Two Types of Conservatism: Conformity and Dominance

Perhaps dominance is just conformity with pepper added.

Adorno’s F (fascism) scale was greeted with interest, but it was also criticized on methodological and theoretical grounds. “Yes” answers to his questions always indicated higher authoritarianism, which raised the possibility that authoritarianism was confused with agreeableness. When this problem was addressed (by changing half the questions so that “No” indicates authoritarianism), the test no longer gave reliable results. The Freudian theories of the psyche that Adorno and his colleagues used to explain authoritarianism were increasingly questioned. There was no major new research on the subject for two decades.

Right Wing Authoritarianism or RWA

In 1981, psychology professor Robert Altemeyer published “Right Wing Authoritarianism” (University of Manitoba Press), which provided a new, improved model of the conservative/authoritarian phenomenon. Altemeyer’s research resulted in his Right Wing Authoritarianism or RWA scale. This model reveals three factors, which he has called “conventionalism,” “authoritarian submission,” and “authoritarian aggression,” in place of Adorno’s nine factors. This scale is not subject to acquiescence bias, meaning that half of the high-authoritarian answers are “Yes” and half are “No.”

The three factors are at the same time correlated and separable.

To say that factors are “correlated” means that a different value for one implies a different value for the other in a regular way. If Factor 2 is high when Factor 1 is high, the two factors are correlated. Similarly, if Factor 2 is high when Factor 1 is low, they are correlated. In the RWA scale, higher conventionalism implies higher authoritarian submission, higher authoritarian submission implies higher authoritarian aggression, and higher conventionalism implies higher authoritarian aggression. They tend to be high or low for an individual and within a group.

To say that the factors are “separable” means that they don’t always “vary” together, and so they are believed to measure separate tendencies. The RWA score is a measure of the extent to which the subject or group has consistently high values for all three factors, conventionalism, authoritarian submission, and authoritarian aggression. Altemeyer sees this as the core of the authoritarian personality complex. Subsequent research has confirmed that this scale has good technical properties as a psychometric scale, and that it predicts other presumed effects of authoritarianism such as agreeing with right-wing political statements, prejudice against out-groups such as racial minorities, and support for punitive actions by accepted authorities against deviance and deviants.

In studies that followed publication of his 1981 book, it was found that parental harshness was only weakly associated with RWA scores. This indicates that Adorno’s psychodynamic (Freudian) explanation of authoritarianism was false. RWAs (those with high RWA scores) were found not to exhibit general repressed aggressiveness, such as would show up in their daydreams or fantasies. This also weakens the Freudian explanation, and it suggests that the aggressiveness of RWAs may be specific (targeted against deviance from norms) rather than general.

While an individual’s RWA score is generally stable, it can be decreased by liberal education or increased by such things as becoming a parent or experiencing social, economic, or political instability. Personality traits generally appear stably in childhood, but RWA seems to become established in late puberty. Research also showed that high RWAs were socialized to believe (were taught or learned from others) that the social world is dangerous and threatening.

Professor Altemeyer is still very much involved in vigilance of authoritarianism. In 2006 he collaborated with former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean in writing “Conservatives Without Conscience” (Viking). In 2016 he released a prescient public comment, “Donald Trump and Authoritarian Followers,” which incidentally gives a sample of his tone toward authoritarianism.

"Donald Trump and Authoritarian Followers," Bob Altemeyer

Social Dominance Orientation or SDO

In 1994 F. Pratto, J. Sidanius, and others published a paper that presented a view of authoritarianism that contrasts with RWA. (“Social Dominance Orientation: a personality variable predicting social and political attitudes,” Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., and Malle, B., “Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,” Vol. 67, 1994.) Social Dominance Orientation or SDO was conceived of as an attitude about intergroup relationships, specifically a preference for inequality or hierarchy between groups. (It is not just an acceptance of inequality, but an attitude favoring inequality.)

