Political Correctness: Social-Fiscal Liberalism and Left-Wing

Authoritarianism

by

Christine Anne Andary-Brophy

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Masters of Arts
Graduate Department of Psychology
University of Toronto

© Copyright by Christine Anne Andary-Brophy 2015

 Political Correctness: Social-Fiscal Liberalism and Left-Wing
Authoritarianism

Christine Anne Andary-Brophy

Master of Arts

Department of Psychology
University of Toronto

2015

Abstract

The issue of political correctness (PC) has recently garnered significant attention and created

considerable controversy in North America. Nonetheless, the existence, history, purpose, and

breadth of this ideology are disputed. This study assessed the conceptualization and measurement

of the PC construct. A 203-item PC scale measuring language and beliefs was created on the

basis of accounts from news articles, books, and research papers on the topic. 468 participants

completed the PC scale along with questionnaires on personality, intelligence, and disgust

sensitivity. Exploratory factor analysis determined the structure of PC, while relationships to

individual differences, and convergent and divergent validity were assessed with correlational

and regression analyses PC is best predicted by trait Agreeableness, and it is a social

conservative and liberal construct. A 36-item PC scale was also derived. A comprehensive two-

dimensional model of political belief is proposed, and the difference between right and left-wing

authoritarianism discussed.

ii
 Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii

List of Appendices ....................................................................................................................... viii

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 The history of political correctness ................................................................................................. 1
1.2 The debate surrounding PC ............................................................................................................. 3
1.3 The definition and purpose of PC ................................................................................................... 4
1.4 The focus on language .................................................................................................................... 6
1.5 The impact of PC on society ........................................................................................................... 6
1.6 PC and political beliefs ................................................................................................................... 8
1.7 PC and social desirability ................................................................................................................ 9
1.8 PC and political ideology .............................................................................................................. 10
1.9 PC and individual differences research ......................................................................................... 12
1.10 Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................. 15

2 Methods .................................................................................................................................. 17
2.1 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 17
2.2 Materials ........................................................................................................................................ 17
2.2.1 Demographics ........................................................................................................................ 17
2.2.2 Political Correctness............................................................................................................... 18
2.2.3 Personality .............................................................................................................................. 18
2.2.4 Intelligence ............................................................................................................................. 19
2.2.5 Disgust Sensitivity ................................................................................................................. 19
2.3 Procedure....................................................................................................................................... 19

3 Results .................................................................................................................................... 20
3.1 Checks for attention, honesty, and outliers ................................................................................... 20
3.2 PC scale item reduction to subscale scores ................................................................................... 20
3.3 Factor Analyses ............................................................................................................................. 25
3.4 Relation of PC factor scores to related constructs ........................................................................ 26
3.5 Derivation of a PC scale ................................................................................................................ 31

iii
 3.6 Assessing properties of the PC scale scores .................................................................................. 32
3.7 Correlations of PC scores with other scales .................................................................................. 33

4 Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 34
4.1 Overview of findings..................................................................................................................... 34
4.2 A closer look at the content of PC factor items ............................................................................ 34
4.3 Convergent and discriminant validity ........................................................................................... 37
4.4 Evaluation of hypotheses .............................................................................................................. 38
4.5 Conclusions about political belief ................................................................................................. 40
4.6 How findings apply to the PC debate ............................................................................................ 46
4.7 Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 46
4.8 Future Directions ........................................................................................................................... 48

5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 50

6 References .............................................................................................................................. 51

iv
 List of Tables
Table 1. Scale statistics for PC subscales ..................................................................................... 68

Table 2. Items excluded from scale scores ................................................................................... 69

Table 3. Factor loadings and communalities of attitude subscale factor analysis ........................ 73

Table 4. Scale statistics for PC attitudes subscales ....................................................................... 77

Table 5. Factor loadings and communalities of offense sensitivity subscale factor analysis ....... 78

Table 6. Scale statistics for PC offence sensitivity subscales ....................................................... 80

Table 7. Factor loadings and communalities of items in three-factor factor analysis .................. 81

Table 8. Factor loadings and communalities of items in two-factor factor analysis .................... 83

Table 9. Correlations of two-factor PC factor scores with individual difference scales .............. 85

Table 10. Correlations of three-factor PC factor scores with individual difference scales .......... 86

Table 11. Correlations of PC total scores with individual difference scales ................................ 87

Table 12. Scale statistics for individual differences scales ........................................................... 88

Table 13. Coefficients from PC-Liberalism regression with summative scales as predictors ...... 89

Table 14. Coefficients from PC-Liberalism regression with aspect scales as predictors ............. 90

Table 15. Coefficients from PC-Auth. regression with summative scales as predictors .............. 91

Table 16. Coefficients from PC-Auth. regression with aspect scales as predictors...................... 92

Table 17. Coefficients from Liberalism regression with summative scales as predictors ............ 93

Table 18. Coefficients from Liberalism regression with aspect scales as predictors ................... 94

Table 19. Coefficients from Auth. regression with summative scales as predictors .................... 95

Table 20. Coefficients from Auth. regression with aspect scales as predictors ............................ 96

Table 21. Coefficients from PC regression with summative scales as predictors ........................ 97

Table 22. Coefficients from PC regression with aspect scales as predictors ................................ 98

Table 23. Coefficients from PC Total regression with summative scales as predictors ............... 99

v
Table 24. Coefficients from PC Total regression with aspect scales as predictors .................... 100

Table 25. Items excluded from shortened PC scale .................................................................... 101

Table 26. Results from PC-Liberalism scale reduction regression ............................................. 115

Table 27. Coefficients from last step of PC-Liberalism scale reduction regression ................... 116

Table 28. Results from PC-Authoritarianism scale reduction regression ................................... 118

Table 29. Coefficients from last step of PC-Authoritarianism scale reduction regression ......... 119

Table 30. Items included in shortened PC scale ......................................................................... 121

Table 31. Scale statistics for shortened PC scale ........................................................................ 124

Table 32. Correlations of long and short Liberalism scale scores with individual differences .. 125

Table 33. Correlations of long and short Auth. scale scores with individual differences .......... 126

Table 34. Correlations of long and short PC Total scores with individual differences .............. 127

vi
 List of Figures
Figure 1. Derivation of subscale scores ...................................................................................... 128

Figure 2. Political beliefs model ................................................................................................. 129

vii
 List of Appendices
Appendix A. Political Correctness scale ..................................................................................... 130

Appendix B. Political Correcntess scale subjectively organized ................................................ 154

viii
 1

1 Introduction
Of late, the issue of political correctness (PC) has garnered significant attention and generated
considerable controversy in North America, especially in the academic sphere. Reviewers
generally agree on the roots of the ideology. How it became associated with Western political
movements promoting radical equality however, is still disputed. Additionally, confusion
surrounding the origin of the Western use of the term has called into question the true purpose of
such movements. These areas of uncertainty have been analyzed in papers from the fields of
literature, communication, sociology, economics, political science, and philosophy. These
articles only offer opinions as to the existence and influence of PC. Likewise, the few empirical
studies that have been done simply assume a shared definition of this construct, and instead focus
on the examination of its impact on different realms of society. However, without a clear
understanding of PC, research on its societal influence is limited.

On a broader scale, better measurement and conceptualization of this construct will help shed
some light on the nature of traditional political identifications. With so few left-wing measures, it
is difficult to draw conclusions about the liberal-conservative relationship. To date, PC has been
associated with social equality, and as such, liberal politics. Developing a left-wing measure, and
determining how this belief set is related to individual differences, will help determine if political
belief is best conceptualized as a linear continuum.

1.1 The history of political correctness

The term ‘political correctness’ was used as early as 1921 (Chernenko & Smirtyukov, 1967),
however the ideological concept was invented 27 years earlier, as a criterion of Marxism-
Leninism (Kunitsyn, 1971). In 1894, Lenin created partiinost’, which translates to party
membership, party-mindedness, party spirit, or party truth (Berger, 1971; Ellis, 2002). Central to
this ideology was the claim that knowledge and truth were class-specific, or a matter of
perspective (Beglov, 1984; Ellis, 2002; Kunitsyn, 1971). Likewise, class-consciousness
(soznanie), and intellectual and moral relativism were believed to be an advanced form of
rational thinking (Ellis, 2002; Lenin, 1946, 1947). The application of this form of thinking was
thought to lead to a socially and morally higher truth (pravda). Pravda is a truth elevated to the
rank of an idea of how the world ought to be; it is the ‘right’ truth. Contrarily, objective
knowledge and empirical reality (istina) were believed to be part of a conservative conspiracy to
 2

retain power and control, so the working class could continue to be exploited (Berger, 1971;
Ellis, 2002).

The term eventually mutated into politicheskaya pravil’nost’, or political correctness (Ellis,
2002). This made explicit the Marxist-Leninist principle of needing to be right or correct from
their political or ideological point of view. Those deviating from the party line were wrong or
incorrect and could be prosecuted in an authoritative manner (Ellis, 2002). This correct versus
incorrect division expanded to the realms of psychiatry, science, education, journalism, literature,
history, discourse, and art (Bloch & Reddaway, 1977; Dobrenko, 1997; Ellis, 2002; Krushchev,
1959; Shalin, 1996). Academic freedom and freedom of speech were allowed as long as what
was said did not propagate anti-party views (Counts & Lodge, 1949; Medvedev, 1969). Artistic
license was permitted as long as the work depicted an idealistic version of the world (Ellis,
2002).

Mao Tse-tung adopted the Soviet political correctness ideology in the 1930s, where it took a
central role in all fields of Chinese communism (Hughes, 2010; J. Lin, 1991). In fact, in Maoism
there was an even more extreme emphasis on correct behavior and thought (Ellis, 2002; B. Lin,
1970). Those who spread politically incorrect views were subject to brutal treatment by the
media, psychological abuse by the public, and further hostility in the concentration camps
(Chang, 1991; Lifton, 1961; J. Lin, 1991; Saunders, 1996; Thurston, 1988; Wu & Wakeman,
1994). Dissenters were destroyed both mentally and ideologically, in order to complete the
thought reform, or si xiang gai zao (Saunders, 1996; Wu & Wakeman, 1994).

Lenin’s and Mao’s cultural revolutions provided inspiration for the student protests following the
Vietnam war (Hollander, 1981; Lipset, 1992; Scruton, 1985). The 1960s produced the New Left,
and a wave of rebellion against the existing order and hierarchy (Ellis, 2002; Trenton, 1994). The
greatest difference between the Western movement and that of conventional Marxism, however,
was the extreme emphasis placed on culture and language (Ellis, 2002; Hughes, 2010). By the
mid-1970s, PC was associated with the feminist movement (Dunant, 1994; Gauthier, 1997;
Thibodaux, 1992), and by the early 1990s the term was generally made popular in the West,
when it was linked to activities on university campuses (Collins, 1992; Hughes, 2010; Neilson,
1995; Whitney & Wartella, 1992). This is where the opinions of PC reviewers are divided. It is
unclear whether the use of this term in the West, and the movement itself, is part of an evolved
 3

cultural Marxism, or simply a fabrication of the Right or media to discredit the actions of activist
groups or formulate a headline-grabbing common enemy.

1.2 The debate surrounding PC

There is a clear polarity of views about the Western PC ideology. The opponents of PC believe
that this philosophy is a new cultural Marxism that has many elements of the Lenin and Mao
regimes. According to this view, the movement covertly began with the formation of the New
Left in the 1960s, and was lead by academics such as Althusser, Derrida, Foucault, Gamsci,
Galbreith, and Marcuse (Ellis, 2002; Takooshian & Rieber, 1996). Since then, politically
incorrect art, literature, scientific research, and thought have been suppressed in the West (Ellis,
2002; Rushton, 1996; Takooshian & Rieber, 1996). The use of unjust and authoritarian means,
such as censorship, to enforce the PC orthodoxy, is thought to be similar to that seen in early 20th
century China and Soviet Russia (Duigan & Gann, 1995; Ellis, 2002; O'Keefe, 1992). A related
parallel is drawn when examining the ever-expanding breadth of the PC ideology. The inclusion
of views that are incidental to human rights (e.g., animal rights, environmental beliefs, lookism),
into what is deemed politically correct, has been likened to a fascist and totalitarian governance
of all aspects of life (Ayim, 1998; Chabot, 1996). The final point of this opinion is that much as
Lenin and Mao created an opponent or demon figure in the bourgeois society, the PC orthodoxy
has found its adversary in the white, heterosexual male. Opponents of this movement believe that
PC is committing the very evils it claims to correct. It is causing reverse discrimination (Ayim,
1998; Gauthier, 1997; Takooshian & Rieber, 1996).

Contrarily, the proponents of PC believe that this movement is aiding all disadvantaged groups
so they are treated equally and with respect (Ayim, 1998; Gauthier, 1997; Kelly & Rubal-Lopez,
1996). According to this view, the Western academics who subscribed to a Marxist philosophy
were simply extremists capitalizing on a movement with otherwise good cause (Hope, Milewski-
Hertlein, & Rodriguez, 2001; Kelly & Rubal-Lopez, 1996). Additionally, advocates of this
opinion believe that any censorship action is a preventative measure, so disadvantaged groups
are not further hurt, or placed in a position to be further discriminated against (Ayim, 1998;
Favreau, 1997; Gauthier, 1997). They believe it is the opponents of PC that are unjust,
dismissing the views of women and minorities, and villainizing them so white, heterosexual
males can maintain their positions of power (Ayim, 1998; Gauthier, 1997). Furthermore,
 4

proponents of PC state that it is not a collaborative or homogeneous movement, but rather

several disparate activist groups and issues that have been linked together under one title by the
media and conservatives (Hope et al., 2001). This was allegedly done to construct a unified
enemy: an organized and powerful lobby group that can be feared (Ayim, 1998).

Those who are neither opponents nor proponents of this philosophy have come to the conclusion
that the literal definition of PC, as ‘adherence to a particular ideology’, should be considered
from a much broader perspective (Fish, 1994). They believe that being politically correct means
following a left or right wing philosophy, and that the true crux of the debate is which ideology
is ‘correct’. Followers of the ideology of the right believe in complete freedom of speech and
academic inquiry, while advocates of the ideology of the left believe in complete equality
(Gauthier, 1997). The Right defends this philosophy, even though the law already punishes those
who speak in libelous or slanderous ways (any notion that speech should be restriction-free is
inconsistent with the values that have already shaped Western law) (Ayim, 1998). The Left
defends their philosophy, even if it means resorting to forced or superficial measures that make
‘what ought to be’ paramount over ‘what is’ (Ellis, 2002; Halmari, 2011). Both claim the other is
discriminating and using unjust and authoritarian means to get its way (Gauthier, 1997).

1.3 The definition and purpose of PC

While it is valuable to examine the origins of the PC term, and to consider its debate from an
unbiased perspective, both sides seem to agree that Left-wing values are at the core of this
philosophy. In addition, though use of the literal definition, of politically correct as adherence to
an ideology, provides an interesting perspective on the topic, the conceptual one is what is more
often meant. An important step to understanding PC is therefore looking at the heart of liberal
beliefs and the fundamental goal of PC, as it is popularly understood.

The general interpretation of PC is that it has something to do with avoiding policies, actions,
and language that disadvantage or offend a particular group of people in society (Choi &
Murphy, 1992; Dobson, 1997; Dunant, 1994; Favreau, 1997; Friedman & Nareson, 1995;
Gauthier, 1997; Lalonde, Doan, & Patterson, 2000; Millington & Leierer, 1996; Newfield &
Strickland; Stark, 1997; Thibodaux, 1992; Wilson, 1995). PC shifts punishment from hinging on
the intention to the impact of the action. That is, because the same words affect different people
in different ways, according to the PC philosophy, it is more important to know if individuals on
 5

the receiving end were offended than if the actor intended to offend (Ayim, 1998; Hollway &
Jefferson, 1996). Extreme sensitivity and absolute egalitarianism is evidently the foundation of
this definition and ideology. This need for equality in policy and action can be seen in the liberal
regulation of affirmative action, harassment, domestic abuse, and research on the biological basis
of race and sex differences. According to this philosophy, assuming an objective and gender- or
race-neutral position does not provide complete equality. To achieve this ideal, individuals must
always take into consideration differences in power, and histories of discrimination when
1
interacting with others and creating legislation (Ayim, 1998; Loury, 1994; Saper, 1995).

First, in the case of affirmative action, PC claims a history of oppression that has not allowed
women and individuals of minorities to gain the same work experience as white men. The
creation of gender and racial quotas is meant to correct for this variance in history (Gauthier,
1997). Likewise, favoring the plight of women, in research and cases on harassment and
domestic abuse, is meant to correct for the gender power imbalance (Hollway & Jefferson,
1996). Because of this differential, proponents of this view believe that a woman’s involvement
in harassment has much less impact than that of a man. Similarly, according to this philosophy,
women, as perpetrators of domestic violence, cause much less harm. As such, publication of a
woman’s unconscious motivations, such as their use of sexual attractiveness to achieve
dominance (Hollway & Jefferson, 1996), as well as research on statistics demonstrating an
equivalent pattern of violence by gender would be harmful (M. Carney, Buttell, & Dutton, 2007).
Finally, the suppression of research on biologically based race and sex differences corrects for
the same imbalances stated above (Loury, 1994; Rushton, 1996). Attribution of these differences
to history and the environment allows for rectification to achieve equality. Confirmation that
they are genetically-based implies an unchangeable baseline.

The extreme sensitivity and desire for absolute equality of PC is most publicly seen in its
deconstruction of language. This philosophy manipulates language, employing euphemisms to
camouflage individual differences (Goffman, 1963; Halmari, 2011; Hope et al., 2001; Kelly &

1
A relativist understanding of equality dismisses the criticism of PC that it is committing the same crimes it claims
to correct (i.e., reverse discrimination). From this perspective, a white, heterosexual male and member of a
disadvantaged group committing the same discriminatory act against one another is not considered equivalent
because of the differences in history and power.
 6

Rubal-Lopez, 1996; Loury, 1994). A clear example of this is ‘people first’ language (Halmari,
2011).

