Sexdifferencesintherelationofaggression

toSocialDominanceOrientation
andRightWingAuthoritarianism

LukeHowison

Athesissubmittedto
VictoriaUniversityofWellington
infulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeof
MastersofScienceinPsychology

ABSTRACT

Two general population studies examined the association of Social

DominanceOrientation(SDO)andRightWingAuthoritarianism(RWA)with
theAggressionQuestionnaire, andanysexdifferences inthis relationship.
SDOandRWAwerebothassociatedwithaggression;however,contradictory
sexdifferenceswerefound.InStudy1(N=270),SDOandaggressionwas
associatedforfemalesbutnotmales;theoppositewasfoundinStudy2(N=
178).AmodeloftherelationshipsbetweenSDO,RWA,sex,hostility,anger
andphysicalaggressionwasconstructedandevaluatedforStudy1.Study2
included additional measures including instrumental/expressive aggression,
femininity/masculinity, gender groupidentification andsexism. SDO was
related to instrumental aggression, suggesting that social dominators use
aggressioninstrumentally.Masculinity/femininitydidnothaveamajoreffect
ontheaggressionSDO/RWArelationship;however,genderidentitymediated
therelationshipbetweensexandSDO,replicatingpreviouschallengesofthe
invariancehypothesis.

"TherearesomemembersofthepublicwhosejudgmentIsimplywouldn'ttrust
andthey'rejustacoupleofheartbeatsawayfrombelievingtheyhavetheright
togoaboutactingasGod'slittlepruningfork,riddingsocietyofcriminalscum."

KerreWoodham
2006

Acknowledgments

MymostsincerethanksmustbeextendedtomyresearchsupervisorMarcWilson,who
spentmanyhourssharinghisextensivetheoretical,practicalandstatisticalknowledgeof
socialpsychologywithme,nottomentionlendingmehisadviceandfirmencouragement
toensurethisworkwascompleted.Severalotherresearcherskindlygavemetheirtime
andexpertiseincludingDavidLesteroftheRichardStocktonCollegeofNewJersey,Chris
SibleyoftheUniversityofAucklandandJimVessofVictoriaUniversityofWellington.I
mustalsoacknowledgemanyofmyfriendsandfamilymembersfortheirencouragement
andhelpwiththecollectionofquestionnairedata,includingAnne,PaulandPhilHowison,
DominicTarr,JoelPauling,JessicaPrentice,KateGeange,AndreGobleandLeanne
Schneller.LastlyIwouldliketothankalltheparticipantswhothoughtfullydonatedsome
oftheirvaluabletimetofillinquestionnairesforthisresearch.

TableofContents

Abstract

Acknowledgements

TableofContents

ListofTablesandFigures

Introduction

Study1
Method

37

Results

40

Discussion

52

Study2
Introduction

55

Method

64

Results

69

Discussion

87

GeneralDiscussion

91

References

98

Appendix1:Study1Questionnaire

111

Appendix2:Study2Questionnaire

122

ListofTablesandFigures
Study1
Table1.MeansandStandarddeviationsforallscales

40

Table2.CorrelationsbetweenScalesandSubscales

42

Table3.Correlationsbetweenscalesandsubscales,withSDO,RWA,SDODand 44
SDOE,bysex
Table4.CorrelationsbetweenAggressionQuestionnairesubscalesandage,bysex 45
Table5.MultipleRegressionAnalysisforPhysicalAggression

46

Table6.MultipleRegressionAnalysisforHostility

47

Table7.MultipleRegressionAnalysisforOverallAggression

48

Figure1.PathanalysismodeloftheexpectedrelationshipsbetweenSDO,RWA,
sex,Anger,HostilityandPhysicalAggression

50

Figure2.StandardisedpathanalysisofthemodelpresentedinFigure1

51

Study2
Table8.Meansandstandarddeviationsforallscales

59

Table9.OverallCorrelations

71

Table10.Correlationsbysex

74

Table11.Correlationsbysex(continued)

75

Table12.MultipleRegressionAnalysisforPhysicalAggression

77

Table13.MultipleRegressionAnalysisforHostility

79

Table14.MultipleRegressionAnalysisforVerbalAggression

81

Table15.MultipleRegressionAnalysisforAnger

82

Table16.MultipleRegressionAnalysisforOverallAggression

83

Table17.MultipleRegressionAnalysisforInstrumentalBeliefsaboutAggression

84

Table18.MultipleRegressionAnalysisforExpressiveBeliefsaboutAggression

85

Table19.MultipleRegressionAnalysisforSDOD

86

OnMay16,2007,theNewZealandParliamentpassedcontroversiallegislation
whichrepealedSection59oftheCrimesAct(1961),withtheintentionofremovingthe
defenceof'reasonableforce'againstassaultinthecorrectivepunishmentordisciplineof
children.Beforethebillpassed,therewasacontroversyinNewZealandabouttheuseof
smackinginparentaldiscipline,withprosmackingsupporters,includingreligiousgroups,
marchingonParliament,andantismackingcampaignersproclaimingthatsmacking
childrenwassynomymouswithchildabuse(Destinyloses,,2007).

DuringthedebateabouttheAntiSmackingBill,differentgroupsinNewZealand
societyexpressedverystrongopinionsabouttheuseofforcetodisciplinechildren.So
howdoesanindividualformtheirideaofhowsocietyshouldviewtheuseofaggression
onanindividuallevel?Morespecifically,howdoesindividuallevelaggressionrelateto
groupbasedpolitical/ideologicalattitudessuchasRightWingAuthoritarianism(RWA)
andSocialDominanceOrientation(SDO)?Toinvestigatethisissue,theconceptsof
RWA,SDOandaggressionwillbeintroducedandcurrentpsychologicalresearchinthese
threeareaswillbereviewed.

Therootsofmanydevelopmentsinsocialpsychologycanbetracedbacktotheend
ofWorldWarII.Psychologistsasked,forexample:WhatcausedtheGermanNazisand
theircollaboratorstocommitatrocitiesonsuchalargescale(Milgram,1963)?Howwas
HitlerabletogainsomuchsupportfromtheGermanpeople(Adorno,FrenkelBrunswik,
Levinson&Sanford,1950)?Whichaspectsofhisownpersonalityledtohisgreedfor
power(Altemeyer,1998)?

Withtheseandotherquestionsinmind,Adornoandcolleagues(1950)builton
earlierresearchintofascism(Reich,1933;Fromm,1936)tocarryoutanenormous,
groundbreakingstudyofauthoritarianism,usingapsychodynamicapproachwith
interviewsandquestionnairebasedmeasures.Theydescribedaclusteroftraitscalledthe
authoritarianpersonality,containingseveralaspects:conventionalism;authoritarian
submission;authoritarianaggression;antiintraception(tendencytopunishinferiors);
superstitionandstereotypy;beliefindominance,powerandtoughness;destructivenessand
cynicism(generalisedhostility);projectivity(projectionofemotionalimpulses)and
dangerousworldbeliefs;andexaggeratedconcernwithsexualissues.

ResearchsinceAdornoetal'stimehasteasedapartthestrandsofthisprototypical
authoritarianpersonalityandsixaspectsremainrecognisableinmodernresearch.For
example,Altemeyer(1981)hasarguedthatthecorecharacteristicsofauthoritarianismare
bestdescribedbyconventionalism,authoritarianaggressionandauthoritariansubmission.
ThoughabsentfromAltemeyer's(1981)conceptionofauthoritarianism,someofthetraits
hypothesizedbyAdornoetal(1950)liveoninother,relatedtheories.Forexample,Belief
inDominancebearssomeresemblancetotheSocialDominanceOrientationproposedby
JimSidanius(1992),whileDangerousworldBeliefsareproposedbyDuckitt(2001)tobe
amajorfactorintheformationofauthoritarianattitudes.Additionally,Authoritarianismis
foundtohaveasignificantcorrelationwithHostility(Ahmed&Lester,2003;Duckitt,
2001).

RightWingAuthoritarianism

Adornoetal's(1950)measureofhowlikelyanindividualistosupportfascism,the
8

CaliforniaFscale,initiallypopularthoughitwas,hasbeenharshlycriticised(forabrief
review,seeBillings,Guastello&Rieke,1993).Therewassomeexperimentationwith
improvedversionsofthescale,forexampleRay's(1972)BalancedFScale,butthemost
widelyusedreplacementscaleistheRightWingAuthoritarian(RWA)constructandscale,
asdevelopedbyAltemeyer(1981).Altemeyer'sdevelopmentofAdorno(etal)'sideasinto
theRWAconstructhasbeendescribedasexemplarycomparedtoAdorno'sdeeply
flawedwork(Martin,2001,p.1).TheRightWingAuthoritarianismscalemeasuresa
'socialattitudeorideologicalbeliefdimension'(Duckitt,2001,p45),astablesetofbeliefs
andattitudescenteredonsupportforauthoritarianleadership.RWAbeliefstendtoinclude
arigidviewofmorality,fundamentalistreligiousbeliefs,xenophobiaandethnocentrism.
Overall,thekeyattitudeofRWAisthebeliefthat,ideally,legitimateauthoritiesshould
haveastrongreligiousleaderwhowillcensorthosesocialgroupswhoareviewedas
physicalormoralthreats(Altemeyer,1981;1998).Forinstance,ahighRWAindividual
(henceforthusedtorefertoindividualsscoringhighlyontheRWAscale)mightindicate
supportforoutlawinghomosexualmarriageordenyingabortionstowomen(promiscuity
andhomosexualitybeingseenasmorallythreatening).

Altemeyer'sconclusionisthatthethreekeyfacetsofAdorno'sauthoritarian
personalityareauthoritarianaggression,authoritariansubmissionandconventionalism.
Conventionalismisthetendencytoacceptandobeysocialconventionsandtherulesof
authorityfigures.Authoritarianaggressionischaracterisedbyanaggressiveattitude
towardsindividualsorgroupsdislikedbyauthorities,andauthoritariansubmissionis
submissiontoauthoritiesandauthorityfigures.TheRWAscale(Altemeyer,1998)
containsthirtyitemssuchas"Obedienceandrespectforauthorityarethemostimportant
valueschildrenshouldlearn,"(authoritariansubmission),"Itmaybeconsideredold
9

fashionedbysome,buthavingapropernormalappearanceisstillthemarkofagentleman
and,especially,alady,"(conventionalism)and"Ourcountrywillbedestroyedsomedayif
wedonotsmashtheperversionseatingawayatourmoralfibreandtraditionalbeliefs"
(authoritarianaggression).SomeRWAscaleitems,however,includereferencetomore
thanoneofthethreeclusters,withsomeindexingallthree.

HighscoresontheRWAscaleareassociatedwithconservative,traditional,
fundamentallyreligious,rigidlymoral,racist,sexist,xenophobic,homophobicand
generallyprejudicedbeliefsandattitudes(Altemeyer,1981,1998).Theconsistent
correlationofRWAbeliefswith(andthereforethepotentialtoexplain)awidevarietyof
prejudicedattitudesisperhapsthemainreasonforthepopularityofthescaleamong
modernresearchers(McFarland&Adelson,1996).

ResearchrarelyfindsasexdifferenceinlevelsofRWA(Altemeyer,1998;Duckitt,
2001).Sexdifferenceshavebeenfound;forexampleAltemeyer(1988)foundasignificant
butslightdifference,withmenhavinghigherRWAscores.Rubinstein(1995)reported
thatmeninanIsraelisamplehadsignificantlyhigherRWAscoresbutpositedthatthiswas
anartifactofthehigherreligiosityofthemeninthesample.ResultsbyDuncan,Peterson
andWinter(1997)suggestedhighermaleRWAscoreswhichapproached,butdidnot
achieve,significance.Alternatively,Whitleyandgisdttir(2000)describedhighermean
RWAscoresforfemalesintheirsample,butagainthedifferencewasnonsignificant.
SeveralotherresearchershavereportednosexdifferenceinRWAlevels(Crowson,
DebackerandThoma,2005,GuastelloandPeissig,1998,HeavenandQuintin,2003).
OtherresearchsimplyfailstoreportRWAsexdifferences,orevenstateRWAmeansby
sex(e.g.McHoskey,1996;PetersonandDuncan,1999;StrubeandRahimi,2006;Van
10

HielandKossowska,2006).Insummary,despitesomeresearchreportsthatmaleshave
higherlevelsofRWAthanwomen,moststudiesfindnosignificantsexdifference.

RWAandSexualAggression

BeganyandMilburn(2002)investigatedtherelationshipofrightwing
authoritarianismtothelikelihoodofsexualharassmentinasampleofmen,usinga
vignettescenario.RWAwasasignificantpredictorofsexualharassment,andthat
endorsementofrapemythsmediatedtheRWAsexualharassmentrelationship.Sexual
harassmentisthoughttobepartofthesamecontinuumasviolentsexualaggressionand
rape(Begany&Milburn,2002).Walker,RoweandQuinsey(1993)relatedRWAto
variousmeasuresofsexualaggressioninamalesampleandfoundthathighRWAscores
wereassociatedwithmoresexguilt,lesssexualpartnersandlessuseofpornography
(whichmakessenseinlightofhighRWA'softenreligiousbeliefs).However,RWAwas
alsoassociatedwithanincreasedselfreportedlikelihoodofthesubjectstorapeorforce
sex,increasedagreementthatrapevictimsareresponsibleforwhathappened,andthat
womenenjoysexualviolence(Walker,Rowe&Quinsey,1993,p.1044).Givensocial
desirabilityeffects,thisassociationbetweensexualaggressionandRWAmaybeeven
higherthanmeasured.Toexplainthesefindings,theresearchershypothesisedthathigher
RWAmenbelievedsexualaggressionwasjustifiedbecauseofaperceptionthatwomen
areaweakerandlesspowerfulgroup.Thiswouldfollowtheauthoritariantraditionof
mistreatingnonhegemonicsocialgroups.

11

SocialDominanceOrientation

Adornoetal's(1950)authoritarianismresearchfocusedontheideological'follower'
personalitiesthatmighthavesupportedaHitlerlikeleader,andassumedthatprejudiced
leaders(likeHitlerhimself)wouldbetooraretowarrantstudy.Someresearchpriorto
1993hintedatthepossiblemeasurementofprejudicedleaderpersonalities;forinstance
Billings,GuastelloandRieke(1993)suggestthatdirectiveleadersthrivewhensurrounded
byrightwingauthoritariansubordinates.Laterthatyearanewscalemeasuringaspectsof
whatmightbeconsideredanauthoritarianleadershiptype,theSocialDominance
Orientation,waspublishedbyJimSidaniusandFeliciaPratto,amongothers(Sidanius,
1993;Pratto,Sidanius,Stallworth&Malle,1994),thoughSidaniusandcolleaguesdidnot
explicitlyconstruetheconceptintheseterms.

SocialDominanceOrientation(SDO)isa'socialattitudeorideologicalbelief
dimension'(Duckitt,2001,p45)whichmeasuresindividualdifferencesinlevelsofgroup
baseddominanceandprejudice(Sidanius&Pratto,1993).SDObeliefshavebeenfound
tostronglypredictawiderangeofprejudicedattitudesfromracism,antiegalitarianism
andmilitarism(Sidanius,Pratto&Bobo,1994),negativeviewsofwomen'srights
(Heaven,1999),nationalismandchauvinism(Pratto,Stallworth&Sidanius,1997),infact
manyofthesameconstructsasarefoundtobeassociatedwithRWA.Thestrong
correlationbetweenSDOandawiderangeofprejudicedattitudespointstoSDOasa
"generalorientation"(Pratto,StallworthandSidanius,1997,p52)towardsprejudice,and
theconnectionbetweenprejudicedattitudesandSDO(aswithRWA)isonemajorfactor
contributingtothecurrentpopularityofSDOresearch.Individualswhoscorehighlyon
theSDOscaletendtoagreewithstatementssuchas"Somegroupsofpeoplearesimply
12

inferiortoothergroups"anddisagreewithstatementssuchas"Groupequalityshouldbe
ourideal"(areversescoreditem).

TheSDOscalealsoincludesitemswhichendorseinterpersonaldominance,suchas
Togetaheadinlife,itissometimesnecessarytosteponothergroups.Endorsementof
thisitemsuggeststhesubjectviews'gettingaheadinlife'asimportant,andthatusingforce
againstothersisacceptableinpursuitofthisgoal.Sidanius(1994)describesSDOasan
attitudewhereinindividualsdesiresocialdominanceandsuperiorityforthemselvesand
theirprimordialgroupsoverothergroups(p.209,emphasisadded)i.e.,SDOcontains
elementsofbothgroupbasedandindividualdominance.YetPrattoetal(1994)describe
SDOasanattitudesolelyconcernedwithgroupbaseddominanceand"independentfrom
interpersonaldominance"(p.751).Intheirdescriptionofseverallargesamples(Pratto,
Sidanius,StallworthandMalle,1994),SDOwasnotfoundtocorrelatesignificantlywith
measuresofpersonaldominanceontheCaliforniaPersonalityInventoryandJackson
PersonalityResearchFormoverthestudiesasawhole.However,twooftheirsamples
SDOdidcorrelatewithpersonaldominanceonthesemeasures.Ontheotherhand,
Altemeyer(1998)construesSDOasameasurewhichdoesreflectaspectsofpersonal
dominance,describinghighSDOindividualsasaspiringtogainmorepowerandclimbthe
socialladder.Altemeyer'sresearchdemonstratedthathighSDOscorersarecompetitive
onapersonallevel,agreeingwithitemssuchas"Winningismoreimportantthanhowyou
playthegame",andscoringhighlyonmeasuresofMachiavellianism(Christie&Geis,
1970).HighSDOindividualsagreedwithMachiavellianitemssuchas"Therereallyisno
suchthingas'rightandwrong'.Itallboilsdowntowhatyoucangetawaywith."
Altemeyer'sconceptionofSDOasincludingelementsofpersonaldominanceisatodds
withPrattoetal's(1994)ideas.Thisisanexampleofconflictingperspectivestowardbasic
13

aspectsoftheSDOconstruct,whichmightbehelpedbyafurtherexaminationofsocial
dominancescoresversuspersonaldominance.

SDO(incommonwithRWA)isdescribedasaunitaryconstruct(Prattoetal,1994)
butJostandThompson(1999)havefoundtwomajorfactors,describedasgroupbased
dominance(SDOD)andoppositiontoequality(SDOE).Thegroupbaseddominance
factorcomesfromagreementwiththenegativelywordeditemsontheSDOscale
(Sometimesgroupsmustbekeptintheirplace)andtheoppositiontoequalityfactor
comesfromdisagreementwiththepositivelywordeditems(Itwouldbegoodifgroups
couldbeequal).TheyfindthesetwofactorspersistevenwhentheSDOitemsare
rewordedtobalancenegativeandpositivewordingsbetweenSDODandSDOEitems.
JostandThompsondescribeafurthercomplexityofSDOresearch:SDODandSDOEare
highlyintercorrelatedamonghegemonicgroups,butlesshighlycorrelatedfornon
hegemonicgroups(i.e.,whitevsblackAmericans).Theuseofaprimarilywhite(and
hencehegemonicgroup)sample,theysuggest,iswhyPrattoetal(1994)foundSDOtobe
aunitaryconstruct.

SocialDominanceTheory

TheconceptoftheSocialDominanceOrientationdoesnotfloatuntetheredin
ideologicalspace.SDOwasproposedbySidaniusandPratto(1993;seealsoSidanius&
Pratto,1999)aspartoftheirSocialDominanceTheory(SDT),aconsiderationofgroup
conflictwhichdescribeshumansocietyasconsistingofoppressivegroupbased
hierarchicalstructures.ThekeyprinciplesofSocialDominanceTheoryarethatsocieties
arestratifiedbyage,sexandgroup.Groupdivisionsarebasedonethnicity,religion,
14

nationality,andsoon.Humansocialhierarchiesconsistofahegemonicgroupatthetop
andnegativereferencegroupsatthebottom.Morepowerfulsocialrolesareincreasingly
likelytobeoccupiedbyhegemonicgroupmembers(forexample,olderwhitemales).
Malesaremoredominantthanfemales,andtheypossessmorepoliticalpower(theiron
lawofandrarchy(Sidanius,1992,p14).Mosthighstatuspositionsareheldbymales
(Sidanius,1992).Prejudicedbeliefssuchasracism,sexism,nationalismandclassismare
allmanifestationsofthissameprincipleofsocialhierarchy.Theoriginofsocial
hierarchiesisgivenanevolutionaryexplanation:prehistorichumansocietiesorganisedin
hierarchiesweremoreefficientatcombatthannonhierarchicalgroups,givinga
competitiveadvantagetogroupsorganisedinsocialhierarchies(Sidanius,1992).

Variousprocessesofhierarchicaldiscriminationaredrivenbylegitimizingmyths
(Sidanius,1992),whicharebeliefsjustifyingsocialdominancesuchaspaternalisticmyths
(hegemonyservessociety,looksafterincapableminorities),reciprocalmyths(suggestions
thathegemonicgroupsandoutgroupsareactuallyequal),andsacredmyths(thedivine
rightofkingsareligionapprovedmandateforhegemonytogovern).Prattoetal(1994)
suggesttheWesternideaofmeritocracyandindividualachievementasanexampleofa
legitimizingmyth,andarguesthatmeritocracyproducesonlyanillusionoffairness.SDT
drawsonsocialidentitytheory,suggestingthatsocialcomparisonprocessesdrive
individualdiscrimination(ingroupfavouritism).Theyalsoproposethatdiscriminatory
acts(suchasinsultingremarksaboutminorities)areperformedbecausetheyincreasean
individual'sselfesteem.

Consistentwiththeassumptionthatmalestendtobemoredominantthanfemales,
SDTpredictsthatmaleswilltendtohaveahighersocialdominanceorientation.Assuch,
15

maleswilltendtofunctionashierarchyenforcers,thatis,theywillcarryoutactsof
discriminationsuchasthesystematicterrorbypoliceofficers(Sidanius,1992)andthe
extremeexampleofdeathsquadsandconcentrationcamps.Inademonstrationofthe
tendencyofhierarchyenforcerstosupportsocialdominance,policeofficersinLos
Angeleswerefoundtohavesignificantlyhighersocialdominanceorientationscoresthan
randomsamplesofthegeneralpopulation.Furthermore,publicdefenders(anexampleof
hierachyattenuators)werefoundtohavesignificiantlylowerSDOscoresthanbothpolice
officersandthegeneralpopulation(Sidanius,Liu,Pratto&Shaw,1994).Pratto,
Stallworth,SidaniusandSiers(1997)performedanarchivalanalysisandconcludedthat
malesdisproportionatelyattainhierarchyenhancingpositions(rolesthatservetoenfoce
hierarchicalgroupstatus)insocietywhilewomentendtowardshierarchyattentuating
occupations(thefunctionofwhichistoreducehierarchicaldifferentiation).

Consistentwiththis,thereisaconsistentsexdifferenceinSDOscores,withmen
scoringapproximately10%higherthanwomen(Sidanius,Pratto&Bobo,1994;Pratto,
Stallworth&Sidanius,1997).Thisdifferenceappearstobepresentregardlessofage,
socialclass,religion,education,politicalaffiliation,ethnicity,race,nationalityorgender
role(Sidanius,Pratto&Bobo,1994;Sidanius,Levin,Liu&Pratto,2000).Althoughthe
sexdifferenceisrelativelysmall,itisinvariantacrosscultures,leadingSDTtheoriststo
proposethatitreflectsabiologicaldifferenceproducedbyevolutionaryselectionpressures
favouringhighSDOmales(Sidanius,1992).Ifmaledominanceisbiologicalinnature,
thereislittlehopethatpatriarchalsocialhierarchies(ashypothesisedbySDT)caneverbe
substantiallychanged.ThisbiosocialmodelofSDOwithmalespossessingaconsistently
higherscore,regardlessofcovariate,iscalledtheinvariancehypothesis(Sidanius,Pratto
&Bobo,1994).
16

WilsonandLiu(2003)challengedtheinvariancehypothesisbyproposingthatthe
genderSDOrelationship(i.e.,malespossessinghigherSDO)ismediatedbygender
identification;theextenttowhichpeopleidentifywiththeirgendergroup.Bothastudent
andageneralpopulationsamplewerefoundtohavetheirsocialdominanceorientation
scoresmediatedbygenderidentification.Specifically,themoremaleparticipants
identifiedwiththeirowngender,thehighertheirsocialdominancescoreswere,whereas
themorefemaleparticipantsidentifiedwiththeirgender,thelowertheirsocialdominance
scoreswere.Furthermore,twodifferentgenderidentificationmeasureswereusedto
demonstratetherobustnessofthefinding.Obviouslythispresentsastrongcounter
exampletotheinvariancehypothesis.