The Social Dominance Orientation scale is based on Social Dominance Theory. That theory, which was developed by Pratto and Sidanius, claims that “societies minimize [inter-]group conflict by creating consensus on ideologies that promote the superiority of one group over others....To work smoothly, these ideologies must be widely accepted within a society, appearing as self-apparent truths; hence we will call them hierarchy-legitimizing myths.” They use the term “myth” without intending to imply either that these narratives are ancient, or that they are necessarily fictitious. I’ll continue to use their term, “myth,” although I prefer “narrative.”

Such myths tend to legitimize and stabilize hierarchical relations. (“Hierarchical” here means arrangements that award a larger share of the good things to members of some groups and a smaller share to members of other groups.) Well-known examples of legitimizing myths are Social Darwinism and the notion that everyone in our society has an equal opportunity to succeed. They call myths that justify hierarchy “hierarchy-enhancing.” There are also hierarchy-attenuating myths. The authors propose SDO as a factor in explaining the acceptance of legitimizing myths. People with high SDO scores should tend to accept legitimizing myths, and should be attracted to hierarchy-enhancing roles in social life. [Pratto 1994, p. 741]

This idea of widely accepted myths that support hierarchy doesn’t imply a grand conspiracy to support discrimination, nor a tacit agreement of the out-groups to work against their own interests. The social realities that we experience beg for and receive explanations. That process, which we’ll see again in "The Motivation for Conservatism," is called “system justification.” It suggests the origins or the motivations for the creation of these narratives. Social structures generate their own support, since failure to accept these structures leads to friction and failure within those structures. This is part of how and why these structures persist. This last point may be important in explaining conservatism itself, as suggested in “What Conservatism Is.”

Frenkel-Brunswik, the psychological theorist of the Adorno studies, saw authoritarianism as a pathology caused by “strict and harsh” parental styles which created an “un-resolved conflict” in the child. This conflict would then show up in adult life as submission to authority and intolerance toward non-submission. SDO, however, is envisioned as a normal trait that varies in intensity and doesn’t need a precipitating trauma.

Hypotheses about SDO

Within the framework of Social Dominance Theory, conservatism is seen as the endorsement of a number of “legitimizing myths” that support hierarchy. (You may recall that "myth" as used here implies a belief and not necessarily a false one.) It is expected, then, that conservatism should correlate with Social Dominance Orientation. Those who are more conservative should also in general be higher on SDO. Beyond this, to be useful, SDO should predict social attitudes beyond those that are predicted by conservatism.

Pratto, Sidanius, et al. designed their experiments to test hypotheses about the ability of SDO to support predictions beyond those made on the basis of conservatism (predictive validity); to distinguish itself from related concepts (discriminant validity); and to mesh as expected with accepted related concepts (convergent validity). These hypotheses about SDO are all based on features of Social Dominance Theory. If their hypotheses are confirmed when they're tested, it legitimates the SDO scale in the context of SDT. This strengthens the credibility of SDT and at the same time it estabishes SDO as a valid measure of social dominance orientation. [Pratto 1994, p. 472]

I've listed their hypotheses in the next three tables. You'll see that they generated a large number of predictions based on the SDT theory. Reading through the hypotheses should give you a pretty clear idea of the different concepts of the theory and the types of attitudes and beliefs that fall under the name "social dominance."

The hypotheses are predictions about the kind of correlation expected between SDO scores and various attitudes and beliefs. The correlation at issue here is statistical correlation, which is traditionally referred to as “r,” and is a number ranging from -1 to +1. Both -1 and +1 are the highest correlation possible and are referred to as perfect correlation. An r of -1 between measurements of two factors means that when one is high, the other is low. An r of +1 means that if one is high, the other is high, and if one is low, the other is low.

To say that two measurements are correlated is not to say that one causes the other, even if the correlation is perfect. Causation must be proven with additional evidence. A high correlation only implies that when one is low, the other is on average low (for a positive correlation) or that when one is low, the other is on average high (for a negative correlation).

These tables include hyperlinks to the measurement scales that were used in the experiment. These are at the end of the current page.

Predictive validity hypotheses [Pratto 1994, p. 472]

Discriminant validity hypotheses [Pratto 1994, p. 743]

A description of the "Big Five" can be found in the Wikipedia article "Big Five personality traits."

