Social dominance and authoritarianism have mostly countervailing associations with attitudes about COVID-19 and its management

IF 4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Group Processes & Intergroup Relations Pub Date : 2024-03-14 DOI:10.1177/13684302231208382
Elena Zubielevitch, Nicole Satherley, Chris G. Sibley, Danny Osborne
{"title":"Social dominance and authoritarianism have mostly countervailing associations with attitudes about COVID-19 and its management","authors":"Elena Zubielevitch, Nicole Satherley, Chris G. Sibley, Danny Osborne","doi":"10.1177/13684302231208382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) often predict similar outcomes, their respective motivations to reinforce inequality and mitigate threat are ostensibly incompatible with attempts to manage a pandemic. We test the potential countervailing associations SDO and RWA have with COVID-19 attitudes in a nationwide random sample of New Zealand adults ( N = 31,025). As hypothesized, SDO and RWA had countervailing associations with most COVID-19 attitudes, including believing the health risks were exaggerated; trust in and satisfaction with the government; compliance with various health directives; and getting information from mainstream media and the government. Nevertheless, SDO and RWA both correlated positively with getting information from social media, believing COVID-19 was laboratory-created, worrying about catching the virus, confidence in recovering from COVID-19, and ruminating about the pandemic. Collectively, these results suggest that people who prefer hierarchies may oppose COVID-19 containment efforts, whereas authoritarians may support such measures.","PeriodicalId":48099,"journal":{"name":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302231208382","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) often predict similar outcomes, their respective motivations to reinforce inequality and mitigate threat are ostensibly incompatible with attempts to manage a pandemic. We test the potential countervailing associations SDO and RWA have with COVID-19 attitudes in a nationwide random sample of New Zealand adults ( N = 31,025). As hypothesized, SDO and RWA had countervailing associations with most COVID-19 attitudes, including believing the health risks were exaggerated; trust in and satisfaction with the government; compliance with various health directives; and getting information from mainstream media and the government. Nevertheless, SDO and RWA both correlated positively with getting information from social media, believing COVID-19 was laboratory-created, worrying about catching the virus, confidence in recovering from COVID-19, and ruminating about the pandemic. Collectively, these results suggest that people who prefer hierarchies may oppose COVID-19 containment efforts, whereas authoritarians may support such measures.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社会主导地位和专制主义与人们对 COVID-19 及其管理的态度有很大程度的相反关系
尽管社会支配取向(SDO)和右翼专制主义(RWA)经常预测出类似的结果,但它们各自强化不平等和减轻威胁的动机表面上与管理大流行病的尝试不相容。我们在全国范围内随机抽样新西兰成年人(N = 31,025),测试了 SDO 和 RWA 与 COVID-19 态度之间的潜在反向关联。正如假设的那样,SDO 和 RWA 与大多数 COVID-19 态度有反向关联,包括认为健康风险被夸大;对政府的信任和满意度;遵守各种健康指令;以及从主流媒体和政府获取信息。然而,SDO 和 RWA 与从社交媒体获取信息、认为 COVID-19 是实验室制造的、担心感染病毒、从 COVID-19 中恢复的信心以及对流行病的反思均呈正相关。总之,这些结果表明,喜欢等级制度的人可能会反对遏制 COVID-19 的努力,而独裁者则可能会支持此类措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
76
期刊介绍: Group Processes & Intergroup Relations is a scientific social psychology journal dedicated to research on social psychological processes within and between groups. It provides a forum for and is aimed at researchers and students in social psychology and related disciples (e.g., organizational and management sciences, political science, sociology, language and communication, cross cultural psychology, international relations) that have a scientific interest in the social psychology of human groups. The journal has an extensive editorial team that includes many if not most of the leading scholars in social psychology of group processes and intergroup relations from around the world.
期刊最新文献
Judgments toward displays of national (dis)loyalty in members of nations other than one’s own: Universalistic and parochial perspectives Two Paths to Violence: Individual versus Group Emotions during Conflict Escalation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories “Ins and outs”: Ethnic identity, the need to belong, and responses to inclusion and exclusion in inclusive common ingroups Divergent views of party positions: How ideology and own issue position shape party perception through convergence and divergence processes Corrigendum to “Tackling loneliness together: A three-tier social identity framework for social prescribing”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1