1.4 The focus on language

There are competing theories as to why PC places this focus on language. These theories are
derived from the opposing sides of the debate on the purpose of PC. Opponents of PC believe
that the obsession with language comes from its roots as a Marxist ideology. According to Thom
(1989), “Ideology turns the world into language” (p. 87). Language is the immediate
actualization of thought. Because followers of the PC philosophy prefer to work at the level of
ideas and ‘what should be’ rather than reality and ‘what is’, they tend to take a language-oriented
approach to dealing with issues of inequality (Ellis, 2002).

Proponents of PC believe in the Whorfian notion of linguistic relativism: that language

influences cognition (Lenneberg, 1953; Whorf, 1956). Language helps us categorize and define
the unknown so we can understand the contents of the world (Huxley, 1927; Mead, 1956).
Therefore, followers of this view believe if you change language to a desired norm, thought and
action will follow (Cameron, 1997; Hardin & Banaji, 1993; Miller & Swift, 1976; Rix, 2006).
On a broader scale, because social life is a particular networking of social practices, such as
culture and language, to create a social change, one must change the network (Fairclough, 2003;
Williams, 1981). Therefore a change in language should create a change in social life.

1.5 The impact of PC on society

The extreme sensitivity and absolute egalitarianism that is part and parcel of PC has created a
countermovement of silence and discomfort (Hope et al., 2001; Loury, 1994). An example of this
is seen in the therapeutic context. Deviating from society’s norm (e.g., by having a disability or
being overweight) has a significant impact on an individual’s welfare. Therapists sometimes
avoid these topics, however, because acknowledging differences is considered politically
incorrect, and an elaborate linguistic etiquette is required to verbalize anything controversial
(Chabot, 1996; Hope et al., 2001; Menage, 1997). This can influence the client’s therapy
outcome. This avoidance of differences has also been found to impair communication in non-
clinical settings. A study by Norton, Sommers, Apfelbaum, Pura, and Ariely (2006) examined
the effects of using color blindness as a strategy for appearing unprejudiced. Participants were
 7

paired with a confederate, and told to complete a matching task that requires the description of
people. They found that white participants were less likely to use race as a descriptor for
categorization when paired with a black rather than white partner. This strategy was found to
impair communication and performance. A final example of how PC has created a negative and
silent environment comes from studies on prejudice in the workplace. Researchers have found
that indirect comments have replaced explicit discrimination, causing negative psychological
effects (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005; Butler, 1997; Mills, 1998). While old-fashioned racism and
sexism elicited hostility and retaliation, the modern forms overtly seem inoffensive. This means
that these comments remain unchallenged, and instead cause anxiety and undermining of the self
(Barreto & Ellemers, 2005).

Contrary to the above research, one study claims PC improves communication. Goncalo,
Chatman, Duguid, and Kennedy (2015) proposed that PC decreases uncertainty in mixed-sex
work groups, which leads to increased creativity. However, what is not considered in this study
is that society’s PC culture likely created that environment of uncertainty and discomfort in the
first place. As stated previously, the shift from concern for intention to the impact of the action
means individuals no longer know how to address and communicate with members of the
opposite gender, because they are unsure what will offend each individual.

Besides creating an environment of uncertainty and silence, some researchers have found PC has
an indirect effect of making politically incorrect terminology and beliefs elicit more public
sensitivity towards disadvantaged groups. For example, Millington and Leierer (1996) found that
the use of politically incorrect labels on a survey elicited more positive attitudes toward people
with disabilities than those with politically correct labels. Furthermore, in a study by Shelton,
Richeson, Salvatore, and Trawalter (2005) it was found that white participants who ranked as
more racially biased on the Implicit Association Test (IAT), were perceived by black participants
as more engaged in a discussion on a racially-sensitive issue, and were therefore liked more than
those who ranked as less biased. This counter-intuitive result is likely due to social desirability.
Socially-inappropriate terms perhaps cause individuals to exaggerate their positive feelings
towards disadvantaged groups (Millington & Leierer, 1996). Similarly, individuals who are more
racially biased likely make more of an effort to control this bias (Shelton et al., 2005). Politically
incorrect terminology and beliefs may cause overcompensation.
 8

Other studies have found no language effect on attitudes, regardless of its “correctness”.
Arokiasamy, Strohmer, Guice, Angelocci, and Hoppe (1994) found that politically correct,
incorrect, or ultra-correct language did not affect counselor credibility ratings. Additionally, the
listener’s disability status was irrelevant.

From the research to date, it appears that politically correct language has not lead to a positive
change in attitudes. This is likely because euphemisms inevitably end up being associated with
the features of the individuals they refer to, that they were originally designed to hide (Halmari,
2011). Alterations to language to conceal differences are superficial measures that will only lead
to a fabricated equality. It may be, however, that PC language control attempts and more general
PC attitudes are not identical constructs. Lack of a clear understanding of what PC is, and what
elements should be included in the ideology, makes it difficult to draw conclusions about its
effect on society.

1.6 PC and political beliefs

Only a handful of empirical studies have been conducted on the topic of what PC is and how it
relates to political beliefs. Barker (1994) attempted to conceptualize PC as a form of impression
management behavior. She defined political correctness as public conformity to radical left
views. She also proposed that people would have no reason to adopt inauthentic views in private,
and would therefore be more conservative in those situations. The PC scale used in her study
targeted attitudes and beliefs. It was formed by a convenience sample that selected from a list of
controversial subjects the ten topics most frequently associated with PC. One question was
created for each topic. Participants were randomly assigned into a public or private response
condition. She found that the majority of the topics were not susceptible to self-presentation
needs, and that responses were better predicted by political identity. Specifically, more liberal
beliefs were related to more politically correct attitudes. It is therefore likely that PC beliefs are a
political construct.

This conclusion finds further support from a study by Suedfeld, Steel, and Schmidt (1994). They
examined censorship, a topic that both theoretically and empirically relates to PC. Their research
found that attitudes towards censorship are politically biased. Specifically, supporters of
Canada’s most left wing (social democratic) major federal party favored censorship the most,
while the most right (conservative) favored it least. Additionally, on the Nettler and Huffman
 9

(1955) scale, they found radicals to be significantly more pro-censorship than conservatives. This
clear divide between left and right attitudes towards a particular PC belief again corroborates the
hypothesis that PC beliefs are a political construct.

1.7 PC and social desirability

Contrary to the research on PC attitudes and political belief, PC language appears to have an
additional element that is related to social desirability. That is, research suggests that PC
language is partly the result of an individual’s general propensity to respond in a manner that
would be viewed favorably by others. Proof of the dissociation between political belief and PC
language is found in a more recent study by Strauts and Blanton (2015). They created a Concern
for Political Correctness (CPC) scale to assess individual differences in concern for politically
correct speech. PC language was divided into two factors: emotion and activism. The emotion
subscale measured participants’ emotional response to hearing politically incorrect language,
while the activism subscale measured participants’ willingness to correct it. Though both
subscales correlated with liberal ideological belief and activist identification, the PC-activism
subscale was the stronger and only unique predictor of them. Additionally, neither subscale was
related to or predictive of activist involvement. These findings suggest that there is an alternative
causal element of PC language that is not political belief.

Evidence that other element of PC language is social desirability, is slightly more indirect. First,
researchers have demonstrated that politically incorrect language causes socially desirable
responding. For example, as stated above, Millington and Leierer (1996) found that the use of
politically incorrect labels prompted more positive attitudes toward people with disabilities.
Additionally, Barker (1994) found that politically incorrect ethnic jokes caused decreased humor
ratings in public conditions versus private. Second, researchers found that concern for politically
correct language predicts socially desirable responding. Specifically, Strauts and Blanton (2015)
found that both of their PC language subscales predicted negative reactions to politically
incorrect humor. Furthermore, this relationship was mediated by the tendency to take offense.
These relationships between politically incorrect and correct language and social desirability,
suggest that there may be a relationship between PC language and social desirability.

From the examination of research on the effects of PC and the construct itself, there appears to
be a clear separation of PC beliefs and PC language. Unfortunately, these two constructs have
 10

never been measured in the same study. It appears possible that PC language is primarily a
construct of social desirability, while PC attitudes are based on political belief.

1.8 PC and political ideology

While some information on the nature of PC can be garnered from its relationship to general
political beliefs, its comparison to specific political ideologies can also be useful. Strauts and
Blanton (2015), Suedfeld et al. (1994), Lalonde et al. (2000), and Trenton (1994), further
examined the relationship between PC and political beliefs, by looking at connections between
different aspects of each.

First, Strauts and Blanton (2015) found that increased social dominance orientation, a
conservative political attitude, was associated with less concern for PC. Lalonde et al. (2000)
also examined the relationship between PC and existing measures of political ideologies.
However, they approached PC philosophy from an alternative angle. They based their study on
the theoretical idea that the PC debate causes symbolic threat, which in turn increases intergroup
differentiation. It was therefore hypothesized that identification with social groups or political
ideologies associated with different sides of the PC debate, would lead to differential
endorsement of stereotypical PC representations.

Specifically, Lalonde et al. (2000) predicted that advocates of right-wing ideologies would more
likely believe in the left-wing stereotype: that proponents of PC threaten values of individualism
and freedom of speech. Likewise, members of disadvantaged groups and advocates of left-wing
ideologies would more likely believe in the right-wing stereotype: that opponents of PC threaten
values of representativeness and equality. The endorsement of either stereotype is an acceptance
of a polarized view of a group of individuals. This polarization is the essential feature of
intergroup differentiation. In agreement with their hypothesis, Lalonde et al. (2000) found that
increased conservative attitudes were associated with belief in the stereotype of left wingers,
while increased liberal attitudes were associated with belief in the stereotypes of the right-
wingers.. Protestant ethic and belief meritocracy ideology were the conservative attitudes that
were measured, while attitude towards equity was the liberal attitude that was measured. Though
Lalonde et al. (2000) used a modified approach to understand the PC construct, their findings,
and those of Strauts and Blanton (2015), still support the political basis of PC beliefs, and its
relationship to liberal values.
 11

Authoritarianism is another political attitude examined by PC researchers. The findings on its

relationship to PC have been mixed, however. Strauts and Blanton (2015) found that the
relationship between concern for politically correct language and Right Wing Authoritarianism
(RWA) was not consistent or robust. Contrarily, Lalonde et al. (2000) found that increased RWA
was associated with belief in the stereotypes of left wingers, such that there was a negative
relationship between PC and RWA. This variance in the results could simply be highlighting,
again, the hypothesized difference between PC language and beliefs. The results of Suedfeld et
al. (1994), however, shed doubt on this conclusion. They found that individuals who scored high
on authoritarianism endorsed a significantly more pro-censorship viewpoint than low scorers. In
other words, this study found a positive relationship between PC and authoritarianism.

The review of past studies reveals that researchers have found both a positive and negative
relationship between PC and authoritarianism. There are a few possible explanations for this
discrepancy. First, it could be that the authoritarianism scale used in the Suedfeld et al. (1994)
study is invalid. All items on the California F-scale are coded in the same direction; meaning
agreement to any item indicates an authoritarian response (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson,
& Sanford, 1950). This makes the scale sensitive to an acquiescent response style, which means
participant data could be inaccurate (Jackson & Messick, 1958). Second, this discrepancy could
be caused by the fact that the Lalonde et al. (2000) study is not directly measuring the
relationship between political attitudes and PC beliefs, but rather the effect of these attitudes on
acceptance of PC stereotypes. Third, Strauts and Blanton (2015) and Lalonde et al. (2000) are
using a right-wing authoritarianism scale. To draw any reliable conclusions, a left-wing
authoritarianism scale should also be used to analyze PC. The left-wing scale of Altemeyer
(1996) contains the same attitudes as his RWA scale, except he changes one of the three clusters.
In his LWA scale, he uses submission to revolutionary authorities that want to overthrow the
established authorities, as opposed to submission to the established ones. This change could alter
the pattern of PC-authoritarianism research results.

A fourth reason for this discrepancy could be that the samples utilized in these studies were not
completely representative of the political spectrum. To date, left-wing authoritarianism has only
been found in political activist samples with left-wing extremists (Van Hiel, Duriez, &
Kossowska, 2006), and societies where the communist ideology has dominated for several
decades (de Regt, Mortelmans, & Smits, 2010; Enyedi & Todosijevic, 2002; Krauss, 2002;
 12

McFarland, Ageyev, & Abalakina-Paap, 1992, 1993; McFarland, Ageyev, & Djintcharadze,
1996; Pentony et al., 2000; Todosijevic, 2005, 2006; Todosijevic & Enyedi, 2008a, 2008b).
Finally, it could be that authoritarianism is only related to certain specific categories of PC
beliefs, such as censorship.

An 11-year longitudinal study by Trenton (1994) on puritanism and political belief added yet
another dimension to the authoritarianism-PC discussion. In this study, changes in the patterns of
belief were tracked over time. From the results, Trenton (1994) derived a two-dimensional
understanding of political ideology. The two dimensions were liberalism and puritanism.
According to this study, PC is a liberal-puritan hybrid. Understanding the puritan aspect of PC
has not been straightforward. Though puritanism has traditionally been related to religiosity,
Trenton (1994) found religion to have little relationship with PC. A similar finding was
discovered in the Suedfeld et al. (1994) censorship study. Trenton (1994) therefore suggested
that PC is instead a secular puritanism that utilizes the state and media, as opposed to religion, to
dictate moral direction, equity, and restraint. It would therefore seem that the latent variable that
relates this modern puritanism to the traditional one is authoritarianism (Zafirovski, 2007).
Furthermore, these results suggest that PC may be a combination of liberal and puritan or
authoritarian ideology.

As can be seen from a review of the literature, there are very few empirical studies examining the
structure of PC. Furthermore, the measures of PC that do exist are narrow in the range of topics
that they cover, and only measure either PC language or PC beliefs. To develop a clear
understanding of this ideology and how it relates to political belief, a more comprehensive scale
is required – perhaps one that covers both proposed aspects of PC. Additionally, an analysis into
the relationship of personality and PC may help to further our understanding of the relationship
between puritanism, authoritarianism, and PC.

1.9 PC and individual differences research

Just as there is a paucity of research on the construct of PC, very few studies have been
published on its relationship to individual differences. To date, studies have only found clear
gender and group membership effects for PC beliefs. Specifically, women have been found to be
more politically correct than men (Lalonde et al., 2000; Suedfeld et al., 1994; Trenton, 1994).
Likewise, individuals who identify with historically repressed groups have been found to be
 13

more politically correct, when the PC belief category is relevant to them (Barker, 1994). No
research has been done on the effects of differences, for example, in personality, intelligence,
and disgust sensitivity, on attitudes towards PC. These individual differences however, have
been found to be strongly associated with differences in political belief, as well as the tendency
for socially desirable responding. Fairly precise hypotheses can therefore be derived, based on
the above hypothesis that PC beliefs are related to political belief, and PC language is related to
social desirability.

Liberal beliefs have been consistently and positively associated with Openness-Intellect, while
conservatives score higher on Conscientiousness (D. R. Carney, Jost, Gosling, & Potter, 2008;
Goldberg & Rosolack, 1994; Jost, 2006). Analysis at the aspect level of personality however, has
proven to provide a more nuanced understanding of this relationship. Hirsh, DeYoung, Xu, and
Peterson (2010), for example, found the Compassion aspect of Agreeableness to be positively
associated with liberalism and egalitarianism. Contrarily, the Politeness aspect of Agreeableness
and the Orderliness aspect of Conscientiousness were found to be positively associated with
conservatism and moral traditionalism. Openness-Intellect was also associated with conservatism
and traditionalism, only negatively so. Hirsh et al. (2010) concluded that this division of
personality traits supports the two-dimension model of political belief (Eysenck, 1954, 1975;
Rokeach, 1973). Specifically, they found that the value domains of egalitarianism and order-
traditionalism are empirically distinct from one another and can vary independently within any
individual. As stated above, the core political value of PC beliefs appears to be egalitarianism. It
is therefore likely that the Compassion aspect of Agreeableness will be most related to PC
beliefs. The Openness aspect of Openness-Intellect may also be associated to a lesser extent,
because being a proponent of PC attitudes requires thought that is critical of or departs from
tradition.

Regarding PC language, predictions about its relationship with personality will also follow from
the hypothesis offered previously: that it is more about impression management than deeper
political beliefs. Previous research on Conscientiousness has found that individuals with higher
scores on this factor tend to be more concerned with impression management (Barrick & Mount,
1996; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996; Paulhus, Bruce, & Trapnell, 1995). Specifically, it is
likely that the Industriousness aspect of Conscientiousness causes individuals to be deliberate,
cautious, and governed by their conscience. Applied to PC, this means that they will think
 14

through the consequences of using various labels, and consistently choose to apply the PC term.
It is therefore hypothesized that the Industriousness aspect of Conscientiousness will be
associated with PC language. Additionally, Agreeableness has also been found by researchers to
be associated with impression management (Collani & Grumm, 2009). It is therefore also
hypothesized that there will be a positive relationship between PC language and both aspects of
Agreeableness.