Based on their respective theories, authoritarians (high RWAs) and high SDOs should both be “conservative, racist, ethnocentric, and prejudiced, and they should show little empathy for lower status others.” [Pratto 1994, p. 744] RWA and SDO should therefore have some degree of correlation.

Convergent validity hypotheses [Pratto 1994, p. 743]

SDO Results

The research relied on questionnaire results from almost 2,000 mostly undergraduates of several Northern California public and private colleges. Some thirteen different groups of subjects (samples) completed questionnaires over the study period. By using this multi-sample design, the researchers were able at the same time to test all of these many hypotheses and to avoid wearing out their subjects by asking each to complete all of the questions. This also permitted them to compare results between different groups of respondents and over time. The order in which the questions are presented to subjects is not the order they appear in here. There is an attempt to conceal what exactly the experimenters are trying to elucidate. [Pratto 1994, p. 745]

In situations including those studied here, the results that are measured can be affected by many different things. An individual might answer a question differently depending on which side of bed he got up on. The subjects present to complete questionnaires might depend on traffic conditions, and so forth. For this reason the measurements fluctuate in ways that aren’t understood, and the variation appears to be “at random.” This creates the possibility that two factors may seem to be correlated only because of these random variations. When a correlation is found between two factors, the “statistical significance” of that correlation is a measure of how likely it is that the correlation is not the result of random variation. When we say that a correlation is statistically significant, we’re saying that it’s unlikely that it’s a result of random variation. In fact, statisticians might say that a relationship is “statistically significant at the .01 level.” That would mean that there’s only a one percent chance that there isn’t really a correlation there. In the results that follow I’ve used “ss” as an abbreviation for statistical significance.

The test of the questionnaire showed that it is highly reliable and consistent when repeated by the same subjects after three months. [Pratto 1994, p. 744] Average SDO values were around 3, somewhat favoring intergroup equality over hierarchical domination. A score of 4 is neutral, 7 = “strongly favor”, 1 = “strongly oppose”.

The three tables that follow list the same hypotheses as the first three, but this time they report whether each of the hypothesevwas confirmed.

Results for predictive validity hypotheses [Pratto 1994, p. 744]

At the time that these experiments were being finished, the U. S. and allies were deploying in preparation for an attack on Iraq. The researchers hypothesized that SDO might endorse wars to accomplish nationalistic goals, but be less in favor of wars for more humanitarian purposes. They composed a set of questions to test support for “Wars of Dominance,” in which the purpose of the war was to achieve nationalistic goals. They composed a second set of questions to test support for “Humanitarian Wars,” for which the purpose was to benefit the citizens of another country. They administered these questions to just one sample. As they had predicted, SDO correlated positively with Wars of Dominance (r = .31 and ss), while SDO correlated negatively with Humanitarian Wars (r = -.41 and ss).

Results for discriminant validity [Pratto 1994, p. 751]

Both political-economic conservatism and authoritarianism are correlated to SDO, in that they predict some of the same attitudes. SDO must predict social and policy attitudes beyond the predictions of these other measures. It is possible to check this with the data which the researchers collected, using statistical mathematics. The concept behind the math is that the variability in one outcome variable can be separated into that which is due to SDO and that which is due to, for example, political-economic conservatism. The procedure is called “partialing out” a factor.

In this study’s data, SDO correlated with political-economic conservatism (PEC) at .38. This is not a small correlation, and it indicates that those two factors to some extent go hand in hand, that one tends to be high when the other is high. A correlation at this level was expected, since it coincides with the theories of conservatism and social dominance.

The statistical analysis showed that after partialing out political-economic conservatism (PEC), SDO predicts the policy attitudes that were measured nearly as well as SDO in combination with PEC. Although partialing reduced some of the correlations with policy attitudes, those attitudes can’t be predicted as well without SDO.

Similarly with authoritarianism. The researchers looked at two measures of authoritarianism, Altemeyer’s RWA, and a second measure developed by T. G. Goertzel and published in 1985, which conceptualized authoritarianism again as a personality disposition.