FoelsandPappas(2004)extendedthisattackontheinvariancehypothesisby
separatingtheconceptofsociallyconstructedgender(psychological
masculinity/femininity).andtheconceptofbiologicallydeterminedsex(male/female),
andsetupastudyofJostandThompson's(2000)twoSDOfactorsinrelationto
masculinityandfemininity.Theyfoundthattherelationshipbetweensexandgroupbased
dominance(SDOD)wasmediatedbymasculinity,whiletherelationshipbetweensexand
oppositiontoequality(SDOE)wasmediatedbyfemininity.Masculinityandfemininity
accountedfor10%ofthevariationinSDOEandSDOD,whereasbiologicalsex
explainedverylittlevariationinSDODandSDOE(around1%).Biologicalsex,then,is
relatedtoSDObecausemalestendtobemoremasculineandlessfeminine,withthe
reversetrueforfemales.FoelsandPappasconcludethatsocialdominanceorientationis
morelikelytohaveasociallyconstructedorigin(aspersocialidentitytheory)ratherthana
biologicalone(aspersocialdominancetheory).Theobservationofmeninvariablyhaving
17

higherSDOthanwomenisexplainedbytheubiquityofpatriarchalculturesinhuman
history.

SDOandAndrogens

Sidanius'(1992)SocialDominanceTheorysuggestedthedifferenceindominance
betweenmenandwomencanbeexplainedbiologicallybyvaryinglevelsofandrogens,
primarilytestosterone.Malelevelsoftestosteronearemuchhigherthanthatoffemales.
Higherlevelsofandrogensarecorrelatedwithsexualaggression,dominance,spontaneous
aggressionanddecreasedrestraintofaggression.Thereisalsoacorrelationbetweengains
insocialstatusandincreasedtestosterone(Mazur&Booth,1998);however,the
relationshipbetweentestosteroneandstatusisnotasimpleone;androgensarethoughtto
bepartofafeedbackmechanismratherthanasimplefloatingindicatorofstatus(Josephs,
Sellers,Newman&Mehta,2006).Maleandrogensalsoreflecttheasymmetryofsocial
groups.Hightestosteronemalesinnegativereferencegroupsaremuchmorelikelytobe
delinquentcriminalsandendupinjail,orvictimsofhomicide.Hightestosteronemalesin
thehegemonicgroupwilltendtoquicklyclimbthesocialladderandberewardedwith
social/politicalpower(Sidanius,1992).Thusthereisaninteractionbetweensocialgroup
membership,socialdominanceorientationandtestosterone.

SDOandRWA

Duckitt(2001;Duckitt,Wagner,Plessis&Birum,2002)usestheconceptsofSocial
DominanceOrientationandRightWingAuthoritarianismaspartofalargermodelof
prejudice.HesuggeststhatRWAandSDOareproducedbysocializationinchildhood
18

shapingtheadultpersonalityandworldview.Essentially,punitive,strictorharsh
socialisationinchildhoodtendstocausesocialconformityinadulthood.Thisleadstoa
viewoftheworldasadangerous,dogeatsdogplace.ThisviewleadsnaturallytoRWA
beliefs,whichinfluenceingroupandoutgroupattitudes.Similarly,unaffectionate
socialisationinchildhoodtendstoproduceatoughmindedadultwhoviewstheworldasa
competitive,zerosumgame,similartothejungleoftheevolutionarypast.Adesireto
competeleadsnaturallytoSDObeliefs,which,again,influenceingroupandoutgroup
attitudes.

Thereisacloseinteractionbetweenthetwostreams.Firstlythetwoparentingstyles,
punitivesocialisationandunaffectionatesocialisation,arenotmutuallyexclusivebutare
potentiallybothpresent.Acompetitivejungleworldviewisentirelycompatiblewith
seeingtheworldasadangerousplace.OnceapersonhasRWAbeliefs,Duckittfinds,they
tendtoadoptmatching,compatibleSDObeliefs(andviceversa).Finally,outgroupand
ingroupattitudesinfluenceeachother.Afterdevelopingthisextensivetheoreticalmodel,
Duckitttestedhismodelusingmorethan500AucklandUniversitystudents.Heused
structuralequationmodelingwithcorrelationaldatatotestthepredictionsofrelationships
betweenSDO,RWA,worldviews,parentingstyles,andingroup/outgroupattitudes.All
thepredictedpathwayswerefoundtohavesignificantcorrelationsinthepredicted
direction,supportingthetheoreticalmodel.ArepetitionofthestudyinSouthAfrica
producedbroadlysimilarresults,withoverallprejudicehigherinSouthAfrica(Duckitt,
2001).AnotherreplicationcomparingAmericanandWhiteAfrikanerstudentssimilarly
supportedthemodel(Duckitt,Wagner,Plessis&Birum,2002).

Duckittalsofoundafewunpredictedsignificantcorrelations.Dangerousworld
19

beliefsdirectlyaffectedantiminorityattitudes.Unaffectionatesocializationhadanegative
correlationwithsocialconformity;andunaffectionateparentingstylereducessocial
conformitybeliefs.

Duckitt(2001)furtherexaminedthecomplexitiesoftheinteractionbetweenRWA,
SDOandavarietyofspecificideological/prejudicialbeliefsandbehaviour.Forinstance,
RWAbeliefsareactivatedbysocialthreatorthreateningoutgroups,whereasSDObeliefs
areactivatedbycompetitionandintergroupinequalitiesinstatusandpower.RWAisa
strongerpredictorofprejudicewhentheoutgroupisthreatening.Whengroupstatusis
unstable,SDOisassociatedwithhigheringroupbias(comparedtostablestatussituations).
Outgrouplikingisbestpredictedbysimilaritytoingroup,whileoutgrouprespectis
predictedbystatusandtechnologicaladvancement.DuckittconcludesthatRWAandSDO
havebeenwellstudied,andpointsoutthatthiswayofexaminingbeliefparadigmsand
motivationschemascouldalsobeusefulforanexaminationofantiauthoritarian
libertarianandegalitarianaltruisticideologies.

ThoughSDOandRWAtendtopredictsimilarthings,Prattoetal(1994)arguethat
SDOisquitedistinctfromRWA,andfoundonlyasmallcorrelation(.14,extendedto.28
whencorrectedforattenuation).Altemeyer(1998)foundsimilarcorrelationsof.18to.11
instudentsamples,andupto.21inadultsamples.Howeversomegeneralpopulation
sampleshavefoundlargerdegreesofcorrelationbetweenSDOandRWA,forinstance
Wilson(underreview)foundasignificantcorrelationof.46inanadultgeneralpopulation
sample.RoccatoandRicolfi(2005)performedametaanalysisonthecorrelationofRWA
andSDOanddeterminedthatthecorrelationbetweenthetwowasincreasedbystrong
ideologicalcontrastsinthecountryunderstudy.Inthosecountrieswithstrongideological
20

contrast(includingNewZealand),adultsampleshadlargerSDORWAcorrelationsthan
studentsamples.Furthermore,variouspoliticalmilitantgroupswereobservedtohave
widelyvaryingSDORWAcorrelations,mostnotablymembersofafascistrightwing
partywhichhadtheonlystronglynegativecorrelationinthehistoryofstudiesofthe
relationshipsbetweenRWAandSDO(Roccato&Ricolfi,2005,p.193).

Whentakentogether,SDOandRWAareverystrongpredictorsofmanyformsof
prejudice,suchassexist,racistandantigayattitudes(Duckitt,2001),andexplainupto
58%ofvarianceinprejudicescores(McFarland&Adelson,1996;Altemeyer,1998).
Theyarealsostronglyassociatedwithpoliticalattitudes.Togetherwithvalues,SDOand
RWAexplainupto60%ofthevarianceinpoliticalconservatismscores(Wilson,under
review).

DoubleHighs

IndividualswithbothhighSDOandhighRWAscoreshavebeenlabeled"Double
Highs"andareconceptualisedasdominantleadersdriventobecomeleadersof
authoritariangroups,theobvioushypotheticalexemplarbeingHitler(Altemeyer,1998;
Altemeyer,2004;Duckitt,2001).ThisisvitalbecauseRightWingAuthoritariansby
themselvesarereluctanttoseizepower;andhighSocialDominatorsbythemselvesmay
notreceivemanyvotes(Altemeyer,2004).Individualshighonbothtraits,however,will
notonlyperceiveastrong,prejudicedleadertobedesirable,butseethemselvesastheideal
personforthejob.WithbackingfromfearfulhighRWAvoters,theonlythingDouble
HighshavetofearisotherDoubleHighsstabbingtheminthebackonthewayupthe
hierarchy(Altemeyer,2004).
21

Altemeyer(1998)developedameasurecalledthePersonalPower,Meannessand
DominanceScale,inwhichparticipantscouldagreetobeingcoldbloodedandvengeful,
playingpracticaljokesthatcansometimesreallyhurtpeopleandadmitthattheywilldo
[their]besttodestroyanyonewhodeliberatelyblocks[their]plansandgoals(Altemeyer,
1998,p74).HighSDOindividualstendedtoendorsetheseandsimilaritems,andso
AltemeyerdescribestheSocialDominanceOrientationasincludingelementsof
Machiavellianismandpersonaldominance.Althoughtheseitemsdonotexplicitly
describetheuseofforceforpersonalgain,thereisastrongundercurrentofbeingruthless
anddoingwhateverisnecessarytoachievepersonalgoalsofdomination.Thisleads
naturallytoasuspicionthatsociallydominantindividualsmightnotbeaversetousing
instrumentalviolenceintheirquesttodominateothers.

Aggression

Aggressionisawordthatcanbeusedtodescribeawiderangeofhumanbehaviour,
fromangrilyslammingadoorduringanargumenttoafullscalemilitaryinvasion.
Aggressionasitrelatestothestudyofpsychologycanbedefinedashostileordestructive
behaviouroractions.Associatedemotionssuchasfrustrationorangerarealsorelevant.
Questionnairemeasureshavebeendevelopedtomeasureindividualpredispositionstoward
aggressivebehaviour(e.g.,Izama,Kodama&Nomura,2005;Ramirez,Andreuand
Fujihara,2001).Becauseaggressionencompassesacomplexsetofbehaviours,itis
conceptualisednotasaunitaryconstruct,butasseveralrelatedcomponents.Forinstance
the1957BussandDurkeeHostilityInventorymeasuredsevensubscales;Assault,
Irritability,IndirectAggression,Negativism,Resentment,SuspicionandVerbal
22

Aggression(Buss&Perry,1992).Herethereareatleasttwotypesofdistinctionin
aggressivebehaviour:actionvs.emotionanddirectvs.indirectaggression.Other
dimensionshavebeendescribedsuchasinstrumentalvs.expressiveandpredatoryvs.
selfdefensiveaggression(Campbell,1993).

BussandPerry(1992)developedaselfreportaggressionmeasureandneatly
sidesteppedthecomplexityofclassifyingaggressivebehaviourbymotivationortypeby
usingfactoranalysistocapturethemostimportantelementsofaggression:Anger,
Hostility,PhysicalAggressionandVerbalAggression.Theseareessentiallytwotypesof
directaggressionbehaviour(physicalandverbal)andtwotypesofaggressionrelevant
emotionalstates(angerandhostility).Theresultingmeasureandsubscalesiscollectively
knownastheAggressionQuestionnaire(AQ),isinternallyconsistent,andstableovertime.
BussandPerrydescribeaggressionasapersonalitylevelvariableandrefertoitastrait
aggression.Themeasureconsistsof29items,whichproducebothanoverallmeasureof
aggression,andscoresforeachofthefoursubscales:PhysicalAggression("Ifsomebody
hitsme,Ihitback"),VerbalAggression("MyfriendssaythatI'msomewhat
argumentative"),Anger("Whenfrustrated,Iletmyirritationshow"),andHostility("I
wonderwhysometimesIfeelsobitteraboutthings").

TheAQhasbeenwidelyusedtostudy,forexample,therelationshipofaggressionto
values,personalitytraitsandalcoholconsumption(Tremblay&Ewart,2004),a
comparisonofselfotherratingsofhostility(Izama,Kodama&Nomura,2005)and
aggressionduringmenstruation(Ritter,2003).Thescalehasbeentranslatedandvalidated
incountriessuchasGermany(vonCollani&Werner,2005),Italy(Fossati,Maffei,
Acquarini&DiCeglie,2003),SpainandJapan(Ramirez,AndreuandFujihara,2001).
23

CorrelatesofAggression

(a)AggressionandSex

BussandPerry(1992)andotherresearchers(Tremblay&Ewart,2004)find
consistentsexdifferencesinaggression,withmalesscoringsubstantiallyhigheron
PhysicalAggressionandslightlyhigheronVerbalAggressionandHostility.Angerdoes
notexhibitanyconsistentsignificantsexdifference.Ingeneral,violentorantisocial
behaviorisperformedmoreoftenbymenthanwomen.Forinstance,Moffitt,Caspi,
RutterandSilva(2001)aspartofanimportantlongitudinalcohortstudyofDunedinyouth,
foundthatantisocialbehaviorwasmoreextremeinmales,andthatmoremalesthan
femalesmetthecriteriaforavarietyofviolentorantisocialdisorders.However,although
womenperformlessviolentoffences,theyareviolentandaggressiveforthesamereasons
asmen(Moffittetal,2001)andarecapableofperformingextremeactsofviolencejustas
menare(Kirsta,1994).AndersonandAymami(1993)suggestthataswomenadoptmore
masculinerolesandtakeupmoresocial,economicandpoliticalpower,theywillfind
themselvesinmoresituationsthatencourageaggressivebehavior.

(b)AggressionandRWA

Dill,Anderson,AndersonandDeuser(1997)describehostileattitudesasa
fundamentalcomponentoftheauthoritarianpersonality.Adornoetal(1950)included
hostilityasanimportantpartoftheauthoritarianpersonality.Thusonemightexpect
hostility,asmeasuredbytheAggressionQuestionnaire,toberelatedtoRWAbeliefs.
24

(c)SDOandAggression

McFarlandandAdelson's(1996)omnibusstudyofprejudiceincludedtheAggression
Questionnaire(AQ)measureofaggressivebehavior(Buss&Perry,1992),findingthatin
bothstudentandadultsamples,socialdominanceorientationscoresweresignificantlybut
modestlycorrelatedwiththeoverallAQscore.Similarly,LippaandArad(1999)included
socialdominanceandtheAQsubscalesintheirstudyandreportedthatSDOandphysical
aggressionscoresweresignificantlyyetmodestlycorrelatedforbothmenandwomenina
studentsample.TheotherAQsubscalesdidnothavesignificantcorrelations,andthe
overallAQscorewasnotreported.Ingeneral,researchwhichcloselyexaminesthelink
betweensocialdominanceorientationandaggressivebehaviorisrare.

(d)Aggression,SDO,RWAandPersonality

Apossiblemediatingfactorbetweenaggression,RWAandSDOispersonality.The
predominantmodernmeasureofpersonalityisthe'BigFive'model(Costa&McCrae,
1997;John&Srivastava,1999).Asthenamesuggests,theBigFiveorOCEANmodel
containsfivebroadpersonalitytraitswhichresearchsuggestscontainthemostexplanatory
power:Extraversion(energyandthetendencytoseekthecompanyofothers),
Conscientiousness(selfdisciplineandplanningvs.spontaneousness),Agreeableness
(warmandcooperativevs.suspiciousandcold),Neuroticism(emotionalstabilityvs
instabilityandtendingtofeelangry,anxiousanddepressedeasily),andOpennessto
Experience(conservatismvs.imagination,curiosityandwillingnesstotrynewthings).
Giventhatpersonalityvariablesdescribeemotionaltendencies,theypotentiallycorrelate
25

withaggressivefeelingsandbehaviours.Forinstance,TremblayandEwart(2005)found
thatphysicalaggressionwassignificantlynegativelycorrelatedwithAgreeableness.
HeavenandBucci(2001)measuredSDOandpersonalityvariablesandfoundthat
AgreeablenesswassignificantlycorrelatedwithSDO.

Prattoetal(1994)alsofoundacorrelationbetweenSDOandAgreeablenessof,
althoughinanothersampletheyfoundnocorrelation.TremblayandEwart(2004)
suggestedthatthephysicalaggressionAgreeablenesslinkcouldbeviacompetitiveness.
HighSDOscorersaremorelikelytobecompetitive(Altemeyer,1998).Giventhathigh
SDOscorersareconceptualisedasmorecompetitive,ruthlessandsociallydominant
(Altemeyer,1998),itisexpectedthathighSDOscoreswillbeassociatedwithhigher
aggression,particularlyphysicalaggression,scores.

ThepersonalityvariableofOpennessismoderatelyrelatedtoRWAandSDO
(Heaven&Bucci,2001)andPrattoetal(1994)alsofoundamoderatecorrelationbetween
SDOandOpenness.HoweverSharpeandDesai(2001)foundaggression,including
physicalaggression,tobeunrelatedtoOpenness.Onepossiblelinkbetweenphysical
aggressionandRWAisthepersonalityvariableofConscientiousness.Tremblayand
EwartfoundasignificantcorrelationbetweenphysicalaggressionandConscientiousness.
HeavenandBucci(2001)foundthatConscientiousnessandRWAweresignificantly
positivelycorrelated.ThissuggeststhatRWAandphysicalaggressionmightbeinversely
related.

LippaandArad(1999)foundthatAgreeablenesswassignificantlynegatively
correlatedwithSDOforbothmenandwomen,asmeasuredbystandardquestionnairesand
26

alsoinstructuredinterviews.Theirquestionnairestudyfoundsexdifferences,with
OpennessnegativelycorrelatedwithRWAforwhitewomenandExtraversionpositively
correlatedwithRWAformen.

Recently,Ekehammar,Akrami,GyljeandZakrisson(2004)usedastructural
equationmodelingapproachtodescribetherelationshipbetweentheBigFivepersonality
variables,SDO,RWAandprejudice.TheBigFivedidnothaveadirecteffecton
prejudice,butdidinfluenceprejudiceindirectlyviaRWAandSDO.Extraversion,
OpennessandConscientiousnessactedthroughRWAandAgreeablenessactedthrough
SDO.

Insummary,aconsiderationofpersonalityvariablesfindsthatphysicalaggressionis
negativelyassociatedwiththepersonalitytraitofAgreeableness,asishigherlevelsof
SDO,suggestingthatSDOandphysicalaggressioncouldbepositivelyrelated.

(e)AggressionandTestosterone

Aggressionhasbothbiologicalandsocialisedelements(Campbell,1993).Males
possessbothhigherlevelsoftestosteroneandhigherlevelsofaggression(Sidanius,1992).
Testosteroneisobservedtoaffectaggressioninhumans,forexampleonedoubleblind
studygaveinjectionsoftestosteronetoeightmen,whichresultedinsmallincreasesin
angerandhostility(asmeasuredbytheAggressionQuestionnaire)andgavesubjectsmore
energy(O'Connor,Archer&Wu,2004).Sidanius(1992)speculatedthatandrogensmay
mediatetherelationshipbetweenSDOandsex,notingprimarilythatmalestendtohave
higherSDOscoresthanfemales,andarealsoobservedtobemoresociallyhierarchical.
27

Sidaniussuggeststhatthebiologicalreasonforthisdifferenceindominanceisincreased
levelsofandrogens,primarilytestosterone.

AnoverviewoftestosteroneresearchonmalesubjectsbyMazurandBooth(1998)
suggeststhattestosteroneaffectsmalesdifferentlyinchildhood,pubertyandadulthood.
Testosteroneincreasesbeforecompetitivesituationssuchassportsmatches,computer
games,andwhilevyingforromanticattention.Winnersinthesesituationsexperiencea
testosteroneincrease,whilelosersexperienceatestosteronedecrease.Thispatternappears
innonphysicalaswellasphysicalcompetition,andinresponsetosymbolicchallengesand
statuschangesamongmen.Higherlevelsoftestosteroneincreasedominant,aggressive,
antisocialbehaviour(forexampleDabbs,Carr,Frady&Riad,1995,citedinMazur&
Booth,1998).Incontrast,researchintotestosteroneresponseinwomensuggeststhat
whilehighertestosteronelevelsaresometimesassociatedwithdominantbehaviour,there
isgenerallynochangebeforeoraftercompetitivesituations.Theeffectofcompetitionon
testosterone,then,ismalespecific(forexample,Booth&Dabbs(1995),citedinMazur&
Booth,1998).

Higherlevelsofandrogensarecorrelatedwithsexualaggression,dominance,
spontaneousaggressionanddecreasedrestraintofaggression(Sidanius,1992).Thereis
alsoacorrelationbetweengainsinsocialstatusandincreasedtestosterone.Mazurand
Booth(1998)havesuggestedthatlevelsoftestosteroneactassignalstoindividuals,such
thatwhenlosingstatus,theybackdown,orwhengainingstatus,theybecomemore
dominant.Thusthereisapotentiallinkbetweensocialdominanceandaggression.

Amorecomplexviewofthelinkbetweentestosteroneandstatusispresentedby
28

Josephsetal(2006)whohavedevelopedthemismatchhypothesis,wherebyhighstatus,
hightestosteroneindividualsperformbestinsituationsofhighstatus,butpoorlyin
positionsoflowstatus.Converselylowstatus,lowtestosteroneindividualsperformat
theirbestinsituationsoflowstatus,andpoorlyinpositionsofhighstatus.Notehowever
thatthismechanismfocussesoninterpersonaldominanceratherthanthegroupbased
dominancemeasuredbySDOasconceptualisedbySidaniusandPratto(1993).

Ward(1995)haschallengedSidanius'(1992)proposedtestosteroneSDOlink,
arguingthatitisnomorethanamyth,andthataggressionisalearnedbehaviour,
unaffectedbybiologicalfactorssuchastestosterone.Maledominance,then,istheresult
ofupbringingratherthanandrogens.Wardarguesinfavourofsocialisedgender
differencesonbothSDOandaggression.However,theargumentiscontradictedby
researchshowingaveryconsistentsexdifferenceinbothSDO(Pratto,Sidanius,
Stallworth&Malle,1994)andaggression(Buss&Perry,1992;MazurandBooth,1998)
andassuch,remainsaminorityviewpoint.Josephsetal(2006)arguethatthedifficultyin
linkingaggressionwithtestosteroneisduetothemechanismbeingactivatedonlyin
certainsituations,namelywhenstatusisthreatened.Thustheaggressiontestosteronelink
isprimarilyobservableinexperimentalsituationsofstatuschangethreat.Specifyingthe
exactmechanismoftestosteroneanddominance/statuschangeisnotessential;eitherway,
highstatussituationsappearstoproducebothincreaseddominance(SDO)andincreased
aggression.Giventhisassociation,somecorrelationbetweenSDOandaggressionmight
beexpected.

29

PreviousresearchlinkingAggression,SDOandRWA

Adornoetal(1950)notedthat"theproblemof"aggression"obviouslycallsfor
specialattention"(p.450);indeedthetriggerforauthoritarianismresearch,WorldWarII,
wasperhapsthemostvisible,brutalexampleofwidespreadpersonalaggressionagainst
minoritiessuchasJews,homosexuals,thedisabled,andothernonGermanraces.Given
thehistoricaltendencyofdominantindividualsandauthoritiestousephysicalaggression
todominateandcontrolothers,onemightexpectthattherelationshipofSDOandRWA
withpersonalaggressionhasalreadybeenextensivelyexamined.Yetdespitetheinclusion
ofauthoritarianaggressionasakeycomponentoftheRWAconstruct(Altemeyer,1981),
personalaggressioninrelationtoRWAhasnotbeenwellstudied(seeLippa&Arad,
1999,foranexception).Instead,researchhasfocusedonattitudemeasuressuchassupport
foraggressionbyauthoritiesandaggressiveattitudestowardsminorities(Altemeyer,
1998),ratherthanmoregeneralisedaggressionasabehaviouralvariable.

Atthelevelofscalecontent,theSDOscaleitselfincludesitemswhichcouldbe
describedassupportingtheuseofinterpersonalaggression,suchasIngettingwhatyou
want,itissometimesnecessarytouseforceagainstothergroups.SimilarlytheRWA
scaleincludesphrasessuchasgetridofthe'rottenapples'whohaveruinedeverything,
silencethetroublemakersspreadingbadideasandOnceourgovernmentleadersgiveus
thegoahead,itwillbethedutyofeverypatrioticcitizentohelpstompouttherotthatis
poisoningourcountryfromwithin.Endorsementoftheseitemsclearlyimpliesa
willingnesstouseaggressiontopunishothers.

