Suchergebnisse

Research suggests that different motivational dynamics underlie right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). These differences may be framed in the theory of basic human values. RWA may trace back to conservation versus openness-to-change values, and SDO to self-enhancement versus self-transcendence values. Based on a large-scale German survey, associations of RWA and SDO with personal values and attitudes in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, were analyzed. Results indicated that RWA related more strongly than SDO to conservation values and threat-related attitudes toward Islam as an expression of the motivational goals of social control and security, whereas RWA and SDO related equally to self-enhancement versus self-transcendence values and concern for negative consequences of military action as an expression of the motivational goal of altruistic concern. Thus, the motivational bases of RWA and SDO appear to be only partly different.

Following several political‐psychological approaches, the present research analyzed whether orientations toward human rights are a function of right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), basic human values in the sense of Schwartz (1992), and political ideology. Three dimensions of human rights attitudes (endorsement, restriction, and enforcement) were differentiated from human rights knowledge and behavior. In a time‐lagged Internet survey (N = 479), using structural equation modeling, RWA, universalism and power values, and political ideology (measured at Time 1) differentially predicted dimensions of human rights attitudes (measured at Time 2 five months later). RWA and universalism values also predicted self‐reported human rights behavior, with the effects mediated through human rights endorsement. Human rights knowledge also predicted behavior. The psychological roots of positive and negative orientations toward human rights, consequences for human rights education, and the particular role of military enforcement of human rights are discussed.

In an Internet survey (N = 275), we investigated how right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), personal values, and political ideology predicted attitudes toward restriction of civil liberties and toward surveillance measured one year later. Feelings of threat from terrorism were also taken into account. RWA, SDO, political ideology, security values, and self‐direction values were significant predictors. In addition, RWA interacted with threat from terrorism, in that threat reinforced the positive effect of RWA on support for surveillance measures. Thus, the study contributes to the understanding of psychological reasons for support for political measures related to civil liberties.

In an Internet survey (N = 275), we investigated how right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), personal values, & political ideology predicted attitudes toward restriction of civil liberties & toward surveillance measured one year later. Feelings of threat from terrorism were also taken into account. RWA, SDO, political ideology, security values, & self-direction values were significant predictors. In addition, RWA interacted with threat from terrorism, in that threat reinforced the positive effect of RWA on support for surveillance measures. Thus, the study contributes to the understanding of psychological reasons for support for political measures related to civil liberties. Tables, Figures, Appendixes, References. Adapted from the source document.

Psychological determinants of generalized militaristic attitudes & attitudes toward specific wars were analyzed on the basis of 2 waves of a large German survey on attitudes after September 11, 2001 (Ns = 1,548 & 540). Personal values -- as defined by the theory of basic human values by Schwartz (1992) well as ideological attitudes, threat of terrorism, & concern for human costs as mediators, were taken into account. Militaristic attitudes were consistently related to high priority of self-enhancement (power, achievement) & conservation (security, conformity) values & low priority of self-transcendence values (universalism, benevolence). Path analyses showed that the effects of conservation values were predominantly mediated by right-wing authoritarianism & threat of terrorism, & the effects of self-enhancement & self-transcendence values were predominantly mediated by social dominance orientation & (lack of) concern for human costs. These results suggest that there are 2 different psychological processes that lead to support for war. Tables, Figures, Appendixes, References. Adapted from the source document.

According to just war theory, military interventions have to fulfill several criteria in order to be legitimate (Haspel, 2002). These criteria correspond broadly to four processes of moral disengagement described by Bandura (1999): moral justification, denial of responsibility, minimization of negative consequences, & blame of the victim. Using data from a German Internet study with 1,536 participants, we examined whether these aspects of interpretation relate to attitude toward the Afghanistan War, whether there are specific patterns of moral disengagement, & how these patterns relate to attitudinal variables. All aspects of interpretation related to support for war. We identified various patterns of moral disengagement. However, only minimization of negative consequences & denial of responsibility were found in all patterns. 5 Tables, 17 References. Adapted from the source document.