Like PEC, authoritarianism predicts some of the same attitudes as does SDO. RWA and Goertzel authoritarianism were captured in just one of the study’s samples. RWA correlated with SDO at a level of .31, while the Goertzel measure correlated with SDO at .29. Again, as with PEC, a correlation of about this size was expected.

When PEC, RWA, and Goertzel authoritarianism were partialed out, firm correlations between SDO and the tested policy attitudes remained. This indicates that attitudes toward these policies aren’t predicted as well by PEC and authoritarianism measures without SDO measurements.

Results for convergent validity [Pratto 1994, p. 751]

The factors of empathy, altruism, and communality are often considered together as ‘linking,’ which is associated with women. The correlations which were found between these factors and SDO were found statistically significant after controlling for gender.

A Summary of SDO

There is room at the top
They are telling you still
But first you must learn how to
Smile as you kill

John Lennon
Working Class Hero

SDO is a reliable and consistent measure of attitudes and beliefs. It measures an acceptance that some groups should dominate others. It is higher among men than among women. It is strongly and consistently associated with endorsement of “hierarchy-legitimizing myths,” especially anti-black racism, nationalism, meritocracy (which is termed “equal opportunity” by these researchers), and “belief in a just world.” It is strongly associated with rejection of noblesse oblige, the belief that those who are advantaged have expanded obligations to those who are not. It is associated with endorsement of sexism, patriotism, cultural elitism, and conservatism. It is associated with opposition to social welfare programs (including racially or ethnically targeted programs), women’s rights, gay and lesbian rights, and environmental stewardship. It is associated with support for military programs, nationalistic chauvinism, punitive law enforcement, and the Republican party. Those with high SDO attitudes are relatively low in empathy, altruism, communality, and tolerance. High SDOs seek ‘hierarchy-enhancing’ roles, low SDOs seek ‘hierarchy-attenuating’ roles.

SDO is theoretically based on social dominance theory. It is not viewed by its developers primarily as a tool to reveal interpersonal differences, but as an explanation of social processes that are brought into play when inter-group status differences exist in a society. [Pratto 1994, p. 755].

From the perspective of these researchers, SDO is an attitude, as opposed to PEC, which is a belief. PEC is in fact a prototypical legitimizing myth. It simultaneously justifies our separation into groups and their unequal status. [Pratto 1994, p. 756] Religious fundamentalism, anti-hedonism, and strict morality, which are associated with PEC, weren’t included within the study because they are seen as culturally-specific legitimizing myths.

The co-variation of these many factors is an important finding of these studies. Another perspective may be seen by noting that these findings in a sense subsume much of American conservative attitude in the single concept of “intergroup inequality legitimation.” This could imply that our national conservatism is not much more than justification for intergroup inequality. Perhaps the conventionalism of conservatives is not a result of conservatism, but is related to it by the circumstance that movements toward equality in this society are changes. Perhaps it’s more about resisting the “arc of history” than about caution.

Because social structures and practices influence the nature and type of our social interactions, features of these structures and practices may affect support for high-SDO attitudes. [Pratto 1994, p. 757]

There is substantial evidence that members of high-status groups tend to be more concerned with intergroup status relationships than are members of lower-status groups. This may help to understand the low-status white men who are ‘proud to be white.’

Organizations have their own levels of SDO, and there is substantial evidence that group members tend to adopt the norms of their group in this respect. This is particularly a problem within law enforcement organizations. Studies have shown that white police trainees became increasingly racist during their fist 18 months; that the most successful campus police officers scored highest on tests of racism and ethnocentrism; that the most highly-evaluated officers in Los Angeles had the most complaints for excessive violence. [Pratto 1994, p. 758]

The researchers noted that “...to formulate a policy attitude consistent with one’s political ideology, one must have a thorough understanding of that ideology and think through or know how it ‘should’ apply to to the acceptance of new policy initiatives.” [Pratto 1994, p. 756] SDO, in contrast, seems to work by gut reaction.