Someresearchhasexaminedpersonalaggressioninrelationtoauthoritarianism.
30

AhmedandLester(2003)foundauthoritarianattitudeswererelatedtoalltheAggression
Questionnairesubscalesinasmallstudentpopulation,althoughthisstudyusedthe
CaliforniaFscaleratherthanthewellvalidatedRWAscale.Whenbrokendownbysex
(Lester,personalcommunication,2006),femaleFscoreswerecorrelatedwithhigher
physicalandverbalaggression,andhostility.MaleFscoreswereassociatedwithanger,
physicalaggressionandhostility(thoughlessthanforfemales)andnotassociatedatall
withverbalaggression.Reporteddifferencesmaybeaffectedbythelownumberofmen
inthesample(n=35).Thesexdifferenceonverbalaggressioninparticularapproaches
significance.

HighRWAmenhavealsobeenfoundtobemoresexuallyaggressiveandweremore
likelytoendorsesexualharassment,rapeorforcedsex(Walker,Rowe&Quinsey,1993;
Begany&Milburn,2002).Duckitt(2001)suggeststhathighRWAindividualstendtobe
morehostileduetotheirviewoftheworldasadangerousplace.

LippaandArad(1999)provideanexcellentstartingreferenceforthepresentstudy,
havingmeasuredSDO,RWAandaggression(usingtheAggressionQuestionnaire)witha
sampleof411students.TheyfoundthatRWAwasnotrelatedtoaggression,andthat
SDOwaspositivelyassociatedwithphysicalaggression.Therewasonepotentialsex
difference,withwomenhavingasignificantcorrelationbetweenSDOandhostility,
comparedtoanonsignificantcorrelationformales.

McFarlandandAdelson(1996)studiedbothstudentandadultsamplesandintheir
firststudyfoundthatoverallaggression(asmeasuredbytheAggressionQuestionnaire)
wasnegativelyassociatedwithRWAforadultsandstudents,andpositivelyassociated
31

withSDOforadultsandstudents.Inasecondstudy,aggressiondidnothaveany
significantassociationswithRWAforadultsorstudents.Aggressionwassignificantly,if
weaklyandpositivelyassociatedwithSDOandevenmorestronglyassociatedforstudents.
However,McFarlandandAdelsondidnotreportsubtypesofaggression,confusinglyrefer
totheoverallaggressionscoreas"hostileaggressiveness"anddidnotbreaksamplesdown
bygender.

Thereareseveralinconsistenciesinresearchtodate.Instudentsamples,thereisa
significantpositivelinkbetweenFscoresandaggression,withasexdifferenceinthe
patternofassociationthatapproachessignificance(Ahmed&Lester,2003).However
anotherstudyfindsthatthereisnoassociationforRWAandaggression,whichisodd
giventheapparentsimilaritybetweentheFScaleandRWAinmeasuringauthoritarianism;
thereisnosexdifferenceeither(Lippa&Arad,1999).Inyetanotherstudythereisa
significantnegativerelationshipbetweenRWAandaggression(McFarland&Adelson,
1996).

ThereisalsoadifferenceinthesizeofcorrelationsbetweenRWAandSDOinadult
andstudentsamples(Roccato&Ricolfi,2005),whichisproblematicsincethemajorityof
studiesexaminingSDOandRWAhaveusedstudentsamples.Sears(1986)cautions
againsttheoveruseofstudentsamplesbecausecollegestudentsaremorelikelytohave
lesscrystallised(inconsistent)attitudes,strongertendenciestocomplywithauthorityand
moreunstablepeergrouprelationships.ThismayaffectresearchonRWA(compliance
withauthorities)andSDObeliefs(membershipof,andattitudestowards,socialgroups).
BothSDOandRWAexamineattitudes;ifthemajorityofasamplehaveinconsistent
attitudes,resultsmaybelessvalidcomparedwithanadultorgeneralpopulationsample
32

withmoreconsistentattitudes.Forinstance,studentsamplesfindaRWASDOcorrelation
of.20orless,whereasadultpopulationsamplesfindcorrelationsupto.46(Wilson,under
review;Roccato&Ricolfi,2005).Ifourultimateaimistodescribehumannature,itmay
besensibleforfurtherresearchtoattempttousegeneralpopulationsamplestostudySDO
andRWA,ratherthanconveniencesamplesofcaptiveundergraduates.

SomeresearchintoRWAandaggressionhasfocusedonsexualaggressionrather
thanwideraspectsofaggression,orusedoldermeasuresofauthoritarianism;andthereare
inconsistenciesbetweendifferentstudies.SDOwasfoundtocorrelatewithaggressionin
bothstudentandadultsamples(McFarland&Adelson,1996);SDOwasassociatedwith
physicalaggressioninastudentsample(Lippa&Arad,1999).Thereisalsoapotential
sexdifferencewherebyhostilitywasassociatedwithSDOforwomenbutnotmen(Lippa
&Arad,1999).Thecurrentstudysetsouttocloselyexaminetherelationshipbetween
SDO,RWAandaggression,(asmeasuredbyBussandPerry's(1992)Aggression
Questionnaire)andelucidateanygenderdifferenceswhichmaybeobservedinthose
relations.

Theimportanceofthecurrentstudyisunderlinedbyrecentfindingssuggestingthat
theproblemofdomesticviolenceisnotrestrictedtomaleviolenceagainstwomen;several
studiessuggestthatwomenarephysicallyabusivetotheirmalepartnersatarateequaling
orexceedingthereverse(Straus,1997;Straus,2005).Abusedmalepartnersaremuchless
likelytobehospitalisedwithinjuries(duetowomen'sreducedupperbodystrength),but
femaletomalepartnerabuseisstillamajorsocialproblem(Straus,1997;Straus,2005;
Kirkwood,2003).

33

Similarly,sexualaggressionisnotrestrictedtomalessexuallyassaultingfemales.
Whileitistruethatmostsexualaggressionisexperiencedbywomenatthehandsofmales,
menarealsothevictimsofsexualaggressionandunwantedsexualcontact(see
StruckmanJohnson,1998,forareview).Forinstance,EricksonandRapkin(1991)found
that12%ofmalehighschoolstudentshadhadanunwantedsexualexperience,compared
to18%offemalestudents.Similarly,StruckmanJohnson(1988)foundthat16%ofmale
collegeuniversitystudentsreportedhavingbeenforcedtoengageinsexualintercourse
whileonadatecomparedto22%offemalestudents.MuehlenhardandCook(1988)
foundratesofunwantedsextobehigherforthemenintheirsamplethanthewomen:62%
ofmaleuniversitystudentshadengagedinunwantedsexualintercourse,comparedto46%
offemalestudents.

Interestingly,menreportexperiencingsexualaggressionathigherratesthanwomen
reportperpetratingsexualaggression.Forinstance,AndersonandAymami(1993)found
that30%ofuniversitymaleshadbeenverballypressuredforsexualcontact,butonly11%
ofwomenintheirsamplehadusedverbalpressuretoobtainsexualcontactwithaman.
45%ofmaleshadhadwomengetthemdrunkorstonedtogainsexualcontact,butonly
15%ofwomenreportedhavingdoneso.Similarly,15%ofmenreportedthatwomenhad
usedphysicalforcetogainsexualcontactwiththem,whileonly6%ofwomenreported
thattheyhaddoneso.Thereasonsforthisdiscrepancyareunclear:Andersonand
Aymamisuggestpotentialunderreportingbyfemales,overreportingbymales,and
differingperceptionsofsexualsituationsbyfemales(menalwayswantsex,soinitiating
sexwithamancanneverbecoercive)buthesitatetopreferanyonepossibility.

Itisclearfromresearchonsexualaggressionthatmostsexualvictimisationis
34

experiencedbywomenatthehandsofmen,andmalesaremuchmorelikelytouse
physicalforcetogainsexualcontact.Butitisnottruethatwomenareneversexually
aggressive,orthatmenarenevervictimsofunwantedsexualattention.Somewomendo
useforcetobesexuallyaggressive;aminorityofmenrapesomewomen,andasmaller
minorityofwomenrapesomemen.Itisnottruethatallmenarerapists,a
mischaracterisationlinkedinpopulardiscoursetofeminism(Kedgeley,1985,p.83).

Clearly,thevariouspsychologicalmechanismsthatlinkaggression,sex,genderand
ideologicalattitudessuchasauthoritarianismandsocialdominancearecomplex,andthere
aremanyunderexploredlinkswhichcouldbeamenabletofurtherexamination.Withthe
researchthusfarreviewedinmind,tworesearchquestionsappearimportant.Whatisthe
relationshipbetweenRWA,SDOandaggression?Ifthereareanysexdifferencesinthe
relationshipbetweenSDO,RWAandaggression,whatistheirnature?

Itwashypothesisedthataggression,andinparticularphysicalaggression,wouldbe
positivelyassociatedwithSDO,consistentwithpreviousresearch(McFarland&Adelson,
1996).OtherevidenceincludestheobservationthatAgreeablenessisnegatively
associatedwithbothSDOandaggression.SDOmaycontainelementsofpersonal
dominance,whichisrelatedtoaggressionandphysicalaggression.Furthermore,the
associationbetweenaggression(especiallyphysicalaggression)andSDOwillbegreater
formen.MaleshavebothhigherlevelsofSDOandhigherlevelsofaggression,
particularlyphysicalaggression,thereforeweexpectedanyrelationshipfoundtobe
strongerformales.

ItwashypothesisedthatoverallaggressionasmeasuredbytheAggression
35

QuestionnairewouldnotbeassociatedwithRWA.AlthoughtheFscaleisassociatedwith
aggression(Ahmed&Lester,2003),previousresearchusingtheRWAscalegenerally
findsnorelationshipbetweenRWAandaggression(e.g.,Lippa&Arad,1999).Onthe
otherhand,severalauthorsdescribeauthoritarianpersonalityashostile,soitwas
hypothesisedthatscoresonthehostilitysubscaleoftheAQwouldbeassociatedwith
RWA.

ItwashypothesisedthatofthetwoSDOsubcomponents,SDODwouldbe
differentiallyassociatedwithscoresontheaggressionsubscale.SDODissupportfor
groupbaseddominance,whichwouldbelinkedtosupportfortheuseofinterpersonal
aggressiontodominateothers.SDOE,ontheotherhand,measuresoppositiontoequality,
whichwaspredictedtohavenorelationshipwithaggressionscores.

Finally,itwashypothesisedthattheassociationbetweenSDODandaggression
(particularlyphysicalaggression)wouldbelargerformenthanforwomen.Malestendto
bemasculine;FoelsandPappas(2004)foundmasculinityassociatedwithhigherlevelsof
SDOD;higherlevelsofmasculinityarealsoassociatedwithincreasedlevelsofaggressive
behaviour.

36

Study1Method

Sample
Study1measuredthreemainsetsofvariables:SocialDominanceOrientation,Right
WingAuthoritarianismandaggression.Thedataforthisstudywasobtainedaspartofa
largerresearchprojectintopoliticalattitudes.

Participantswere270residentsoftheWellington,NewZealandsuburbsofThorndon
andWadestownandincluded114malesand152femalesagedfrom18to85(meanage
40,SD17).90%ofparticipantsidentifiedthemselvesasNewZealandEuropeanand87%
describedtheirnationalityasNewZealander.Thesamplereportedavarietyof
occupationsincludingstudents,retiredolderpeople,whitecollarworkersandpublic
servants.Respondentswererecruitedbydelivering500questionnairesintomailboxesin
theThorndonarea,and500questionnairesintomailboxesintheWadestownarea.
Questionnairesweredistributedinanonrandomconveniencesample;eachmailboxona
streetreceivedaquestionnaire,unlessthemailboxspecifiedNoCirculars.Participation
wasvoluntaryandanonymous.

Measures

ThreemeasureswereincludedintheStudy1questionnaire:
TheRightWingAuthoritarianismScale(Altemeyer,1998)isa30itemscale
consistingofitemssuchas"Therealkeytothe"goodlife"isobedience,disciplineand
stickingtothestraightandnarrow"and"Whatourcountryreallyneedsisastrong,
37

determinedleaderwhowillcrushevil,andtakeusbacktoourtruepath."Subjectsscore
theiragreementordisagreementona7pointLikertscalefrom1(stronglydisagree)to7
(stronglyagree).TheRWAscalewasfoundtohaveaCronbach'salphaof.92inthe
currentstudy.

TheSocialDominanceOrientation(SDO6)scale(Prattoetal,1994)isa16item
scalemeasuringtheintergroupdominanceofindividuals.Thescaleconsistsofitemssuch
as"Sometimesothergroupsmustbekeptintheirplace"and"Weshoulddowhatwecanto
equalizeconditionsfordifferentgroups"(reversescored).Subjectsscoretheiragreement
ordisagreementona7pointLikertscalefrom1(stronglydisagree)to7(stronglyagree).
TheSDOscalewasfoundtohaveaCronbach'salphaof.87inthecurrentstudy.TheSDO
scalehastwomajorfactors,GroupbasedDominance(SDOD)andOppositiontoEquality
(SDOE)(Jost&Thompson,1999)eachconsistingofeightoftheoriginalSDOitems.
SDODhadaCronbach'salphaof.84;SDOEhadaCronbach'salphaof.77.

TheAggressionQuestionnaire(AQ:Buss&Perry,1992)isa29questionscale
measuringglobalaggressionwithfoursubscales.PhysicalAggression(PA),Verbal
Aggression(VA),Anger(A)andHostility(H).Thesearemeasuredusingitemssuchas"I
havebecomesomadthatIhavebrokenthings."(PhysicalAggression),"Whenpeople
annoyme,ImaytellthemwhatIthinkofthem."(VerbalAggression),"Ihavetrouble
controllingmytemper."(Anger),and"Iamsuspiciousofoverlyfriendlystrangers."
(Hostility).Subjectsareaskedtospecifyhowcharacteristiceachstatementisof
themselvesonaLikertscalefrom1(extremelyuncharacteristicofme)to5(extremely
characteristicofme).TheAQwasfoundtohaveaCronbach'salphaof.87inthecurrent
study;subscaleswerePhysicalAggression(.73),VerbalAggression(.76),Anger(.85)and
38

Hostility(.73).Notethatallscalesandsubscalesexceededconventionalrulesofthumbfor
satisfactoryinternalreliability.

TheprintedquestionnaireasshowninAppendix1featuredthescales,orderedas
aboveandfollowedbyseveralothermeasureswhichwereincludedinthequestionnaireas
partofalargerstudy.Lastlythequestionnaireaskedbackgrounddataquestions:sex,age,
nationality,ethnicity,maritalstatus,employment,occupation,education,household
incomeandpersonalincome.

Procedure

Priortodatacollection,theprojectwasgivenethicalapprovalbytheSchoolof
PsychologyHumanEthicsCommitteeadelegatedsubcommitteeoftheHealthResearch
Council.Eachrespondentreceivedabriefingsheet(whichstatedthegeneralaimsofthe
studyandtheanticipatedusesofthedata,andclearlystatedthatparticipationwas
voluntaryandanonymous),therelevantquestionnaire,asmallformtorequestasummary
oftheresultsandenteradrawtowineither$200oroneofseveraldoublemoviepasses,
andapostagepaidenvelopetoreturnthequestionnaireandform.Viathebriefingsheet,
participantswereaskedtofilloutthequestionnaireandreturnitintheenvelopeprovided.
Asixweekperiodwasallowedforsurveystobereturned;surveysafterthesesixweeks
werenotincludedinthestudy.Asthequestionnaireswerereturned,therawdatawas
enteredandcodedfordataanalysis.

39

Study1Results

StatisticalanalysiswascarriedoutonthedatausingSPSS12.0forWindows.An
alphalevelof5%wasusedforallstatisticaltestsinthisstudy.

Table1
MeansandStandardDeviationsforallscales

OverallMean

MaleMean

(andSD)

(andSD)

(andSD)

Difference

(n's250270)

(n's105114)

(n's142152)

(tvalue)

2.63(0.93)
2.58(0.99)
2.45(1.10)
2.69(1.12)
2.10(0.74)
1.75(0.58)

2.76(0.95)
2.77(1.02)
2.74(1.19)
2.76(1.11)
2.07(0.73)
1.93(0.60)

2.51(0.90)
2.45(0.96)
2.23(0.97)
2.64(1.13)
2.14(0.74)
1.62(0.53)

2.25*
2.48*
2.59**
3.41**
0.79
4.44**

Aggression
2.21(0.67)
Hostility
2.82(0.82)
VerbalAggression
2.15(0.50)
OverallAggression
40.6(17.5)
Age
*=p<.05,**=p<.01.

2.30(0.69)
2.94(0.84)
2.24(0.51)
43.1(18.1)

2.14(0.65)
2.72(0.80)
2.08(0.48)
38.7(16.8)

1.89
2.13*
2.58*
3.41**

FemaleMean MaleFemale

RWA
SDO6
SDOD
SDOE
Anger
Physical

Table1showsthemeansandstandarddeviationsforallscales.Theseresultsare
broadlysimilartopreviousresearchongeneralpopulationsamplesforSDO(e.g.,Prattoet
al,1994),RWA(e.g.,Heaven&Bucci,2001;Altemeyer,1998),andaggression(e.g.,
Tremblay&Ewart,2004).GendermeansreflectpreviousfindingsofgreatermaleSDO
(e.g.Sidanius,1992;Sidanius,Pratto&Bobo,1994;Pratto&Stallworth,1997),greater
maleaggressionandinparticularasignificantsexdifferenceinphysicalaggression(as
foundbyBuss&Perry,1991).Ontheotherhand,thesignificantdifferencebetweenmale
40

andfemaleRWAscores(withmaleshigher)differsfrommostpreviousresearch,which
findsnodifference(e.g.,Altemeyer,1998;Crowson,Debacker&Thoma,2005;Guastello
&Peissig,1998;Heaven&Quintin,2003).

41

Table2
CorrelationsbetweenScalesandSubscales

SDO-6
RWA
SDO-D
SDO-E
Overall Aggression
Physical Aggression
Verbal Aggression
Anger
Hostility
Age
*=p<.05,**=p<.01.

SDO-6

RWA

SDO-D

SDO-E

OA

PA

VA

Age

.54**
.89**
.89**
.19*
.22**
.00
.10
.19**
.06

.57**
.38**
.15*
.14*
-.01
.08
.18**
.22**

.59**
.24**
.24**
.05
.13*
.25**
.02

.10
.15*
-.04
.06
.10
.09

.73**
.70**
.80**
.66**
-.23**

.36**
.49**
.25**
-.15*

.51**
.28**
-.20**

.32**
-.12

-.21**

Table2showscorrelationsbetweenscalesandsubscalesfortheoverallsample.
ThereisastronglypositivesignificantrelationshipbetweenSDOandRWA,broadly
consistentwithpreviousresearchfindingsthatSDOandRWAareoftensignificantly
correlated(Altemeyer1998;Roccato&Ricolfi,2005),butalsoofagreatermagnitude
thantypicallyreported.SDOisalsosignificantlyrelatedtooverallaggression,hostility
andphysicalaggression,aspredicted.

SDODisrelatedtooverallaggression,physicalaggressionandanger,whileSDOE
isunrelatedtotheaggressionsubscales,exceptforasmallcorrelationwithphysical
aggression.ThisisconsistentwiththepredictionthatSDODwouldbedifferentially
associatedwithaggressioncomparedtoSDOE.SDODandSDOEaremoderately
correlated,suggestingtheymeasureoverlappingbutnotidenticalportionsoftheSDO
construct(asperJost&Thompson,2000).

RWAisalsosignificantlyrelatedtooverallaggressionandphysicalaggression,
whichdoesnotsupportthehypothesisthatRWAwouldbeunrelatedtooverallaggression.
Ontheotherhand,RWAisrelatedtohostility,aspredicted.Ageisrelatedtoincreased
RWAscores,andlowerscoresontheaggressionsubscales,withtheexceptionofanger.

Table3showstheAggressionQuestionnaireoverallscoreandsubscalescorrelated
withSDO,RWA,SDOEandSDODbysex.SDOissignificantlyrelatedtooverall
aggressionandespeciallyphysicalaggressionforfemales,butunrelatedtoaggressionfor
males.Thisunexpectedsexdifferencedoesnotsupportthehypothesisthatmaleswould
43

havealargerSDOaggressionrelationship.RWAissignificantlycorrelatedwithoverall
aggression,hostilityandangerformales,butnotforfemales.
Table3
Correlationsbetweenscalesandsubscales,withSDO,SDOD,SDOEandRWA,by
sex.

SDO6
RWA
SDOD
SDOE
OverallA.
PhysicalA.
VerbalA.
Anger
Hostility
Age

SDO6
Male
Fem

RWA
Male
Fem

SDOD
Male
Fem

SDOE
Male
Fem

.49**
.90**
.88**
.13
.08
.02
.14
.16
.13

.48**
.38**
.20*
.09
.02
.24*
.21*
.21*

.57**
.19*
.14
.01
.16
.25*
.01

.04
.01
.05
.11
.03
.23*

.57**
.89**
.92**
.20*
.27**
.00
.08
.20*
.04

.63**
.39**
.06
.14
.09
.02
.12
.21*

.63**
.24**
.26**
.05
.13
.22**
.05

.14
.25**
.02
.02
.15
.02

=p<.10,*=p<.05,**=p<.01

SDODisassociatedwithoverallaggressionandhostilityforbothmalesand
females,andassociatedwithphysicalaggressionforfemalesonly.SDOEisunrelatedto
theAQsubscalesexceptforacorrelationwithphysicalaggressionscoresforfemalesonly.

AgeisassociatedwithincreasedRWAscoresandloweroverallaggressionand
verbalaggressionscoresforbothmalesandfemales.Formales,ageisrelatedtolower
physicalaggressionscores,whereasforfemales,ageisrelatedtolowerangerandhostility
scores.

44

Table4
CorrelationsbetweenAggressionQuestionnairesubscalesandage,bysex.
OverallAgg.

PhysicalAgg.

VerbalAgg.

Male

Fem

Male

Fem

Male

Fem

OA.

PA.

.76**

.71**

VA.

.69**

.71**

.36**

.35**

Ang

.79**

.85**

.53**

.51**

.43**

Host.

.25*

.63**

.29**

.20*

Age

.21*

.30**

.24*

.15

Anger

Hostility

Male

Fem

Male

Fem

.61**

.35**

.19*

.33**

.35**

.22*

.22**

.03

.18*

.13

.31**

=p<.10,*=p<.05,**=p<.01

Table4showsthecorrelationsbetweentheAQsubscalesandage.This
demonstratesthatwhiletheAQsubscaleseachmeasureadifferentaspectofaggression,
theyalsooverlapandintercorrelatetoformacoherentoverallmeasureofaggression.In
addition,withincreasingage,selfreportedaggressiongenerallydecreases,withthe
exceptionofangerformales.

Regressions

MultipleregressionanalysiswasusedtodeterminethepredictorsoftheAggression
Questionnairesubscales.ThevariablesincludedintheanalyseswereRWA,SDOD,
SDOEandsex.TheSDO6scoreisleftoutoftheseanalysesasSDODandSDOEare
togetherequivalenttoSDO6.

45

Table5
MultipleRegressionAnalysisforPhysicalAggression
Unstandardised Standardised

Adjusted

B(SE)

R2

R2

1.35(0.11)
0.29(0.07)

.25

.06

.06***

.21
.18

.09

.03**

Step1
Constant
Sex
Step2
Constant
1.18(0.12)
Sex
0.24(0.07)
SDOD
0.10(0.03)
*=p<.05,**=p<.01,***=p<.001

ExcludedVariables(duetoinsignificance):SDOE,RWA.Allbetasinthis
regressionweresignificant.

Inthissignificantregression(F(2,242)=12.30,p<.0001)showninTable5,both
sexandSDODaresignificantpredictorsofphysicalaggressionscores.Sexaccountsfor
approximately6%ofthevarianceinPhysicalAggressionscores,andtheSDOD
componentofSDOaccountsforanother3%.Thisisconsistentwithobservationsofa
consistentsexdifferenceinphysicalaggressionscores(Buss&Perry,1992)andthe
previouscorrelationofSDOwithphysicalaggression.NotethatSDODexplainsvariance
inphysicalaggressionevenaftersexistakenintoaccount.SDOEdidnotpredictany
varianceinphysicalaggressionscores.ThisisconsistentwiththepredictionthattheSDO
DcomponentofSDOwouldbepreferentiallyassociatedwithaggression,comparedto
SDOE.

46

Table6
MultipleRegressionAnalysisforHostility
Unstandardised Standardised
B(SE)

Adjusted

R2

R2

.25

.06

.06***

Step1
Constant

1.83(0.10)

SDOD

0.16(0.04)

*=p<.05,**=p<.01,***=p<.001
ExcludedVariables(duetoinsignificance):SDOE,RWA,sex.Allbetasinthis
regressionweresignificant.

