Suchergebnisse

Differences in social attitudes between youthful supporters of different Swedish political parties were studied within a cluster sample of 783 Swedish high school students. Analyses of variance disclosed that, overall, respondents with different political party preferences differed with respect to social attitude dimensions: Political‐Economic Conservatism, Social Inequality, Punitiveness, Militarism, Pro‐western Sentiments, Racism, Xenophobia and Religion in that order. Multivariate, logistic regression analysis disclosed, among other things, that (1) the issue of political‐economic conservatism (i.e. 'left‐right') was a highly salient one for all party supporters with the exception of fascists, and (2) with the exception of Political‐Economic Conservatism, different combinations of social attitudes were shown to discriminate any given party from all other parties. The theoretical implications of the findings are discussed.

The relative plausibilities of three theories concerning the relationship between sociopolitical ideology and certain personality variables were examined using 783 Swedish high school students: authoritarian personality theory, extremism theory, and context theory. The three theories were compared by examining degree of information search and interest in politics as a function of sociopolitical ideology and ideological homogeneity as a function of parental educational level. The main results showed that: (1) The relationships between degree of information search and political interest on the one hand, and sociopolitical ideology on the other, were primarily curvilinear indicating greater interest in politics and greater information search for both "left" and "right extremists" as compared to moderates on a number of ideological dimensions. (2) Subjects with well-educated parents were more ideologically heterogeneous than subjects with poorly educated parents. These differences were more marked for males than for females. The results were most consistent with context theory.

International audience ; Using vocational choice theory and social dominance theory as guiding frameworks, this paper examines the interrelationships between the types of social institutions that a person occupies, on the one hand, and the sociopolitical attitudes and behavioral predispositions that a person displays, on the other. Beginning with Holland (1959, 1966), numerous researchers have documented the fact that people's work-related values tend to match the values of their work environments. Researchers have also found, as we might expect, that this value match yields superior job performance and greater employee satisfaction. Social dominance theory has proposed an important expansion of this research: people's sociopolitical attitudes (e.g. anti-egalitarianism) should also be compatible, or congruent, with their institutional environments (e.g. schools, workplaces). A growing body of research supports this claim. Specifically, recent research has shown that hierarchy-enhancing (HE) organizations (e.g. police forces) tend to be occupied by those with anti-egalitarian beliefs, while hierarchy-attenuating (HA) organizations (e.g. civil liberties organizations) tend to be occupied by those with relatively democratic beliefs. This research has also provided evidence for five (non-mutually exclusive) processes underlying this institutional assortment: self-selection, institutional selection, institutional socialization, differential reward, and differential attrition. This paper reviews the literature bearing on each of these processes, and suggests key paths for future research.

Using vocational choice theory and social dominance theory as guiding frameworks, this paper examines the interrelationships between the types of social institutions that a person occupies, on the one hand, and the sociopolitical attitudes and behavioral predispositions that a person displays, on the other. Beginning with Holland (1959, 1966), numerous researchers have documented the fact that people's work-related values tend to match the values of their work environments. Researchers have also found, as we might expect, that this value match yields superior job performance and greater employee satisfaction. Social dominance theory has proposed an important expansion of this research: people's sociopolitical attitudes (e.g. anti-egalitarianism) should also be compatible, or congruent, with their institutional environments (e.g. schools, workplaces). A growing body of research supports this claim. Specifically, recent research has shown that hierarchy-enhancing (HE) organizations (e.g. police forces) tend to be occupied by those with anti-egalitarian beliefs, while hierarchy-attenuating (HA) organizations (e.g. civil liberties organizations) tend to be occupied by those with relatively democratic beliefs. This research has also provided evidence for five (non-mutually exclusive) processes underlying this institutional assortment: self-selection, institutional selection, institutional socialization, differential reward, and differential attrition. This paper reviews the literature bearing on each of these processes, and suggests key paths for future research.

American and Israeli university students completed questionnaires in their native languages assessing ingroup identification, social dominance orientation (SDO), and ingroup and outgroup affect. The interrelationships among the variables were examined for high‐ and low‐status groups in three intergroup contexts: whites and Latinos in the United States, Ashkenazim and Mizrachim in Israel, and Jews and Arabs in Israel. Theoretical predictions of social identity theory and social dominance theory were tested. Results indicated that for all high‐ and low‐status groups, stronger ingroup identification was associated with more positive ingroup affect, and for nearly all groups, higher SDO was associated with more negative affect toward the low‐status group. In addition, SDO was positively associated with ingroup identification for all high‐status groups, and negatively associated with ingroup identification for almost all low‐status groups. Explanations for cross‐cultural differences in the factors driving group affect are suggested, and theoretical refinements are proposed that accommodate them.