The results of this investigation eerily mirror the political disputes that are topical in 2021. You might imagine that the researchers anticipated MAGA, or alternatively imagine that conservative strategists choose their issues using the same methodologies used by these researchers.

Summing Up

Contrasting RWA and SDO

A high SDO score predicts some of the same things as a high RWA score does: right-wing attitudes, nationalism, militarism, support for authoritarian government, and prejudice against other groups. However, the two scores aren’t highly correlated (r = .31). There are people with high RWA and either high or low SDO, and people with low RWA and either high or low SDO.

Research has shown that RWA and SDO are two different things. RWA is associated with religiosity; valuing order, structure, conformity, and tradition; seeing the social world as a place of social threat. SDO is associated with valuing power, achievement, and hedonism; being male; and seeing the world as a competitive jungle.

RWA authoritarianism is about the relationship of the group member to the group. Its three main factors are in-group conventionality, in-group submission, and willingness to punish others for violating group norms. SDO is mainly about relations between groups. [Pratto 1994, p. 756]

RWA is better explained by social learning than by personality. It is encouraged by training in obedience, conventionalism, and aggression.

Bob Altemeyer, the creator of the RWA scale, saw RWA as a passive form of authoritarianism (a willingness to accept and support it) and SDO as an active form (a desire to enact it). During the 1990s he conducted a series of studies exploring the relation of RWA and SDO, and published a paper, “The Other ‘Authoritarian Personality,’” in which he explained the findings. [Altemeyer 1998]

Altemeyer gives an acerbic tone to some of his comments, but his conclusions are well-supported:

• “Adult authoritarians tend to be highly ethnocentric and heavy users of the ‘consensual validation pill’....They travel in tight circles of like-minded people so much, they often think their views are commonly held in society....[C]ertain kinds of religious training have sometimes helped produce their ethnocentrism and authoritarianism.” [Altemeyer 1998, p. 86]
• “High RWA’s thinking, based more on memorization of what authorities have told them than on independent, critical appraisal, tends to be unintegrated, highly compartmentalized, and inconsistent.” [Altemeyer 1998, p. 86]
• High RWAs are “self righteous” and “scared”. [Altemeyer 1998, p. 87]

Like the creators of SDO, Altemeyer found that SDO correlates weakly with RWA, but strongly with nationalism, patriotism, and cultural elitism. SDO also correlated strongly with ethnic prejudice, sexism, militarism, punitiveness, and conservatism in a variety of countries.

In a 1996 study he compared RWA and SDO with a dozen measures of various personality aspects. The results showed that the RWA and SDO scales were each much better than the personality measures in predicting prejudice toward a range of groups, as well as in predicting ethnocentrism. RWA and SDO results again had low correlation. In the same study he found contrasts between RWA and SDO:

• RWAs are “particularly religious,” SDOs aren’t. [Altemeyer 1998, p. 92]
• RWAs claim to be “benevolent,” SDOs don’t.
• RWAs don’t claim a “wisp of hedonism,” SDOs do.
• RWAs “need structure and value conformity and tradition,” SDOs don’t.
• RWAs are both male and female, SDOs are mostly men. (He found a .19 correlation between gender and level of SDO.)
• RWAs see the world as dangerous and are “self-righteous,” SDOs don’t/aren’t.

In another 1996 study, he found a correlation of RWA with “religious fundamentalism” of .65, and a correlation of .58 with “emphasis on religion while growing up.” RWA and SDO differed in support for economic conservatism. “Holding conservative economic opinions correlated .18 with RWA and .43 with SDO scale scores.” [Altemeyer 1998, p. 93]

Altemeyer presented a “Militia” scale to these subjects. The Militia scale measured adherence to the idea that the world is controlled by a Jewish conspiracy. High RWAs and high SDOs among his subjects supplied 73% of the survey respondents who scored in the top quartile of endorsement of this Militia scale. [Altemeyer 1998, p. 95]

In another study, Altemeyer found that high RWAs were unaware of their above-average level of prejudice, while high SDOs were aware of theirs. [Altemeyer 1998]