Table6showsasignificantregression(F(1,243)=16.60,p<.0001)whichsuggests
thattheSDODcomponentofSDOisasignificantpredictorofhostilityscores,explaining
about6%ofthevariabilityinhostility.AlthoughRWAwascorrelatedwithhostility,itis
notasignificantpredictorinthisanalysis;thisconflictswiththepredictionthatRWA
wouldbeassociatedwithhostility.PerhapstheeffectofRWAonhostilityisduetothe
correlationofSDOandRWA.

47

Table7
MultipleRegressionAnalysisforOverallAggression
Unstandardised Standardised
B(SE)

Adjusted

R2

R2

.23

.05

.05***

Step1
Constant

1.89(0.08)

SDOD

0.11(0.03)

*=p<.05,**=p<.01,***=p<.001
ExcludedVariables(duetoinsignificance):SDOE,RWA,sex.Allbetasinthis
regressionweresignificant.

Table7showsasignificantregressionanalysis(F(1,243)=13.74,p<.0001)
showingthattheSDODcomponentofSDOexplainsabout5%ofthevariabilityin
OverallAggressionscores,whileRWAandsexexplainlittleornovarianceinoverall
aggressionscores.SDOEdidnotpredictanyvarianceinoverallaggressionscores.This
isconsistentwiththepredictionthattheSDODcomponentofSDOwouldbe
preferentiallyassociatedwithaggression,comparedtoSDOE.

RegressionanalysesforVerbalAggressionandAngershowedthatnoneofthe
variables(SDOD,SDOE,RWAandsex)weresignificantpredictors;thus,theseanalyses
wereomitted.

48

PathAnalysis

Pathanalysisisanextensionofmultipleregressionanalysiswhichallowsresearchers
totestmodelsoftherelationshipsbetweenvariables,basedonthecorrelations(or
covariances,whereappropriate)betweenthevariablesassessed.Frompreviousregression
analysesweconcludethatonlysomevariableshaveasignificanteffectontherelationship
betweenSDO,RWAandtheaggressionsubscales.Therelationshipsbetweenthese
variableswaspredicted,thentestedusingpathanalysis.

Thevariableswewillconsiderare:sex,SDO,RWA,hostility,anger,andphysical
aggression.ThereisasignificantsexdifferenceinscoresonSDOandphysical
aggression,soweexpectthatsexwillexplainsomeofthevariabilityofbothSDOand
PhysicalAggression.HighSDOindividualstendtobepersonallydominating(Altemeyer,
1998),and,itisspeculated,couldusephysicalaggressiontoexerttheirdominance,sowe
expectSDOtoberelatedtophysicalaggression,asperLippaandArad(1999).SDO
beliefstendtoleadtoRWAbeliefs,butthisrelationshipisnotreciprocal(Duckitt,2001)
soweexpectSDOtoexplainsomeofthevarianceofRWA(butnotviceversa).
Authoritarianstendtohavehostileattitudes(Duckitt,2001,AhmedandLester2003)so
RWAwillberelatedtohostility.

AccordingtomodelsbyBussandPerry(1992),hostilityisacognitiveformof
aggression,angerisanemotionalformofaggression,andphysicalaggressionisa
behaviouralform.Intheirmodel,cognitionsproduceemotions,whichinturnproduce
behaviours.Weexpecthostilitywillexplainsomeofthevariationinphysicalaggression,
completelymediatedbyanger.
49

ThesepredictionsaresummarisedasseeninFigure1.
0,

0,

e1

e2

RWA

Hostility
0,

0,

e4

e3
1

Anger

SDO-6

Sex

Physical Aggression
1
0,

e5
Figure1
ApathanalysismodeloftheexpectedrelationshipsbetweenSDO,RWA,sex,anger,
hostilityandphysicalaggression.

Inassessingtheoverallmodelfit,HuandBentler(1999,citedinDuckitt,2001)
suggestvaluesclosetoorbetterthan0.06forRMSEAand0.95forCFIandGFI.
50

e1

e2
.04

.29
.19

RWA

Hostility

.32

.54

e4

e3
.10

.02

Anger

SDO-6
.16

.49

.12

.34

Sex

.27

Physical Aggression

e5
Figure2
AstandardisedpathanalysisofthemodelpresentedinFigure1.

Theresultsofthepathanalysissupportsthepredictedmodel;chisquare(8)=8.9,
chisquare/dfratio=1.11.Modelfitisexcellentwithvaluesof0.02forRMSEA,0.996
forCFIand0.994forGFI.AsseeninFigure2,SDOisrelatedtoRWA,whichinturnis
relatedtoanger,andinturnangeractsasamediatorbetweenhostilityandphysical
aggression.SexhasadirecteffectonSDOandphysicalaggression.

51

Study1Discussion

TheresultsofStudy1showthatRWAispositively,significantlycorrelatedwith
aggression,whichwasnotpredictedbyhypothesesbasedonpreviousresearch(e.g.,
McFarland&Adelson,1996;Lippa&Arad,1999).However,thisfindingissupportedby
somepreviousresearchintoauthoritarianismandaggression(Walker,Rowe&Quinsey,
1993;Ahmed&Lester,2003).IfRWAisassociatedwithhostility,thesefindingssupport
researchbyDuckitt(2001)inrelationtothedangerousworldhypothesis.Physical
aggressionwasalsoassociatedwithRWA.

SDOwasfoundtobecorrelatedwithaggression,particularlyphysicalaggression,as
predicted.Thisconfirmspredictionsfromresearchinpersonality(Tremblay&Ewart,
2004;Heaven&Bucci,2001)andspeculationconcerningtestosterone,aggressionand
SocialDominanceOrientation(Sidanius,1992).Theseresultscouldbeseenassupportfor
Altemeyer's(1998)construalofSDOasincludingelementsofpersonaldominance.

ThehypothesisthatSDODwouldbemoreassociatedwithaggressionthanSDOE
wassupported;however,thepredictionthatSDODwouldbemorehighlycorrelatedwith
aggressionformaleswasnotsupported.SDODwasequallycorrelatedwithoverall
aggressionformalesandfemales,andmorehighlycorrelatedwithphysicalaggressionfor
femalesthanmales.Thisisessentiallytheoppositeofwhatwaspredicted.Theprediction
thatmaleswouldshowastrongerassociationbetweenphysicalaggressionandSDOwas
notsupported.FemaleswerewfoundtohaveasignificantcorrelationbetweenSDOand
physicalaggression,whilemalesdidnot.Thiswarrantscloseexamination.
52

Onepotentialexplanationforthisfindingisthatmales,beingmorephysically
aggressivethanfemales(Buss&Perry,1992),havelargefactorsaffectingaggression
whichcouldswampanySDOphysicalaggressioneffect.Forinstance,fluctuationsin
testosteronemightbeanimportantfactorindetermininglevelsofphysicalaggressionin
males(Sidanius,1992),whereasfemalesdonothavesuchlargeorfluctuatinglevelsof
testosterone(Josephsetal,2006).Thus,theirlinkbetweenSDOandphysicalaggression
mightbemoreeasilyobserved.However,thecurrentstudydidnotmeasuretestosterone
levels.

AnotherpossiblereasonforthefemaleSDOphysicalaggressionlinkisthedifferent
patternsofsocialisationbetweenmalesandfemalesasdescribedbyCampbell(1993).For
males,physicalaggressionismorewidelyusedandsociallysupportedincertaincontexts
(sports,fairfights,militaryconflict,andsoon).Ifitissociallyacceptableforallmales
tobephysicallyaggressive,theirlevelsofphysicalaggressionmighttendtobeuniform
andnotdifferintermsofSDO.Ontheotherhand,withthemodernfeministmessagethat
femaleuseofforceinselfdefenceisappropriate,highSDOandhighRWAwomenmight
morereadilyuseaggressiontodefendthemselveswhentheyfeelthreatenedorprovoked
(withtheirperceptionofthe'dangerousworld').WomenwithlowerSDOmaynotfeelas
threatenedandsousephysicalaggressionless.

Study1wasarelativelysimpleinvestigationoftherelationshipbetweensex,RWA,
SDOandAggression,whichleadstolimitationsinpossibleconclusions.Measuresof
personality,testosteroneandmasculinity/femininitywerenotincluded,soanyconclusion
53

abouttherelevanceofthesefactorsinexplainingtheresultsofthestudyareuncertain,
thoughotherresearchhassuggestedthattheymaybeimportant(Wilson&Liu,2003;
Sidanius,1992).Themeasureofaggressionusedwasbroadbasedanddidnotdistinguish
betweendifferenttypesofaggression,forinstanceexpressiveversusinstrumental
(Campbell,1993),andjustifiedversusunjustifiedaggression.Someoftheseshortcomings
willbeaddressedinStudy2.

Insummary,thereweremultiplesignificantrelationshipsfoundbetweenSDO,RWA
andaggression,someofwhichwerepredicted,whileotherswereunanticipated;in
particular,aggressionwasrelatedtoRWA.Intermsofsex,femaleaggressionwasrelated
toSDOandmaleaggressionwasrelatedtoRWA.BothSDOandaggressionhavesimple
andwellstudiedgenderdifferences;RWAexhibitsnoconsistentgenderdifference.There
was,however,apatternofsexdifferencesintheinteractionofthesevariableswhich
clearlyinvitesfurtherinvestigation.

54

Study2Introduction

GenderandSocialDominanceTheory

SocialDominanceTheory(andthecentralimportancegiventotheuseoftheSDO
construct)isessentiallyanattempttoexplainpowerrelationsandgroupidentificationin
humansocieties(Sidanius,1992).Theyarenottheonlypotentialexplanations,andthere
arecompetingtheoriesaboutgrouppowerrelations,theforemostcompetitortoSDTbeing
SocialIdentityTheory(SIT;Tajfel&Turner,1979).SITsuggeststhatindividualsfeel
psychologicalidentificationwiththegroupstheybelongto,andthatthisidentification
formsanimportantpartofindividual'ssocialidentity.Individualsseektoincreasetheir
selfesteembyidentifyingwithgroupswhichmakethemfeelgoodaboutthemselves.
Membersofminoritygroupsarethoughttoengageinarangeofstrategiestoimprovetheir
selfesteemviasocialidentity,includingchanginggroups(ifpossible),seekingtochange
thewaytheirgroupisviewed,orchangingthedomainofcomparisonbetweengroupsso
thatthecomparisionenhancesthestatusoftheirgroup.Forinstance,thedomainof
comparisoncouldbechangedfromcompetencetowarmth('wemaynotberich,butwe're
veryfriendly').

Researchfindingsexdifferencesinsociopoliticalattitudesiscommon,withthe
basicfindingbeingthatwomenaremorepoliticallyliberalthanmen(e.g.,Sidanius&
Ekehammer,1980).AbriefreviewbyWilsonandLiu(2003)listsprejudice,
authoritarianism,punitiveattitudesandacceptanceofinternationalconflictasmeasuresin
whichmengenerallyscorehigherthanwomen,althoughitmustbenotedthatmuch
researchreportingsexdifferencesinrightwingauthoritarianismfindsnosexdifference
55

(e.g.,Crowson,Debacker&Thoma,2005,Guastello&Peissig,1998,Heaven&Quintin,
2003),althoughafewhavereportedhighermalescores(Duncan,Peterson&Winter,
1997)orevenhigherfemalescores,albeitnonsignificant(Whitley&gisdttir,2000).
SocialDominanceTheorysuggeststhattheincreasedtendencyofmentoacceptsocial
inequalityisanevolvedsociobiologicaladaptationandpredictsthatthetendencyofmales
tohavehigherSDOscoreswillbeessentiallyinvariant,andpersistregardlessofcovariates
suchassocioeconomicstatus,raceandculture(Prattoetal,1997);thisistheinvariance
hypothesis.

Testsoftheinvariancehypothesis(e..g,Wilson&Liu,2003)areonewayto
comparethepredictionsofSDTandSIT.Datasupportingtheinvariancehypothesis
support,inturn,SDT;datafailingtosupporttheinvariancehypothesissuggestSITmaybe
amoreappropriatetheoryforexplainingthesephenomena.Dambrun,Duarteand
Guimond(2004)challengetheinvariancehypothesisbytestingthepredictionsofSocial
DominanceTheoryagainstthoseofSocialIdentityTheory.Astructuralequation
modelingapproachshowedthatgenderidentificationcompletelymediatedtheeffectof
genderonsocialdominanceorientation.ThissuggeststhatSocialDominanceOrientation
hasasociallyconstructedoriginconsistentwithSITratherthanbeingbiologically
determinedasproposedbySDT.

AnotherchallengetoSocialDominanceTheorywaspresentedbySchmitt,
BranscombeandKappen(2003).Theirmostinterestingtestwasamanipulationinwhich
menandwomenwereaskedtoconsiderasituationofinequalitywhichfavouredwomen.
Femaleparticipantsweremorecomfortablewiththisinequalitythanmaleparticipants.
Thissuggeststhatsupportforinequalityisnotasolelymaleattitude(aspredictedby
56

SDT),butmoregloballyexhibitedbywhoeveristhedominantgroupinthiscase,
exhibitedbywomenwhoperceivedthattheirsocialgroupwouldbenefit(aspredictedby
SIT).SimilarargumentshavebeenmadebyWilsonandLiu(2003)andFoelsandPappas
(2004),whochallengedtheinvariancehypothesisbyshowingthatpsychologicalgender
(masculinityandfemininity)andgenderidentitymoderatethesexdifferenceinSDO.
Genderidentityistheextenttowhichpeopleidentifywiththeirgendergroup(Wilson&
Liu,2003,p188)andhasbeenfoundtobeamoderatingfactorforthesexdifferencein
SDOscores.FoelsandPappas(2004),inanextensionofthischallenge,foundthatthesex
differenceinSDOismediatedbygendersocialisation,andfurthermorefoundthat
masculinityandfemininityaredifferentiallyrelatedtotheSDODandSDOEcomponents
ofSDO.

Basedonthesestudies,onecanmaketheargumentthatSDOisnotuniversal,as
postulatedbySDT,butsituationalassuggestedbySIT.Thequestion,then,iswhetherthe
highSDOprejudicedindividualreallyexists.Giventhebreadthofresearchandthe
strengthofthelinkbetweenprejudiceandSDO(e.g.,McFarland&Adelson,1996;Sibley,
Robertson&Wilson,2006),SDOiscertainlymeasuringsomeaspectwhichpredicts
prejudice.ThusSDTmaybesignificantlyweakenedbutSDOasaninstrumentfor
measuringtheprejudicedpersonalitymaystillbeaviabletool.Thisisimportantforthis
studybecauseitshowsthatthedifferingperceptionsofsocialinequalitybymenand
womenareimportantintheirsupportforinequality.Differencesintheperceptionofthe
useofaggression,then,mustsurelybeimportantinconsideringtherelationshipbetween
SDOandaggression.

57

Sex,GenderandAggression

Campbell(1993),workingwithdatagatheredduringthe1970s,describesapervasive
globalsexdifferenceinaggressionsuchthatmalestendtouseaggressionaccordingto
socialscriptsininstrumentalwaystogainstatus,todefendthemselves,andtoexert
dominanceoverothers.Women,ontheotherhand,maybesocialisedtorepresstheir
aggressiveimpulses,andtendtoactaggressivelyonlywhentheyareangryorfrustrated
andarenolongerabletocontaintheiraggression.Campbell(1993)expressesthisneatly
byportrayingmenasusingaggressiontotakecontrol,whereaswomenareaggressive
whentheylosecontrol.Mentendtouseaggressioninstrumentally,whilewomentendto
beuseaggressionexpressively.

ArcherandHaigh(1997)developedascaletomeasureinstrumentalversus
expressivebeliefsaboutaggression(theEXPAGGscale),andfoundaclearsexdifference
wherebymenscorehigherontheinstrumentalsubscale,andwomenscorehigheronthe
expressivesubscale.Whenaskedwhethertheywerethinkingofasamesexoropposite
sexopponentwhenansweringthequestionnaire,maleparticipantsweremostlikelytobe
thinkingofamaleopponent,whereasfemaleparticipantswereequallylikelytobe
thinkingofafemaleopponentoramaleopponent(whowasusuallyapartner).Asecond
studysupportedthehypothesisthatinstrumentalbeliefsaboutaggressionpredictedhigher
levelsofphysicalaggression,whereasexpressivebeliefsaboutaggressionwerenegatively
associatedwithphysicalaggression(Archer&Haigh,1997).

Inconsideringsexdifferencesinaggression,onemustbecarefulnottoexaggerate
thedifferences;menandwomenarenotcompleteoppositesintheiruseofaggression.
58

Womenarelessphysicallyaggressivethanmen,butreportsimilarlevelsofverbal
aggression,hostilityandanger(e.g.,Buss&Perry,1992).Dilletal(1997)foundthat
menandwomenhadidenticalexpectationsandperceptionsofhostility,suggestingthatthe
originofaggressioninbothmenandwomenisidentical.Womenareobservedusing
physicalaggressionagainstotherwomen(Campbell,1986)andindividualwomenare
capableofaggressiveactsonaparwiththeworstofmaleaggression(Kirsta,1994).
Domesticviolencehasbeenpresentedaspurelyamenstrikingwomenproblem(see
Gelles,2007,forareview;Hamberberg&Renzetti,1994;Straus&Gelles,1990),but
someresearchreportsthatwomenhitmenasoftenasthereverse(Straus&Ramirez,
2004),andstartthephysicalaltercationasoftenastheirmalepartner(Straus,2005).Ithas
beenarguedthatmenuseviolenceinrelationshipstocontrolwomen,whilewomenuse
violencetoexpresstheiranger(forinstance,Campbell,1993);butdomesticviolence
researchusinggenderneutralmeasuresofviolencesuggeststhatwomenusedviolencein
anattempttocontroltheirpartner'sbehaviourasoftenasmendid(Straus,1997).Evenin
areassuchassexualaggression,researchhasdemonstratedthatsomewomenusecoercion
toobtainsexualcontact.Forinstance,aGermanstudyfoundthat10%ofwomenhadused
drugsoralcohol,verbalaggressionorphysicalaggressiontogetsex(Krahe,Waizenhofer
&Moller,2003).Similarly,EricksonandRapkin(1991)reported12%ofmalehigh
schoolstudentsintheirsamplehadhadanunwantedsexualexperience,comparedto18%
offemalestudents.

Hasthesocialisationofwomentorejectaggressivebehaviourchangedinrecent
decades?TheinfluenceoffeminismonWesternsocietyisclear(Hopkins,2002)andit
hasbeenarguedthatwomenarenolongersocialisedtorejectaggression,forexample,To
behaveaggressivelyisnolongerconsideredunfeminineandunattractive(Hopkins,2002,
59

p109).AndersonandAymami(1993)describemodernfemaleadoptionofmore
masculineroles,withassociatedadditionalsocial,economicandpoliticalpower.They
speculatethatwomenwillencountermoresituationsthatencourageaggression,including
sexualaggression.Somepopularmedianowpromotetheconceptof'girlpower'.For
example,modernportrayalsofwomeninmediasuchasthemovieCharlie'sAngels,and
televisionshowslikeXena:WarriorPrincessandBuffytheVampireSlayer(Hopkins,
2002),allfeaturestrongheroineswhoexcelatusingphysicalaggressioninsocially
acceptableways(todefendthemselvesandinnocents).Hopkinswrites...actiongirls
havetakenonamasculinealliancewithviolence.Theykick,punch,andstabtheir
adversariesusuallywithgoodreason(p.111).Astudyofstrongfemaleprotagonistsin
film,ReelKnockouts,providesexamplesofincreasingrepresentationsoffemalephysical
empowermentinfilm:Inthe1990swomenhaveincreasinglybeenrepresentedasviolent
protagonists(p.219,TinaVares)andThelastdecadehasseentheemergenceofanew
breedofpowerfulwomeninfilm(p.78,CarolMDole).Hopkins(2002)describesthe
riseofthestrongheroineinpopularculture,statingthatitisnowadominanttheme(p.
1).Withnew,powerfulfemalerolemodels,theuseofphysicalaggressionespeciallyin
selfdefencemayincreasinglybeseenassociallyacceptableby,andfor,somewomen.

Anexceptiontomodernchangingviewsoffemaleaggressionmightberightwing
authoritarianwomen.TraditionalismandconventionalismareimportantpartsofRWA
(Altemeyer,1984),sohighRWAscorersmightexaggeratesexdifferencesinaggression.
Forexample,femaleRWAsmightproclaimthemselvestobe(femininely)lowon
aggression,particularlyphysicalaggression,andmaleRWAsmightproclaimthemselves
tobemasculinelyhighonaggression,especiallyphysicalaggression.Soalthoughthereis
littleornosexdifferenceinRWAscores,RWAbeliefscouldpotentiallyincreaseself
60

reportedsexdifferencesinaggressionduetotheeffectoftraditionalism.

Therelationshipofaggressionwithgenderbaseddiscriminationcanbeexamined
throughuseoftheAttitudestoWomenscale(Spence&Helmreich,1978).
AuthoritarianismandSocialDominanceOrientationareknowntobestronglycorrelated
withprejudiceincludingsexism(McFarland&Adelson,1996).Sexismmayinturnbe
relatedtoaggression;sexualharassmenthasbeendescribedaspartofthesamecontinuum
asviolentsexualaggressionandrape(Begany&Milburn,2002).Surprisingly,therehas
beenlittleresearchonsexismandaggression,althoughsomestudieshaveexamined
sexismandattitudestowardspartners,includingaggression.Forinstance,Ryanand
Kanjorsky(1998)assessedsexistattitudesviaparticipants'ratedenjoymentofsexistjokes,
andfoundthatsexisminmaleswasassociatedwithacceptanceofrapemyths,anincreased
selfreportedlikelihoodofforcingsex,andincreasedpsychological,sexualandphysical
aggressiontowardsintimatepartners.Womenwhoenjoyedthesexistjokesdidnotshow
aggressivetendencies.

GiventhatSDOandRWAaregrouplevelconstructswhichareperceivedtomeasure
anindividualspreferencesaboutthestructureofsociety,itmayberevealingtoaskabout
individualpreferencesrelatingtotheuseofaggressioninsocietalsettings.Anexcellent
exampleisthe2007NewZealanddebatesurroundingtherepealofSection59ofthe
CrimesAct,alsocalledtheAntiSmackingBill'whichwasintendedtoreducechild
abuse;severalgroupsprotestedthebillbecauseitappearedtomakeitillegaltouseany
forceinsmackingchildren(Destinyloses,,2007).Withtheseandsimilarissuesinmind,
the'AggressioninSociety'(AiS)scalewascreatedforthepurposesofthisstudyto
measurevariousattitudesabouttheuseofaggressioninsocietalsettings.Forinstance,
61

questionsaskedtheextenttowhichparticipantssupportedtheuseofcorporalpunishment
inschools,ortheprosecutionofsportsplayersforassaultscommittedduringsportsgames.

Withthisresearchinmind,certainresearchquestionsappearimportant.Primarily,
weseektoexplain:whymighttherebesexdifferencesintherelationshipbetweenSDO
andaggression?

Itmaybethecase(assuggestedbyHopkins,2002,above)thathighSDOfemalesare
morelikelytoabsorbandespouse'girlpower'beliefs;thesebeliefsmightthenleadtothem
beinglessopposedtoaggression.Ontheotherhand,itmaybethatmaleSDOisnot
linkedtophysicalaggression,firstlybecausephysicalaggressionisleastlikelytobeused
bythosemalesinhighstatus(highSDO)positions,andsecondly,allmalesaresocially
conditionedtoconsiderphysicalaggressionacceptable.Thus,bothhighandlowSDO
maleswouldtendtousephysicalaggressionatasimilarfrequency.

HighRWAmenmayexhibithigherlevelsofhostilitybecausetheyperceivethe
worldtobeahostileplace('dangerousworld'hypothesis).HighRWAwomen,valuing
traditionalism,mightabsorbandusetraditionalfemalescriptswhichincludethebeliefthat
womenshouldgenerallybenonaggressive.

ArethesexdifferencesintherelationshipofSDOandRWAwithaggression
reflectedinthedifferenttypesofaggression,suchasinstrumentalversusexpressive?Is
thelinkbetweenSDO/RWAandaggressionrelatedtosexistattitudestowardswomen?
Intuitively,femaleSDOphysicalaggressionandfemaleRWAlowhostilitylinksmight
berelatedtotheirattitudestowardstraditionalfemalesexroles.Fromthesequestions,and
62

withpreviousresearchinmind,somehypothesesforStudy2wereformed.