While the cognitive components of PC, such as political belief and social desirability, provide
the foundation for the content of this construct, the motivation towards politically correct action
is believed to stem from a more emotional underpinning. Specifically, it is hypothesized that the
emotion linked to moral disgust is the driving force. Disgust sensitivity has consistently and
positively been associated with conservatism (Inbar, Pizarro, & Bloom, 2009). That does not
however seem completely correct, since liberals often describe behavior that produces harm as
disgusting. Resolution of this discrepancy appears to lie in the source of the disgust emotion. The
liberal disgust seems to be based in a repulsion from immoral (i.e., unjust, harmful) behavior
whereas the conservative one is based in a repulsion from the physically disagreeable (i.e.,
impure). What is more, research has begun to suggest that moral and visceral disgust are in fact
two separate constructs (R. Herz, 2011; Parkinson et al., 2011; Simpson, Carter, Anthony, &
Overton, 2006; Tybur, Lieberman, & Griskevicius, 2009). This is likely due to the fact that only
visceral transgressors elicit the actual disgust emotion, whereas moral transgressors produce
anger (Gutierrez, Giner-Sorolla, & Vasiljevic, 2012; R. S. Herz & Hinds, 2013; Horberg, Oveis,
Keltner, & Cohen, 2009; Nabi, 2002; Olatunji et al., 2012; Royzman & Sabini, 2001; Rozin,
Haidt, & Fincher, 2009). Therefore, individuals may develop politically correct attitudes because
they experience moral disgust or anger towards inequality and discrimination. This hypothesis is
supported by the findings of Strauts and Blanton (2015). They found that the expression of
disapproval towards politically incorrect humor was completely mediated by the anger item of
the offensiveness scale, with no indirect effect through the disgust one. Content analysis of the
Big Five aspects revealed that the Volatility aspect of Neuroticism appears to be the most related
to anger. It is therefore hypothesized that aspect Volatility, in particular, will be positively
associated with PC beliefs, while measures of visceral disgust will have no significant
association.
 15

Finally, research on intelligence and political belief is mixed. Some scholars have argued that
conservative political ideologies tend to be associated with lower intelligence (Stankov, 2009).
Others have proposed that it is moderation in political view that is associated with higher
intelligence (Rindermann, Flores-Mendoza, & Woodley, 2012), while others have proposed that
is associated with the extremes (Kemmelmeier, 2008). More nuanced views have also been
proposed. Recent theories believe that higher intelligence simply causes the fluctuation of
political views in accordance with changing social norms (Woodley, 2010), or that it leads to
greater support for liberal social policies and conservative economic regulation (Gerber, Huber,
Doherty, Dowling, & Ha, 2010).

Despite these confusing outcomes, the existence and direction of an IQ-PC relationship can be
inferred from indirect findings. First, it was found that the top performing professors in elite
Universities tend to identify with being politically incorrect (Simmons, 2008). Second, areas of
study that have been associated with higher IQs (e.g., engineering, physics, mathematics) are
typically characterized by political incorrectness (Lalonde et al., 2000; Simmons, 2008). Finally,
theoretical reasoning of this relationship would lead one to assume that belief in the PC ideology
is likely associated with low verbal intelligence. Ideologies provide a simplified view of the
world and a clear set of rules to live by. This can be very helpful for individuals who expend
little effort on information processing, and would prefer to make quick, simplified judgments
based on a given schema (Leeson, Heaven, & Ciarrochi, 2012). It is therefore hypothesized that
PC is negatively related to IQ.

While hypotheses can be derived from research on political belief, the examination of PC and
individual differences will fill several holes and resolve a few of the debates in political research.
A greater understanding of left-wing ideological belief and its relationship to personality will
help further shed some light on the structure of political values. Furthermore, examination of the
IQ-PC association may help sort out the confusion surrounding the effects of intelligence on
political belief.

1.10 Hypotheses
1. A fundamental difference will be found between individuals who use politically correct
language and those who adopt politically correct beliefs. This will be visible both in factor
structure and relationships to individual differences.
 16

2. There will be a relationship between PC and authoritarianism.

3. The use of politically correct language will be affected by concern for social desirability,
whereas adoption of politically correct attitudes will be affected by political belief. The
relationship of politically correct language to impression management will be proven by a
positive relationship of politically correct language with the Industrious aspect of
Conscientiousness, and the Politeness and Compassion aspects of Agreeableness. Likewise,
the relationship of politically correct attitudes to liberal political belief will be surmised from
a positive association between politically correct beliefs with the Compassion aspect of
Agreeableness, and the Openness aspect of Openness-Intellect.

4. Verbal intelligence will correlate negatively with PC.

5. PC will be related to moral but not visceral disgust. This will be evidenced in a positive
relationship between PC and the Volatility aspect of Neuroticism, and an insignificant
relationship between PC and disgust sensitivity.
 17

2 Methods
2.1 Participants
468 participants were recruited online through Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk;
www.mturk.com), an online crowdsourcing marketplace. On mTurk, potential employers (i.e.,
Requesters) upload descriptive information for a task (i.e., Job) they want to have completed.
This includes, but is not limited to information on what the task entails, how long it takes to
complete, compensation, and employee restrictions (e.g., only North American residents).
Interested employees (i.e, Workers) then use this information to select which tasks they wish to
complete. The Requesters evaluate the completed Jobs, and compensate the Workers whose Job
is deemed high quality. The Workers are each identified by a unique “mTurk Worker ID”.
Several studies have validated this online approach to research, by demonstrating that these
methods produce results similar to in-lab procedures (Chuah, Drasgow, & Roberts, 2006).
Specifically, recent studies of mTurk found that this service produced data that are as reliable as
data generated by traditional methods and that mTurk participants are more diverse than standard
Internet samples and college samples (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Goodman, Cryder,
& Cheema, 2013; Paolacci, Chandler, & Ipeirotis, 2010). In this study, mTurk participants were
limited to residents in North America. Additionally, to ensure quality, participants were
restricted to have an overall work approval rating of 95% or greater (based on previously
completed Jobs), and 100 or more Jobs approved. 239 were male and 229 were female. Ages
ranged from 18 to 83, with the average age being 34.1 years. The ethnic distribution was 83.5%
white, 7.5% black, 6% Latin American, 2.6% Chinese, 2.4% Southeast Asian, 1.5% Aboriginal,
1.3% Filipino, 0.9% Japanese, 0.4% South Asian, 0.4% Arabic, and 0.6% other. All participants
were native English speakers (n=453), or were fluent in the language and spoke it for 14 or more
years (n=15).

2.2 Materials
2.2.1 Demographics
This questionnaire was used to assess information such as age, gender, highest level of education
completed by the parents and individual, household and personal annual income, race or cultural
group, and religious affiliation.
 18

2.2.2 Political Correctness

An item pool, tapping into the beliefs and language use of politically correct individuals, was
created on the basis of accounts from news articles, books, and research papers on the topic. The
item pool was then reviewed and added to by faculty and graduate students. The final 203 items
were designed to determine the structure of the concept of political correctness, as well as
measure the level of political correctness in individuals.

2.2.3 Personality
The 100-item self-report Big Five Aspect Scale (DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007) was used
to assess the five factors of personality, and their ten aspects. Participants rated, on a 5-point
Likert scale, the extent each item described them generally. This questionnaire included 10
scales (i.e., one for each of the aspects) comprised of 10 items. Aspect scale scores were created
by averaging the items (with appropriate reversals). Scores of the five factors were computed by
averaging scores for the two aspect scales in each domain. The five factors are Neuroticism,
Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Extraversion. The two aspects of Neuroticism
include Volatility and Withdrawal. The aspects of Openness are Openness to Experience and
Intellect. Conscientiousness subsumes the aspects of Industriousness and Orderliness. The two
aspects of Agreeableness are Compassion and Politeness. Finally, the aspects of Extraversion are
Enthusiasm and Assertiveness. The BFAS has been validated against standard Big Five
measurements, such as the Big Five Inventory (BFI, mean r = .88) and the Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R, mean r = .82) (DeYoung et al., 2007). This scale also
demonstrates internal (mean α = .83) and test–retest (mean r = .81) reliability. Furthermore,
although the aspects from each domain are correlated with each other, they are also characterized
by reasonable and meaningful discriminant validity (DeYoung et al., 2007), and are not
correlated so strongly (mean r = .44) as to present a problem of collinearity when using pairs of
aspects as simultaneous predictors in multiple regression. The BFAS thus provides a good
assessment of the broad Big Five domains and provides the additional advantage of assessing an
empirically derived aspect level of personality. This approach has proven to be useful in past
research on political belief, because it provides a more nuanced understanding of the underlying
dimensions (Hirsh et al., 2010).
 19

2.2.4 Intelligence
The Vocabulary and Information subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV (WAIS-
IV; Wechsler, 2009) were used to assess intelligence. Both were indicators of verbal or
crystallized intelligence. The Vocabulary subtest required participants to select from a multiple
choice list, the correct meaning of words presented in isolation. The Information subtest
measured the ability of participants to acquire, retain, and retrieve general factual knowledge.
Raw scores for both subtests were scaled to obtain age appropriate scores.

2.2.5 Disgust Sensitivity

The 27-item Disgust Scale-Revised (Olatunji et al., 2007) was used to measure disgust
sensitivity corresponding to the three factors of core (i.e., foods, small animals, body products),
animal-reminder (i.e., death, body envelope violations), and contamination (i.e., interpersonal)
disgust. Items 12 and 16 were used to identify poor responders, while the remaining 25 items
were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 (strongly disagree or very untrue about me) to 4
(strongly agree or very true about me).

2.3 Procedure
All study components were completed over the Internet via online survey software (Qualtrics &
mTurk). The questionnaires took approximately 1.5 hours to complete, and were be filled in all
at one time. Participants granted written informed consent and then proceeded to complete the
demographics, political correctness, personality, intelligence, and disgust sensitivity
questionnaires.
 20

3 Results
3.1 Checks for attention, honesty, and outliers
The total sample of 468 was reduced to 332. The majority of the discarded subjects were
removed because of IP address duplication. The remainder were removed due to inattention or
cheating. These participants were screened using attention filter and trap questions. First, six
items on the personality questionnaire asked participants to select a particular response on the
Likert scale (e.g., “select ‘Disagree’”). All participants who did not respond correctly to these
items were discarded. Second, six questions on the WAIS-IV Vocabulary subtest, and 3
questions on the Information subtest were impossible because they required a very specific
knowledge of the topic or word. Individuals who got more than 3 of these questions correct on
either test, were assumed to be using their computer to search for the right answer, and were
therefore removed. Third, question number 12 and 16 on the on the Disgust Scale-Revised asked
questions such as, “I would rather eat a piece of fruit than a piece of paper”, and “how disgusting
would you find…. seeing a person eating an apple with a knife and fork”. Participants who
selected “strongly disagree” or “not disgusting at all”, or “disagree” or “slightly disgusting” in
response to these questions, were also discarded. Finally, one outlier was removed. This
participant had a standard score on the BFAS Openness aspect four standard deviations below
the mean. Additionally, its Mahalanobis D2 = 37.53033, p < .001 for personality. Examination of
casewise diagnostics, including Mahalanobis Distance and Cook’s Distance, revealed two other
potential outliers, however further examination of their data points demonstrated that there were
no distinguishing features giving clear grounds for eliminating them.

The remaining sample consisted of 162 males and 170 females. Ages ranged from 19 to 83, with
the mean age being 34.78 years. 84.3% were white, 5.7% black, 6.3% Latin American, 2.7%
Chinese, 2.7% Southeast Asian, 0.9% Aboriginal, 1.5% Filipino, 0.9% Japanese, 0.9% South
Asian, 0.6% Arabic, and 0.3% other.

3.2 PC scale item reduction to subscale scores

For two reasons, a variety of question types were used to measure PC. First, it would lead to a
more comprehensive understanding of the construct. Second, the variance in questioning would
aid in the maintenance of subject interest and attention, increasing the likelihood of accurate
 21

responding. See Figure 1 for the steps that were taken to derive subscale scores from the overall
PC scale.

To score the questionnaire, items were first divided subjectively by type according to their
sentence structure (see Appendix B). The ten resultant groups were attitudes, language,
sensitivity to offense, sensitivity to right wing name insults, sensitivity to sexist insults, belief
that demographic discrepancies demonstrate system injustice, inclination towards censorship,
proclivity for punitive measures, behavioral offense, and general partiality for PC. Seven
questions were not included in any group because their scales and question content did not match
each other, or any of the previously mentioned ten groups. Additionally, their topics were
superficially unrelated, so they could not be combined into their own group.

After categorization, the individual items for the language PC scale had to be scored (see
Appendix A: Question 40-110). The possible responses for each question were divided and
scored according to their political correctness. Specifically, participants got a point for being
politically correct not only if they selected a politically correct response, but also if they did not
select a politically incorrect response. Likewise, they got a point for being politically incorrect if
they selected a politically incorrect response as well as if they didn’t select a politically correct
response. Each language question therefore had two times its number of options, in points. The
politically incorrect points were then subtracted from the politically correct ones to get the total
score for that question.

The third step was deriving a participant score for each scale. Subjective analysis of the ten
subscales determined that eight of them had largely homogenous items (see Appendix B), and
would therefore not lose any dimensionality by creating a summed score for each. These
subscales included language, sensitivity to sexist and right wing name insults, system injustice,
censorship, punishment, behavioral offense, and general PC. Cronbach’s alphas were measured
to confirm this analysis, and are listed in Table 1 with the means and standard deviations.
Initially, the alpha levels for all the subscales, except behavioral offense and sensitivity to right
 22

wing name insults, were above .90, indicating strong internal consistency. The alpha level for the
2
overall PC scale was .967 .

After examining the inter-item correlations, questions that would increase reliability if removed
were discarded (see Table 2 for index of which items were excluded in the process of creating
scale scores and for what reasons). These included 6 items from the language scale, 4 items from
the censorship and behavioral offense scales, and 1 item from the sensitivity to sexist insults and
general PC scales. The removal of these items caused all alphas to be greater than .90, except
3
sensitivity to right wing name insults, which still remained at a very good level (α=0.84) . The
remaining items for each scale were then summed to create eight sub-scale totals.

The remaining two scales, attitudes and sensitivity to offense, also had strong internal
consistency (α >.90). A high level of alpha does not guarantee unidimensionality however, nor
does it necessarily indicate high average inter-item correlations (Cortina, 1993; Schmitt, 1996).
Subjective analysis of these scales’ items indicated that they covered a broad range of topics, and
could therefore benefit from further dimension reduction. Exploratory factor analysis (FA), using
a principal components approach was used to reduce the data from these two questionnaires, to a
set of sub-scale sum scores. This method was possible because all required assumptions were
met. Review of the inter-item correlations and scatterplots indicated linearity was a reasonable
assumption for both scales. Additionally, the ratio of participants:items was 8:1, which is well
above the recommended 5:1 necessary for factor analysis.

The first FA for the attitudes subscale was run with direct oblimin rotation. Researchers have
recommended beginning with oblique as opposed to orthogonal rotation. One of the reasons for
this is that psychological phenomena should first be assumed to correlate. Furthermore, oblique
rotation produces an orthogonal solution if it is appropriate (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Kahn,
2006; Reise, Waller, & Comrey, 2000). Ten factors with Eigenvalues > 1.0 were extracted.

2
To calculate the participants’ overall PC score, the 15 scale scores and 7 uncategorized item scores were
standardized and averaged.
3
Four of the subscales had alphas >.95, which could signify item redundancy. This possibility was taken into
consideration when creating the more parsimonious version of the overall PC scale. During this process, items
exhibiting multicollinearity (i.e., Tolerance <.2, VIF >.5, positive correlation but negative regression coefficient)
were removed.
 23

Examination of the anti-image matrix, the KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy, and Bartlett’s
Test of Sphericity revealed that the data would support the use of factor analysis. One item was
removed, however, because its correlation coefficient on the diagonal of the anti-image matrix
was .576, below the acceptable level of 0.6. The remaining coefficients were above the
recommended level, with the lowest being 0.676 and the highest 0.946. Additionally, the KMO
statistic (KMO = 0.882) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (χ2(703) = 5534.990, p<.001) were
significant. The inter-item correlation matrix contained several inter-factor correlations greater
than .3, so direct oblimin rotation as opposed to an orthogonal rotation was maintained.

Another FA was run with direct oblimin rotation on the remaining 40 attitude items (KMO=.884,
Bartlett’s χ2(780)= 5471.409, p<.001). Ten factors with Eigenvalues > 1.0 were again extracted.
There were a high number of item cross-loadings >.3 however, and a few factors only had two
items. Review of the Scree Plot and Eigenvalues revealed that a three to six factor solution
might produce more interpretable results.

The FA was re-run forcing six, five, four, and three factor solutions. The six and five factor
solutions had a high number of item cross-loadings, and one of the factors in each had only two
main loadings (involving two questions that were almost identical). Additionally, though the
three-factor solution appeared to be the most viable from the Scree Plot, it did not capture
enough item variance. The four-factor solution had at least 3 items loading highly on each factor.
Those items were interpretable as a coherent factor, and the model was parsimonious, while still
capturing an adequate proportion of the variance. The factor correlation matrix indicated again
that oblique rotation should be used as opposed to orthogonal, since one inter-factor correlation
was >.3. The direct oblimin rotation solution was therefore supported.

The pattern matrix was examined for appropriate main loadings, minimal cross-loadings, and
high face validity. Problem items were discarded one at a time, with the FA re-run after each.
Eighteen items were removed because their main loading was <.5, nine of which also had high
cross-loading. The remaining 22 items had main factor loadings >.5, cross loadings <.32, and at
least four items per factor. The first factor represented ‘sexual propriety’, the second
‘censorship’, the third ‘punitive justice’, and the fourth ‘egalitarian beliefs and policy’ (see Table
3 for items’ factor loadings, Eigenvalues, communalities, and percent of variance explained).
 24

Each of the four attitude subscales was then analyzed for internal reliability. Means, standard
deviations, and Cronbach’s alphas are reported in Table 4. Two more items were removed from
the Egalitarian Beliefs and Policy subscale, to increase reliability. The final alphas of the four
subscales were all acceptable (α>0.6). The remaining items for each scale were then summed to
create four more sub-scale totals.

