Page 42 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

DOVIDIO AND HEBL
18
MODERATING FACTORS
As illustrated in the bottom half of Fig. 2.1, at least five types of moderators
can influence cognitive and affective reactions to members of stigmatized
groups and the basic expression of discrimination. The first three mod­
erators (individual differences, social context, and target characteristics)
largely influence the early stages depicted in Fig. 2.1, shaping social catego­
rization processes; the nature of evaluative, cognitive, and affective biases
that are elicited; and the manifestation of stereotypes and differentiated
emotional reactions. The last two moderating factors (perceiver motiva­
tions and target responses) tend to influence the later stages depicted in
Fig. 2.1.

Individual Differences

People differ systematically in their tendencies to perceive others in terms
of group membership, in their propensity to see groups hierarchically, and
in their willingness to endorse stereotypic characterizations and prejudicial
attitudes openly. We consider three individual differences, the first of which
is authoritarianism. Developed as a construct in the late 1940s, the author­
itarian personality inventory was constructed to measure anti-Semitism
and its correlates (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950).
The resulting personality structure largely reflected ethnocentrism, a ten­
dency to think in rigid categories, a need to submit to authority, adherence
to middle class values, and rationalized aggression.
Altemeyer (1996) continued Adorno et al.'s (1950) line of research by
focusing on what he referred to as right-wing authoritarians, or people
who specifically (a) submit to authorities, (b) exhibit aggression toward
social deviants, and (c) maintain conventional beliefs. Those scoring high
in right-wing authoritarianism are also more likely to endorse and defend
the status quo and hold negative attitudes toward and limit the opportu­
nities of stigmatized or oppressed individuals. Those high in right-wing
authoritarianism are also likely to see the world as threatening and may
feel more justified in discriminating against others as a way to maintain
control (see also Crandall & Eshleman, 2003).
A second individual difference involves social dominance orientation
(Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). People high in social dom­
inance orientation believe that group hierarchies are inevitable, see the
world as involving competition between groups for resources, and view
unequal social outcomes as a consequence of social hierarchies as appro­
priate. They tend to be high in prejudice toward a range of other groups.
Individuals low in social dominance orientation, in contrast, are generally