“The persons most advocating privatization, reduction in social spending, weakening of unions, balanced budgets, lower taxes for businesses and the rich, less government involvement in the economy and so on generally scored high in social dominance [SDO].” [Altemeyer 1998] Although these subjects provide economic rationales for these beliefs, consider that SDO is a measurement of the endorsement of inequality. Individuals who chose “capitalism” as the dominant outlook in their life (as opposed to religion, science, socialism or four others) earned the highest scores for SDO, as well as for various flavors of ethnocentrism and group prejudice. [Altemeyer 1998]

“...experiments have shown that high RWAs (but not low) will trust untrustworthy persons who tell them what they want to hear.” [Altemeyer 1998, p. 105]

About 8% of Altemeyer’s subjects (thousands of Manitoban college students and their parents) scored in the upper quartile of both the RWA and SDO scales. [Altemeyer 1998, p. 105]

Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values

Across the past decades it has become increasingly clear that these two scales don’t identify a personality, but rather attitudes, beliefs, and values. This is supported by several facts. First, the scale items (the questions) don’t identify behavioral tendencies, as personality surveys normally do. Although personality is established in childhood according to modern theory, RWA and SDO seem to gel in late adolescence, and unlike personality, they are affected by social circumstances and social learning.

New Questions, New Models

RWA and SDO measure not an “authoritarian personality” but a set of social attitudes or beliefs. This change of perspective has raised a new series of questions. What are the central or core or base values (or other motivations) that lead to a high RWA or SDO score? What personal or social factors lead a person to RWA or SDO attitudes? How do these attitudes/values lead to outcomes such as prejudice against out-groups?

This has led researchers to propose new models of authoritarianism that give it a different character and embed it within larger social-psychological systems. Three of these new models are “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,” developed by Professor John Jost and others, a dual-process cognitive model from John Duckitt, and “The Authoritarian Dynamic” model, by Dr. Karen Stenner. These three models are examined in following essays.

Conservatism or Authoritarianism?

Where are “conservatives” in all these theories and scores?

You can find elements of what I have called conservatism (“What Conservatism Is”) in both of these constructs, RWA and SDO. Stay tuned.

What’s Been Proven?

On one level, you might say that not much has been learned through all this effort. Each of these groups wrote a questionnaire and assigned a label (“authoritarianism” or “social dominance”) to the result. On top of this, the researchers seem to have known from the beginning what they wanted to prove.

This much is true. However, that’s not a full description of what they did. The result of the research isn’t just a questionnaire and a score, but a concept (in each case) of a cluster of beliefs or attitudes that is consistent with broader social-psychological theory, that we encounter in life, and that is recognizable in people whom we know. In addition, many connections between the two new concepts and a large range of previously-known and long-studied social-psychological processes have been identified.

There is still a lot of unexplained variability in attitudes and beliefs, but that is to be expected because this is about complex processes.

Next: January 6, 2021

More information:

[Duckitt 2015] “Authoritarian Personality,” John Duckitt, 2015, from “International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences,” 2nd edition, Oxford: Elsevier

Wikipedia on “Social Dominance Theory”

[Pratto 1994] “Social Dominance Orientation: a personality variable predicting social and political attitudes,” Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., and Malle, B., “Journal of Personality and Social Psychology” Vol. 67, 1994.

[Altemeyer 1998] “The Other ‘Authoritarian Personality,’” Bob Altemeyer, in Zanna, M., ed, “Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,” Vol. 30, Academic Press, San Diego, 1998.