Finally, the offense sensitivity questions were divided into subscales using exploratory factor
analysis. FA was run with direct oblimin rotation on the items. Five factors with Eigenvalues >
1.0 were extracted. Examination of the anti-image matrix, the KMO Measure of Sampling
Adequacy, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity revealed that the data would support the use of factor
analysis. The anti-image matrix diagonal coefficients were above the recommended level, with
the lowest being 0.619 and the highest 0.961. Additionally, the KMO statistic (KMO = 0.899)
and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (χ2(276) = 4145.013, p<.001) were significant. One of the
factors had only two items with loadings >.5. Additionally, the Scree Plot indicated that a three-
or four-factor solution might be a better fit.

The FA was re-run forcing four and three factor solutions. Though the four-factor solution
captured more variance, the last factor grouped together only vaguely related items. This
conclusion was supported with a reliability analysis. After removing items with low main
loadings and high cross-factor loading, the fourth factor still had an unacceptable reliability
(α<0.5). The three-factor solution was therefore used because it grouped the items together in the
most parsimonious yet interpretable way. Examination of the factor correlation matrix indicated
that orthogonal rotation could be used, since all inter-factor correlations were <.3.

The forced three-factor FA was re-run with varimax rotation, and the rotated component matrix
was examined for appropriate main loadings, minimal cross-loadings, and high face validity.
Problem items were discarded one at a time, with the FA re-run after each. Three items were
removed because their main loading was <.5, three because their cross-loading was >.32, and
one more because of a combination of these two reasons. The remaining 17 items had main
factor loadings >.5, cross loadings <.32, and at least four items per factor. The first factor
represented ‘offence to racial discrimination’, the second ‘offence to language highlighting a
power differential’, and the third ‘offence to the mockery of right wing attitudes and concerns’
 25

(see Table 5 for items’ factor loadings, Eigenvalues, communalities, and percent of variance
explained).

Each of the three offense sensitivity subscales was then analyzed for internal reliability. Means,
standard deviations, and Chronbach’s alphas are reported in Table 6. One more item was
removed from both the offence to racial discrimination and offense to right wing beliefs
subscales, to increase reliability. The final alphas of the three subscales were all acceptable
(α>0.6). The remaining items for each scale were then summed to create three more sub-scale
totals.

3.3 Factor Analyses

The 15 subscale scores and 7 uncategorized items were then examined for violations of the
assumption of normality. Since all had skew and/or kurtosis values less than +/-1.0, the scores
were treated as normally distributed. These 15 subscale scores and 7 uncategorized items were
then entered into a FA with maximum likelihood extraction and direct oblimin rotation. Five
factors with Eigenvalues > 1.0 were extracted (KMO=.835, Bartlett’s χ2(231)= 2132.874,
p<.001). One of the factors had only two items with loadings >.5 however. Review of the Scree
Plot and Eigenvalues revealed that a two to four-factor solution might produce more
parsimonious and interpretable results.

The FA was re-run forcing four, three, and two factor solutions. While all these solutions had
more than three items loading highly on each factor, only the two and three-factor solutions had
almost no cross-loadings. Additionally, low factor correlations for the two and three-factor
solutions indicated that orthogonal rotation could be used as opposed to oblique. The two and
three-factor solutions were therefore re-run with varimax rotation. Examination of the
component matrix for both solutions revealed that one uncategorized item was not loading >.32
on any factor. Additionally, in the three-factor solution, the behavioral offense sub-scale did not
load >.32 on any factor, while in the two-factor solution, the “offense to language highlighting a
power differential” sub-scale had no high loadings. These sub-scales were therefore removed
from their respective analyses. Again, the two (KMO=.838, Bartlett’s χ2(190)= 2029.847,
p<.001) and three-factor analyses were run (KMO=.839, Bartlett’s χ2(190)= 2001.001, p<.001),
and factor scores were saved. Both the two and three-factor solutions again met the criteria for a
valid factor solution. They both had low overall cross-loadings, and at least three items per factor
 26

with main-loadings >.5. The third factor in the three-factor solution specifically however, had
four out of seven items with cross-loadings >.32. Furthermore, its highest loading items were
seemingly peripheral to the PC construct. The third factor’s relative weakness lead to the two-
factor solution being chosen as the core of further analysis. The three-factor solution was still
maintained however, because it met the basic FA requirements and made theoretical sense. Not
only did it embody the popular understanding of PC, but also related to findings of Strauts and
Blanton (2015) (i.e., that there’s a link between political correctness and a general tendency to
take offence). The factors for the three-factor solution were labeled Liberalism,
Authoritarianism, and Political Correctness respectively (see Table 7 for items’ factor loadings,
Eigenvalues, and percent variance explained). The factors for the two-factor solution were
labeled PC-Liberalism and PC-Authoritarianism respectively (see Table 8 for items’ factor
loadings, Eigenvalues, and percent variance explained). Finally, to create an overall PC score,
the 15 scale scores and 7 uncategorized item scores were standardized and averaged. These
scores were labeled PC total.

3.4 Relation of PC factor scores to related constructs

Correlation and multiple regression analyses were then conducted to examine the relationship
between PC and personality, intelligence, and disgust sensitivity. The zero-order correlations for
the two-factor solution are presented in Table 9, for the three-factor solution in Table 10, and for
the total PC score in Table 11, while the basic descriptive statistics are in Table 12. To correct
for multiple exploratory comparisons, a significance level of .003 (.05/19 comparisons) was used
for the correlations. Correlations with corresponding p values <.05 will be reported, but
interpreted with caution. Extreme univariate outliers identified in the initial data screening
remained excluded. Also, to prevent violation of singularity, the individual BFAS aspect scores
and WAIS-IV subtests were entered in a separate regression analysis from the combined factor
scores and measure of crystallized intelligence. Furthermore, to prevent violation of linearity,
only variables with significant zero-order correlations were entered in the regression.

Examination of the collinearity statistics, the Durbin-Watson statistic, and Mahalanobis scores,
as well as residual and scatter plots indicated all remaining relevant assumptions for regression
were met. A hierarchical regression was done for each of the PC factors, simultaneously entering
relevant intelligence variables in the first step, and personality in the second. This was done to
 27

determine which variables significantly predicted an individual’s level of PC-Liberalism and PC-
Authoritarianism, and if personality had incremental validity over intelligence in this equation.

In the two-factor solution, PC-Liberalism factor scores correlated with p<.003 with: aspect
Politeness (BFAS; r=.177); aspect Compassion (BFAS; r=.222); aspect Openness (BFAS;
r=.239); trait Agreeableness (Big-5; r=.22); trait Openness (Big-5; r=.223); IQ Vocabulary
(WAIS-IV; r=.23); Crystallized Intelligence (WAIS-IV; r=.198); and with p of nearly .003 with
aspect Intellect (BFAS; r=.157, p=.004).

When the relevant BFAS traits and crystallized intelligence scores were hierarchically entered as
predictors of PC-Liberalism, a significant regression equation was found at step one (R2=.039
adjusted R2=.036, F(1, 329)=13.456, p<.001) and step two (R2=.088, adjusted R2=.079, F(3,
327)=10.462, p<.001) (see Table 13 for regression coefficients). Additionally, personality factors
showed significant incremental validity in the prediction of PC-Liberalism, accounting for an
additional 4.8% (p<.001). Only crystallized intelligence however, emerged as a strong and
unique predictor of PC-Liberalism (p<.01).

When the relevant BFAS aspects and IQ Vocabulary were entered as predictors, a significant
regression equation was again found at step one (R2=.052 adjusted R2=.049, F(1, 329)=18.159,
p<.001) and two (R2=.118 adjusted R2=.105, F(5, 325)=8.709, p<.001) (see Table 14 for
regression coefficients). Also, personality aspects showed significant incremental validity in the
prediction of PC-Liberalism, accounting for an additional 6.6% (p<.001). In this model, both IQ
Vocabulary (p<.001) and aspect Openness (p<.01) emerged as unique predictors of PC-
Liberalism.

PC-Authoritarianism factor scores correlated with p<.003 with: aspect Orderliness (BFAS;
r=.162); IQ Vocabulary (WAIS-IV; r=-.45); IQ Knowledge (WAIS-IV; r=-.261); Crystallized
Intelligence (WAIS-IV; r=-.417); and with p nearly .003 with trait Conscientiousness (Big-5;
r=.149, p=.007).

PC-Authoritarianism correlated with more modest p values with: aspect Compassion (BFAS;
r=.114, p=.038); aspect Industriousness (BFAS; r=.118, p=.032); and aspect Enthusiasm (BFAS;
r=.12, p= .029).
 28

When trait Conscientiousness and crystallized intelligence scores were hierarchically entered as
predictors of PC-Authoritarianism, a significant regression equation was found at step one
(R2=.174 adjusted R2=.171, F(1, 329)=69.213, p<.001) and step two (R2=.193, adjusted R2=.188,
F(2, 328)=39.277, p<.001) (see Table 15 for regression coefficients). Additionally, personality
factors showed a moderately significant incremental validity in the prediction of PC-
Authoritarianism, accounting for an additional 1.9% (p<.01). Both crystallized intelligence
(p<.001) and trait Conscientiousness (p<.01) emerged as unique predictors of PC-
Authoritarianism.

When the Orderliness aspect, and IQ Vocabulary and IQ Knowledge were entered as predictors,
a significant regression equation was again found at step one (R2=.206 adjusted R2=.201, F(2,
328)=42.556, p<.001) and two (R2=.225 adjusted R2=.218, F(3, 327)=31.628, p<.001) (see Table
16 for regression coefficients). Also, a moderately significant incremental validity effect was
found for personality aspects, accounting for an additional 1.9% of the variance in PC-
Authoritarianism. In this model, both IQ Vocabulary (p<.001) and aspect Orderliness (p<.01)
emerged as unique predictors.

In the three-factor solution, PC-Liberalism factor scores correlated with p<.003 with: aspect
Openness (BFAS; r=.2); trait Openness (Big-5; r=.182); IQ Vocabulary (WAIS-IV; r=.195); and
with p nearly .003 with aspect Compassion (BFAS; r=.149, p=.006); trait Agreeableness (Big-5;
r=.152, p=.006); and Crystallized Intelligence (WAIS-IV; r=.153, p=.005).

PC-Liberalism correlated with more modest p values with: aspect Politeness (BFAS; r=.126,
p=.021); and aspect Intellect (BFAS; r=.124, p=.024).

When the relevant BFAS traits and crystallized intelligence scores were hierarchically entered as
predictors of liberalism, a moderately significant regression equation was found at step one
(R2=.024 adjusted R2=.021, F(1, 329)=7.978, p<.01) and a significant one at step two (R2=.054,
adjusted R2=.045, F(3, 327)=6.207, p<.001) (see Table 17 for regression coefficients).
Additionally, personality factors showed moderately significant incremental validity in the
prediction of liberalism, accounting for an additional 3.0% (p<.01). Only crystallized intelligence
however, emerged as a unique predictor of liberalism (p<.05), but it was not very strong. Trait
Openness almost reached significance (p<.05) at p=.056. Examination of the incremental validity
 29

of intelligence versus personality indicates that personality may be a more important predictor of
the Liberalism factor.

When the relevant BFAS aspects and IQ Vocabulary were entered as predictors, a significant
regression equation was again found at step one (R2=.037 adjusted R2=.034, F(1, 329)=12.736,
p<.001) and two (R2=.079 adjusted R2=.071, F(3, 327)=9.362, p<.001) (see Table 18 for
regression coefficients). Also, a significant incremental validity effect was found for personality
aspects, accounting for an additional 4.2% of the variance in liberalism. In this model, both IQ
vocabulary (p<.01) and aspect openness (p<.01) emerged as unique predictors.

Authoritarianism factor scores correlated with p<.003 with: aspect Orderliness (BFAS; r=.187);
IQ Vocabulary (WAIS-IV; r=-.511); IQ Knowledge (WAIS-IV; r=-.315); Crystallized
Intelligence (WAIS-IV; r=-.484); and with p nearly .003 with aspect Intellect (BFAS; r=-.143,
p=.009); and trait Conscientiousness (Big-5; r=.146, p=.008).

Authoritarianism correlated with more modest p values with: trait Openness (Big-5; r=-.108,
p=.050).

When the trait Conscientiousness and crystallized intelligence scores were hierarchically entered
as predictors of Authoritarianism, a significant regression equation was found at step one
(R2=.234 adjusted R2=.232, F(1, 329)=100.687, p<.01) and step two (R2=.252, adjusted R2=.248,
F(2, 328)=55.397, p<.001) (see Table 19 for regression coefficients). Additionally, personality
factors showed a moderately significant incremental validity in the prediction of
Authoritarianism, accounting for an additional 1.8% (p<.01). Both crystallized intelligence
(p<.001) and conscientiousness (p<.01) emerged as unique predictors of Authoritarianism.

When the relevant BFAS aspects, and IQ Vocabulary and IQ Knowledge were entered as
predictors, a significant regression equation was again found at step one (R2=.269 adjusted
R2=.265, F(2, 328)=60.484, p<.001) and two (R2=.300 adjusted R2=.291, F(4, 326)=34.883,
p<.001) (see Table 20 for regression coefficients). Also, a significant incremental validity effect
was found for personality aspects, accounting for an additional 3.0% of the variance in
Authoritarianism. In this model, both IQ vocabulary (p<.001) and aspect orderliness (p<.001)
emerged as strong, unique predictors.
 30

Political Correctness factor scores correlated with p<.003 with: aspect Politeness (BFAS;
r=.204); aspect Compassion (BFAS; r=.275); trait Agreeableness (Big-5; r=.265); and with p
nearly .003 with aspect Industriousness (BFAS; r=.145, p=.008); aspect Enthusiasm (BFAS;
r=.158, p=.004); aspect Openness (BFAS; r=.145, p=.008); trait Extraversion (Big-5; r=.141,
p=.010); and trait Openness (Big-5; r=.146, p=.008).

Political Correctness correlated with more modest p values with: aspect Intellect (BFAS; r=.114,
p=.038).

When the relevant BFAS trait scores were simultaneously entered as predictors of PC, a
significant regression equation was found (R2=.070 adjusted R2=.062, F(3, 327)=8.248, p<.001)
(see Table 21 for regression coefficients). Analysis of the regression coefficients revealed that
the Agreeableness is the only strong and unique predictor of PC (p<.001).

When the relevant BFAS aspects were entered as predictors, a significant regression equation
was again found (R2=.078 adjusted R2=.064, F(5, 325)=5.496, p<.001) (see Table 22 for
regression coefficients). In this model, only aspect Compassion emerged as a strong, unique
predictor of PC (p<.001).

A similar pattern of findings was found for PC Total as was found for factor three of the three-
factor solution. PC Total scores correlated with p<.003 with: aspect Politeness (BFAS; r=.182);
aspect Compassion (BFAS; r=.246); aspect Openness (BFAS; r=.184); and trait Agreeableness
(Big-5; r=.237).

PC Total correlated with more modest p values with: aspect Enthusiasm (BFAS; r=.131,
p=.017); and trait Openness (Big-5; r=.137, p=.012).

When trait Agreeableness was entered as a predictor of PC, a significant regression equation was
found (R2=.056 adjusted R2=.053, F(1, 331)=19.754, p<.001) (see Table 23 for regression
coefficients). Analysis of the regression coefficients revealed that the Agreeableness was a
strong and unique predictor of PC (p<.001).

When the relevant BFAS aspects were entered as predictors, a significant regression equation
was again found (R2=.063 adjusted R2=.055, F(3, 329)=7.402, p<.001) (see Table 24 for
 31

regression coefficients). In this model, aspect Compassion (p<.05) somewhat emerged as a

predictor.

3.5 Derivation of a PC scale

Selection of items for the final PC Scale was done in several steps. See Table 25 for a list of the
items, their correlations with the scale-level factor analysis factor scores, their factor loadings
from an item-level factor analysis, the item-factor correlation differences, the item-factor score
loading differences, and the reason for item exclusion. First, the items from all the subscales
were combined, and their correlations with each factor recorded. All items that were not
significantly correlated at p<.01, to either factor, were discarded. The items were then
reorganized in ascending order according to their difference in correlation to each factor score
(i.e., r with PC-Liberalism – r with PC-Authoritarianism). Only items with scale-level factor
correlations that differed by at least .10 were used.

Item correlations with scale-level factor scores only approximate the true correlations between
factors and variables. Item-factor loadings are required to provide this. Unfortunately, a sample
size of 333 is too small to run a valid factor analysis on 203 items. At least 1115 participants
would be required to reach the recommended 5:1 participant:variable ratio for factor analysis.
The item-level forced two-factor FA with varimax rotation, was therefore only used as a
guideline for item selection. The factor loadings for each item were recorded, and only items
with item-level factor loadings that differed by at least .10 were used.

Third, items with primary correlations <.2 with scale and item-level factors were discarded.
Additionally, items were also removed if their primary correlation was on a different factor in
each solution. Fourth, for each factor, items with low inter-item correlations were discarded to
increase internal consistency.

Finally, to create a more parsimonious questionnaire, regression analyses were done on the scale-
level factor scores. First, the remaining items were simultaneously regressed on the factor they
were most correlated to. Items exhibiting multicollinearity (i.e., Tolerance <.2, VIF >.5, positive
correlation but negative regression coefficient) were removed one at a time, with the regression
re-run after each. Second, a combination of hierarchical and stepwise regression was used to find
the least number of items to account for the most variability, while still maintaining the
 32

theoretical structure found in the scale-level factor analysis. Items were grouped by scale, and
entered in blocks in descending order, according to that scale’s factor loading. A stepwise
procedure was used in each block. With PC-Liberalism as the dependent variable, items from the
offense to racial discrimination subscale was entered at stage one, the egalitarian beliefs and
policies attitudes subscale at stage two, the language subscale at stage three, the system injustice
subscale at stage four, the proclivity to cultural or biological explanations subscale at stage five,
and the sexual propriety attitudes subscale at stage six. Nineteen items were selected. The
regression statistics for models’ fit can be seen in Table 26, and for the final set’s equation in
Table 27. The model was a significant predictor of PC-Liberalism scores (R2=.845, adjusted
R2=.835, F(19, 312) = 89.288, p<.001), indicating that the selected subset of items accounted for
83.5-84.5% of the variance in the original factor scores.

