Christopher M. Federico

Ethnic Identity, Legitimizing Ideologies, and Social Status: A Matter of Ideological Asymmetry

This paper examines the ideological asymmetry hypothesis with respect tothe interface between legitimizing ideologies and psychological attachment to ones ethnic group. The ideological asymmetry hypothesis suggests that hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing ideologies should be positively associated with ingroup attachment among high-status groups, but that among low-status groups these associations should be either less positive in magnitude (isotropic asymmetry) relative to high-status groups or negative in direction (anisotropic asymmetry). The opposite pattern should be found with respect to the interface between hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing ideologies and ingroup attachment: Among high-status groups these associations should be negative, but among low-status groups these associations should be either less negative in magnitude (isotropic asymmetry) relative to high-status groups or positive in direction (anisotropic asymmetry). The presence of isotropic versus anisotropic asymmetry is hypothesized to depend on the degree of disparity in status between the groups being compared: Wider status gaps should tend toward anisotropic asymmetries. The relationships between legitimizing ideologies and ingroup attachment were compared for (1) relatively high-status ethnic groups (European and Asian Americans) versus relatively low-status ethnic groups (Latinos and African Americans) in the United States, (2) the higher-status Jewish ethnic group (Ashkenazim) versus the lower-status Jewish ethnic group (Mizrachim) in Israel, and (3) the high-status Israeli Jews versus the low-status Israeli Arabs. The data were largely consistent with the ideological asymmetry hypothesis. The implications of these findings are discussed within the theoretical frameworks of social dominance theory and other approaches to intergroup relations.

Sophistication and the Antecedents of Whites' Racial Policy Attitudes: Racism, Ideology, and Affirmative Action in America

A number of researchers have argued that the effects of prejudice on the racial policy attitudes and general political beliefs of white Americans may be restricted to the poorly educated and politically unsophisticated. In contrast, rather than being motivated by prejudice, the racial policy attitudes and ideological values of the politically so- phisticated white Americans should be more firmly informed and mo- tivated by the tolerant values at the heart of American political culture. These values include such things as individualism, notions of fair play, and devotion to the principle of equality of opportunity. We tested this hypothesis using white respondents from the 1986 and 1992 National Election Studies. Our evidence generally indicated that racial policy attitudes and political ideology were more powerfully associated with ideologies of racial dominance and superiority among politically so- phisticated white Americans than among political unsophisticated white Americans. Moreover, even among the sophisticated, we found that various forms of egalitarianism predicted support for-rather than op- position to-affirmative action and that support for equal opportunity is not uniformly distributed across the political spectrum.

Social Dominance Orientation and Intergroup Bias: The Legitimation of Favoritism for High-Status Groups

Based on both classical and contemporary perspectives on the psychology of legitimacy, it was hypothesized that the pattern of relationships between social dominance orientation (SDO) and favoritism for high-status groups would depend on the status of one’s group and the perceived legitimacy of the group-based status distinction. Among members of high-status groups, SDO was expected to be positively related to favoritism for the high-status group at both high and low levels of legitimacy. Among members of low-status groups, SDO and high-status group favoritism were only expected to be positively related when the system was perceived to be legitimate. The results of two studies provided a clear pattern of support for these expectations. Implications for social dominance theory and other perspectives on the psychology of legitimacy are discussed.

The relationship between the need for closure and support for military action against Iraq: moderating effects of national attachment.

A variety of studies suggest that a high need for closure—that is, a desire for knowledge that is clear, stable, and unambiguous as opposed to confusing or uncertain—may be associated with greater hostility toward relevant outgroups. Using international attitudes as the context, the authors examine the hypothesis that the relationship between the need for closure and support for military action against Iraq may be moderated by identification with the national ingroup. Specifically, it is expected that this relationship will be moderated by nationalism (i.e., an aggressive form of identification based on a desire for national dominance) but not patriotism (i.e., a more neutral love of one’s country). The data provided a clear pattern of support for this hypothesis and additional analyses indicated that a high need for closure reduced variability about the use of force among the highly nationalistic but not the highly patriotic.