Table of Contents

Glossary/Index

Bibliography

© 2021, Ross A. Hangartner

Scales Referenced in this Essay

Right Wing Authoritarianism scale, 1998

1. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.
2. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.*
3. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubt in people’s minds.
4. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religion are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.*
5. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.
6. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.*
7. Our country needs free thinkers who will have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people.*
8. Our country will be destroyed some day if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.
9. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else.*
10. The “old-fashioned ways” and “old-fashioned values” still show the best way to live.
11. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority’s view by protesting for women’s abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer.*
12. What our country really needs a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take us back to our true path.
13. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government, criticizing religion, and ignoring the “normal way things are supposed to be done.”*
14. God’s laws about abortion, pornography, and marriage must be strictly followed before it is too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished.
15. It would be best for everyone if the proper authorities censored magazines so that people could not get their hands on trashy and disgusting material.
16. There is nothing wrong with premarital sexual intercourse.*
17. Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the “rotten apples” who are ruining everything.
18. There is no “ONE right way” to live life; everybody has to create their own way.*
19. Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy “traditional family values.”*
20. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group’s traditional place in society.
21. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.
22. People should pay less attention to the Bible and the other old forms of religious guidance, and instead develop their own personal standards of what is moral and immoral.*
23. What our country needs most is discipline, with everyone following our leaders in unity.
24. It’s better to have trashy magazines and radical pamphlets in our communities than to let the government have the power to censor them.*
25. The facts on crime, sexual immorality, and the recent public disorders all show we have to crack down harder on deviant groups and troublemakers if we are going to save our moral standards and preserve law and order.
26. A lot of rules regarding modesty and sexual behavior are just customs which are not necessarily any better or holier than those which other people follow.
27. The situation in our country is getting so serious, the strongest methods would be justified if they eliminated the troublemakers and got us back to our true path.
28. A “woman’s place” should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past.*
29. It is wonderful that young people today have greater freedom to protest against things they don’t like, and to make their own “rules” to govern their behavior.*
30. Once our government leaders give us the go ahead, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.

The fourteen-item Social Dominance scale

1. Some groups of people are simply not the equals of others.
2. Some people are just more worthy than others.
3. This country would be better off if we cared less about how equal all people were.
4. Some people are just more deserving than others.
5. It is not a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others.
6. Some people are just inferior to others.
7. To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on others.
8. Increased economic equality.*
9. Increased social equality.*
10. Equality.*
11. If people were treated more equally we would have fewer problems in this country.*
12. In an ideal world, all nations would be equal.*
13. We should try to treat one another as equals as much as possible.*
14. It is important that we treat other countries as equals.*

Chauvinism scale

• Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
• English as the official language.
• Decreased immigration to the U. S.
• National security.
• The American way of life.
• No welfare for new immigrants.
• America first. [This questionnaire was developed ca. 1991.]
• America as world’s policeman.

Cultural elitism scale

• The poor cannot appreciate fine art or music.
• No amount of education can make up for the wrong breeding.
• Qualifications and not personality should determine whether a candidate gets votes.
• The ideal world is run by those most capable.
• Western civilization has brought more progress than all other cultural traditions.
• Someone who treats other people poorly but is very good at his job should be promoted.
• Great art is not meant for the common folk.

Environmental Policy scale

• Drilling for oil off the California coast.*
• Government-mandated recycling programs.
• Taxing environmental polluters to pay for superfund clean ups.
• More government involvement on clean air and water.
• Drilling for oil under the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.*

Gay Rights scale

• Gay or lesbian marriage.
• Gay or lesbian rights.

Law and Order Policies scale

• Death penalty for drug kingpins.
• Death penalty.
• Prisoner’s rights.*
• Longer prison sentences.

Military Programs scale.

• Decreased defense spending.*
• Strategic Defense Initiative. [aka “Star Wars”]
• B-2 (Stealth) bomber.
• Going to war.

Racial Policy scale

• Racial quotas.
• Affirmative action.
• School busing.
• Civil rights.
• Helping minorities get a better education.
• Government helping minorities get better housing.
• Government has no business helping any particular ethnic group in the job market.*

Social Programs scale

• Government sponsored health care.
• Better support for the homeless.
• More support for early education.
• Free school lunches.
• Low income housing.
• Arresting the homeless.*
• Guaranteed jobs for all.
• Reduced benefits for the unemployed.*
• Greater aid to poor kids.
• Increased taxation of the rich.

Women’s Rights scale

• Guaranteed job security after maternity leave.
• Stiffer penalties for wife beating.
• Equal pay for women.
• More women judges.