When PC-Authoritarianism was the dependent variable, items from the censorship subscale were
entered at stage one, the dictionary-related uncategorized items at stage two, the punitive justice
attitudes subscale at stage three, the offense to right wing belief discrimination subscale at stage
four, the punishment subscale at stage five, the censorship attitudes subscale at stage six, the
offense to right wing name calling subscale at stage seven, and the behavioral offense subscale at
stage eight. Sixteen items were selected. The regression statistics for models’ fit can be seen in
Table 28, and for the final set’s equation in Table 29. The model was a significant predictor of
PC-Authoritarianism scores (R2=.893, adjusted R2=.888, F(16, 315) = 164.590, p<.001),
indicating that the selected subset of items accounted for 88.8-89.3% of the variance in the
original factor scores.

Inter-item correlations were again examined for the remaining two sets of items. Cronbach’s
Alpha of the 19 standardized PC-Liberalism items was .858. Cronbach’s Alpha of the 17
standardized PC-Authoritarianism items was .811. Additionally, Cronbach’s Alpha of the total
36 standardized PC items was .863. Deletion of any item would have lowered α. See Table 30
for the final set of items for the shortened PC questionnaire.

3.6 Assessing properties of the PC scale scores

First, standardizing the item scores and then taking their average created the PC-Liberalism and
PC-Authoritarianism, and PC Total scale scores. Items had to be standardized as opposed to
summed, because the variety of scoring scales from the long PC questionnaire was maintained
 33

even after item reduction. Second, the distribution of the scores was explored. The PC-
Liberalism kurtosis and skew statistics were acceptable (i.e., <1.0), at -.352 (standard error=.266)
and -.140 (standard error=.134) respectively, though it did signify some negative skew in the
data. Likewise, the PC-Authoritarianism kurtosis and skew statistics were also acceptable (i.e.,
<1.0), at .428 (standard error=.266) and .694 (standard error=.134) respectively. Contrary to the
Liberalism data, the Authoritarianism data had some positive skew. Finally, the PC Total
kurtosis and skew statistics were also acceptable (i.e., <1.0), at -.220 (standard error=.266) and -
.219 (standard error=.134) respectively. The PC total data had some negative skew.

Because the item scores were standardized, the means of all scales are 0. The standard deviation
of the PC-Liberalism scale was 0.530, with the minimum value being -1.37 and the maximum,
1.15. Additionally, the standard deviation of the PC-Authoritarianism scale was 0.498, with the
minimum score being -.98 and the maximum 1.71. Finally, the PC total scale standard deviation
was 0.415, with the minimum being -1.16 and the maximum 1.05. PC scale scores could be
treated as normally distributed since skew and kurtosis statistics for all scales were <1.0. See
Table 31 for the scale statistics of the shortened PC scale and its two subscales.

3.7 Correlations of PC scores with other scales

The 19-item PC-Liberalism Scale (PCL-S) scores and 17-item PC-Authoritarianism Scale (PCA-
S) scores correlated very highly with the PC factor one scores (r=.892, p<.001) and PC factor
two scores (r=.892, p<.001) respectively. Similarly, the 36-item PC Total (PCT-S) scores
correlated nearly perfectly with the PC Total scores from the long questionnaire (r=.946,
p<.001). This indicated that very little of the factor scores’ nature was lost by calculating the
mean of the selected items.

Next, correlations between the shortened questionnaire’s scores (i.e., PCL-S, PCA-S, PCT-S),
the long questionnaire’s scores (i.e., PC-Liberalism, PC-Authoritarianism, PC Total, and the
personality, intelligence, and disgust scale scores were assessed. See Table 32 for PCL-S
correlation statistics, Table 33 for PCA-S correlation statistics, and Table 34 for PCT-S
correlation statistics. Patterns of correlations between the PCL-S, PCA-S, PCT-S and other
instruments were similar to those seen with the long PC questionnaire. Most changes in
correlations were very small, especially in the change to the PCL-S and PCT-S. Some changes
however, made the difference between non-significance and significance at the .003 level. PCA-
 34

S mean scores did not correlate significantly with aspect Orderliness (BFAS; r=.145, p=.008),
and PCT-S mean scores did not correlate significantly with aspect Politeness (BFAS; r=.145,
p=.008), though both are very close. Additionally, correlations of PCA-S mean scores with the
trait Conscientiousness (p<.01) and aspect Industriousness (p<.05) are respectively reduced to
significance at a p<.05 level or none at all. Other correlations that disappeared for this factor,
were those with trait Agreeableness (p<.01) and its aspects: Compassion (p<.01) and Politeness
(p<.05).

4 Discussion
4.1 Overview of findings
The main objective of this study was to examine and evaluate the construct of political
correctness. The results somewhat support four of the major hypotheses, but in a more nuanced
way than was initially predicted. In the three-factor solution, language and the tendency to take
offense emerged as a separate factor. The remaining factors represent the two different types of
social political belief. In the two-factor solution, the tendency to take offense was split over the
two approaches to social issues, to essentially create two models of response to being offended.
The pattern of correlations and regressions for personality, intelligence and disgust sensitivity
indicated that PC is a construct of factor Agreeableness. Furthermore, depending whether an
individual has a social conservative attitude (i.e., high aspect Orderliness, low verbal
intelligence, low tilting factor Openness), or social liberal attitude (i.e., high aspect Openness,
high verbal intelligence, low tilting aspect Orderliness), they have different policy tones and end
purposes for being PC. The thirty-six item PC scale, and its two subscales that resulted from
these analyses have good psychometric properties, including high levels of internal consistency
and demonstrated validity with their relationship with convergent and discriminatory measures.

4.2 A closer look at the content of PC factor items

Exploratory factor analysis produced two reasonable solutions for understanding the PC
construct: a two and three-factor model. The three-factor solution produced the factors
Liberalism, Authoritarianism, and Political Correctness. The first two factors appear to represent
the opposite ends of the spectrum of social political belief (i.e., social liberalism and social
conservatism respectively), while the last factor represents the popular notion of the PC construct
 35

that is broadcast in the media. Examination of the item content on each factor reveals a few
interesting ideas about the structure and nature of political belief.

The first and second PC factors seem to characterize the same desire for equality. Where they
differ is in their preferred end-state and position on the social policy that will get them there. The
Liberalism factor supports the belief that demographic differences are due to culture, and seeks
equality to achieve diversity. Contrarily, the Authoritarianism factor favors biological
explanations, and seeks equality to achieve uniformity. Their differing fundamental beliefs and
ultimate goals lead to distinctive policies. Though both appear to favor obedience to authority
and the use of government to legislate morality, the Liberalism factor supports more democratic
means, while the Authoritarianism factor relies on dictatorial measures. Subverting the
permanence of differences in biology, to achieve uniformity, necessitates a more coercive
governing style.

The third PC factor represents how the media has characterized this construct. It has a clear
emphasis on sensitivity and the propensity to take offense. Subsumed in this factor were items
covering offense to racial discrimination, sexist profanity, right wing insults and belief
discrimination, and language highlighting a power differential. It is apparent that this factor does
not discriminate on the basis of subject content, but rather represents general offense sensitivity.
Concern for political correctness and the use of politically correct language appears then to be
the response to this hypersensitivity.

The two-factor solution splits the PC factor over the two social political beliefs factors to make:
PC-Liberalism and PC-Authoritarianism. Both factors consist of a general inclination to be
offended, and as such produce a general desire to be politically correct. Where they differ, is in
the subject matter that predominantly spurs this sensitivity. PC Liberals take offense to language
that discriminates against historically disadvantaged groups. They are sensitive to statements that
undermine their goal of diversity. Contrarily, PC Authoritarians take offense to the mockery and
misappropriation of terms representing their puritan, hierarchical beliefs. Additionally, though
the PC language subscale items were treated as homogenous, and the majority correlate with PC-
Liberalism, those that correlate with the PC-Authoritarianism factor score reveal a tendency to
also be offended by terms that undermine their goal of purity and oneness. For example, they
prefer to call someone who is unable to see ‘visually impaired’ as opposed to ‘blind’, and
 36

someone who is employed to cart away household trash and garbage a ‘sanitation worker’ as
opposed to ‘garbage collector’. By using euphemistic terms to describe individuals and topics
related to illness, disease, and contamination, they are creating the uniformity they desire.

Examination of item-level factor analysis loadings, for two and three-factor solutions, sheds
further light on the structure of PC. In the three-factor item-level solution, the content of all
factors is relatively similar to that found in scale-level analysis. There are two notable
differences however. First, the scale-level third factor (i.e., political correctness) is the first-
factor in item level analysis. Second, in addition to the offense sensitivity items, this item-level
first factor also contains almost all the items on preference for PC language, and those on the
promotion of greater government intervention to achieve equality. The items on equality involve
policies such as affirmative action, and sexual harassment power differential corrections.

In the two-factor item-level solution, questions are again mostly divided as they were in scale-
level analysis. This model however, also has two significant differences. First, the PC language
items do not load on a single factor, but rather are distributed in the manner described above.
Second, similar to the offense sensitivity and general concern for political correctness items, the
questions proposing greater government control to implement redistribution have high cross-
loadings. As was mentioned above, conclusions drawn from item-level factor analysis cannot be
relied upon in this study, because its sample-size was too small for the size of the questionnaire.
They do however add another dimension of understanding to the problem, and can be used as a
starting point for future research.

Examination of the face validity of factors reveals that PC appears to be a response to

hypersensitivity. It is an extreme desire for equality that could be linked to economic liberalism.
For this reason, both PC-Liberalism and PC-Authoritarianism favour greater government
intervention. Where they differ however, is in their ultimate purpose for this equality, and as
such, the tone of their policy. These differences seem to be based on variance in social political
belief. PC-Liberalism appears to be pursuing socially liberal goals, while PC-Authoritarianism is
pursuing socially conservative goals. The greater emphasis on individual freedom for social
liberals, means PC-Liberalism policy is more tempered and democratic. Contrarily, the increased
focus on security for social conservatives means PC-Authoritarianism policy is more coercive
and autocratic.
 37

4.3 Convergent and discriminant validity

The Political Correctness Scale, and PCL-S and PCA-S exhibited sound psychometric properties.
The scale as a whole, and individual subscales, showed coherent internal structures, achieving
Cronbach’s Alphas that are generally considered good (Clark & Watson, 1995; Nunnally, 1978),
and average inter-item correlations between the recommended range of .15-.50 (Briggs & Cheek,
1986).

Evidence for discriminant validity of the original long version of this scale, emerged in an
unexpected way from initial hypotheses, and was upheld to various degrees. First, political
correctness is related to trait Agreeableness, and primarily stems from aspect Compassion. This
relationship is found with both the PC factor in the three-factor solution, and the total PC score.
Contrarily, PC-Liberalism is related to trait Openness and IQ Vocabulary. Though both come
close to being predictors of PC-Liberalism beliefs, the relationship with trait Openness primarily
stems from aspect Openness. Finally, PC-Authoritarianism is related to aspect Orderliness and
low crystallized intelligence. Both of these variables are predictors of PC-Authoritarianism
beliefs, though similar to PC-Liberalism, the relationship with crystallized intelligence stems
from IQ Vocabulary. Other interesting patterns of results that fell below significance include a
negative relationship between PC-Authoritarianism and trait Openness, which appears to stem
from its aspect, Intellect. Also, there is a negative trend relationship for aspect Orderliness and
PC-Liberalism. The three-factor solution only further accentuates these relationships.

This pattern of relationships generally follows the findings in research on political belief. Though
the connection to Agreeableness, disgust sensitivity, and political belief will be explained in
detail below, significant points related to discriminant validity will be covered here. Researchers
have found high aspect Openness and high verbal intelligence to be associated with social
liberalism and general liberal ideology (Carl, 2014, 2015; D. R. Carney et al., 2008; Deary,
Batty, & Gale, 2008; Gerber et al., 2010; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003; Heaven, Ciarrochi,
& Leeson, 2011; Hirsh et al., 2010; Hodson & Busseri, 2012; Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, &
Sulloway, 2003b; Kanazawa, 2010; Kemmelmeier, 2008; McCrae, 1995; Mehrabian, 1996;
Mondak & Halperin, 2008; Riemann et al., 1993; Schoon, Cheng, Gale, Batty, & Deary, 2010;
Stankov, 2009; Stenner, 2005; Van Hiel, Kossowska, & Mervielde, 2000; Van Hiel &
Mervielde, 2004). Similarly, studies have shown high aspect Orderliness and low verbal
 38

intelligence to be associated with social conservatism and general conservative ideology

(Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Zimbardo, 1999; D. R. Carney et al., 2008; Ekehammar, Akrami, &
Gylje, 2004; Gerber et al., 2010; Gosling et al., 2003; Hirsh et al., 2010; Hodson & Busseri,
2012; Jost, 2006; Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2004). Furthermore, the trends of aspect Intellect for
PC-Authoritarianism and aspect Orderliness for PC-Liberalism, also agree with the direction of
relationships found in this history of research. Agreement of the subscale results with general
research on political belief demonstrates convergent validity.

The sub-scales and overall scale also show divergent validity in that no significant relationship
was found for the traits and aspects of Neuroticism and Extraversion. Research on political belief
has found mixed results as to the significance of these traits, though the general conclusion
appears to be that they have no relationship to liberal or conservative ideologies (D. R. Carney et
al., 2008; Collani & Grumm, 2009; Hirsh et al., 2010). Furthermore, the sub-scales also show
divergent validity with each other. Trait and aspect correlations for Conscientiousness,
intelligence, and Openness on each subscale are in opposite directions.

4.4 Evaluation of hypotheses

As was stated above, four of the major hypotheses were somewhat supported, though in an
unexpected way. In partial agreement with the first hypothesis, language emerged as a separate
factor from political belief in the three-factor solution. This differentiation was further
emphasized in the item-level factor analysis described above. What was not predicted however,
what the inclusion of offense sensitivity items in factor three, and the specification of political
beliefs being social for factors one and two. These modifications however, still largely fit with
the predicted theoretical model, and were further justified upon examination of relationships to
individual differences.

The second hypothesis was also partly supported in that the language-sensitivity factor may have
something to do with concern for social desirability. Though it was uniquely predicted by
Agreeableness and its aspect Compassion, it was also related to aspects Industriousness,
Enthusiasm, and Openness, at a level just below significance. These are traits, along with
agreeableness, that have been linked to social desirability and self-enhancement (Barrick &
Mount, 1996; Collani & Grumm, 2009; Ones et al., 1996; Paulhus et al., 1995). Because these
 39

traits had weaker relationships than Agreeableness with the third factor however, it is likely that
impression management is only one aspect of it.

What was also unexpected was the inclusion of a factor that seems to be social conservative
belief. It was initially predicted that the relationships between individual differences and PC
political belief would demonstrate that PC is purely a construct of liberalism and the left. Though
the first factor was correlated as expected with Compassion and Openness, the correlation of the
second factor with Orderliness and low intellect was completely unanticipated. The relationship
of PC to both Politeness and Compassion, as well as to the personality traits of social
conservatism suggests that this construct is not completely an ideology of the left.

Furthermore, no relationship was found with aspect Volatility. This is not completely surprising
because, as was stated above, research on the relationship between political belief and
neuroticism is contradictory. It is likely then that another emotion is involved, causing this
extreme reaction to enact egalitarian policy. This emotion probably has something to do with a
darker side to high Agreeableness.

The third hypothesis that was partly supported was the one predicting a relationship between PC
and low verbal intelligence. Low verbal intelligence predicted PC-Authoritarianism. It did not
however predict PC-Liberalism. Instead, high verbal intelligence was associated with this factor.
Additionally, though the trend of correlations for total PC was in the low verbal intelligence
direction, this result did not reach significance. These findings are more in-line with the research
that proposes a nuanced understanding of the intelligence-political belief relationship (Gerber et
al., 2010). It appears that social liberalism is associated with high verbal intelligence, while
social conservatism is associated with low.

Finally, the prediction that there would be no interaction with disgust sensitivity was also
supported. Examination of the resulting factor structure of PC however, makes this result
surprising. Researchers have generally found conservative political belief to be associated with
high disgust sensitivity (Inbar et al., 2009; Terrizzi, Shook, & Ventis, 2010). The social
conservative factors from the two and three-factor solutions though, did not show this
relationship. Although their scores had a slightly positive correlation with disgust sensitivity, it
did not reach significance. A possible explanation is that the disgust measure used in this study
was self-report. A behavioral measure, such as reactions to IAPS images, would perhaps be more
 40

accurate, and produce a significant relationship. Another possibility is that PC is more of a

higher-order construct, as opposed to a visceral one. This would explain why such a strong
relationship was found with verbal intelligence. Though verbal intelligence has been related to
conservative political belief, the negative relationship with openness is often more pronounced. It
may therefore be that PC targets the more cognitive aspects of political belief, attenuating the
relationship with disgust sensitivity.

4.5 Conclusions about political belief

It is clear from the factor content and individual difference relationships analyses that PC is an
egalitarian response triggered by extreme sensitivity, with purposes determined by social
political belief. In other words, it is proposed that PC is a shared fiscal liberal belief that is
utilized by social liberals and social conservatives for different ends. This understanding of PC
can be applied to political belief in general, to better model its psychological attributes.

