The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of Dangerous and Competitive Worldviews on Right‐Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation over a Five‐Month Period
Abstract
The cross‐lagged effects of dangerous and competitive social worldviews on Right‐Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) were examined over a five‐month period (N = 165). Analyses indicated that the motivational goal for group‐based dominance and superiority indexed by SDO changed as a function of the degree to which the social world was perceived as a competitive place characterized by inequality and resource scarcity. The motivational goal for ingroup conformity and collective security indexed by RWA, in contrast, changed as a function of the degree to which the social world was perceived as a dangerous and threatening place prone to high levels of crime and immoral behavior. These findings are consistent with the causal pathways between social worldviews and ideological attitudes predicted by Duckitt's (2001) model of the dual motivational and cognitive processes underlying prejudice. An unexpected reciprocal effect in which RWA predicted longitudinal change in dangerous worldview was also identified, suggesting that the relationship between these two constructs may be more complex than previously hypothesized.
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
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.246 · Cited by 3,889
Threat as a factor in authoritarianism: An analysis of archival data
Sales, S. M. (1973) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0035588 · Cited by 360
Threat and authoritarianism in the United States, 1978-1987
Doty, R. M., Peterson, B. E., & Winter, D. G. (1991) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.629 · Cited by 329 · cited 2×
“In terms of voting behavior, for example, conservative political incumbents received greater support during periods of high social threat, whereas liberal political incumbents received greater support during periods of low threat (Doty et al., 1991).”
Background
Cited by
Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600 · Cited by 2,125
Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote
Mutz, D. C. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1718155115 · Cited by 1,236
Personality, Ideology, Prejudice, and Politics: A Dual‐Process Motivational Model
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x · Cited by 783
Self-citationIdeological Asymmetries and the Essence of Political Psychology
Jost, J. T. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12407 · Cited by 696
A Dual-Process Motivational Model of Ideology, Politics, and Prejudice
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/10478400903028540 · Cited by 484
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J.
- Venue
- Political Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-05-15
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 357-371
- ISSN
- 0162-895X (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9221
- OpenAlex
- W1993583112
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 31.61
- 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: Effects of Dangerous and Competitive Worldviews on Right‐Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation over a Five‐Month Period. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00572.x
- The paper
- 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 Five‐Month Period. Political Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00572.x
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.