The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Dual-Process Motivational Model of Ideology, Politics, and Prejudice
Abstract
There have been two broad approaches to how sociopolitical or ideological attitudes are structured. The more traditional unidimensional approach sees ideological attitudes as organized along a single left-to-right dimension, and influenced by a single coherent set of social and psychological causes, but has not been well supported empirically. During the past 2 decades evidence has increasingly suggested that there are two distinct dimensions of ideological attitudes, which seem best captured by the constructs of Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). These dimensions may sometimes be strongly related, but often are not, and seem to express quite different basic values or motivational goals. This has been formalized in a dual-process motivational model of ideological attitudes, which sees RWA and SDO as originating in different social worldview beliefs, personality trait dimensions, and social environmental influences, and as influencing socio-political and intergroup behavior and outcomes in different ways and through different mechanisms. New research supporting these propositions is reviewed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Advances In Experimental Social Psychology
(2022) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(22)x0002-6 · Cited by 22,259
Schwartz, S. H. (1992) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6 · Cited by 14,619
(1973) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 10,144
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D., & Sandford, R. N. (2001) · Racism: Essential Readings · doi:10.4135/9781446220986.n8 · Cited by 6,456
Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutes and Organizations across Nations
(2018) · Macat Library eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781912128334 · Cited by 5,455
The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491 · Cited by 5,202
Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.67.4.741 · Cited by 4,954
Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 · Cited by 4,904 · cited 3×
“…empirically validated, or even investigated, and more recently it has been increasingly accepted that the F-scale and measures derived from it are measures of social attitudes rather than of personality (e.g., Duriez & Van Hiel, 2002; Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov, & Duarte, 2003; Jost et al., 2003).”
BackgroundResultSocial Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139175043 · Cited by 3,597
Social dominance: an intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.37-3413 · Cited by 3,376
Cited by
Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology
Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., & Alford, J. R. (2014) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x13001192 · Cited by 608
The influence of political ideology and trust on willingness to vaccinate
Baumgaertner, B., Carlisle, J. E., & Justwan, F. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0191728 · Cited by 359
Personality and political orientation: Meta-analysis and test of a Threat-Constraint Model
Sibley, C. G., Osborne, D., & Duckitt, J. (2012) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.08.002 · Cited by 314
Self-citationMalka, A., Soto, C. J., Inzlicht, M., & Lelkes, Y. (2014) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0036170 · Cited by 280
Taking Foreign Policy Personally: Personal Values and Foreign Policy Attitudes
Rathbun, B. C., Kertzer, J. D., Reifler, J., Goren, P., & Scotto, T. J. (2016) · International Studies Quarterly · doi:10.1093/isq/sqv012 · Cited by 266
Metadata
- Authors
- Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G.
- Venue
- Psychological Inquiry
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-08-06
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2-3
- Pages
- 98-109
- ISSN
- 1047-840X (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7965
- OpenAlex
- W2006037106
- Cited by
- 484
- References
- 67
- FWCI
- 43.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Dual-Process Motivational Model of Ideology, Politics, and Prejudice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10478400903028540
- The paper
- Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). A Dual-Process Motivational Model of Ideology, Politics, and Prejudice. Psychological Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400903028540
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