As was mentioned in the introduction, of late there has been a division in the understanding of
political belief. Traditionally it was thought that liberalism and conservatism were at opposite
ends of a single dimension. Liberalism was founded on the values of individual freedom and
equality, while classic conservatism promoted stability, continuity, and the preservation of
traditional social and cultural institutions. Conservatives desired the reassurance and structure
that came with stability and hierarchy, whereas the change and equality of liberalism implied
chaos and unpredictability (Conover & Feldman, 1981; Eysenck, 1954; Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski,
& Sulloway, 2003a; Jost et al., 2003b; Jost et al., 2007; Rokeach, 1973). It recently became
apparent however, that the ideas of freedom and equality have very different motivational
foundations (Moskowitz, Gollwitzer, Wasel, & Schaal, 1999). For this reason, two-dimensional
psychological and content-based models have been proposed.

One of the alternative models suggests that the first dimension includes the political values of
freedom, justice, and radicalism at one end, and with order, traditionalism, and stability on the
other. The second contrasts the values of equality and tender-mindedness with inequality and
respect for authority (Eysenck, 1954, 1975; Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009; Haidt & Graham,
2007; Haidt & Joseph, 2007; Rokeach, 1973). Personality and prejudiced social attitudes models
have supported this value-based scale division. The personality model states that trait Openness
and aspect Orderliness provide the basis for the first dimension, while aspect Politeness and
 41

aspect Compassion are juxtaposed on the second. As such, liberal belief is a combination of high
trait Openness, low aspect Orderliness, and high aspect Compassion. Contrarily, conservative
belief is created from low trait Openness, high aspect Orderliness, and high aspect Politeness
(Hirsh et al., 2010). Translating this to the social attitudes dichotomy model, the extreme
conservative, order-stability end of the first dimension is RWA, while the extreme conservative,
inequality end of the second dimension is SDO (Duckitt, Wagner, Du Plessis, & Birum, 2002).

In a similar but unique line of thought, a content-based two-dimensional model has also been
proposed. This model separates social from fiscal political belief. Though there are popular
definitions regarding the content of each dimension, little research has been done to prove that
they are dissociable (Cornelis & Van Hiel, 2006; Crowson, 2009; Everett, 2013; Johnson &
Tamney, 2001; Kossowska & Van Hiel, 2001; Ray, 1973; Zumbrunnen & Gangl, 2008). People
seem to have a clear idea what social liberalism and social conservatism look like, often stating
that the current measures of ideology are in fact measures of social political belief. This logically
makes sense because ideology is motivated by social cognition (D. R. Carney et al., 2008; Jost &
Amodio, 2012; Jost et al., 2003a, 2003b). In terms of the content of fiscal liberalism and fiscal
conservatism however little is known.

Combining the above value and psychological models with the content model could help with
the understanding of what social versus fiscal political belief is. It appears that social liberalism
involves a goal of diversity, the prioritization of individual freedom, and the embracement of
novelty. Contrarily, social conservatism involves the goal of unity or oneness, the prioritization
of stability, and the embracement of tradition. As such, it appears that the core of fiscal
liberalism is equality, and of fiscal conservatism, inequality. Social conservatives and fiscal
liberals believe in the greater involvement of the government. While social conservatives use the
government to impose a code of morality, fiscal liberals believe circumstances such as poverty
and historical injustice impede equality, and therefore need to be corrected through
redistribution. Contrarily, social liberals and fiscal conservatives believe in less involvement of
the government. Social liberals value security so long as it contributes to personal freedom.
Fiscal conservatives believe people should be rewarded for their hard work, and that offering
government help hinders the development of self-reliance.
 42

While the value model appears to coincide with the content model, including the personality
dimensions is more difficult. The relationship of trait Openness to political belief is the most
robust. Following which are the relationships of traits Conscientiousness and Agreeableness.
Though there was some disagreement about the involvement of these traits, combining research
on their aspects, studies on prejudiced social attitudes, and the results of this experiment, a clear
prediction is possible. The results on trait Neuroticism and Extraversion are much less defined
however, and for this reason these traits are assumed to non-central to the development of
political belief.

In addition to this disagreement on relevant traits to general political ideology, almost no

research has been done on personality and the social-fiscal political belief division. Only two
studies have been conducted on this topic, both of which used the Ten Item Personality Inventory
(TIPI), a shortened instrument that is more prone to measurement error (D. R. Carney et al.,
2008; Gerber et al., 2010). Research on these relationships will be briefly reviewed and
combined with the findings from this study on political correctness, to propose a comprehensive
two-dimension model of political belief (Figure 2).

First, as stated above, the relationship of trait Openness to political belief is robust in genetic,
longitudinal, and cross-sectional studies. Trait Openness has continually been found to positively
relate to liberal political ideology, and negatively relate to conservative political ideology(D. R.
Carney et al., 2008; Gerber et al., 2010; Gosling et al., 2003; Hirsh et al., 2010; McCrae, 1995;
Mehrabian, 1996; Mondak & Halperin, 2008; Riemann et al., 1993; Stenner, 2005; Van Hiel et
al., 2000; Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2004). Moreover, both economic and social liberalism have
been found to positively correlate with trait Openness (D. R. Carney et al., 2008; Gerber et al.,
2010). Additionally, researchers have found that Openness negatively correlates with values of
rejection of system change, social cohesion, collective security, conservation, and acceptance of
inequality (Collani & Grumm, 2009; Kandler, Bleidorn, & Reiemann, 2011; Perry & Sibley,
2012). Furthermore, negative relationships have been found with RWA and SDO (Collani &
Grumm, 2009; Perry & Sibley, 2012; Sibley & Duckitt, 2009). Interestingly, correlations relating
to inequality and SDO are much less strong than those with traditionalism and RWA. Combined
with this study on PC, it appears that trait Openness is positively related to social and fiscal
liberalism, and negatively related to social and fiscal conservatism. Additionally, its effect on
social political belief is stronger. Finally, it is hypothesized that aspect Openness drives the
 43

relationship with social liberalism, while aspect Intellect drives the relationship with social
conservatism.

Conscientiousness is also hypothesized to be most influential on social political belief. The

effects of social desirability on becoming a proponent of fiscal liberalism however complicate
that differentiation. Researchers have generally found a positive relationship between trait
Conscientiousness and conservative ideological belief (Caprara et al., 1999; D. R. Carney et al.,
2008; Ekehammar et al., 2004; Gerber et al., 2010; Gosling et al., 2003; Hirsh et al., 2010; Jost,
2006; Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2004). A much more inconsistent finding is its positive
relationship with both social and economic conservatism (M. Carney et al., 2007; Gerber et al.,
2010). It has also been found to have a positive relationship with social desirability,
traditionalism, the values of rejection of change, and conservation, security, and cohesion
motivations (Collani & Grumm, 2009; Kandler et al., 2011; Perry & Sibley, 2012). Furthermore,
a positive relationship has been found with RWA, and a negative one with SDO (Collani &
Grumm, 2009; Sibley & Duckitt, 2009). Examination of the aspects revealed that aspect
Orderliness was the primary driver of the positive relationship of trait Conscientiousness with
conservative ideology (Hirsh et al., 2010). Because it has been proposed that ideology is driven
by social cognition, it is likely then that Orderliness is a predictor of social political belief. Social
conservatism is predicted by high Orderliness, while social liberalism is predicted by low,
although the positive effects of aspect Openness are likely more important for the liberal side of
this dimension. The occasional positive effects of Conscientiousness on fiscal belief are likely
driven by aspect Industriousness, although it is likely that this trait is subsidiary to a more
influential one. High Industriousness for fiscal liberals is likely due to social desirability effects
(Barrick & Mount, 1996; Ones et al., 1996; Paulhus et al., 1995), while high Industriousness for
fiscal conservatives likely produces their admiration for hierarchies (Lund, Tamnes, Moestue,
Buss, & Vollrath, 2007).

The final main trait influencing social political belief is likely verbal intelligence. As mentioned
above, this study and others have found a significant relationship between these two variables.
High verbal intelligence has been predictive of liberal social belief, and low verbal intelligence
of conservative social belief (Carl, 2014, 2015; Deary et al., 2008; Heaven et al., 2011; Hodson
& Busseri, 2012; Kanazawa, 2010; Kemmelmeier, 2008; Schoon et al., 2010; Stankov, 2009).
 44

Though the effects of fluid intelligence have yet to be analyzed, it may not have as strong an
influence since social policy is linked to culture, just as verbal intelligence is.

Agreeableness, and particularly aspect Compassion, appears to be the main driver of fiscal
political belief. The results on this trait have been extremely mixed. On the side of conservatism,
a positive relationship has been found with social conservative policy, and general conservative
ideology (D. R. Carney et al., 2008; Gerber et al., 2010). Additionally, a positive relationship has
been found between Agreeableness and possessing a dangerous world-view and conservation
values (Collani & Grumm, 2009; Sibley & Duckitt, 2009). Furthermore, it is has been found to
be positively correlated with RWA (Collani & Grumm, 2009; Perry & Sibley, 2012; Sibley &
Duckitt, 2009). On the side of liberalism, a positive relationship has been found with liberal
ideology and social policy (D. R. Carney et al., 2008; Gerber et al., 2010; Hirsh et al., 2010).
These relationships were found to be driven by aspect tender-mindedness (D. R. Carney et al.,
2008). Finally, researchers found Agreeableness to be negatively related to SDO (Collani &
Grumm, 2009; Perry & Sibley, 2012; Sibley & Duckitt, 2009). Examination of the aspects of
Agreeableness proved to create a resolution to these discrepancies. Though Hirsh et al. (2010)
proposed aspect Politeness predicts conservatism and aspect Compassion predicts liberalism, this
contradicts the finding that SDO, a conservative construct, is related to low Compassion and low
Politeness (Osborne, Wootton, & Sibley, 2012). It is therefore hypothesized that politeness is
positively related to social conservatism and fiscal liberalism (i.e., the two belief systems that
believe in greater governmental intervention), and negatively related to social liberalism and
fiscal conservatism (i.e., the two belief systems that are proponents of less government
involvement). Finally, it is hypothesized that aspect Compassion is the primary predictor of
fiscal political belief.

The effects of Neuroticism and Extraversion are the most confusing, and have often been found
to not be significant (D. R. Carney et al., 2008; Collani & Grumm, 2009; Hirsh et al., 2010).
Research on general political ideology has found conservatives to be happier (Jetten, Haslam, &
Barlow, 2013; Napier & Jost, 2008; Schlenker, Chambers, & Le, 2012). This effect has been
found to be partly a result of decreased Neuroticism (Burton, Plaks, & Peterson, 2015). Both
positive and negative relationships however, have been found with RWA, SDO, and the
underlying values (Collani & Grumm, 2009; Kandler et al., 2011; Perry & Sibley, 2012; Sibley
& Duckitt, 2009). For this reason, no predictions will be made about its placement in the model.
 45

Similar discrepancies surround the involvement of Extraversion. Some researchers have found
positive relationships between Extraversion and conservative ideology, as well as social and
economic conservatism (D. R. Carney et al., 2008; Gerber et al., 2010). Additionally, though its
relationship to SDO and RWA have been mixed, it is generally positively associated with values
of social desirability, self-enhancement, and openness to change, and negatively associated with
values of self-transcendence, and conservation (Collani & Grumm, 2009; Kandler et al., 2011;
Perry & Sibley, 2012; Sibley & Duckitt, 2009). It is therefore predicted that aspect Enthusiasm is
related to fiscal liberalism due to social desirability (Collani & Grumm, 2009), while aspect
Assertiveness is related to fiscal conservatism.

Taken together, the combination of Openness, Orderliness, and verbal intelligence provide the
foundation for the revolutionary-traditionalism, novelty-stability, and diversity-unity values of
social political belief, and dimension one. In order of importance, high aspect Openness, high
verbal intelligence, and low Orderliness produce social liberal values. Contrarily, low verbal
intelligence, high Orderliness, and low intellect produce social conservative values. The
combination of Compassion and Openness provides the foundation of the equality-inequality
value of fiscal political belief and dimension two. In order of importance, high aspect
Compassion and high aspect Openness produce fiscal liberal values. Contrarily, low aspect
compassion and low aspect Openness produce fiscal conservative values. Politeness produces the
desire for greater government intervention found with social conservatism and fiscal liberalism.
Conversely, fiscal conservatism and social liberalism desire less government intervention, and as
such are related to lower levels of Politeness. Finally, Industriousness and Enthusiasm are
predicted to be positively related to fiscal liberalism, due to the effects of social desirability,
while Industriousness and Assertiveness are predicted to be positively related to fiscal
conservatism, due to its affinity for hierarchies.

The final prediction of this model is regarding authoritarianism. It is predicted that the root of
authoritarianism is social conservatism, and that the labeling of an individual as RWA or LWA is
dependent on their fiscal political belief. How this translates to personality is that both right and
left-wing authoritarians are high in aspect Orderliness, low in trait Openness, low in verbal
intelligence, and high in aspect Politeness. What differs between the two is their level of
compassion and relative level of Openness. Right-wing authoritarians will be low in
Compassion, and extremely low in Openness. Contrarily, left-wing authoritarians will be high in
 46

Compassion, and somewhat low in Openness. The reason for the difference in openness is that
this aspect is hypothesized to be one of the foundation traits of fiscal liberalism. How these traits
parallel the definition of authoritarianism is that Politeness fosters the high degree of
submissiveness to authorities, and Orderliness the general aggressiveness towards deviants.
Interestingly, the high level of Compassion in LWA recalibrates this aggressiveness to target it at
coercive and forceful assimilation of deviants as opposed to their rejection. The core trait of
authoritarianism therefore appears to be their desire for oneness, though how this is achieved is
dependent on fiscal political belief. Finally, the value of conventionalism, as stated in the
introduction, is also slightly different for right and left-wing authoritarians. While right-wing
authoritarians strictly adhere to the traditions and social norms of established authorities, the
higher level of openness in left-wing authoritarians means they adhere to the norms of
revolutionary authorities.

4.6 How findings apply to the PC debate

The results of this study help shed light on the PC debates surrounding its history, purpose, and
content. It is clear from the findings of this study that PC is not entirely a movement of
liberalism and the left. Though a central element appears to be fiscal liberalism, the end-goal of
policy enactment has both liberal and conservative attributes. Furthermore, it is likely that the
cause of the debate regarding whether the PC movement is a product of activism or extremists
resides in the opposing social political beliefs being applied. Moreover, these opposing beliefs
provide the grounds for the two diverging goals of the PC movement: the use of equality to
achieve diversity, and the use of equality to achieve unity. Finally, the emphasis of PC on
language is likely because the euphemistic language is a representation of the shared egalitarian
ideological belief.

4.7 Limitations
Although there are several important findings from this study, there are also several limitations
that influence the generalizability of the results. First, because the sample population was not
large enough for item-level factor analysis, only scale-level analysis could be done. This had
several implications. First, all language, egalitarian policy, and sexual propriety items were
summed into collective scores, and loaded primarily on the liberalism and PC-Liberalism factors.
The exploratory item-level factor analysis demonstrated that, in a three-factor solution, they load
 47

completely on a first factor (i.e., fiscal liberalism), and in a two-factor solution, are shared across
the liberal and conservative social political beliefs factors. Though sample size prohibits these
results from being deemed conclusive, they suggest that a slightly difference factor structure
would be found with item-level analysis. Second, the principal components analysis that was
required for item reduction of the offense sensitivity and attitudes subscales, lead to many items
being excluded from the sum scores. Though it increased reliability of the sub-scales, and was a
necessary initial step to the process of gaining an understanding of PC, it may have decreased the
validity of the results. For these reasons, it is believed that item-level analysis will provide a
more clear and definitive understanding of PC, and help confirm the proposed theoretical
structure of the construct.

A second limitation to the current study is the construction of the initial questionnaire. It was
pieced together in a haphazard way, in an attempt to comprehensively understand something that
was known very little about. In a follow-up study, the current theoretical structure could be used
to develop a more balanced and well-rounded questionnaire. For example, some of the language
items could be converted to offense-sensitivity items, to further understand the nuances of the
relationship of this reaction to PC-Liberalism and PC-Authoritarianism. Also, almost all the
items were unidirectional, in that a higher score indicated being more politically correct. To
prevent socially desirable responding, some items could be reversed. In addition, many of the
items were overly complex, involving topics from multiple factors, and utilizing wording that
may not have been easily understandable by a regular individual. Furthermore, some of the items
from the original questionnaire could be discarded because they do not appear to be related to the
PC construct. For example, two of the offense to power differential items, and one of the offense
to right-wing belief discrimination items have low inter-item correlations (<.15) and corrected
item-total correlations (<.2) with the PC scale as a whole. Their removal would not improve
overall scale reliability, but because there are 202 items in that equation, reliability is not a good
measure of internal consistency. Finally, the aspect of PC that involves taking action to change
the language or behavior of another when one is offended, involves an interpersonal level of
action that was not covered in this questionnaire. Strauts and Blanton (2015) highlighted this
element of PC as important, so it would be interesting to see how it fits in this study’s proposed
theoretical framework.
 48

The first and second limitations create the third drawback of this study. Though the shortened PC
measure that was developed demonstrated adequate psychometric properties, its construction
would significantly benefit from factor loadings of a conclusive item-level factor analysis.
Additionally, the inclusion of items that would make the fiscal liberalism or PC factor more well
rounded would mean it could potentially be added as its own subscale. That way the items that
had high cross-loadings with PC-Liberalism and PC-Authoritarianism, that represented fiscal
liberalism, would not disappear from the questionnaire. The proposed scale would then have
three subscale scores: PC Social Liberalism (PC-SL), PC Social Conservatism (PC-SC), and PC
Fiscal Liberalism (PC-FL), and a total PC score.