Itwashypothesisedthatmaleswouldhavehigherlevelsofinstrumentalaggression,
andthatfemaleswouldhavehigherlevelsofexpressiveaggression,asperArcherand
Haigh(1997).Itwashypothesisedthatinstrumentalaggressionwouldbeassociatedwith
higherlevelsofSDO.SDOindividualsaredescribedasusingaggressionforpersonal
dominance(Altemeyer),implyinganinstrumentaluseofaggression.Itwashypothesised
thatRWAmaleswoulddisplayhigherlevelsofmasculinitybecauseRWAmales,being
traditionalandconservative,wouldtendtoembraceaconventionallymasculineself
image.Finally,itwaspredictedthatRWAandSDOmaleswouldhavehigherlevelsof
antiwomenbeliefs(ascomparedtoRWAandSDOfemales);bothSDOandRWAmales
shouldtendtobesexistandespouseantiwomenbeliefs(Altemeyer,1998;McFarland&
Adelson,1996).

63

Study2Method

Sample

Study2measuredeightbroadgroupsofvariables:SocialDominanceOrientation,
RightWingAuthoritarianism,aggression,instrumentalexpressivebeliefsabout
aggression,gendergroupidentification,masculinity/femininity,attitudestoAggressionin
Society(AiS)andattitudestowardswomen.

Participantswere180residentsoftheWellingtonsuburbsofLyallBay,Wiltonand
Northland.Respondentsincluded64malesand113females,whowereagedfrom17to85
(meanage41,SD14).82%ofparticipantsidentifiedthemselvesasNewZealand
Europeanand81%describedtheirnationalityasNewZealander.Respondentswere
recruitedbydelivering476questionnairesintomailboxesintheLyallBayarea,and494
questionnairesintomailboxesintheWiltonNorthlandarea.Questionnaireswere
distributedinanonrandomconveniencesample;eachmailboxonastreetreceiveda
questionnaire,unlessthemailboxspecifiedNoCirculars.Participationinthestudywas
voluntaryandanonymous.

Measures

TheRightWingAuthoritarianscale(RWA;Altemeyer,1998)wasadministered
usingthesameratingscaleasinStudy1,andhadaCronbach'salphaof.94.
64

TheSocialDominanceOrientationscale(SDO6;Prattoetal,1994)was
administeredusingthesameratingscaleasinStudy1,andhadaCronbach'salphaof.87.
SDODhadaCronbach'salphaof.82;SDOEhadaCronbach'salphaof.78.

TheAggressionQuestionnairescale(Buss&Perry,1992),ratedinthesamefashion
asStudy1,hadaCronbach'saphaof.89.TheAQsubscaleCronbachalphaswere:
PhysicalAggression.82,VerbalAggression.68,Hostility.80,Anger.79.

TheEXPAGGscale(ArcherandHaigh,1997)isa16itemscaledesignedtomeasure
participants'beliefsaboutaggression.Itisdividedintotwosubscales,with8oftheitems
beinginstrumentalinnature(aggressionisusedtogaincontroloverothers)and8items
beingexpressive(aggressioncomesfromlosingcontroloverone'sownemotions).
Participantsratetheiragreementordisagreementwiththescalesona5pointLikertscale
from1(stronglydisagree)to5(stronglyagree).ExampleitemsincludeIbelievemy
aggressioncomesfromlosingmyselfcontrol(expressive)andThebestthingabout
physicalaggressionisitmakestheotherpersongetinline(instrumental).The
Cronbach'salphafortheInstrumentalsubscale,was.77;fortheExpressivesubscale,.64.
ThereliabilityoftheExpressivescaleissomewhatlowerthangenerallyaccepted,and
lowerthanfoundinpreviousresearch(e.g.Archer&Haigh,1997).

TheAggressioninSociety(AiS)scaleisanineitemscaleconstructedforthe
purposesofthisstudytomeasureparticipants'attitudestotheacceptabilityofaggressionin
society.ExamplequestionsincludeSchoolsshouldhavetherighttophysicallydiscipline
65

disobedientstudents(agreementindicatingaprosocietalaggressionattitude)andPolice
shouldprosecutesportspeoplewhoareviolentonthesportsfield(agreementindicating
anantisocietalaggressionattitude).TheAiSscalehasaCronbach'salphaof.69.

ThePersonalAttributesQuestionnaire(PAQ)(Spence&Helmreich,1978)isa24
itemscaledesignedtomeasuremasculinityandfemininity.Thescaleconsistsofpairsof
opposingcharacteristics,suchas'Notatallartistic'and'Veryartistic'.Participantsmark
theirendorsementofoneortheothercharacteristicbymarkingaletterfromAtoE,
effectivelyformingafivepointLikertscalebetweenthecharacteristics.ThePAQconsists
ofthreesubscales,whichusedifferentitempairstomeasurefemininetraits,masculine
traits,orcontrastingmasculineandfemininetraits(theBipolarscale).Examplepairs
include'Notatallhelpfultoothers''Veryhelpfultoothers'(feminine),'Notatall
competitive''Verycompetitive'(masculine)and'Verylittleneedforsecurity''Very
strongneedforsecurity'(masculinefeminine).ThePAQBipolarhasaCronbach'salpha
of.51;PAQMasculinity.55andPAQFemininity.72.ThereliabilitiesforPAQBipolar
andPAQMasculinityarelow;ShifrenandBauserman(1996)alsofoundalowCronbach's
alphaof.51fortheMasculinityscaleofthePAQandrefertoanunpublishedmanuscript
(Shifren,Furnham&Bauserman,1996,citedinShifren&Bauserman,1996)whichfound
asimilarlylowCronbach'salphaof.51and.53forMasculinityintwosamples.Inthat
study,removingitem16(decisionmaking)improvedtheCronbach'salphatoaround.70.
ShifrenandBauserman(1996)optedtoleaveitem16ofthePAQintheiranalyses,despite
itseffectonreliability,sothattheirresultsremainedcomparabletopreviousresearch.

TheGenderGroupIdentificationscale(WilsonandLiu,2003)isafiveitemscale
designedtomeasuretheextenttowhichmalesandfemalesidentifywitheithermalesor
66

femalesinvariousareas.ThescalestartswithWhichgendergroupdoyouidentifymost
stronglywith?andpresentsa7pointLikertscalewithWomenanchoredto1andMen
anchoredto7.Foursimilarquestionsfollowtoassessgenderidentificationoncontentof
friendships,lifeexperiences,attitudesandprioritiesinlife,usingitemssuchasInterms
ofyourlifeexperiences,whichgroupdoyoufeelclosestto?TheGenderScalehada
Cronbach'salphaof.91.

TheAttitudestoWomenscale(Spence&Helmreich,1978)isa15questionscale
consistingofstatementsabouttheroleofwomeninsocietysuchasTheintellectual
leadershipofacommunityshouldbelargelyinthehandsofmenandWomenshould
assumetheirrightfulplaceinbusinessandalltheprofessionsalongwithmen(areversed
scoreitem).Participantsrateeachstatementona7pointLikertscalefrom1(strongly
disagree)to7(stronglyagree).TheAttitudestoWomenscalehadaCronbach'salphaof.
84.

ThequestionnairescaleswereorderedasseeninAppendix2:RWA,SDO6,
EXPAGG,AiS,AQ,PAQ,GenderScale,AttitudesToWomenScale,andlastlygeneral
backgrounddata:sex,age,nationality,ethnicity,maritalstatus,employment,occupation,
education,householdincomeandpersonalincome.

Procedure

Priortodatacollection,theprojectwasgivenethicalapprovalbytheSchoolof
PsychologyHumanEthicsCommitteeadelegatedsubcommitteeoftheHealthResearch
Council.Eachrespondentreceivedabriefingsheet,therelevantquestionnaire,asmall
67

formtorequestasummaryoftheresultsandenteradrawtowineither$200oroneof
severaldoublemoviepasses,andapostagepaidenvelopetoreturnthequestionnaireand
form.Viathebriefingsheet,participantswereaskedtofilloutthequestionnaireand
returnitintheenvelopeprovided.

Asixweekperiodwasallowedforsurveystobereturned;surveysafterthesesix
weekswerenotincludedinthestudy.Asthequestionnaireswerereturned,therawdata
wasenteredandcodedfordataanalysis.

68

Study2Results

StatisticalanalysiswascarriedoutonthedatausingSPSSforWindows.Analpha
levelof5%wasusedforallstatisticaltestsinthisstudy.

Table8
Meansandstandarddeviationsforallscales

OverallMean MaleMean FemaleMean

(andSD)
(andSD)
(andSD)

MaleFemale
Difference

RWA

2.74(1.00)

3.01(1.21)

2.57(0.82)

2.59**

SDO6

4.88(0.89)

2.77(0.86)

2.30(0.87)

3.41**

SDOD

2.49(1.97)

2.91(1.12)

2.25(0.98)

2.56**

SDOE

2.42(0.93)

2.63(0.89)

2.32(0.95)

3.41**

Anger

2.19(0.76)

2.13(0.80)

2.23(0.74)

0.75

PhysicalAggression

1.86(0.76)

2.01(0.72)

1.79(0.77)

1.88

Hostility

2.44(0.73)

2.46(0.68)

2.43(0.77)

0.29

VerbalAggression

2.75(0.73)

2.81(0.68)

2.72(0.75)

0.79

OverallAggression

2.26(0.55)

2.30(0.54)

2.23(0.56)

0.81

InstrumentalAgg.

1.96(0.73)

2.28(0.72)

1.78(0.68)

4.42**

ExpressiveAgg.

3.16(0.75)

3.09(0.77)

3.21(0.74)

0.98

PAQBipolar

2.78(0.48)

2.97(0.42)

2.67(0.48)

4.15**

PAQMasculinity

3.62(0.63)

3.63(0.49)

3.62(0.70)

0.11

PAQFeminism

3.89(0.47)

3.72(0.45)

3.99(0.45)

3.76**

AttitudestoWomen

2.06(0.84)

2.47(0.98)

1.82(0.64)

4.75**

GenderIdentity

3.46(1.51)

4.88(1.16)

2.67(1.01)

12.67**

AggressioninSociety

2.71(0.74)

3.01(0.72)

2.55(0.70)

2.59**

Age

41.0(14.2)

44.2(16.9)

39.1(12.1)

3.41**

(n's168178)

(n's5664)

=p<.10,*=p<.05,**=p<.01.

69

(n's103113)

(tvalue)

Means

Table8showsthemeansandstandarddeviationsformaleandfemaleparticipants,
andthesampleasawhole.Onaverage,womentendedtoscorelowerontheaggression
measures(apartfromAnger,wherethereversepatternwasobserved)thanmen,partially
consistentwiththeresultsofStudy1.Thefindingofnosignificantsexdifferencesonthe
AgressionSubscalescoresfailstoreplicatebothStudy1,aswellaspreviousfindingssuch
asBussandPerry(1992)inwhichphysicalaggressionshowsalargesexdifference.
However,sexdifferencesonphysicalaggressiondoapproachsignificance.

Aspertheinvariancehypothesis(Sidanius&Pratto,1994)andconsistentwithStudy
1,SDOscoresshowedasignificantsexdifference.Thereisasignificantdifference
betweenmalesandfemaleRWAscores(withmalesscoringhigher)asfoundonStudy1;
thisisconsistentwithsomeofthepreviousresearchdescribedintheStudy1Introduction.
GenderGroupidentityscoresexhibitedthelargestsexdifference.Thisisexpectedaslow
scores(identificationwithwomen)areassociatedwithfemaleparticipants,andhighscores
(identificationwithmen)areassociatedwithmaleparticipants.Therewasasignificantsex
differenceintheagesofparticipants,and(asshowninTable9)agewasalsonegatively
correlatedwithaggression,andmoderatelypositivelyassociatedwithRWA.Thissuggests
thataskeweddistributionofparticipantagescouldpotentiallyaffectotherresults.

Aspredicted,maleshavesignificantlyhigherscoresoninstrumentalbeliefsabout
aggression(asperArcher&Haigh,1997);however,womendonothavesignificantly
higherscoresonexpressivebeliefsaboutaggression;thisfailstosupportthathypothesis.

70

Table9
OverallCorrelations
RWA SDO

SDOD SDOE Anger PA

Host.

VA

OA

RWA

SDO6

.37**

SDOD

.45**

.90**

SDOE

.28**

.87** .56**

Anger

.05

.15

.17*

.11

Phys.Agg.

.05

.18*

.25**

.07

.42**

Hostility

.14

.25** .33**

.01

.43**

.38**

Verb.Agg.

.08

.10

.00

.42**

.35**

.29**

.24** .32**

.10

.77**

.78**

.74**

.63**

OverallAgg .08

.16*

Ins

Exp

PBi

PM

PF

ATW

Gdr

AiS

Instrum.

.24**

.35** .45**

.17*

.29**

.47**

.31**

.27**

.48**

Expressive

.06

.00

.03

.01

.26**

.19*

.15

.06

.24**

.29**

PAQBi

.01

.03

.07

.01

.03

.21**

.29** .12

.00

.17*

.22**

PAQMasc

.02

.07

.06

.06

.09

.23**

.21** .01

.01

.02

.06

PAQFem

.13

.29*

.24**

.27** .14

.19*

.11

.19*

.21** .23** .08

.31** .12

ATW

.71**

.40** .45**

.17*

.12

.16*

.16*

.08

.18*

.21**

.05

.10

.02

.23**

Gender

30** .28** .36**

.15

.12

.31**

.13

.12

.25**

.37**

.01

.35**

.09

.37** .38**

AiS

.49**

.50** .52**

.35**

.18*

.36**

.33**

.15

.37**

.39**

.01

.12

.01

.14

.41**

.43**

Age

.33**

.03

.00

.16*

.27** .10

.12

.23** .05

.06

.07

.02

.11

.20*

.20*

.07

*=p<.05,**=p<.01.

.05

.44**

Overallcorrelations

Table9showstheoverallcorrelationsforallvariablesinStudy2.SDOandRWAare
correlatedat.37,whichislowerthanthecorrelationof.54foundinStudy1.Thispotentially
indicatessignificantdifferencesbetweenthetwosamples.InStudy1,SDOwassignificantly
relatedtooverallaggression,hostilityandphysicalaggression;thisfindingwasreplicatedinStudy
2.InStudy1,RWAwassignificantlyrelatedtooverallaggression,hostilityandphysical
aggression.Thesefindingswerenotreplicated.InStudy2RWAwasunrelatedtotheAggression
Questionnairesubscales.HoweverRWAwaspositivelyassociatedwithinstrumentalbeliefsabout
aggression.Aspredicted,SDOwasalsohighlypositivelycorrelatedwithinstrumentalaggression.

InstrumentalaggressionishighlycorrelatedwithalltheAQsubscales;expressiveaggression
issomewhatcorrelatedwithphysicalaggressionandanger,butnotcorrelatedwithverbal
aggressionandhostility.AgeispositivelyassociatedwithhigherRWAscoresandnegatively
associatedwithanger,physicalaggressionandoverallaggression.Clearly,youngerparticipantsare
moreaggressiveandlessauthoritarianthanolderparticipants.

Genderidentificationisassociatedwithphysicalaggression,overallaggressionand
instrumentalaggression,suggestingthatthemore'male'apersonviewsthemselvesasbeing,the
moreaggressivetheyare.ThePAQscalerevealssomeinterestingcorrelations.Femininitywas
associatedwithlowerlevelsofSDOandaggression(physicalaggression,verbalaggression,overall
levelsandinstrumentalbeliefs).Masculinitywasassociatedwithhigherlevelsofphysical
aggressionandnegativelycorrelatedwithhostility.MasculinityhasnoassociationwithRWA,
72

failingtosupportthehypothesisthatRWAwouldbeassociatedwithmasculinity.Masculinityis
alsounassociatedwithSDOscoresorinstrumentalbeliefsaboutaggression.BipolarPAQscores,
likemasculinity,areassociatedwithhigherlevelsofphysicalaggressionandnegativelycorrelated
withhostility,andmoderatelyassociatedwithinstrumentalbeliefsaboutaggression.Sexist
attitudestowardswomenareveryhighlyassociatedwithSDOandRWA(replicating,forinstance,
McFarland&Adelson,1996).Sexismisalsosomewhatassociatedwithphysicalaggression,
hostilityandinstrumentalaggression.

Positiveattitudestowardstheuseofaggressioninsociety(theAiSscale)areassociatedwith
alltheAggressionQuestionnaireitems(exceptingverbalaggression,whichisnonsignificant)and
instrumentalbeliefsaboutaggression.TheAiSscaleisalsohighlycorrelatedwithbothRWAand
SDOattitudes.

73

Table10
Correlationsbysex
RWA
Male

SDO6

Fem

Male

SDOD

Fem

Male

SDOE

Fem

Male

Anger

Fem

Male

PhysicalAgg

Fem

Male

Hostility

Fem

Male

VerbalAgg

Fem

Male

OverallAgg

Fem

Male

Fem

RWA

SDO6

.29*

.43**

SDOD

.38**

.44**

.89**

.90**

SDOE

.14

.34**

.82**

.90**

.46**

.61**

Anger

.07

.07

.30*

.09

.25

.16

.29*

.02

PA

.04

.03

.24

.12

.24

.22*

.15

.00

.46**

.43**

Hostility

.07

.20*

.31*

.23*

.35**

.34**

.15

.07

.29*

.51**

.48**

.33**

VA

.14

.07

.37**

.06

.26*

.09

.34**

.17

.46**

.41**

.38**

.34**

.34**

.27**

OA

.03

.24*

.39**

.15

.37**

.29**

.29*

.01

.75**

.79**

.83**

.76**

.72**

.74**

.66**

.61**

Instrum.A.

.17

.20**

.33*

.27**

.47**

.33**

.10

.15

.50**

.21*

.53**

.42**

.41**

.28**

.34**

.23*

.62**

.41**

Expressive

.07

.03

.11

.08

.00

.08

.14

.07

.28*

.25*

.01

.33**

.20

.12

.08

.14

.15

.30**

PAQBi

.13

.02

.01

.07

.09

.01

.10

.13

.04

.04

.23

.15

.19

.36** .03

.17

.03

.05

PAQMasc

.03

.04

.12

.15

.01

.09

.22

.17

.02

.13

.12

.27**

.00

.28** .00

.02

.05

.04

PAQFem

.00

.17

.35** .18

.22

.16

.42** .16

.28*

.10

.35** .06

.19

.08

.28*

.14

.37** .12

ATW

.74**

.65**

.34**

.35**

.34**

.37**

.31*

.25**

.26*

.05

.25*

.02

.17

.17

.04

.07

.26*

.11

Gender

.20

.26**

.26*

.11

.24

.25**

.22

.05

.23

.23*

.29*

.31**

.20

.15

.08

.23*

.25*

.32

AiS

.43**

.50**

.38**

.50**

.45**

.49**

.17

.39**

.18

.23*

.44**

.32**

.37**

.31**

.15

.13

.41**

.36**

Age

.42**

.16

.17

.17

.24p

.25*

.03

.07

.09

.20*

.33** .00

.09

.11

.23

.06

.25*

.24*

=p<.10,*=p<.05,**=p<.01.

Table11
CorrelationsbySex(continued)
Instrumental
Aggression
Male

Fem

Instr.Agg.

Expressive

.34**

PAQBi

Expressive
Aggression
Male

Fem

.32**

.03

.10

.27*

PAQMasc

.04

.02

PAQFem

.17

ATW

PAQBipolar
Male

Fem

.18

.24

.02

.39**

.48**

.17

.13

.01

.32*

.13

.04

Gender

.31*

.15

AiS

.35*

.32**

.01
.20*
Age
*=p<.05,**=p<.01.

PAQ
Masculinity
Male

Fem

.38** .20*

.06

.09

.03

.04

.09

.17

.28*

.06

.05

.07

.13

PAQ
Femininity
Male

Fem

.16

.10

.09

.18

.13

.19

.13

.09

.06

.10

.07

.05

.06

.05

Attitudesto
Women
Male

Fem

.39** .14

.20

.00

.05

.10

.01

.07

.06

Gender
Identity
Male

Fem

.17

.39**

.32**

.37**

.20

.07

.17

Aggressionin
Society
Male

Fem

.33**

.04

.11

.05

CorrelationsbySex

InStudy1,SDOwassignificantlyrelatedtooverallaggressionandespecially
physicalaggressionforfemales,butunrelatedtotheAggressionQuestionnairesubscales
formales.Theseassociationswerenotreplicated.InStudy2,thepatternofassociation
wasalmosttheopposite.Formales,SDOwaspositively,significantlyassociatedwith
overallaggression,anger,verbalaggressionandhostility,andphysicalaggression
approachedsignificance.Forfemales,onlyhostilitywaspositivelysignificantlyassociated
withSDO.SDOwasstronglynegativelyassociatedwithfemininityformales,i.e.,higher
SDOmalesreportedthemselvestobelessfemininethanlowerSDOmales.

InStudy1,RWAwassignificantlycorrelatedwithoverallaggression,hostilityand
angerformales,butnotforfemales.Thisfindingwasnotreplicated.InStudy2,RWA
waspositivelyassociatedwithhostilityforfemales,andnegativelyassociatedwithoverall
aggressionforfemales;RWAwasunrelatedtoaggressioninmales.

Physicalaggressionscoreswerenegativelyassociatedwithfemininityformen;for
women,physicalaggressionscoreswerepositivelyassociatedwithmasculinity.Inother
words,femininemenarelessphysicallyaggressive,whereasmasculinewomenaremore
physicallyaggressive.Forwomen,expressivebeliefsaboutaggressionareassociatedwith
physicalaggressionscores.Thesewereunrelatedformen.Masculinitywasstrongly
negativelycorrelatedwithhostilityforwomen,indicatingthatmasculinewomenareless
hostilethannonmasculinewomen.Masculinitywasnotassociatedwithhostilityinmen.
Instrumentalbeliefsaboutaggressiondecreasewithageinwomen,butthereisno
matchingassociationinmen.
76

SexismisassociatedwithRWAandSDOapproximatelyequallyformenand
women,thusfailingtosupportthehypothesisthathighSDOandRWAmaleswouldbe
moresexistthanhighSDOandRWAfemales.Interestingly,sexistattitudestowards
womenareassociatedwithanger,physicalaggression,overallaggressionandinstrumental
beliefsaboutaggressionformales,butunrelatedtoaggressionforfemales.

Study2Regressions
RegressionswerecarriedoutontheAggressionQuestionnairesubscalesusingRWA,
SDO,SDOD,SDOE,sex,thePAQsubscales(Bipolar,Masculinity,Femininity),the
GenderIdentificationscale,andtheEXPAGGscales(intrumentalbeliefsaboutaggression;
expressivebeliefsaboutaggression).

Table12
MultipleRegressionAnalysisforPhysicalAggression
UnstandardisedB

Standardised

AdjustedR2

(SE)

0.91(0.16)
0.51(0.08)

.48

.23

.23***

.49
.26

.29

.06***

R2

Step
1

Constant
InstrumentalAgg.

Step
2

Constant
0.22(0.34)
InstrumentalAgg.
0.52(0.07)
PAQMasculinity
0.31(0.08)
*=p<.05,**=p<.01,***=p<.001

ExcludedVariables(duetoinsignificance):RWA,SDOD,SDOE,PAQF,PAQB,
Gender,ExpressiveAggression.Allbetasinthisregressionweresignificant.
77

InStudy1,SDOandsexweremajorpredictorsofphysicalaggression.Inthis
significant(F(2,151)=14.24,p<.0001)analysisofStudy2participants,however,those
arenonsignificantpredictors.Instead,instrumentalaggressionisthemajorpredictorof
physicalaggression,predicting23%ofphysicalaggressionscores.Thisisfollowedby
masculinityscoreswhichpredictarelativelyminor6%.Thisisconsistentwithprevious
researchsuchasArcherandHaigh(1997)andBussandPerry(1992).

TheobserveddifferencesbetweenStudy1andStudy2maysuggestsomesignificant
differencesbetweentheparticipantsinthetwosamples.

78

Table13
MultipleRegressionAnalysisforHostility
UnstandardisedB

Standardised

AdjustedR2

(SE)

Constant
SDOD

1.94(0.14)
0.22(0.05)

.33

.10

.10***

Constant
SDOD
PAQBipolar

3.30(0.33)
0.23(0.05)
0.50(0.11)

.34
.33

.21

.11***

Constant
SDOD
PAQBipolar
InstrumentalAgg.