The Interactive Effects of Social Dominance Orientation, Group Status, and Perceived Stability on Favoritism for High-Status Groups:

Two studies examined the interactive effects of social dominance orientation (SDO), group status, and perceived stability on various manifestations of favoritism for high-status groups: (1) an analysis of survey data from a sample of UCLA students, and (2) an analogous experimental study using a modified version of the minimal-group paradigm. Results of these studies offered general support for the hypothesis that high-SDO members of low-status groups would only favor high-status groups when the system of hierarchy was perceived to be stable (i.e. impervious to change), although findings were somewhat less clear-cut in the experimental study. Implications for social dominance theory and other theories of intergroup behavior are discussed.

Heralding the Authoritarian? Orientation Toward Authority in Early Childhood

In the research reported here, we examined whether individual differences in authoritarianism have expressions in early childhood. We expected that young children would be more responsive to cues of deviance and status to the extent that their parents endorsed authoritarian values. Using a sample of 43 preschoolers and their parents, we found support for both expectations. Children of parents high in authoritarianism trusted adults who adhered to convention (vs. adults who did not) more than did children of parents low in authoritarianism. Furthermore, compared with children of parents low in authoritarianism, children of parents high in authoritarianism gave greater weight to a status-based “adult = reliable” heuristic in trusting an ambiguously conventional adult. Findings were consistent using two different measures of parents’ authoritarian values. These findings demonstrate that children’s trust-related behaviors vary reliably with their parents’ orientations toward authority and convention, and suggest that individual differences in authoritarianism express themselves well before early adulthood.

Opposition to equality and support for tradition as mediators of the relationship between epistemic motivation and system-justifying identifications

Individuals with a high need for cognitive closure, or a preference for knowledge that is certain and clear, tend to adopt conservative system-justifying ideologies. Nevertheless, few studies have examined the intervening orientations responsible for this relationship. While conservatism is anchored in values that both support tradition and oppose equality, we suggest that the need for closure is linked primarily with the former. In three studies, we found (a) that the need for closure is more strongly related to support for tradition than opposition to equality, and (b) that the indirect effect of the need for closure on conservatism is stronger via the former than the latter. By clarifying the links between the need for closure and multiple antecedents of ideology, these findings provide new insight into the psychological foundations of political belief by suggesting that the need for closure is not equally relevant to all aspects of system justification.

Race, Education, and Individualism Revisited

Current work suggests that individualistic values are more likely to be invoked in judgments about welfare recipients when the latter are black. Nevertheless, this “racialization” hypothesis has yet to be directly tested by looking at whether generalized individualism is more strongly related to hostility toward welfare recipients among whites when the recipients are black. In this paper, I conduct this critical test. I also show that this tendency is strongest among college-educated whites and that it occurs for both descriptive individualism (i.e., the belief that hard work and self-reliance lead to success) and prescriptive individualism (i.e., a normative endorsement of these traits).

Context, engagement, and the (multiple) functions of negativity bias

Hibbing and colleagues argue that political attitudes may be rooted in individual differences in negativity bias. Here, we highlight the complex, conditional nature of the relationship between negativity bias and ideology by arguing that the political impact of negativity bias should vary as a function of (1) issue domain and (2) political engagement.

Epistemic Motivation and the Structure of Moral Intuition: Dispositional Need for Closure as a Predictor of Individualizing and Binding Morality

Moral foundations theory argues that morality encompasses both group–preserving binding concerns about in–group loyalty, authority and purity and individualizing concerns about harm avoidance and fairness. Although studies have examined the relationship between sociopolitical attitudes and the moral foundations, the relationship between individual differences in epistemic motivation—as indexed by need for cognitive closure—and moral intuition remains unexplored. Given the role of groups in providing epistemic security, we hypothesized that the need for closure would be most strongly related to support for the foundations most central to the regulation of group ties, that is, the binding foundations as opposed to the individualizing ones. Data from three samples provided evidence for this. Unpacking this pattern, we also found that those high in need for closure endorsed all foundations, whereas those low in need for closure emphasized only the individualizing ones. Finally, we found that the relationship between need for closure and the binding foundations was mediated by right–wing authoritarianism, an orientation closely linked to a desire for the preservation of conventional in–group morality. Copyright