A fourth limitation is in the demographic distribution of the sample. The very small proportion of
the sample size that was various minority groups negatively affected the power of the
experiment. Though it was necessary to require that participants be from North America, it
would have been helpful to see a more varied representation of the cultures and races that exist
on the continent.

A final limitation is in the types of questionnaires utilized. All scales were self-report. Utilizing a
behavioral measure, such as the IAPS for disgust sensitivity, would make the results more
reliable.

4.8 Future Directions

As has been suggested throughout the discussion, there are numerous opportunities for future
research that will add to our understanding of PC and political belief as a whole. First, a model of
political belief has been suggested, which involves personality, intelligence, disgust sensitivity,
political values, RWA, LWA, SDO, social desirability, and social and fiscal political belief. To
confirm the structure of this model, these proposed relationships need to be tested. Second, the
social-fiscal liberal’s motivating force to react after being offended, needs to be further
investigated. While it is hypothesized that what motivates social conservative-fiscal liberals is
disgust sensitivity, the initial hypothesis that aspect Volatility would have an effect on social-
fiscal liberals has been disproven. It may be the dynamic of high agreeableness and low
conscientiousness that is causing an emotion such as resentment, but it is still unknown. Finally,
it would be also be useful to see how gender, race, culture, religious involvement, and
 49

association to groups that would make you sensitive to the needs of historically disadvantaged
groups, factor into the model.
 50

5 Conclusions
In summary, the present study provided evidence that PC is not completely a construct of
liberalism and the left. It instead appears to be supported and enforced by both social liberals and
social conservatives. PC is an egalitarian response that is triggered by an extreme sensitivity to
being offended. This response can be regarded as the implementation of fiscal liberal policy. The
end-goals of PC equality however, differ by social political belief. Social liberals use PC to
achieve diversity, while social conservatives use it to achieve a sameness or oneness. PC can be
predicted by the personality traits of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness, as well as
verbal intelligence. A summative model of political belief is also proposed, that combines
research on political values, extreme political attitudes, personality, and social and fiscal political
beliefs. It is suggested that trait Openness, aspect Orderliness, and verbal intelligence predict
social political belief, which aspect Compassion, aspect Openness, trait Extraversion, and aspect
Industriousness predict fiscal political belief. Furthermore, the relationship of Politeness and
political belief is proposed to be slightly more nuanced than past research has concluded. Finally,
it is hypothesized that LWA does in fact exist, and that the distinction of it from RWA lies in the
traits aspect Compassion and trait Openness. This study provides an excellent starting point for
future research in the area of political correctness, political belief, and liberal emotional
motivation.
 51

6 References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The
authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.

Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian spectre. Cambridge: Harvard Universtiy Press.

Arokiasamy, C. V., Strohmer, D. C., Guice, S., Angelocci, R., & Hoppe, M. (1994). Effects of
politically correct landyade and counselor skill level on perceptions of counselor
credibility. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 37, 304-314.

Ayim, M. (1998). Just how correct is political correctness? A critique of the opposition's
arguments. Argumentation, 12, 445-480.

Barker, K. (1994). To be PC or not to be? A social psychological inquiry into political

correctness. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9(1), 271-281.

Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2005). The perils of political correctness: Men's and women's
responses to old-fashioned and modern sexist views. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1),
75-88.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception
on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
261-272.

Beglov, S. I. (1984). Vneshnepoliticheskaya propaganda: Ocherk teorii i praktiki. Moscow:

Vneshnyaya shkola.

Berger, J. (1971). Shipwreck of a Generation. London: Harvill Press.

Bloch, S., & Reddaway, P. (1977). Russia's political hospitals: The abuse of psychiatry in the
Soviet Union. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd.

Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and
evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106-148.
 52

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source
of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.

Burton, C., Plaks, J., & Peterson, J. B. (2015). Why do conservatives report being happier than
liberals? The contribution of neuroticism. Journal of Social and Political Psychology,
3(1), 89-102.

Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. London: routledge.

Cameron, D. (1997). Making changes: Can we decontaminate sexist language. In C. Logan (Ed.),
Counterbalance: Gendered perspectives on writing and language (pp. 212-228).
Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1999). Personality profiles and political
parties. Political Pscyhology, 20, 175-197.

Carl, N. (2014). Verbal intelligence is correlated with socially and economically liberal beliefs.
Intelligence, 44, 142-148.

Carl, N. (2015). Cognitive ability and political belief in the United States. Personality and
Individual Differences, 83, 245-248.

Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of Liberals and
Conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind.
Political Psychology, 29(6), 807-840.

Carney, M., Buttell, F., & Dutton, D. (2007). Women who perpetrate intimate partner violence:
A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 12, 108-115.

Chabot, D. R. (1996). Political correctness: Contributin to social distress? Journal of Social

Distreess and Homeless, 5(2), 143-147.

Chang, J. (1991). Wild swans: Three daughters of China. New York: Touchstone.
 53

Chernenko, K., & Smirtyukov, M. S. (1967). Resheniya partii i pravitel'stva po khozyaystvennym

voprosam (Vol. 1). Moscow: Izdatel'stvo politicheskoy literatury.

Choi, J. M., & Murphy, J. W. (1992). The politics and phiosophy of political correctness.
Connecticut: Preager Publishers.

Chuah, S. C., Drasgow, F., & Roberts, B. W. (2006). Personality assessment: Does the medium
matter? No. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 359-376.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale
development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-319.

Collani, G., & Grumm, M. (2009). On the dimensional structure of personality, ideological
beliefs, social attitudes, and personal values. Journal of Individual Differences, 30(2),
107-119.

Collins, H. (1992). PC and the press. Change, 12-16.

Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-
identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 25(4), 617-645.

Cornelis, I., & Van Hiel, A. (2006). The impact of cognitive styles on authoritarianism based
conservatism and racism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 37-50.

Cortina, J. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and methods. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78(1), 88-104.

Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research
& Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.

Counts, G. S., & Lodge, N. (1949). The country of the blind: The soviet systems of mind control.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
 54

Crowson, H. M. (2009). Are all conservatives alike? A study of psychological correlates of

cultural and economic conservatism within a U.S. population sample. Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 5, 449-463.

de Regt, S., Mortelmans, D., & Smits, T. (2010). Left wing authoritarianism is not a myth, but a
worrisome reality. Evidence from 13 Eastern European countries. Communist and Post-
Communist Studies, 44, 299-308.

Deary, I. J., Batty, G. D., & Gale, C. R. (2008). Bright children become enlightened adults.
Psychological Science, 19, 1-6.

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domians: 10 aspects
of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880-896.

Dobrenko, E. (1997). The making of the state reader: Social and aesthetic contexts of the
reception of Soviet literature (J. M. Savage, Trans.). Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press.

Dobson, K. S. (1997). The other side of academic freedom is academic reponsibility. Canadian
Pscyhology, 38, 244-247.

Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., Du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology
and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83(1), 75-93.

Duigan, P., & Gann, L. H. (1995). Political correctness: A critique. Stanford, California: Hoover
Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace.

Dunant, S. (1994). The war of words. London: Virago Press.

Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., & Gylje, M. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big Five
personality, social dominance orientation, or right-wing authoritarianism? European
Journal of Personality, 18, 463-482.
 55

Ellis, F. (2002). Political correctness and the ideological structure: From Lenin and Mao to
Marcus and Foucault. The Journal of Social, Politcial, and Economic Studies, 27(4), 409-
444.

Enyedi, Z., & Todosijevic, B. (2002). Authoritarianism and political orientations in Hungary.

Everett, J. A. C. (2013). The 12 item social and economic conservatism scale (SECS). PLoS
ONE, 8(12), e82131.

Eysenck, H. J. (1954). The psychology of politics. London, UK: Routledge.

Eysenck, H. J. (1975). The structure of social attitudes. British Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 14, 323-331.

Fairclough, N. (2003). 'Political correctness': The politics of culture of language. Discourse &
Society, 14(1), 17-28.

Favreau, O. E. (1997). Evaluating political correctness: Anecdotes vs. research. Canadian

Psychology, 38, 212-220.

Fish, S. (1994). There's no such thing as free speech, and it's a good thing too. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Friedman, M., & Nareson, J. (1995). Political correctness: For and against. London: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers Inc.

Gauthier, J. G. (1997). Political correctness in academia: Many faces, meanings and

consequences. Canadian Pscyhology, 38, 199-201.

Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Personality and
political attitudes: Relationships across issue domains and political contexts. American
Political Science Review, 104(1), 111-133.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York:
Touchstone.
 56

Goldberg, L. R., & Rosolack, T. K. (1994). The Big Five factor structure as an integrative
framework: An empirical comparison with Eysenck's PEN model. In C. F. Halverston, G.
A. Kohnstamm & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and
personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 7-35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Goncalo, J. A., Chatman, J. A., Duguid, M. M., & Kennedy, J. A. (2015). Creativity from
constraint? How the political correctness norm influences creativity in mixed-sex work
groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(1), 1-30.

Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world:
Strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 26, 213-224.

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the big-five
personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528.

Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of
moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029-1046.

Gutierrez, R., Giner-Sorolla, R., & Vasiljevic, M. (2012). Just an anger synonym? Moral context
influences predictors of disgust word use. Cognition & Emotion, 26, 53-64.

Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral
institutions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98-116.

Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2007). The moral mind: How 5 sets of innate intuitions guide the
development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In P.
Carruthers, S. Laurence & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind: Foundations and the future
(Vol. 3, pp. 367-391). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Halmari, H. (2011). Political correctness, euphemism, and language change: The case of 'people
first'. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 828-840.

Hardin, C., & Banaji, M. R. (1993). The influence of language on thought. 11, 3, 277-308.
 57

Heaven, P. C. L., Ciarrochi, J., & Leeson, P. (2011). Cognitive ability, right-wing
authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation: A five-year longitudinal study
amongst adolescents. Intelligence, 39, 15-21.

Herz, R. (2011). PROP taste sensitivity is related to visceral but not moral disgust.
Chemosensory Perception, 4, 72-79.

Herz, R. S., & Hinds, A. (2013). Stealing is not gross: Language distinguishes visceral disgust
from moral violations. American Journal of Psychology, 126(3), 275-286.

Hirsh, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., Xu, X., & Peterson, J. B. (2010). Compassionate liberals and polite
conservatives: Associations of agreeableness with political ideology and moral values.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), 655-664.

Hodson, G., & Busseri, M. A. (2012). Bright minds and dark attitudes: Lower cognitive ability
predics greater rejudice through right-wing ideology and low inter-group contact.
Psychological Science, 23, 187-195.

Hollander, P. (1981). Political pilgrims: Travels of Western intellectuals to the Soviet Union,
China and Cuba 1928-1978. New York and Oxford: OUP.

Hollway, W., & Jefferson, T. (1996). PC or not PC: Sexual harassment and the question of
ambivalence. Human Relations, 49(3), 373-393.

Hope, L. B., Milewski-Hertlein, K. A., & Rodriguez, A. (2001). Removing the gag that binds:
An examination of therapeutic implications of political correctness. Contemporary
Family Therapy, 32(1), 33-49.

Horberg, E., Oveis, C., Keltner, D., & Cohen, A. (2009). Disgust and the moralization of purity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 963-976.

Hughes, G. (2010). Political correctness: A history of semantics and culture. United Kingdom:
Wiley-Blackwell.

Huxley, J. (1927). Man stands alone. New York: Harper.

 58

Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than
liberals. Cognition & Emotion, 23, 714-725.

Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. (1958). Content and style in personality assessment.
Psychological Bulletin, 55(4), 243-252.

Jetten, J., Haslam, S. A., & Barlow, F. K. (2013). Bringing back the system: One reason why
conservatives are happier than liberals is that highter socioeconomic status gives them
access to more group memberships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 6-
13.

Johnson, S. D., & Tamney, J. B. (2001). Social traditionalism and economic conservatism: Two
conservative political ideologies in the United States. Journal of Social Psychology, 141,
233-243.

Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61(7), 651-670.

Jost, J. T., & Amodio, J. M. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral
and neuroscientific evidence. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 55-64.

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003a). Exceptions that prove the
rule: Using a theory of motivated social cognition to account for ideological incongruities
and political anomalies. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 383-393.

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003b). Political conservatism as
motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.

Jost, J. T., Napier, J. L., Thorisdottir, H., Gosling, S. D., Palfai, T. P., & Ostafin, B. (2007). Are
needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political conservatism or
ideological extremity? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 989-1007.

Kahn, J. H. (2006). Factor analysis in counseling psychology research, training, and practice:
Principles, Advances, and Applications. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 684-718.

Kanazawa, S. (2010). Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 73, 33-57.
 59

Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., & Reiemann, R. (2011). Left or right? Sources of political orientation:
The roles of genetic factors, cultural transmission, assortative mating, and personality.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 633-645.

Kelly, R. J., & Rubal-Lopez, A. (1996). Political correctness and multiculturalism: Who supports
PC. Journal of Social Distreess and Homeless, 5(2), 111-137.

Kemmelmeier, M. (2008). Is there a relationship between political orientation and cognitive

ability? A test of three hypotheses in two studies. Personality and Individual Differences,
45(8), 767-772.

Kossowska, M., & Van Hiel, A. (2001). The relationship between need for closure and
conservative beliefs in Western and Eastern Europe. Political Pscyhology, 24(3), 501-
518.

Krauss, W. (2002). Romanian authoritarianism 10 years after communism. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1255-1264.

Krushchev, N. S. (1959). Sluzhenie narodu - vysokoe prizvanie sovetskikh pisateley. [Serving

the people is the lofty vocation of Soviet writers]. Pravada, 1-3.

Kunitsyn, G. (1971). V. I. Lenin o partiinosti i svobode pechati. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo

politicheskoy literatury.

Lalonde, R., Doan, L., & Patterson, L. (2000). Political correctness belifs, threatened identities,
and social attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 317-336.

Leeson, P., Heaven, P. C. L., & Ciarrochi, J. (2012). Revisiting the link between low verbal
intelligence and ideology. Intelligence, 40(2), 213-216.

Lenin, V. I. (1946). Chto delat? [What is to be done?]. Sochineniya, 5(4), 319-492.

Lenin, V. I. (1947). Partiynaya organisatsiya i partiynaya literatura. [Party organization and party
literature]. Sochineniya, 10(4), 26-31.

Lenneberg, E. (1953). Cognition in ethnolinguistics. Language, 29, 463-471.

 60

Lifton, R. J. (1961). Thought reform and the psychology of totalism: A study of "brainwashing"
in China. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd.

Lin, B. (1970). Important documents of the great proletarian cultural revolution in China.
Peking: Foreign Language Press.

Lin, J. (1991). The Red Guards' path to violence: Political, educational, and psychological
factors. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.

Lipset, S. M. (1992). Political correctness, historically speaking. Educational Record, 73, 5-11.

Loury, G. C. (1994). Self-censorship in public discourse. Rationality and Society, 6(4), 428-461.

Lund, O. C. H., Tamnes, C. K., Moestue, C., Buss, D. M., & Vollrath, M. (2007). Tactics of
hierarchy negotiation. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 25-44.

McCrae, R. R. (1995). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin,

120, 323-337.

McFarland, S. G., Ageyev, V. S., & Abalakina-Paap, M. A. (1992). Authoritarianism in the

former Soviet Union. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 1004-1010.

McFarland, S. G., Ageyev, V. S., & Abalakina-Paap, M. A. (1993). The authoritarian personality
in the United States and the former Soviet Union: Comparative

studies. In W. F. Stone, G. Lederer & R. Christie (Eds.), Strength and weakness. The
Authoritarian Personality Today. New York: Springler Verlag.

McFarland, S. G., Ageyev, V. S., & Djintcharadze, N. (1996). Russian authoritarianism two
years after communism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 210-217.

Mead, G. H. (1956). On social psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Medvedev, Z. (1969). The rise and fall of T. D. Lysenko (M. Lerner, Trans.). New York &
London: Columbia University Press.
 61

Mehrabian, A. (1996). Relations among political attitudes, personality, and psychopathology

assessed with new measures of Libertarianism and Conservatism. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 18, 469-491.

Menage, J. P. (1997). Political correctness and practice effects: Working with perpetrators of
violence in relationships. New Zeland Journal of Family Therapy, 18(3), 138-142.

Miller, C., & Swift, K. (1976). Words and women. New York: Harper-Collins.

Millington, M. J., & Leierer, S. J. (1996). A socially desirable response to the politically
incorrect use of disability labels. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 39, 276-281.

Mills, S. (1998). Post-feminist text analysis. Language and Literature, 7(3), 235-254.

Mondak, J. J., & Halperin, K. D. (2008). A framework for the study of personality and political
belief. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 335-362.

Moskowitz, G. B., Gollwitzer, P. M., Wasel, W., & Schaal, B. (1999). Preconscious control of
stereotyp activation through chronic egalitarian goals. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77(1), 167-184.

Nabi, R. L. (2002). The theoretical versus the lay meaning of disgust: Implications of emotion
research. Cognition & Emotion, 16, 695-703.

Napier, J. L., & Jost, J. T. (2008). Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Psychological
Science, 19, 565-572.

Neilson, J. (1995). The great PC scare: Tyrannies of the left, rhetoric of the right. In J. Williams
(Ed.), PC wars: Politics and theory in the academy (pp. 60-89). New York: Routledge.

Nettler, A., & Huffman, P. (1955). Traditional family ideology and its relation to personality.
Journal of Personality, 23, 251-273.

Newfield, C., & Strickland, R. After political correctness: The humanities and society in the
1990's. Colorado: Westview Press.
 62

Norton, M. I., Sommers, S. R., Apfelbaum, E. P., Pura, N., & Ariely, D. (2006). Color blindness
and interracial interaction. Psychological Science, 17(11), 949-953.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

O'Keefe, B. (1992). Sense and sensitivity. Journal of Communication, 42(2), 123-130.