3.12(0.32)
0.16(0.05)
.55(0.11)
0.27(0.07

.23
.36
.27

.26

.05***

Constant
SDOD
PAQBipolar
InstrumentalAgg.
GenderIdentity

3.23(0.32)
0.12(0.05)
0.65(0.11)
0.22(0.08)
0.10(0.04)

.18
.43
.22
.20

.28

.03*

.19
.42
.23
.34
.20

.30

.02*

R2

Step
1

Step
2

Step
3

Step
4

Step
5
Constant
3.05(0.33)
SDOD
0.13(0.05)
PAQBipolar
0.64(0.11)
InstrumentalAgg.
0.22(0.08)
GenderIdentity
0.17(0.05)
Sex
0.31(0.15)
*=p<.05,**=p<.01,***=p<.001

ExcludedVariables(duetoinsignificance):RWA,SDOE,ExpressiveAggression,
PAQM,PAQF.Allbetasinthisregressionweresignificant.

79

Thissignificantanalysis(F(5,148)=4.57,p=.034)isconsistentwithStudy1,in
whichSDODwastheonlypredictorofhostility.HerewecanseethatSDODand
(lacking)androgynousgendertraitsarethemajorpredictors,withsomesmallerpredictors
beinginstrumentalaggression,genderidentificationandsex.

Itisparticularlyinterestingthatmasculinityfemininity(PAQBipolar)isanegative
predictorofhostility,indicatingthatparticipantsscoringtowardsthemasculineendofthe
bipolarscaletendedtoscoreloweronhostilitywhichisconsistentwiththerelationship
reportedbetweenthePAQMasculinityscaleandhostility.

Genderidentityandsexpredicthostility,pointingtoasexdifferenceinhostility
scores.Also,asinStudy1,althoughRWAwascorrelatedwithhostility,itisnota
significantpredictorinthisanalysis.

Theinclusionofinstrumentalaggressionisinteresting,suggestingthathostile
behaviourmightbeusedinaninstrumentalmannerbysomeparticipants.

80

Table14
MultipleRegressionAnalysisforVerbalAggression
UnstandardisedB

Standardised

AdjustedR2

(SE)

Constant
InstrumentalAgg.

2.17(0.16)
0.31(0.08)

.31

.09

.09***

Constant
InstrumentalAgg.
RWA

2.23(0.20)
0.35(0.08)
0.12(0.06)

.35
.16

.11

.02*

.32
.18
.16

.13

.02*

R2

Step
1

Step
2

Step
3
Constant
3.44(0.55)
InstrumentalAgg.
0.32(0.08)
RWA
0.13(0.06)
PAQFemininity
0.23(0.12)
*=p<.05,**=p<.01,***=p<.001

ExcludedVariables(duetoinsignificance):SDOD,SDOE,sex,gender
identification,PAQM,PAQBi,ExpressiveAggression.Allbetasinthisregressionwere
significant.

Thissignificantanalysis(F(3,150)=3.94,p=.05)showninTable14suggeststhat
instrumentalaggressionisthemajorpredictorofverbalaggression,confirmingthatverbal
aggressionissometimesusedinaninstrumentalmanner(e.g.,Archer&Haigh,1997).
RWAandfemininescoresonthePAQscalearesmaller,negativepredictorsofverbal
aggression.NotethatinStudy1,RWAwasnotasignificantpredictorofverbal
aggression.

81

Table15

MultipleRegressionAnalysisforAnger
UnstandardisedB Standardised AdjustedR2
R2

(SE)
Step1
Constant
InstrumentalAgg.

1.60(0.17)
0.32(0.08)

.31

.09

.09***

.25
.19

.12

.03*

Step2
Constant
1.10(0.27)
InstrumentalAgg.
0.26(0.08)
ExpressiveAgg.
0.20(0.08)
*=p<.05,**=p<.01,***=p<.001

ExcludedVariables(duetoinsignificance):RWA,SDOD,SDOE,sex,gender
identification,PAQM,PAQF,PAQBi.

Inthissignificantanalysis(F(2,151)=5.85,p=.02)angerscoresarepredictedbest
byinstrumentalbeliefsaboutaggression,followedbyexpressivebeliefsaboutaggression.
Thisdemonstratesthatexpressiveandinstrumentalaggressiondifferentiallyexplainsome
ofthevarianceinangerscores.

82

Table16
MultipleRegressionAnalysisforOverallAggression
UnstandardisedB

Standardised

(SE)

AdjustedR2
R2

Step
1

Constant
1.57(0.11)
InstrumentalAgg.
0.37(0.05)
*=p<.05,**=p<.01,***=p<.001

.49

.24

.24***

ExcludedVariables(duetoinsignificance):ExpressiveAggression,RWA,SDOD,
SDOE,sex,genderidentification,PAQM,PAQF,PAQBi.Allbetasinthisregression
weresignificant.

Inthissignificantregression(F(1,152)=49.18,p<.001)wecanseethat
instrumentalbeliefsaboutaggressionpredictalmostaquarterofthevariationinoverall
aggressionscores.Thisisconsistentbecausebothscalesaremeasuringaggressionor
beliefsaboutaggression.

EXPAGGRegressions

RegressionswerecarriedoutontheEXPAGGsubscalesIntrumentalAggressionand
ExpressiveAggressionusingRWA,SDO,SDOD,SDOE,sex,thePAQsubscales
(Bipolar,Masculinity,Femininity)andtheGenderIdentificationscale.TheAQsubscales
werenotincludedbecausetheiroverlapwiththeEXPAGGscaleisalreadyknown;their
predictivepowersarenotinquestion(Archer&Haigh,1997).

83

Table17
MultipleRegressionAnalysisforInstrumentalBeliefsaboutAggression
UnstandardisedB

Standardised

AdjustedR2

(SE)

Constant
SDOD

1.23(0.14)
0.29(0.05)

.43

.18

.18***

Constant
SDOD
ExpressiveAgg.

0.36(0.25)
0.29(0.05)
0.28(0.07)

.42
.29

.25

.07***

.32
.28
.29

.32

.07***

R2

Step
1

Step
2

Step
3

Constant
0.06(0.25)
SDOD
0.22(0.05)
ExpressiveAgg.
0.27(0.06)
GenderIdentity
0.14(0.04)
*=p<.05,**=p<.01,***=p<.001

ExcludedVariables(duetoinsignificance):RWA,SDOE,sex,PAQM,PAQF,
PAQBi.Allbetasinthisregressionweresignificant.

Thissignificantregression(F(3,150)=25.15,p<.001)showsthattheSDOD
componentofSDOisthebestpredictorofinstrumentalbeliefsaboutaggression,
predicting18%ofthevarianceininstrumentalaggression.Expressivebeliefsandgender
identificationarelesserpredictors.

ThisisparticularlyinterestingbecauseitsuggeststhattheSDODcomponentof
SDOisstronglyassociatedwithinstrumentalbeliefsaboutaggression,aspredicted.

84

Table18
MultipleRegressionAnalysisforExpressiveBeliefsaboutAggression
UnstandardisedB

Standardised

AdjustedR2

(SE)

Constant
InstrumentalAgg.

2.58(0.17)
0.31(0.08)

.30

.08

.08***

Constant
InstrumentalAgg.
PAQBipolar

3.71(0.35)
0.35(0.08)
0.44(0.12)

.34
.28

.15

.07***

.38
.28
.16

.17

.02*

R2

Step
1

Step
2

Step
3
Constant
4.00(0.37)
InstrumentalAgg.
0.39(0.08)
PAQBipolar
0.45(0.12)
RWA
0.12(0.06)
*=p<.05,**=p<.01,***=p<.001

ExcludedVariables(duetoinsignificance):SDOD,SDOE,sex,genderidentity,
PAQM,PAQF.Allbetasinthisregressionweresignificant.

Inthesignificantanalysis(F(3,150)=11.33,p<.001)showninTable18,expressive
beliefsaboutaggressionaremostpredictedbyinstrumentalbeliefsaboutaggression,
whichisconsistentwithArcherandHaigh's(1997)suggestionthatexpressivebeliefsand
instrumentalbeliefsarenotorthogonalbutcorrelated.

PAQBipolarisanegativepredictorofexpressivebeliefsaboutaggression.Again,
thisindicatesthatpeoplescoringtowardsthemasculineendofthebipolarscalealsotend
tohavelowerlevelsofexpressivebeliefsaboutaggression.AfterentryofInstrumental
85

Aggression,andthePAQBipolarscalevariables,RWAwasaweakuniquepredictorof
expressivebeliefsaboutaggression.

Finally,totestWilsonandLiu's(2003)findingthatgenderidentitymoderatedthe
relationshipbetweensexandsocialdominanceorientation,aregressionanalysiswas
carriedoutonSDODusingsexandgenderidentity.

Table19
MultipleRegressionAnalysisforSDOD
UnstandardisedB

Standardised

AdjustedR2

(SE)

1.60(0.24)
0.65(0.17)

.29***

.08

.08***

.05
.34***

.13

.06***

R2

Step
1

Constant
Sex

Step
2

Constant
1.49(0.24)
Sex
0.11(0.24)
GenderIdentity
0.25(0.08)
=p<.05,**=p<.01,***=p<.001

Table19showsasignificantregression(F(2,165)=13.34,p<.001)demonstrating
that,whilebiologicalsexisinitiallyasignificantpredictorofSDODscores(aspredicted
bysocialdominancetheory),whengenderidentityisincludedintheanalysis,sexbecomes
anonsignificantpredictorofSDOD.Genderidentitymoderatestherelationshipbetween
sexandSDOD,asfoundbyWilsonandLiu(2003).

86

Study2Discussion
Theadditionofgenderidentity,masculinity/femininityandinstrumental/expressive
beliefvariablesallowedthetestingofseveralhypotheses.

ItwasspeculatedthattheStudy1sexdifferencesinSDO/RWAvsaggressionmight
bereflectedindifferenttypesofaggression(instrumental/expressive).However,there
werenosexdifferencesintherelationshipofinstrumentalandexpressiveaggressionto
SDOandRWA.Additionally,thesexdifferencesinSDO/RWAvsaggressionwhichwere
foundinStudy1werenotreplicatedinStudy2.

ItwashypothesisedthatgendergroupidentitywouldmediatethesexSDO
relationshipasfoundbyWilsonandLiu(2003);thispredictionwassupported.This
findingisconsistentwithotherresearch(e.g.,Foels&Pappas,2004)findingthatthe
invariancehypothesisaspredictedbySocialDominanceTheoryisunsupportedinvarious
contexts.

Itwaspredictedthatmaleswouldhavehigherlevelsofinstrumentalbeliefsabout
aggression,andfemaleswouldhavehigherlevelsofexpressivebeliefsaboutaggression.
Whileitwasfoundthatmalesdidhavehigherlevelsofinstrumentalbeliefsabout
aggression,femalesdidnothavesignificantlyhigherlevelsofexpressivebeliefsabout
aggression,sothishypothesiswasonlypartlysupported.

Itwashypothesisedthatinstrumentalaggressionwouldbeassociatedwithhigher
levelsofSDO,becauseSDOindividualsaredescribedasusingaggressionforpersonal
87

dominance(Altemeyer,1998),implyinganinstrumentaluseofaggression;thiswas
supportedwithamoderate,positive,significantcorrelationbetweenSDOandinstrumental
beliefsaboutaggression.Furthermore,aregressionanalysisdemonstratedthattheSDOD
componentofSDOpredicted18%ofthevarianceininstrumentalbeliefsaboutaggression.
Thissuggeststhatattitudessupportinginequalityinsocietyexplainalmostafifthofthe
variationininstrumentalbeliefsaboutpersonalaggressionThestrengthofthis
relationshipisparticularlyimpressive.

ItwashypothesisedthatRWAandSDOwouldbeassociatedwithhigherlevelsof
antiwomenbeliefs;thiswassupported;inadditionitwasspeculatedthatbothSDOand
RWAmaleswouldtendtobesexistandespouseantiwomenbeliefs;thiswasnot
supported,withmenandwomenhavingsimilarSDOsexismandRWAsexism
correlations.McFarlandandAdelson(1996)foundbroadlysimilarresults.

ItwasspeculatedthatRWAmaleswouldhavehigherlevelsofmasculinitydueto
traditionalsexrolebeliefs.Thiswasnotsupported.Formales,RWAwasunrelatedto
masculinityorfemininity.Interestingly,SDOscoresinmaleshadasignificantnegative
associationwithfemininityscores;soitwasdenialoffemininitythatwasrelatedtosocial
dominanceformen.Similarly,denialoffemininitywasassociatedwithphysical
aggressionformen.Regressionanalysesfoundthatmasculinitypredictedasmall
proportionofvarianceinphysicalaggression.Theseresultsareconsistentwiththesex
differencesgenerallyfoundinphysicalaggressionscores(Buss&Perry,1992;Archer&
Haigh,1997).

88

ThemostinterestingfindingfromStudy1,ofafemaleSDOaggressionrelationship,
werenotreplicated,andindeedessentiallytheopposite,amaleSDOaggression
relationship,wasfound.Similarly,resultsweredifferentonthemaleRWAhostility
association.Giventhesignificanceoftheresultsfound,thesedifferencesweremostlikely
notduetorandomdifferences,butmaybeduetodifferencesbetweenthetwosample
populations,orthedifferentlengthsandcontextsofthestudiesthemselves.

Study2revealedasimilarpatternofassociationbetweenSDO,RWAandaggression
observedinStudy1;however,thesexdifferencesobservedinStudy1disappearedalmost
completelyinStudy2.InStudy1,femaleparticipantshadalargeSDOaggression
association,whilemaleparticipantsdidnot.InStudy2,thissituationwasreversed;SDO
andaggressionwerecorrelatedformalesbutnotfemales.Thismaybeduetorandom
differencesintheparticipantsinthetwostudies,oritmaybeattributedtoaspectsofthe
Study2participantpopulationdifferingfromthoseinStudy1.HalfoftheStudy2
questionnaireswerehandedoutinLyallBay,asuburbofWellingtonwhichissomewhat
lessaffluentintermsofincomeandpropertyvaluethanthesuburbsofThorndonand
WadestownusedinStudy1;theotherhalfofStudy2questionnaireswerehandedoutin
Northland,asuburbsimilartoThorndonandWadestown.Therewasalowerresponserate
fromLyallBayquestionnairesatapproximatelyhalftheresponseratereceivedfromthe
othersuburbs.Thedifferencesbetweenthetwosamplesintermsofincomeandsocial
statuscouldpotentiallybereflectedindifferentpoliticalattitudes,affectingresults.

AnotherexplanationforthedifferencesbetweenStudy1and2isthediffering
contentofthequestionnairesthemselves.TheStudy1questionnaire,aspartofalarger
study,containedmeasuresofpoliticalvaluesanddirectlyassessedthepreferredpolitical
89

partyoftherespondent.Withthesemeasures,Study1participantsmayhavebeenprimed
toconsidertheSDOandRWAmeasuresinapoliticalsense.ForStudy2,ontheother
hand,thepoliticalmeasuresofStudy1werereplacedwiththeaggressionmeasuresofthe
EXPAGGandAiS,andgendermeasuressuchasthePAQandgenderidentityscales.
Thesescalesmayhavegiventheoverallquestionnaireanonpoliticalcontext.Roccato
andRicolfi(2005)foundthatthecorrelationbetweenSDOandRWAwasaffectedbythe
contrastofpoliticalideologywithincountries;similarly,byprimingsubjectstoconsider
issuesfromapartypoliticalcontext,theeffectofsuchideologicalcontrastmightbe
strongerinStudy1comparedtothelesspoliticalandlessideologisedcontextofStudy2.

Ingeneral,theresultsofStudy2confirmthecentralhypothesisthatSDOandRWA
arecorrelatedwithincreasedlevelsofoverallaggression,physicalaggressionandhostility.
Althoughsexdifferencesintheserelationshipsbecameunclear,reasonsforthis
discrepancywereexplored.SeveralpredictionsabouttheeffectofsexrolesinSDO/RWA
werenotsupported;however,afewinterestingnewobservationsweremade.

90

GeneralDiscussion
MajorFindings

ItispuzzlingthattheassociationbetweenRWA,SDOandaggressionhasnot
previouslybeenmorecloselyexamined.Adornoetal(1950)describedaggressionas
worthyofparticularattentionintheirresearch;andWorldWarII,thelargestaggressive
conflicttodate,wastheoriginaltriggerforauthoritarianismresearch.Giventhehistorical
tendencyofdominantindividualsandauthoritiestousehostilediscourseandphysical
aggressiontodominateandcontrolothers,thelackofresearchinthisareapresentsitselfas
aglaringomission.Thepresentstudyhopestocontributetothefillingofthisgapin
currentresearch.

Thecentralhypothesisthatsocialdominanceorientationandrightwing
authoritarianismwouldbothbeassociatedwithincreasedlevelsofpersonalaggressionwas
confirmed.Notably,therearespecifictypesofaggressionwhicharemoreassociatedwith
SDOandRWA,namelyphysicalaggressionandhostility.Instrumentalbeliefsabout
aggressionarealsoassociatedwithSDO,potentiallysupportingAltemeyer's(1998)
conceptionofsociallydominantindividualsasMachiavelliananddominant.Thisfinding
thatSDOandRWAarecorrelatedwithincreasedlevelsofaggressionisconsistentwith
thelimitedamountsofpreviousresearchthathasbeendone(Ahmed&Lester,2003;
Lippa&Arad,1999;McFarland&Adelson,1996)andrelatedattitudessuchassupportfor
war.Forexample,Heaven,Organ,SupavadeeprasitandLeeson(2006)foundthatSDO
andRWAwerebothassociatedwithincreasedsupportforthewarinIraq.

91

BothSDOandRWAwerealsofoundtobeassociatedwithsupportfortheuseof
aggressioninsocietalsettings(suchascorporalpunishmentinschools),reinforcingthe
linkbetweentheseideologicalattitudesandavarietyofviewsaboutsocietyand
government.EveniftheSDO/RWApredispositiontoaggressionismild,itcouldstillbe
importantintermsofpolitics.Westernsocialdemocraciesrelyontheattitudesofthe
votingpublictoinfluencethedirectionoftheirgovernments.Theinfluenceofrightwing
authoritarianattitudesisoftendescribedasanegativeone(Altemeyer,1998).Withthe
findingthatrightwingauthoritatianismandsocialdominanceorientiationareboth
associatedwithsupportfortheuseofaggressioninsociety(suchas,forinstance,physical
disciplineinschools)thereisanobviouslinktoNewZealandpoliticalevents,namelythe
2007debatesurroundingtherepealofSection59oftheCrimesAct.Thevisionofalarge
groupofmostlyrightwingChristiansledbythefundamentalistDestinyChurchstanding
infrontofParliamentprotestinginfavourofretainingthesmackingstatusquo(Destiny
Loses,2007)isanobviousexampleofreligiousconservativebeliefabouttheuseofforce
insociety.Thisisareminderoftherelevanceandimportanceofresearchpertainingto
rightwingauthoritarianism,socialdominanceorientationandaggression.

Althoughtheeffectofsex/genderontherelationshipbetweenSDO,RWAand
aggressionwasunclear,therewereseveralinterestingresultswhichlendthemselvesto
furtherstudy.Forinstance,agewasassociatedwithbothhigherRWAandlowerhostility.
Sexismwasdirectlyrelatedtoaggression;andsupportiveattitudestowardstheuseof
aggressioninsocietywasrelatedtoRWA,SDO,aggressionandsexism.Aninvestigation
similartoWilsonandLiu's(2003)challengetotheinvariancehypothesisfoundthatthe
sexSDOlinkwascompletelymediatedbygenderidentity,aresultwhichsupportsSocial
IdentityTheoryratherthanSocialDominanceTheory.
92

ThecollectionofdatainWellington,NewZealandtiesthisstudytoacultural
locationandcontext.Wellingtonisanotablyliberalcity,beingthecapitalofNew
Zealand.TheNewZealandpsychologicalandpoliticallandscapefeaturesahigh
ideologicalcontrast(i.e.,betweenleftandright)asdescribedbyRoccatoandRicolfi
(2005).ThistendstoproduceahighcorrelationbetweenSDOandRWA,asobserved.

ProblemsandLimitations

ThemostinterestingfindingfromStudy1,ofafemaleSDOaggressionrelationship,
werenotreplicated,andindeedtheopposite,amaleSDOaggressionrelationship,was
found.Similarly,resultsweredifferentforRWAhostilityassociations.Thereasonsfor
thesedifferenceswereexploredintheStudy2discussion.Itisspeculatedthatthemain
reasonforthedifferenceswasthedifferingcontextsofthequestionnairesthemselves
givingrisetoaprimingeffectwhichincreasedperceivedideologicalcontrastfor
participantsinStudy1.Thisissuecouldbepartiallyaddressedbygivingtheparticipants
thedifferentmeasuresoneatatimeinarandomisedorder,sothattheycannotseethe
overallcontextofthequestionnaire.Thiswouldworkbestinacontrolledenvironment
suchaswithacaptivestudentsample,althoughthiswouldremoveoneofthestrengthsof
thecurrentstudy(theuseofageneralpopulationsample).Anotheroptionistodirectly
studytheprimingeffectsofdifferentcontextsonthemeasuresused;primingeffectshave
beenstudiedintermsofSDO,forinstance(Schmitt,BranscombeandKappen,2003).An
understandingofprimingeffectsmayallowforapartialmitigationof,oradjustmentfor,
sucheffects.

93

Anothermoregeneralissueispotentialselfselectionforthestudy.Assumingthat
anequalnumberofmenandwomenreceivedthequestionnairesaftertheyweredelivered,
substantiallymorepotentialfemaleparticipantsreturnedtheirsurveythanmalepotential
participants.Thiscouldbeduetopsychologicalfactorsunrelatedtothestudy.For
instance,perhapsmenaremorelikelytobebusywithemploymentorlesslikelytowantto
answerquestionsabouttheirattitudeswhichmightrequirereflection.Theremightbe
majorproblemsforthisresearchifthegenderdisparityinreturnsisduetopsychological
factorsrelatedtothestudy.Perhapsaggressivemenarereluctanttoanswerquestions
abouttheirownaggression,soonlylessaggressivemenreturnedtheirsurveys,orperhaps
onlypeoplewhofeltstronglyaboutthequestionsasked(whichinvolvedpotentially
controversialitemssuchashomosexuality,nudity,premaritalsexualactivityandsocial
equality)weresufficientlymotivatedtofillinandreturnthesixpagesurvey.

Regardlessofthereasonforthehighernumberoffemalerespondents,thelower
numberofmaleparticipantsaffectsthepowerofstatisticaltestsperformedonthegroupof
maleparticipants.Thislimitationmightbemitigatedbyusingadifferentsampling
strategy;forexample,selectingspecificindividualsfromtheelectoralrolltoreceive
individuallyaddressedsurveys.

TheAggressioninSociety(AiS)scale,constructedforthepurposesofthisstudy,
gavesomeintriguingresultswhichresonatedwiththecentralobservationsofRWA,SDO
andaggression;howeverbecausethescalehasnotbeenusedinpreviousresearch,its
validityisuncertain.Forinstance,thescalementionsNewZealandspecificissuessuchas
thepotentialprosecutionofsportsplayerswhoassultotherplayers.Theseissuesmaynot
beusefulmeasuresinothercountriesorcultures.Apilotstudytodevelopthescaleand
94

multicountryvaliditytestingoftheresultingmeasurewouldhelptotransformtheAiS
scalefromanadhocscaletoainternationallyusefulmeasureofattitudestowardstheuse
ofaggressioninsociety.

Afinallimitationofthestudyistheuseofselfreportmeasurestoassessaggressive
behaviour.Itmaybemoreappropriatetousepeerratingsratherthanselfreportmeasures
duetoimagemanagementandsocialdesirabilityeffects(althoughthesewerehopefully
mitigatedbytheanonymousnatureofthequestionnaire)whichmayhavereducedthe
accuracyofmeasurementofaggressivebehaviour.Althoughtherearelogisticaland
organisationalchallengesinobtainingpeerratingsforageneralpopulationsample,these
maybeeasiertocollectininstitutionaloreducationalenvironments.

Onestrengthofthecurrentstudyistheuseofageneralpopulationsamplewitha
diverserangeofagesandoccupations,ratherthanacaptivestudentsample.Thisislikely
tobemoreusefulintermsofrealworldapplicationandlesslikelytobeaffectedby
potentialproblemswithyoungersamplepopulations,e.g.,lesscrystallisedattitudes(Sears,
1986).

Anotherstrengthofthisresearchwastheselectionofwidelyusedandwellstudied
measuresofauthoritarianism,socialdominanceorientation,aggression,sexism,
masculinityandfemininity.Theuseofpopularmeasuresallowedfordirectcomparisons
tobemadewithawiderangeofotherstudiesandthusanimmediatevalidationofgeneral
results.

