competitive worldviews: A meta-analysis of their associations with Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 116–127. Poteat, V. P., Espelage, D. L., & Green, H.D. (2007). The socialization of dominance: Peer group contextual effects on homophobic and dominance attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1040–1050. Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 248–279. Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2009). Big-Five personality, social worldviews, and ideological attitudes: Further tests of a dual process cognitive-motivational model. Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 545–561. Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The personality bases of ideology: A one-year longitudinal study. Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 540–559. Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013). Personality geneses of authoritarianism: The form and function of openness to experience. In F. Funke, T. Petzel, J. C. Cohrs, & J.


466


Duckitt (Eds.), Perspectives on authoritarianism (pp. 169–199). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS-Verlag. Sibley, C. G., Duckitt, J., Bergh, R., Osborne, D., Perry, R., Asbrock, F., . . . Barlow, F. K. (in press). A dual process model of attitudes toward immigration: Person x residential area effects in a national sample. Political Psychology. Sibley, C. G., Harding, J. F., Perry, R., Asbrock, F., & Duckitt, J. (2010). Personality and prejudice: Extension to the HEXACO personality model. European Journal of Personality, 24, 515–534. Sibley, C. G., & Liu, J. H. (2010). Social dominance orientation: Testing a global individual difference perspective. Political Psychology, 31, 175–207. Sibley, C. G., Osborne, D., & Duckitt, J. (2012). Personality and political orientation: Metaanalysis and test of a threat-constraint model. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 664–677. Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Effects of dangerous and competitive worldviews on right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation over a fivemonth period. Political Psychology, 28, 357–371. Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Ho, A., Sibley, C. G., & Duriez, B. (in press). You’re inferior and not worth our concern: The interface between empathy and Social Dominance Orientation. Journal of Personality. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Thomsen, L., Green, E., Ho, A. K., Levin, S., van Laar, C., Sinclair, S., & Sidanius, J. (2010). Wolves in sheep’s clothing: SDO asymmetrically predicts perceived ethnic victimization among White and Latino students across three years. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 225–238. Van Hiel, A., Cornelis, I., & Roets, A. (2007). The intervening role of social worldviews in the relationship between the Five-Factor model of personality and social attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 21, 131–148.

Received July 30, 2012 Accepted November 28, 2012

Test anxiety and the economic recession.

Financial strain, social capital, and perceived health during economic recession: a longitudinal survey in rural Canada.

Community mental health ideology: a problematic model for rural areas.

Parents' Gender Ideology and Gendered Behavior as Predictors of Children's Gender-Role Attitudes: A Longitudinal Exploration.

Longitudinal test of a developmental model of the transition to early drinking.

Longitudinal test of a reciprocal model of smoking expectancies and smoking experience in youth.

Global longitudinal strain: a useful everyday measurement?

Examination of a dual-process model predicting riding with drinking drivers.

Global validation of a process-based model on vegetation gross primary production using eddy covariance observations.

Global stress response during a social stress test: impact of alexithymia and its subfactors.

Brain activity and connectivity during poetry composition: Toward a multidimensional model of the creative process.

Better and Worse: A Dual-Process Model of the Relationship between Core Self-evaluation and Work-Family Conflict.

Well-Being During Recession in the UK.

A step towards accreditation: A robustness test of etching process.

Comparing intergroup contact effects on blatant and subtle prejudice in adolescents: a multivariate multilevel model.

Electroporation of DC-3F cells is a dual process.

Longitudinal in vivo MRI in a Huntington's disease mouse model: Global atrophy in the absence of white matter microstructural damage.

A Behavioral Process Model of Familism.

Disclosure and anxiety: a test of the fever model.

Aging-related decrements during specific phases of the dual-task Timed Up-and-Go test.

Toward a meaningful metric of implicit prejudice.

Reflective and automatic processes in health care professional behaviour: a dual process model tested across multiple behaviours.

Silfverskiold's test in total ankle replacement with gastrocnemius recession.

A numerical study on dual-phase-lag model of bio-heat transfer during hyperthermia treatment.