95

FutureResearch

Asidefromreplicatingandextendingthiscurrentresearch,futureresearchcouldlook
atreligiousbeliefsinrelationtobeliefsaboutaggression(i.e.,supportforreligious
statementsaboutaggressionsuchas'turntheothercheek'versus'eyeforaneye'),therole
ofparentingstylesonbeliefsaboutaggression(ashypothesisedbyDuckitt,2001and
Duckittetal,2002),andmeasuringhormonessuchastestosteronetoestablishwhether
SDOisrelatedtotestosteronelevels,andtheeffectofanySDOtestosteronerelationship
onaggression.Theinfluenceoftestosteroneonmasculinity,socialdominanceand
aggressionhasalreadybeennoted;however,themeasurementoffreetestosteroneusinga
salivaryassayisanaddedcomplicationandexpense.Additionally,freetestosteronelevels
maynotdirectlyaffectaggressionanddominance,butonlybecomeanimportantfactorin
certainsituationsofstatusthreat(Joseph,Sellers,Newman&Mehta,2006).Theeffectof
testosteroneismuchstrongerintheprenatalenvironment,producingmasculinisationof
variousbodyfeatures(Mazur&Booth,1998)andanincreasedperceptionofadultfacial
masculinityanddominancebyfemaleobservers(Neave,Laing,Fink&Manning,2003).
Recentresearchintodigitlengthratioprovidesapotentiallyeasilymeasuredindicatorof
prenataltestosteronelevels(Neaveetal,2003).Theratioofthesecondandfourthdigitsis
anindicatoroftheratiooftestosteronetoestrogenintheprenatalenvironment;ahighratio
oftestosteronetoestrogentendstoproducealonger4thfingerandashorter2ndfinger.
Thus,ahigh4D:2Dfingerlengthratioisanindicatorofprenataltestosteronelevels.
Measurementoffingerlengthcanbeperformedeasilywithasimplephotocopyofthe
hand,suggestingthatusingthe2D:4Dratioasanindicatorofprenataltestosteroneinthe
studyofsocialdominanceandaggressioncouldbeasimpleandfruitfuladditionto
research.
96

Thisresearchhasconfirmedthathierarchicalbeliefsystemssuchasrightwing
authoritarianismandsocialdominanceorientationtendtobeassociatedwithamild
predispositionforhigherlevelsofphysicalaggressionandhostility.Thismaybedueto
thedangerousworldeffectforrightwingauthoritariansandaperceptionofaggressionas
apotentiallyusefulinstrumentaltoolforsocialdominators.Asexdifferenceinthe
associationofRWA/SDOwithaggressionwasobservedandexplored,butcontradictory
resultswerefoundbetweenstudies.Ingeneral,resultsindicatedthattheSDOconstructis
relatedtogenderratherthansex,supportingtheSocialIdentityTheoryapproachofsocial
situationism,ratherthantheSocialDominanceTheorythathierarchicalbeliefsare
unchangeablyrootedinevolutionarypredispositions.However,giventherelationships
foundbetweenaggressionandSDO,theSocialDominanceOrientationconstructmaystill
beausefultoolinsocialpsychologyresearch.

97

References

Adorno,T.W.,FrenkelBrunswol.E.,Levinson,D.J.,&Sanford,R.N.(1950).The
AuthoritarianPersonality.NewYork,NY:Harper&Row.

AliAhmed,A.T.,&Lester,D.(2003).Authoritarianandaggressiveattitudesin
Americanstudents.PsychologicalReports,93,448.

Altemeyer,B.(1981).Rightwingauthoritarianism.Winnipeg:UniversityofManitoba
Press.

Altemeyer,B.(1998).TheotherAuthoritarianPersonality.AdvancesinExperimental
SocialPsychology,20,4792.

Altemeyer,B.(2004).HighlyDominating,HighlyAuthoritarianPersonalities.The
JournalofSocialPsychology,144,421448.

Anderson,P.&Aymami,R.(1993).Reportsoffemaleinitiationofsexualcontact:Male
andfemaledifferences.ArchivesofSexualBehavior,22,335343.

Anderson,P.B.,&StruckmanJohnson,C.(1998).SexuallyAggressiveWomen:Current
PerspectivesandControversies.NewYork,NY:GuildfordPress.

98

BaronCohen,S.(2003).TheEssentialDifference:TheTruthabouttheMaleandFemale
Brain.NewYork,NY:PerseusBooks.

Begany,J.J.,&Milburn,M.A.(2002).Psychologicalpredictorsofsexualharassment:
Authoritarianism,hostilesexismandrapemyths.PsychologyofMenand
Masculinity,3,119126.

Billings,S.W.,Guastello,S.J.,&Rieke,M.L.(1993).Acomparisonoftheconstruct
validityofthreemeasuresofauthoritarianism.JournalofResearchinPersonality,
27,328348.

Bryant,F.B.,&Smith,B.D.(2001).Refiningthearchitectureofaggression:A
measurementmodelfortheBussPerryaggressionquestionnaire.Journalof
ResearchinPersonality,35,138167.

Buss,A.H.&Perry,M.(1992).TheAggressionQuestionnaire.JournalofPersonality
andSocialPsychology,63,254459.

Campbell,A.(1986).Selfreportoffightingoffemales.BritishJournalofCriminology,
26,2846.

Campbell,A.(1993).Men,WomenandAggression.NewYork,NY:HarperCollins.

Crowson,H.M.,Debacker,T.K.,&Thoma,S.J.(2005).Doesauthoritarianismpredict
post9/11attitudes?PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,39,12731283.
99

Dambrun,M.,Duarte,S.,&Guimond,S.(2004).Whyaremenmorelikelytosupport
groupbaseddominancethanwomen?Themediatingroleofgender.British
JournalofSocialPsychology,43,287297.

Destinylosesindeal.(2007,3May).ThePress.RetrievedMay23,2007from
http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress

Dill,K.E.,Anderson,C.A.,Anderson,K.B.,&Deuser,W.E.(1997).Effectsof
AggressivePersonalityonSocialExpectationsandSocialPerceptions.Journalof
ResearchinPersonality,31,272292.

Duckitt,J.(2001).Adualprocesscognitivemotivationaltheoryofideologyand
prejudice.AdvancesinExperimentalSocialPsychology,33,41113.

Duckitt,J.,Wagner,C.,duPlessis,I.,&Birum,I.(2002).Thepsychologicalbasesof
ideologyandprejudice:Testingadualprocessmodel.JournalofPersonalityand
SocialPsychology,83,7593.

Duncan,L.E.,Peterson,B.E.,&Winter,D.G.(1997).Authoritarianismandgenderroles:
towardapsychologicalanalysisofhegemonicrelationships.Personality&Social
PsychologyBulletin,23,4150.

Ekehammar,B.,Akrami,N.,Gylje,M.,&Zakrisson,I.(2004).Whatmattersmostto
prejudice:BigFivepersonality,socialdominanceorientationorrightwing
100

authoritarianism?EuropeanJournalofPersonality,18,463482.

Erickson,P.,&Rapkin,A.(1991).Unwantedsexualexperiencesamongmiddleandhigh
schoolyouth.JournalofAdolescentHealth,12,319325.

Foels,R.&Pappas,C.(2004).Learningandunlearningthemythswearetaught:gender
andsocialdominanceorientation.SexRoles,50,743757.

Fossati,A.Maffei,C.,Acquarini,E.,&DiCeglie,A.(2003).Multigroupconfirmatory
componentandfactoranalysesoftheItalianversionoftheAggression
Questionnaire.EuropeanJournalofPsychologicalAssessment,19,5465.

Geis,F.,&Christie,R.(1970).StudiesinMachiavellianism.NewYork,NY:Academic
Press.

Gelles,R.J.(2007).Thepoliticsofresearch:Theuse,abuseandmisuseofsocialscience
datathecasesofintimatepartnerviolence.FamilyCourtReview,45,4251.

Guastello,D.D&Peissig,R.M.(1998).Authoritarianism,Environmentalism,and
CynicismofCollegeStudentsandTheirParents.JournalofResearchin
Personality,32,397410.

Hamberberg,L.K.,&Renzetti,C.(Eds).(1994).DomesticPartnerAbuse.NewYork,
NY:SpringerPublishingCompany.

101

Hopkins,S.(2002).GirlHeroes:TheNewForceinPopularCulture.Christchurch,New
Zealand:HazardPressLtd.

Heaven,P.C.L.(1999).Attitudestowardwomen'srights:Relationshipswithsocial
dominanceorientationandpoliticalgroupidentities.SexRoles,41,605615.

Heaven,P.C.L,&Bucci,S.(2001).RightWingAuthoritarianism,SocialDominance
OrientationandPersonality:AnAnalysisUsingtheIPIPMeasure.European
JournalofPersonality,15,4656.

Heaven,P.C.L.,Organ,L.,Supavadeeprasit,S.,&Leeson,P.(2006).Warandprejudice:
Astudyofsocialvalues,rightwingauthoritarianismandsocialdominance
orientation.PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,40,559608.

Heaven,P.C.L,&St.Quintin,D..(2003).Personalityfactorspredictracialprejudice.
PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,34,625634.

Izama,S.,Kodama,M.&Nomura,S.(2005).Astudyonselfandotherratingsof
hostility.JapaneseJournalofPsychology,75,530535.

John,O.P.,&Srivastava,S.(1999).TheBigFiveTraitTaxonomy:History,
Measurement,andTheoreticalPerspectives.InL.A.Pervin&O.P.John(Eds.),
HandbookofPersonalityTheoryandResearch(Vol.2,pp.102138).NewYork,
NY:GuilfordPress.

102

Josephs,R.A.,Sellers,J.G.,Newman,M.L.,&Mehta,P.H.(2006).TheMismatch
Hypothesis:Testosterone,Status,andPsychologicalFunctioning.Journalof
PersonalityandSocialPsychology,90,9991013.

Jost,J.T.,&Thompson,E.P.(2000).Groupbaseddominanceandoppositiontoequality
asindependentpredictorsofselfesteem,ethnocentrism,andsocialpolicyattitudes
amongAfricanAmericansandEuropeanAmericans.JournalofExperimental
SocialPsychology,36,209232.

Kedgely,S.(1985).TheSexualWilderness:MenandWomeninNewZealand.Auckland,
NewZealand:ReedMethuenPublishersLtd.

King,N.,&McCaughey,M.(2001).ReelKnockouts:ViolentWomenintheMovies.
Austin,TX:UniversityofTexasPress.

Kirkwood,D.(2003).FemaleperpetratedhomicideinVictoriabetween1985and1995.
AustralianandNewZealandJournalofCriminology,36,152173.

Kirsta,A.(1994).Deadlierthanthemale:violenceandaggressioninwomen.London:
Harpercollins.

Krahe,B.,Waizenhofer,E.,&Moller,I.(2003).Women'ssexualaggressionagainstmen:
prevalenceandpredictors.SexRoles,48,219232.

103

Martin,J.L.(2001).TheAuthoritarianPersonality,50YearsLater:WhatLessonsAre
ThereforPoliticalPsychology?PoliticalPsychology,22,124.

Mazur,A.,&Booth,A.(1998).Testosteroneanddominanceinmen.Behaviouraland
Brainscience,21,353363.

McCrae,R.R.,&Costa,P.T.(1997).Personalitytraitstructureasahumanuniversal.
AmericanPsychologist,51,509516.

McHoskey,J.W.(1996).Authoritarianismandethicalideology.TheJournalofSocial
Psychology,136,709718.

Moffitt,T.E.,Caspi,A.,Rutter,M.,&Silva,P.(2001).SexDifferencesinAntisocial
Behaviour:ConductDisorder,Delinquency,andViolenceintheDunedin
LongitudinalStudy.Cambridge,UK:CambridgePress.

Muehlenhard,C.&Cook,S.(1988).Men'sselfreportsofunwantedsexualactivity.
JournalofSexResearch,24,5872.

Neave,N.,Laing,S.,Fink,B.&Manning,J.T.(2003).Secondtofourthdigitratio,
testosterone,andperceivedmaledominance.ProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyof
LondonB:BiologicalSciences,270,21672172.

104

O'Connor,D.B.,Archer,J.&Wu,F.C.W.(2004).EffectsofTestosteroneonMood,
Aggression,andSexualBehaviorinYoungMen:ADoubleBlind,Placebo
Controlled,CrossOverStudy.TheJournalofClinicalEndocrinology&
Metabolism,89,28372845.

Peterson,B.E.&Duncan,L.E.(1999).AuthoritarianismofParentsandOffspring:
IntergenerationalPoliticsandAdjustmenttoCollege.JournalofResearchin
Personality,33,494513.

Pratto,F.,Sidanius,J.,Stallworth,L.M.,&Malle,B.F.(1994).SocialDominance
Orientation:Apersonalityvariablepredictingsocialandpoliticalattitudes.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,67,741763.

Pratto,F.,Stallworth,L.M.,Sidanius,J.,&Siers,B.(1997).Thegendergapin
occupationalroleattainment:asocialdominanceapproach.JournalofPersonality
andSocialPsychology,72,3753

Ramirez,J.M,Andreu,J.M,&Fujihara,T.(2001).Culturalandsexdifferencesin
aggression:AcomparisonbetweenJapaneseandSpanishstudentsusingtwo
differentinventories.AggressiveBehavior,27,313322.

Ritter,D.(2003).Effectsofmenstrualcyclephaseonreportinglevelsofaggressionusing
theBussandPerryAggressionQuestionnaire.AggressiveBehavior,29,531538.

105

Roccato,M.,&Ricolfi,L.(2005).Onthecorrelationbetweenrightwing
authoritarianismandsocialdominanceorientation.BasicandAppliedSocial
Psychology,3,187200.

Rubinstein,G.(1995).Rightwingauthoritarianism,politicalaffiliation,religiosity,and
theirrelationtopsychologicalandrogyny.SexRoles,33,569587.

Ryan,K.,&Kanjorski,J.(1998).Theenjoymentofsexisthumor,rapeattitudes,and
relationshipaggressionincollegestudents.SexRoles,38,743756.

Schmitt,M.T.,Branscombe,N.R.,&Kappen,D.M.(2003).Attitudestowardsgroup
basedinequality:Socialdominanceorsocialidentity?TheBritishJournalof
SocialPsychology,42,161186.

Sears,D.O.(1986).CollegeSophomoresintheLaboratory:InfluencesofaNarrowData
BaseonSocialPsychology'sViewofHumanNature.JournalofPersonalityand
SocialPsychology,51,515530.

Shifren,K.,&Bauserman,R.L.(1996).Therelationshipbetweeninstrumentaland
expressivetraits,healthbehaviors,andperceivedphysicalhealth.SexRoles,34,
841864.

Sibley,C.G.,Robertson,A.,&Wilson,M.S.(2006).SocialDominanceOrientationand
RightWingAuthoritarianism:Additiveandinteractiveeffects.Political
Psychology,27,755768.
106

Sidanius,J.(1992).ThePsychologyofGroupConflictandtheDynamicsofOppression:
ASocialDominancePerspective.InW.McGuire&S.Iyengar(Eds.),Current
ApproachestoPoliticalPsychology.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress.

Sidanius,J.,&Ekehammer,B.(1980).Sexrelateddifferencesinsociopoliticalideology.
ScandinavianJournalofPsychology,21,1726.

Sidanius,J.,Levin,S.,Liu,J.,&Pratto,F.(2000).Socialdominanceorientation,anti
egalitarianismandthepoliticalpsychologyofgender:Anextensionandcross
culturalreplication.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,30,4167.

Sidanius,J.,Liu,J.,Pratto,F.,&Shaw,J.(1994).Socialdominanceorientation,
hierarchyattenuatorsandhierarchyenhancers:Socialdominancetheoryandthe
criminaljusticesystem.JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology,24,338366.

Sidanius,J.&Pratto,F.(1999).SocialDominance:AnIntergroupTheoryofSocial
HierarchyandOppression.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Sidanius,J.,Pratto,F.&Bobo,L.(1994).SocialDominanceOrientationandthepolitical
psychologyofgender:Acaseofinvariance.JournalofPersonalityandSocial
Psychology,67,9981011.

Spence,J.T.,&Helmreich,R.L.(1978).Masculinity&femininity:theirpsychological
dimensions,correlates,&antecedents.Austin,TX:UniversityofTexasPress.
107

Straus,M.A.(1997).PhysicalAssaultsbyWomenPartners:AMajorSocialProblem.In
M.R.Walsh,(Ed.)Men,WomenandGender:OngoingDebates.NewHaven:
YaleUniversityPress.

Straus,M.A.(2005).PhysicalAssaultbywives:Amajorsocialproblem.InD.Loseke,
R.J.Gelles,&M.Cavanaugh(Eds.),Currentcontroversiesonfamilyviolence
(pp.5578).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Straus,M.A.,&Gelles,R.J.(Eds.)(1990).PhysicalViolenceinAmericanFamilies:Risk
FactorsandAdaptationstoViolencein8,145Families.NewBrunswick,NJ:
TransactionPublishers.

Straus,M.A.,&Ramirez,I.L.(2004).Criminalhistoryandassaultsofdatingpartners:
Theroleoftypeofpriorcrime,ageofonset,andgender.Violence&Victims,19,
413434.

Strube,M.J.,&Rahimi,A.M.(2006).Everybodyknowsitstrue:Socialdominance
orientationandrightwingauthoritarianismmoderatefalseconsensusfor
stereotypicbeliefs.JournalofResearchinPersonality,40,10381053.

StruckmanJohnson,C.(1988).Forcedsexondates:Ithappenstomen,too.Journalof
SexResearch,24,234241.

108

Tajfel,H.&Turner,J.C.(1979).AnIntegrativeTheoryofIntergroupConflict.InW.
G.AustinandS.Worchel(Eds.),TheSocialPsychologyofIntergroupRelations.
Monterey,CA:Brooks/Cole.

Tremblay,P.F.,&Ewart,L.A.(2004).TheBussandPerryAggressionQuestionnaireand
itsrelationstovalues,theBigFive,provokinghypotheticalsituations,alcohol
consumptionpatterns,andalcoholexpectancies.PersonalityandIndividual
Differences,38,337346.

VanHiel,A.,&Kossowska,M.(2006).Havingfewpositiveemotions,ortoomany
negativefeelings?Emotionsasmoderatingvariablesofauthoritarianismeffectson
racism.PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,40,919930.

vonCollani,G.,&Werner,R.(2005).Selfrelatedandmotivationalconstructsas
determinantsofaggression.AnanalysisandvalidationofaGermanversionofthe
BussPerryAggressionQuestionnaire.Personality&IndividualDifferences,38,
16311643.

Walker,W.D.,Rowe,R.C.,&Quinsey,V.L.(1993).Authoritarianismandsexual
aggression.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology.65,10361045.

Ward,D.(1995).SocialDominanceTheory:AreTheGenesTooTight?PaperPresented
attheEighteenthAnnualScientificMeetingoftheInternationalSocietyofPolitical
Psychology,WashingtonD.C.

109

Whitley,B.E.&gisdttir,S.(2000).TheGenderBeliefSystem,Authoritarianism,
SocialDominanceOrientation,andHeterosexuals'AttitudesTowardLesbiansand
GayMen.SexRoles,42,947967.

Wilson,M.S.(2005).Socialvaluesandsubordinationbeliefsasthefoundationsof
politicalconservatism.Underreview.

Wilson,M.S.,&Liu,J.H.(2003).Socialdominanceorientationandgender:The
moderatingroleofgenderidentity.TheBritishJournalofSocialPsychology,42,
187198.

Woodham,K.(2006,July30).KerreWoodham:Justiceinthelineofpublicfire
[Electronicversion].TheNewZealandHerald.RetrievedMay23,2007,from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz

110

Appendix1:Study1Questionnaire

Social Science Research Questionnaire 2005

Dear householder,
Please consider completing and returning the survey included with this letter.
My name is Marc Wilson, and I teach psychology at Victoria University. This survey is intended
to tell me what YOU think about some of the issues that are important in New Zealand. For
example, recent years have seen the legalisation of prostitution, our limited military involvement
in Iraq, and the announcement of a constitutional enquiry into whether or not New Zealand
should become a republic.
This is an opportunity for you to express your views on issues like these.
If you are happy to help us in this project, please complete the survey and return it in the
envelope provided. We would also like to thank you by placing you into a draw for a prize of
$200, and offer you the opportunity to receive a summary of the findings of this research. To do
this, complete your details on the separate slip provided and return it with your survey the
slips are kept separately from your survey so your responses cannot be identified. Once the
slips are separated, your survey is entirely anonymous (so please dont include any additional
information on the survey that might be used to identify you).
The responses you give to the survey will be added to those provided by other people, and then
analysed to identify the extent to which New Zealanders support or oppose the positions
described in the survey. For this reason, there are no right or wrong answers only what YOU
think. We intend to make the results of the anonymous group data available through news
media (and through academic outlets like scientific journals and conferences) to help other New
Zealanders, as well as governmental organisations, understand these issues. Participation is
completely voluntary, takes approximately half an hour, and returning the survey indicates that
youre happy for us to use your responses. As part of the ethical code under which this research
is conducted, the anonymous responses you provide will be retained (by me, securely in my
office) for at least five years. We must also make the anonymous responses available to other
researchers in this area should they ask us, and some of the data will be used for a 4th-year
report by one of our students, Luke Howison.
Once again, we consider this an important project and welcome your assistance. If youre happy
to participate, please complete and return the survey, with our thanks. If you have any
questions about the research please contact me using the information provided below,
Thanks in advance!

Dr. Marc Wilson (Senior Lecturer)

School of Psychology
Victoria University of Wellington

Ph: 04-463-5225
Email: marc.wilson@vuw.ac.nz

111

Social Science Research Questionnaire 2005

Thankyouforconsideringparticipationinthisproject.Pleasereadthroughthequestionsinthesurveyand
(followingtheinstructions)indicatewhatyouthinkorfeelabouteachone.Mostoftheseaskyoutoreada
statementandthencircleanumber(ortickabox)indicatingyourresponse.
Manyofthestatementsbelowreflectdifferentpositionsonarangeofissuesopinionsinfact.Thismeansthat
someofthestatementsappeartobecontradictory,andthisreflectsthefactthatdifferentpeopleseeissuesin
differentwaysitisnotanattempttocatchyouout.Youwillprobablyagreewithsome,anddisagreestrongly
withothers,andthatiswhatwedliketoknow.
YOUR ATTITUDES
The questions listed below are presented as statements of
opinions. Just like opinions in everyday life they can be
contradictory.
After you have read through each
statement, circle a number that indicates the extent to
which you agree or disagree with that statement. There are
no right or wrong answers - the best answer is your own
opinion.

Strongly
Strongly
Disagree
Agree

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

Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else

3
6

Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established

religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who
attend church regularly
The real key to the "good life" is obedience, discipline, and sticking
to the straight and narrow

A lot of our rules regarding modesty and sexual behaviour are just
customs which are not necessarily any better or holier than those
which other people follow

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

It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in

government and religion than listen to noisy rabble-rousers in

112

3
3

7
3

7
3

6
2

6
2

6
1

6
2

6
Our country will be great if we honour the ways of our forefathers,
do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the "rotten
apples" who are ruining everything

society who are trying to create doubt in people's minds

There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps

3
6

There is no "ONE right way" to live life; everybody has to create

their own way

Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the

perversions eating away at our moral fibre and traditional beliefs

Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave

enough to defy "traditional family values"

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

It may be considered old fashioned by some, but having a normal

proper appearance is still the mark of a gentleman and, especially,
a lady

Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and

sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone
else

A "woman's place" should be wherever she wants to be. The days

when women were submissive to their husbands and social
conventions belong strictly in the past

What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who

will crush evil, and take us back to our true path

People should pay less attention to the Bible and the other old
traditional forms of religious guidance, and instead develop their
own personal standards of what is moral and immoral

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

Our country needs free thinkers who will have the courage to defy
traditional ways, even if this upsets many people

There is nothing wrong with premarital sexual intercourse

2
6
6
6
6

6
6
3

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 behaviour

What our country really needs, instead of more "civil rights," is a

good dose of law and order

Some of the best people in our country are those who are
challenging our government, criticising religion, and ignoring the
"normal way" things are supposed to be done

Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues
children should learn

113

3
3

7
3

6
2

6
2

6
2

6
2

6
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

6
2

6
2

7
3

7
3

7
3

7
3

7
3

7
3

7
3

4
7

7
3

Nobody should "stick to the straight and narrow." Instead people

should break loose and try out lots of different ideas and
experiences

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

We should treat protestors and radicals with open arms and open
minds, since new ideas are the lifeblood of progressive change

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

3
6

3
6

7
3

6
2

4
7

7
3

Which of the statements below do you have a positive or negative feeling towards? Beside each
object or statement, place a number from 1 to 7 which represents the strength of your
positive or negative feeling. If you have a strong negative feeling then circle 1, if you have a
strong positive feeling circle 7, and if you feel neither positive or negative circle 4
Strongly
Strongly
Negative
Positive

Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.

Neutral

3
6

We should have increased social equality.

It is okay if some groups have more of a chance in life than others.

If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer

problems.

Group equality should be our ideal.

3
3

114

7
3

6
We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally.

6
Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.

6
We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible.

6
2

6
2

6
To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other
groups.

6
No one group should dominate in society.

6
2

4
7

6
In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force
against other groups.

6
All groups should be given an equal chance in life.

Inferior groups should stay in their place.

3
6

We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different

groups.

It would be good if groups could be equal .

3
6

6
Its probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and
other groups at the bottom.

4
7

7
3

There follows a list of descriptions that describe how people sometimes might think of
themselves. Please read through the list, and using the five-point scale below, indicate
how uncharacteristic or characteristic each statement is in describing you.
Write the appropriate number next to each statement.
Extremely
unlike me

Somewhat
unlike me

Neither like
or unlike me

Somewhat
like me

Very like me

Some of my friends think I am a hothead

If I have to resort to violence to protect my rights, I will
When people are especially nice to me, I wonder what they want
I tell my friends openly when I disagree with them
I have become so mad that I have broken things
I cant help getting into arguments when people disagree with me
I wonder why sometimes I feel so bitter about things
Once in a while, I cant control the urge to strike another person
I am an even-tempered person
I am suspicious of overly friendly strangers
I have threatened people I know
I flare up quickly but get over it quickly
Given enough provocation, I may hight another person
When people annoy me, I may tell them what I think of them
I am sometimes eaten up with jealousy
I can think of no good reason for ever hitting a person
At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life
I have trouble controlling my temper
When frustrated, I let my irritation show
I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back
I often find myself disagreeing with people
If somebody hits me, I hit back
115

I sometimes feel like a powder keg ready to explode

Other people always seem to get the breaks
There are people who pushed me so far that we came to blows
I know that friends talk about me behind my back
My friends say that Im somewhat argumentative
Sometimes I fly off the handle for no good reason
I get into fights a little more than the average person

116

YOUR VALUES
On this page there is a list of VALUES - these are proven ideas and goals that people typically
use to decide how to act and think. We'd like you to rate each of the values in the list below
according to how important they are as GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN YOUR LIFE. As there are
quite a few of them, we find that the steps suggested below help people to think about their
values:
For each value we would like you to indicate how important each of these ideas is AS A
GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN YOUR LIFE, using a number from the scale below:
Opposed
to my
values

Not
Important

-1

Important

Very
Important

Of
Supreme
Importance

First read through the list and decide which value (or values) are MOST important to you and
put 7 for of supreme importance.

Secondly, decide which value (or values) are LEAST important to you and put 0 for not

important for these values. If there are any values that you feel are opposite to the values
you hold most important, then put -1 to indicate opposed to my values

Use these most and least important values to help you decide how important the rest of the
list is to you.
EQUALITY (equal opportunity for all)

SOCIAL JUSTICE (correcting injustice, care for

the weak)

INNER HARMONY (at peace with myself)

EQUITY (each person rewarded according to

their contribution)

SOCIAL POWER (control over others,

dominance)

INDEPENDENT (self-reliant, self-sufficient)

PLEASURE (gratification of desires)

MODERATE (avoiding extremes of feeling and

action)

FREEDOM (freedom of action and thought)

LOYAL (faithful to my friends, group)

A SPIRITUAL LIFE (emphasis on spiritual not

material matters)

AMBITIOUS (hardworking, aspiring)

SENSE OF BELONGING (feeling that others care

about me)

BROAD-MINDED (tolerant of different ideas

and beliefs)

SOCIAL ORDER (stability of society)

HUMBLE (modest, self-effacing)

AN EXCITING LIFE (stimulating experiences)

DARING (seeking adventure, risk)

MEANING IN LIFE (a purpose in life)

PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT (preserving

nature)

POLITENESS (courtesy, good manners)

INFLUENTIAL (having an impact on people and

events)

WEALTH (material possessions, money)

HONOURING OF PARENTS AND ELDERS

(showing respect)

NATIONAL SECURITY (protection of my nation

from enemies)

CHOOSING OWN GOALS (selecting own

purposes)

SELF-RESPECT (belief in one's own worth)

HEALTHY (not being sick physically or

mentally)

RECIPROCATION OF FAVOURS (avoidance of

indebtedness)

CAPABLE (competent, effective, efficient)

117

CREATIVITY (uniqueness, imagination)

ACCEPTING MY PORTION IN LIFE (taking life's

circumstances)

A WORLD AT PEACE (free of war and conflict)

HONEST (genuine, sincere)

RESPECT FOR TRADITION (preserving timehonoured customs)

PRESERVING MY PUBLIC IMAGE (protecting my

"face")

MATURE LOVE (deep emotional and spiritual

intimacy)

OBEDIENT (dutiful, meeting obligations)

SELF-DISCIPLINE (self-restraint, resistance to

temptation)

INTELLIGENT (logical, thinking)

DETACHMENT (from worldly concerns)

HELPFUL (working for the welfare of others)

FAMILY SECURITY (safety for loved ones)

ENJOYING LIFE (enjoying food, sex, leisure,

etc.)

SOCIAL RECOGNITION (respect, approval by

others)

DEVOUT (holding to religious faith and belief)

UNITY WITH NATURE (filling into nature)

RESPONSIBLE (dependable, reliable)

A VARIED LIFE (filled with challenge, novelty,

and change)

CURIOUS (interested in everything, exploring)

WISDOM (a mature understanding of life)

FORGIVING (willing to pardon others)

AUTHORITY (the right to lead or command)

SUCCESSFUL (achieving goals)

TRUE FRIENDSHIP (close, supportive friends)

CLEAN (neat, tidy)

A WORLD OF BEAUTY (beauty of nature and the

arts)

FAIRNESS (in the distribution of

social/economic resources)

POLITICS in NEW ZEALAND

How do you feel about the political parties in New Zealand? The scale below runs from 1 to
7, where 1 means you feel very unfavourable toward a party, 4 means you feel neutral
toward a party, and 7 means you feel very favourable toward a party.
Very
Unfavourable Neutral

Very
Favourable

Very
Unfavourable Neutral

Very
Favourable

National

Labour

NZ First
Alliance

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

6
6

7
7

Act

Outdoor

Destiny
Progressive

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

6
6

7
7

Coalition
United Future NZ

Recreation
The Greens

How important are political matters to you?

Not at all important
1
2
3

Very important

Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a National voter, Labour voter, Alliance
voter, or what?
How strong is that feeling of support
Very Weak

118

Very strong

If an election were to be held now - what party would you give your party vote to?
Often, people use the terms liberal or conservative to describe their political beliefs. How
would you rate yourself in these terms? (circle a number from 1 to 7)
Liberal 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Conservative
Alternatively, people use the terms left-wing or right-wing to describe their political beliefs.
How would you rate yourself in these terms? (circle a number from 1 to 7)
Left-wing 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Right-wing
Here's a list of topical questions relating to independence and sovereignty. Please read through
them, indicating your opinion on each.

Yes
Yes
Yes

No
No
No

Maybe

Should Maori be given the right to determine who has access

to their tribal lands?

Yes

No

Maybe

Should New Zealand remain a member of the British

Commonwealth?

Yes

No

Maybe

Should secondary students take a compulsory module on

Maori (pre-colonisation) history?

Yes

No

Maybe

Should
New
Zealanders
superannuation?

Yes

No

Maybe

Should the Treaty of Waitangi serve as a basis for allocation of

social services (eg. health)?

Yes

No

Maybe

Should the Queen continue to be New Zealand's head of state?

Yes
Yes

No
No

Maybe

Should New Zealand adopt the Australian dollar as its unit of

currency?

Yes

No

Maybe

Should University students be required to take a compulsory

Maori studies paper?

Yes

No

Maybe

Should the English Privy Council remain the highest court of

appeal for New Zealanders?

Yes

No

Maybe

Should
Australians
superannuation?

Yes

No

Maybe

Yes

No

Maybe

Should New Zealand become a Republic?

Should there be a separate legal system for Maori?
Should New Zealand and Australia develop a closer economic
relationship

be

eligible

for

Australian

Should secondary students take a compulsory module on

British history?

be

eligible

for

New

Zealand

Should Maori language be a compulsory subject at school?

Strongly
Below is a series of questions about hunting Strongly
Agree
(which, for this survey, refers to hunting animals Disagree Neutral
using firearms).
Please read through each
statement below and circle a number that
indicates the extent to which you agree or
disagree with that statement.

119

Maybe
Maybe

Maybe

Hunting is a great way to get back to nature

Hunting animals is a cowardly pastime

Animals hunt each other so its fine for humans to hunt

animals too

Hunting animals is unethical

Hunting is a dangerous pastime and should not be

allowed

People shouldnt knock hunting till theyve tried it

Just because other animals prey on each other doesnt

mean we should hunt them too

Hunting is a fun activity

If a person respects nature, they shouldnt go hunting

animals

Hunting for sport is a perfectly moral pastime

Hunting animals is unfair because animals cant shoot

back

Hunting animals is stupid

Hunting animals is cruel and should not be allowed

Have you ever been hunting?

Yes
No

Yes

No

Is hunting a current pastime?

Background Information
We would like you to give us some background information about yourself. Please dont include
any additional notes or information that could be used to identify you!
Are you? (tick one)

Female

What is your nationality? (tick one)

Male

New Zealand

What is your age?

Other:

Which group best describes your ethnic origins (tick the most appropriate box)?
New Zealand Pakeha/European

New Zealand Maori

Other:

What is your marital status? (tick the appropriate box)

Single
Romantically involved
Defacto

Married
Separated
Divorced

Do you have a job at the moment? (tick one)

If you are working, what is your current occupation:

120

Widowed
Other:
Yes

No

If you arent working at the moment, what did your occupation used to be?

What is your highest level of education? (tick the appropriate box)

Up to 5th form
polytechnic or university
Up to 6th form
certificate
Up to 7th form

More than 1 year of study towards a qualification at a

Bachelors degree / trade certificate / advanced trade
Post graduate degree

Roughly, what is your rough household income? (tick the appropriate box)
Up to $20,000
$20,000 to $40,000
$80,000 More than $80,000

$40,000 to $60,000

$60,000

to

$60,000

to

Roughly, what is your personal income? (tick the appropriate box)

Up to $20,000
$20,000 to $40,000
$80,000 More than $80,000

$40,000 to $60,000

Phew! Thanks for participating

121

Appendix2:Study2Questionnaire

Social Attitudes Research Questionnaire 2006

Dear Householder,
Please consider completing and returning the survey included with this letter.
My name is Luke Howison, and I am a Masters student at Victoria University (under the supervision of Dr.
Marc Wilson). This survey is intended to tell me what you think about some of the issues that are
important in New Zealand. For example, recent years have seen the legalisation of prostitution, our
limited military involvement in Iraq, and the announcement of a constitutional enquiry into whether or not
New Zealand should become a republic. We are also interested in your beliefs and attitudes about
aggression, as well as how you think of yourself and your personality.
This is an opportunity for you to express your views on issues like these, because you live in one of the
areas that weve selected (at random) to drop off this survey.
If you are happy to help us in this project, please complete the survey and return it in the envelope
provided. We would also like to thank you by placing you into a draw for one of several double movie
vouchers for Reading Cinemas, as well as the opportunity to receive a summary of the findings of this
research. To do this, complete your details on the separate slip provided and return it with your survey
the slips are kept separately from your survey so your responses cannot be identified. Once the slips are
separated, your survey is entirely anonymous (so please dont include any additional information on the
survey that could identify you).
The responses you give to the survey will be added to those provided by other people, and then analysed
to identify the extent to which New Zealanders support or oppose the positions described in the survey.
For this reason, there are no right or wrong answers only what YOU think. We intend to make the results
of the anonymous group data available through news media (and through academic outlets like scientific
journals and conferences) to help other New Zealanders, as well as governmental organisations,
understand these issues. Participation is completely voluntary, takes approximately half an hour, and
returning the survey indicates that youre happy for us to use your responses. As part of the ethical code
under which this research is conducted, the anonymous responses you provide will be retained (by me,
securely in my office) for at least five years. We must also make the anonymous responses available to
other researchers in this area should they ask us, and the data will be the basis for a masters thesis by
Luke Howison.
Once again, we consider this an important project and welcome your assistance. If youre happy to
participate, please complete and return the survey, with our thanks. If you have any questions about the
research please contact me using the information provided below.
Thanks for your consideration,
Luke Howison (Masters student)
School of Psychology
Dr. Marc Wilson (Senior Lecturer)
School of Psychology
Victoria University of Wellington

Email: lukehnz@gmail.com
Ph: 04-463-5225
Email: marc.wilson@vuw.ac.nz

122

Social Attitudes Research Questionnaire 2006

Thankyouforconsideringparticipationinthisproject.Pleasereadthroughthequestionsinthesurveyand
(followingtheinstructions)indicatewhatyouthinkorfeelabouteachone.Mostoftheseaskyoutoreada
statementandthencircleanumber(ortickabox)indicatingyourresponse.
Manyofthestatementsbelowreflectdifferentpositionsonarangeofissuesopinionsinfact.Thismeansthat
someofthestatementsappeartobecontradictory,andthisreflectsthefactthatdifferentpeopleseeissuesin
differentwaysitisnotanattempttocatchyouout.Youwillprobablyagreewithsome,anddisagreestrongly
withothers,andthatiswhatwedliketoknow.
YOUR ATTITUDES
The questions listed below are presented as
statements of opinions.
Just like opinions in
everyday life they can be contradictory. After you
have read through each statement, circle a number
that indicates the extent to which you agree or
disagree with that statement. There are no right or Strongly
wrong answers - the best answer is your own Disagree
opinion.

Strongly
Agree

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

Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as

anybody else

Our country will be great if we honour the ways of our

forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get
rid of the "rotten apples" who are ruining everything

Atheists and others who have rebelled against the

established religions are no doubt every bit as good and
virtuous as those who attend church regularly
The real key to the "good life" is obedience, discipline, and
sticking to the straight and narrow

A lot of our rules regarding modesty and sexual behaviour

are just customs which are not necessarily any better or
holier than those which other people follow

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

It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper

authorities in government and religion than listen to noisy
rabble-rousers in society who are trying to create doubt in
people's minds

123

There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps

There is no "ONE right way" to live life; everybody has to

create their own way

Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash

the perversions eating away at our moral fibre and
traditional beliefs

Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being

brave enough to defy "traditional family values"

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

It may be considered old fashioned by some, but having a

normal proper appearance is still the mark of a gentleman
and, especially, a lady

Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs,

and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different
from everyone else

A "woman's place" should be wherever she wants to be.

The days when women were submissive to their husbands
and social conventions belong strictly in the past

What our country really needs is a strong, determined

leader who will crush evil, and take us back to our true
path

People should pay less attention to the Bible and the other
old traditional forms of religious guidance, and instead
develop their own personal standards of what is moral and
immoral
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

Our country needs free thinkers who will have the courage
to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people

There is nothing wrong with premarital sexual intercourse

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

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 behaviour

What our country really needs, instead of more "civil

rights," is a good dose of law and order

Some of the best people in our country are those who are
challenging our government, criticising religion, and
ignoring the "normal way" things are supposed to be done

Obedience and respect for authority are the most

important virtues children should learn

124

Nobody should "stick to the straight and narrow." Instead

people should break loose and try out lots of different
ideas and experiences

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

We should treat protestors and radicals with open arms

and open minds, since new ideas are the lifeblood of
progressive change

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

Which of the statements below do you have a

positive or negative feeling towards? Beside each
object or statement, place a number from 1 to 7
which represents the strength of your positive or
negative feeling. If you have a strong negative
feeling then circle 1, if you have a strong positive
feeling circle 7, and if you feel neither positive or
negative circle 4

Strongly
Negative

Strongly
Positive

Neutral

Some groups of people are simply inferior to other

groups.

We should have increased social equality.

All groups should be given an equal chance in life.

In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to

use force against other groups.

It is okay if some groups have more of a chance in life

than others.

No one group should dominate in society.

To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on

other groups.

If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have

fewer problems.

Group equality should be our ideal.

We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible.

Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.

We would have fewer problems if we treated people more

equally.

Inferior groups should stay in their place.

We should do what we can to equalize conditions for

different groups.

It would be good if groups could be equal .

Its probably a good thing that certain groups are at the

top and other groups at the bottom.

125

Beliefs about Aggression

The questions listed below are presented as
statements of opinions.
Just like opinions in
everyday life they can be contradictory. After you
have read through each statement, circle a number
that indicates the extent to which you agree or
disagree with that statement. There are no right or
wrong answers - the best answer is your own Strongly
Disagree
opinion.

Strongly
Agree

During a physical fight I feel out of control.

I feel that physical aggression is necessary to get through

to some people.

I am most likely to get physically aggressive when I've

been under a lot of stress and some little thing pushes me
over the edge.

If I hit someone and hurt them, I feel as if they were

asking for it.

After a physical fight I feel drained and guilty.

In an argument I would feel more annoyed with myself if I

cried than if I hit the other person.

After I lash out physically at another person, I would like

them to acknowledge how upset they made me and how
unhappy I was.

The best thing about physical aggression is that it makes

the other person get in line.

I believe that my aggression comes from losing my selfcontrol.

If someone challenged me to a fight in public I'd feel

cowardly if I backed away.

I am more likely to lash out physically when I am alone

with the person who is annoying me.

After I lash out physically at another person I would like to

make sure they never annoy me again.

When I get to the point of physical aggression the thing I

am most aware of is how upset and shaky I feel.

I am more likely to lash out physically when another

person shows me up in public.

126

In a heated argument I am most afraid of saying

something terrible that I can never take back.

I am most likely to get physically aggressive when I feel

another person is trying to make me look like a jerk.

Read through each statement below, and circle the

number that indicates the extent to which you
agree or disagree with each one. There are no right Strongly
or wrong answers.
Disagree

Strongly
Agree

The government shouldnt be allowed to tell people they

cant smack their children

Just as many women are physically violent towards their

male partners, as men are towards their female partners

People should be allowed to use firearms to defend

themselves if they (or their loved ones) are threatened
with harm

The Bible gives moral justification for physical punishment

of children

Regardless of the nature of a crime, there is no

justification for the death penalty

Its perfectly appropriate to retaliate if someone throws

the first punch

The police shouldnt be allowed to use physical force to

prevent peaceful civil protest getting out of hand

Schools should have the right to physically discipline

disobedient students

Its understandable why some people feel it necessary to

engage in violent terrorist action

Parents should not be allowed to smack their children, no

matter what the circumstances

Police should prosecute sports people who are violent on

the sports field

There follows a list of descriptions that describe how people sometimes might think of
themselves. Please read through the list, and using the five-point scale below, indicate
how uncharacteristic or characteristic each statement is in describing you.
Write the appropriate number next to each statement.
Extremely
unlike me

Somewhat
unlike me

Neither like
or unlike me

Somewhat
like me

Very like me

Some of my friends think I am a hothead

If I have to resort to violence to protect my rights, I will
127

When people are especially nice to me, I wonder what they want
I tell my friends openly when I disagree with them
I have become so mad that I have broken things
I cant help getting into arguments when people disagree with me
I wonder why sometimes I feel so bitter about things
Once in a while, I cant control the urge to strike another person
I am an even-tempered person
I am suspicious of overly friendly strangers
I have threatened people I know
I flare up quickly but get over it quickly
Given enough provocation, I may hit another person
When people annoy me, I may tell them what I think of them
I am sometimes eaten up with jealousy
I can think of no good reason for ever hitting a person
At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life
I have trouble controlling my temper
When frustrated, I let my irritation show
I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back
I often find myself disagreeing with people
If somebody hits me, I hit back
I sometimes feel like a powder keg ready to explode
Other people always seem to get the breaks
There are people who pushed me so far that we came to blows
I know that friends talk about me behind my back
My friends say that Im somewhat argumentative
Sometimes I fly off the handle for no good reason
I get into fights a little more than the average person
Your Personality
The items below inquire about what kind of person you think you are. Each item consists of a
pair of characteristics, with the letters A-E in between. For example:
Not at all artistic ABCDE Very artistic
Each pair describes contradictory characteristics - you cannot be both at the same time, such as
very artistic and not at all artistic.
The letters form a scale between two extremes. Choose a letter describing where you fall on the
scale. For example, if you have no artistic interest, you might choose A, If you think you do, you
might choose D. If neither of these describes you, you might choose a letter in between, and so
forth.
Not at all aggressive
Not at all independent

ABCDE
ABCDE

128

Very aggressive
Very independent

Not at all emotional

Not at all submissive
Not at all excitable in a MAJOR
crisis
Very passive
Not at all able to devote self
completely to others
Very rough
Not at all helpful to others
Not at all competitive
Very home oriented
Not at all kind
Indifferent to others' approval

ABCDE
ABCDE
ABCDE

Feelings not easily hurt

Not at all aware of others'
feelings
Can make decisions easily

ABCDE
ABCDE

Gives up very easily

Never cries
Not at all self-confident
Feels very inferior
Not at all understanding of
others
Very cold in relations with
others
Very little need for security

ABCDE
ABCDE
ABCDE
ABCDE
ABCDE

Goes to pieces under pressure

ABCDE

ABCDE
ABCDE
ABCDE
ABCDE
ABCDE
ABCDE
ABCDE
ABCDE

ABCDE

ABCDE
ABCDE

Very emotional
Very submissive
Very excitable in a MAJOR
crisis
Very active
Able to devote self
completely to others
Very gentle
Very helpful to others
Very competitive
Very worldly
Very kind
Highly needful of others'
approval
Feelings easily hurt
Very aware of others'
feelings
Has difficulty making
decisions
Never gives up easily
Cries very easily
Very self-confident
Feels very superior
Very understanding of
others
Very warm in relations with
others
Very strong need for
security
Stands up well under
pressure

We are all members of different groups, for many different reasons. We belong to some groups
because of characteristics we share with other members - for example, being male or female.
Even within these categories both men and women possess characteristics that many people
identify as more typically male or female. These questions are intended to assess the extent to
which you identify with males and females on different attributes.
Which gender group do you identify most strongly with?
Women 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Men
In terms of your attitudes, which group do you feel closest to? Use the scale below:
Women

Men

In terms of your priorities in life, which group do you feel closest to? Use the scale below:
Women

129

Men

In terms of the content of your friendships, which group do you feel closest to? Use the scale
below:
Women

Men

In terms of your life experiences, which group do you feel closest to? Use the scale below:
Women

Men

ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMEN SCALE

The questions listed below are presented as
statements of opinions.
After you have read
through each statement, circle a number that
indicates the extent to which you agree or disagree
with that statement. There are no right or wrong Strongly
answers.
Disagree
Swearing and obscenity are more repulsive in the speech
of a woman than a man.

Under modern economic conditions with women being

active outside the home, men should share in household
tasks such as washing dishes and doing laundry.

Strongly
Agree

It is insulting to women to have the obey clause remain

in the marriage service.

A woman should be free as a man to propose marriage.

Women should worry less about their rights and more

about becoming good wives and mothers.

Women should assume their rightful place in business and

all the professions along with men.

A woman should not expect to go to exactly the same

places or to have quite the same freedom of action as a
man.

It is ridiculous for a woman to run a locomotive and for a

man to darn socks.

The intellectual leadership of a community should be

largely in the hands of men.

Women should be given equal opportunity with men for

apprenticeship in the various trades.

Women earning as much as their dates should bear equally

the expense when they go out together.

Sons in a family should be given more encouragement to

go to university than daughters.

In general, the father should have greater authority than

the mother in the bringing up of the children.

Economic and social freedom is worth far more to women

than acceptance of the ideal of femininity which has been
set up by men.

There are many jobs in which men should be given

preference over women in being hired or promoted.

130

Background Information
We would like you to give us some background information. Please dont include any notes or
information that could identify you!
Are you? (tick one)

Female

Male

What is your nationality?

What is your age?

What group best describes your ethnic

origins?
What is your marital (romantic) status?
Do you have a job at the moment? (tick one)

Yes

No

If you are working, what is your current occupation:

What is your highest level of education? (tick the appropriate box)
Up to 5th form
Up to 7th form
Bachelors degree / trade certificate /
advanced trade certificate
Up to 6th form
1 year or more of study at a polytechnic/university
Post graduate degree
Roughly, what is your rough household income? (tick the appropriate box)
Up to $20,000
$20,000 to $40,000
$80,000 More than $80,000

$40,000 to $60,000

$60,000

to

$60,000

to

Roughly, what is your personal income? (tick the appropriate box)

Up to $20,000
$20,000 to $40,000
$80,000 More than $80,000

$40,000 to $60,000

Thanks for participating

131