Olatunji, B. O., Adams, T., Ciesielski, B., David, B., Sarawgi, S., & Broman-Fulks, J. (2012).
The three domains of disgust scale: Factor structure, psychometric properties and
conceptual limitations. Assessment, 19, 205-225.

Olatunji, B. O., Williams, N. L., Tolin, D. F., Sawchuck, C. N., Abramowitz, J. S., Lohr, J. M.,
& Elwood, L. (2007). The Disgust Scale: Item analysis, factor structure, and suggestions
for refinement. Psychological Assessment, 19, 281-297.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality
testing for personal selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660-
679.

Osborne, D., Wootton, L. W., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Are liberals agreeable or not? Politeness
and compassion differentially predict political conservatism via distinct ideologies. Social
Psychology, 44(5), 354-360.

Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments using Amazon
Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411-419.

Parkinson, C., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Koralus, P. E., Mendelovici, A., McGreer, V., &
Wheatley, T. (2011). Is morality unified? Evidence that distinct neural systems underlie
moral judgments of harm, dishonesty, and disgust. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
23, 103162-103180.

Paulhus, D. L., Bruce, M. N., & Trapnell, P. D. (1995). Effects of self-presentation strategies on
personality profiles and their structure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,
100-108.
 63

Pentony, J. F., Peterson, K. S. E., Philips, O., Leong, C., Harper, P., Bakowski, A., . . . Gonzales,
R. (2000). A comparison of authoritarianism in the United States, England, and Hungary
with selected nonrandom samples. European Psychologist, 5, 259-268.

Perry, R., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Big-five personality prospectively predicts Social Dominance
Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences,
51(1), 3-8.

Ray, J. J. (1973). Dogmatism in relation to sub-types of conservatism: Some Australian data.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 221-232.

Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000). Factor Analysis and Scale Revision.
Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 287-297.

Riemann, Rainer, Grubich, C., Hempel, S., Mergl, S., & Richter, M. (1993). Personality and
attitudes towards current political topics. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 313-
321.

Rindermann, H., Flores-Mendoza, C., & Woodley, M. A. (2012). Political orientations,

intelligence and education. Intelligence, 40(2), 217-225.

Rix, J. (2006). Does it matter what we call them? Labeling people on the basis of notions of
intellect. Intellectual Space: The International Journal of Communications, 3(4), 22-28.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.

Royzman, E. B., & Sabini, J. (2001). Something it takes to be an emotion: The interesting case of
disgust. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 31, 29-59.

Rozin, P., Haidt, J., & Fincher, K. (2009). From oral to moral. Science, 323, 1179-1180.

Rushton, J. P. (1996). Political correctness and the study of racial differences. Journal of Social
Distress and the Homeless, 5(2), 213-229.

Saper, B. (1995). Joking in the context of political correctness. Humor, 8, 65-76.

Saunders, K. (1996). Eighteen layers of hell: Stories from the Chinese Gulag. London: Cassell.
 64

Schlenker, B., Chambers, J. R., & Le, B. M. (2012). Conservatives are happier than liberals, but
why? Political ideology, personality, and life satisfaction. Journal of Research in
Personality, 46, 127-146.

Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350-
353.

Schoon, I., Cheng, H., Gale, C. R., Batty, G. D., & Deary, I. J. (2010). Social status, cognitive
ability, and educational attainment as predictors of liberal social attitudes and political
trust. Intelligence, 38, 144-150.

Scruton, R. (1985). Thinkers of the New Left. Claridge Press: London.

Shalin, D. (1996). Russian culture at the crossroads: Paradoxes of postcommunist

consciousness. Colorado and Oxford: Westview Press.

Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., Salvatore, J., & Trawalter, S. (2005). Ironic effects of racial bias
during interracial interactions. Psychological Science, 15(5), 397-402.

Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2009). Big-five personality, social worldview, and ideological
attitudes: Further tests of a dual process cognitive-motivational model. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 149(5), 545-561.

Simmons, S. (2008). Ascriptive justice: The prevalence, distribution, and consequences of

political correctness in the academy. The Forum, 6(2).

Simpson, J., Carter, S., Anthony, S. H., & Overton, P. G. (2006). Is disgust a homogeneous
emotion? Motivation and Emotion, 30(1), 31-41.

Stankov, L. (2009). Conservatism and cognitive ability. Intelligence, 37(3), 294-304.

Stark, C. (1997). Academic freedom, "political correctness", and ethics. Canadian Pscyhology,
38, 232-237.

Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 65

Strauts, E., & Blanton, H. (2015). That's not funny: Instrument validation of the concern for
political correctness scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 32-40.

Suedfeld, P., Steel, G. D., & Schmidt, P. W. (1994). Political ideology and attitudes toward
censorship. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(9), 765-781.

Takooshian, H., & Rieber, R. W. (1996). Introduction: Political correctness and social distress in
academe: What's old, what's new, what's right, and what's left. Journal of Social Distress
and the Homeless, 5(2), 99-109.

Terrizzi, J. A., Shook, N. J., & Ventis, W. L. (2010). Disgust: A predictor of social conservatism
and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals. Personality and Individual Differences, 49,
587-592.

Thibodaux, D. (1992). Political correctness: The cloning of the American mind. Louisiana:
Huntington House Publishers.

Thom, F. (1989). Newspeak: The language of Soviet communism (K. Connolly, Trans.). London:
The Claridge Press.

Thurston, A. F. (1988). Enemies of the people: The ordeal of the intellectuals in China's great
cultural revolution. Cambridge, Massachusettes: Harvard University Press.

Todosijevic, B. (2005). Authoritarianism and socialist ideology: The case of Yugoslavia, 1995.
In R. F. Farnen, H. Dekker, C. De Landtsheer, H. Sünker & D. B. German (Eds.),
Democratization, europeanization, and globalization trends: Cross-national analysis of
authoritarianism, socialization, communications, youth, and social policy. Frankfurt:
Peter Lang.

Todosijevic, B. (2006). Politics in Serbia 1990-2002: A cleavage of world views. Psihologija,

39, 121-146.

Todosijevic, B., & Enyedi, Z. (2008a). Authoritarianism without dominant ideology: Political
manifestations of authoritarian attitudes in Hungary. Political Pscyhology, 29, 767-787.
 66

Todosijevic, B., & Enyedi, Z. (2008b). Post-materialism and authoritarianism in Hungary:

Evidence from a two-generations study. In R. Farnen, D. German, H. Dekker, C. De
Landtsheer & H. Sünker (Eds.), Political Culture, socialization, democracy, and
education: Interdisciplinary and cross-national perspectives for a new century (pp. 77-
97). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Trenton, T. N. (1994). Generation X and political correctness: Ideological and religious

transformation among students. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 22(4), 417-436.

Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., & Griskevicius, V. (2009). Microbes, making and morality:
Individual difference in the three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 97, 103-122.

Van Hiel, A., Duriez, B., & Kossowska, M. (2006). The presence of left-wing authoritarianism
in Western-Europe and its relationship with conservative ideology. Political Pscyhology,
27, 769-793.

Van Hiel, A., Kossowska, M., & Mervielde, I. (2000). The relationship between openness to
experience and political ideology. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(741-751).

Van Hiel, A., & Mervielde, I. (2004). Openness to Experience and boundaries in the mind:
Relationships with cultural and economic conservative beliefs. Journal of Personality,
72, 659-686.

Wechsler, D. (2009). Wechsler Memory Scale-Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

Whitney, D. C., & Wartella, E. (1992). Media coverage of the 'political correctness debate.
Journal of Communications, 42(2), 83-94.

Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought and reality (J. b. Carroll Ed.). Cambridge,
Massachusetts: M. I. T. Press.

Williams, R. (1981). Culture. London: Fontana.

Wilson, J. K. (1995). PC wars. London: Routledge.

 67

Woodley, M. A. (2010). Are high-IQ individuals deficient in common sense? A critical

examination of the 'clever sillies' hypothesis. Intelligence, 38(5), 471-480.

Wu, H., & Wakeman, C. (1994). Bitter winds: A memoir of my years in China's Gulag. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.

Zafirovski, M. (2007). Puritanism and social authoritarianism: Authoritarian Mastery of Civil

Society The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Authoritarianism (pp. 80-142). Springer-
Verlag: New York.

Zumbrunnen, J., & Gangl, A. (2008). Conflict, fusion, or coexistence? The complexity of
contemporary American conservatism. Political Behavior, 30, 199-221.
 68

Table 1

Scale statistics for PC subscales. Attitudes and Sensitivity to Offense subscales were factor
analyzed and divided into additional subscales.
Scale # of Items M Variance α
Attitudes 41 3.035 1.23 0.908
Language 70 0.022 3.013 0.907
Sensitivity to Offense 31 2.629 1.681 0.928
Sensitivity to Sexist
5 3.602 1.7 0.919
Insults
Original
Set of Sensitivity to Right 2 2.486 1.777 0.84
Items Wing Name Insults
System Injustice 19 2.527 1.511 0.967
Censorship 11 2.158 1.353 0.933
Punitive Measures 13 2.922 2.736 0.91
Behavioural Offense 11 2.354 1.648 0.869
General PC 4 2.911 1.313 0.905
Language 64 -0.318 2.917 0.919
Sensitivity to Sexist
4 3.694 1.673 0.93
Insults
Sensitivity to Right 2 2.486 1.777 0.84
Updated
Wing Name Insults
Set of
System Injustice 19 2.527 1.511 0.967
Items
Censorship 7 1.995 1.346 0.952
Punitive Measures 13 2.922 2.736 0.91
Behavioural Offense 7 1.995 1.346 0.951
General PC 3 3.071 1.331 0.96
 69

Table 2

Items from the original pool of 203 PC items that were excluded from the creation of scale
scores.
Sub-Scale Reason For Exclusion Item
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-Western Civilization courses, examining
solely the “great books” of Western culture (e.g.,
(6) main loading <.5, Darwin, Shakespeare, Plato’s Republic, Dante’s
cross-loading >.32 Inferno) should be replaced by multiculturalist courses
which confront issues relating to class, ethnicity, race,
religion, gender, and sexual orientation (e.g., books by
women and minorities).
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-Students should be required to take at least
(9) main loading <.5,
one course in ethnic studies, while courses on Western
cross-loading >.32 Civilization and American/Canadian history should be
optional.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-Teachers of technical courses, such as
(19) main loading <.5 mathematics, should be concerned with using a
multicultural approach (e.g., discussing the cultural and
historical background of methods and functions).
Attitudes

Rate your level of agreement with the following

statements.-There are no universal standards for what is
(18) main loading <.5 “good”, “bad”, “right”, or “wrong”. These benchmarks
are relative to the traditions, customs, or practices of an
individual and their culture.

Rate your level of agreement with the following

(12) main loading <.5,
statements.-We should tolerate behaviour that runs
cross-loading >.32 counter to our personal/cultural moral standards.

Rate your level of agreement with the following

statements.-Research articles indicating the existence of
(4) main loading <.5,
performance differences (intelligence, achievement,
cross-loading >.32 personality) as a consequence of gender, race, or
ethnicity are biased and should not be published.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
(8) main loading <.5, statements.-Older books that use terms now regarded as
cross-loading >.32 racist or otherwise offensive should not be used in
schools.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
(5) main loading <.5, statements.-The individual creative imagination (e.g.,
cross-loading >.32 authors, painters) should be mindful of multiculturalism
and equality.
 70

Rate your level of agreement with the following

statements.-Research articles claiming that the sun is
(2) main loading <.5 the main driver of climate change, and not man-made
carbon emissions, are biased and should no longer be
published.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
(1) anti-image matrix
statements.-Race-based crime data should be collected
diagonal correlation <.6 and published.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
(17) main loading <.5 statements.-Men are completely to blame for issues of
domestic violence.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-“The creation of an intimidating, hostile, or
(15) main loading <.5 offensive environment” is a suitable definition for
sexual harassment.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
(13) main loading <.5, statements.-All companies should require employees
cross-loading >.32 with supervisory responsibility to regularly take a
course in sexual harassment training and education.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-It is not possible for someone who has been
(11) main loading <.5 drinking to provide valid explicit consent for intimate
or sexual contact.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
(10) main loading <.5, statements.-It is not possible for someone who has been
cross-loading >.32 using recreational drugs to provide valid explicit
consent for intimate or sexual contact.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-Universities and other organizations should
(14) main loading <.5 establish boards or tribunals to handle allegations of
sexual assault.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-An allegation of sexual assault is to be
(16) main loading <.5 considered proven if the preponderance of the evidence
(more likely than not/more than 50% chance true)
suggests guilt.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
(7) main loading <.5, statements.-All universities should be responsible for
cross-loading >.32 developing a victim interview protocol for victims of
alleged sexual assault.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements, or if you feel you do not have enoug...-
increase reliability There are no biologically based differences in
personality, talent, and ability to reason, between racial
groups.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements, or if you feel you do not have enoug...-The
increase reliability world is warming because the human species burns too
much fossil fuel.
 71

Rate your level of agreement with the following

(3) main loading <.5, statements, or if you feel you do not have enoug...-
low face validity Raising meat hurts the environment, uses up valuable
land and resources and is toxic to the planet as a whole.
increase reliability A member of a dark-skinned people.
A member of a white-skinned people, of European
increase reliability origin.
A person who is sexually attracted to people of their
increase reliability
Language

own sex.
Criticizing an idea that is very bad, useless, or
increase reliability worthless.
increase reliability A list of persons under suspicion, disfavor, censure, etc.
increase reliability People who are no longer possible to manage.
no variability in
An adult human female.
response
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-“ghetto-
(3) cross-loading >.32 blaster” - a large portable radio and cassette or CD
player
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
(9) cross-loading >.32 terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-“Irish
dividend” - fictitious profit
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
increase reliability terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-“Irish
beauty” - woman with 2 black eyes
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
(5) cross-loading >.32 terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-“Dutch
courage” - courage gained from intoxication
Offense Sensitivity

Rate how offensive you find each of the following

(7) cross-loading >.32 terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-“Dutch
widow” - prostitute
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
(4) cross-loading >.32 terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-“Dutch
feast” - host gets drunk before his guests
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
(6) main loading <.5,
terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-“Dutch
cross-loading >.32 cap” - condom
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
(2) main loading <.5 terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-Saying
“God bless” at a local event.

Rate how offensive you find each of the following

terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-Using
(8) cross-loading >.32 “ghetto” to describe someone/something/somewhere:
poor quality, poor looking; dirty, not presentable; old,
broken, worn out; classless
 72

Rate how offensive you find each of the following

(1) main loading <.5 statements. Please be as honest as possible. T...-The
Islamic faith and Quaran view homosexuality as sinful.
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
increase reliability statements. Please be as honest as possible. T...-Rape is
a crime of violence not sexuality.
Offense
Female increase reliability An unpleasant woman.-bitch
Insult
No
no loading >.32 Are you a vegetarian or vegan?
Category
Do you believe that works in these categories should be
increase reliability screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-Work seen by
children
Do you believe that works in these categories should be
Censorship

increase reliability screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-Work seen by

adults
Do you believe that works in these categories should be
increase reliability screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-Private works
(i.e., between friends & family)
Do you believe that works in these categories should be
increase reliability screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-Public works
Rate your level of agreement with the following
General PC increase reliability statements.-I am offended when others are not
“politically correct”.
 73

Table 3

Factor loadings and communalities based on a principal components analysis with direct
oblimin rotation for 22 attitude subscale items from the original version of the PC scale. This is
the forced four-factor solution (N=332).
Factor
F4:
Item F1: F3: Communalities
F2: Egalitarian
Sexual Punitive
Censorship Beliefs &
Propriety Justice
Policy
Rate your level of agreement with
the following statements.-All
intimate contact must be preceded
by “affirmative consent” 0.842 0.706
(meaning affirmative, conscious,
and voluntary agreement to
engage in sexual activity).

Rate your level of agreement with

the following statements.-It is the
responsibility of each person
involved in the sexual activity to
ensure that he or she has the
0.799 0.651
affirmative consent of the other or
others to engage in the sexual
activity.
Rate your level of agreement with
the following statements.-There
must be explicit consent provided
before any intimate contact is
0.784 0.649
initiated, even between married
couples.
Rate your level of agreement with
the following statements.-All
sexual contact, including touching 0.767 0.644
and kissing, must be agreed upon
explicitly before initiation.
Rate your level of agreement with
the following statements.-Lack of
protest or resistance does not
mean consent to intimate
0.607 0.464
behaviour, nor does silence mean
consent.
 74

Rate your level of agreement with

the following statements.-In order
to receive government funding, all
universities must implement
prevention and outreach programs
0.607 0.468
addressing sexual violence,
domestic violence, dating
violence, and stalking.

Rate your level of agreement with

the following statements.-The
existence of a dating relationship
between the persons involved, or
the fact of past sexual relations
0.582 0.457
between them, should never by
itself be assumed to be an
indicator of consent.
Rate your level of agreement with
the following statements.-Before a
formal complaint, investigation,
hearing, or final decision on a
sexual harassment case has been
made, schools should change the 0.501 0.395
housing, class or sports schedule,
campus job, or extracurricular
activities and clubs of the accused
perpetrator, to ensure no contact
between them and the victim.
Rate your level of agreement with
the following statements.-The
words of classic nursery rhymes,
such as “Baa Baa Black Sheep”,
0.908 0.821
should be changed to more
inclusive lyrics.
Rate your level of agreement with
the following statements.-Retail
stores should avoid using the
word “Christmas” in their
0.907 0.798
November and December
advertising campaigns.
Rate your level of agreement with
the following statements.-Schools
should censor words in classic
books, such as J. D. Salinger’s
“The Catcher in the Rye” and
0.663 0.491
Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry
Finn”, that have racist or offensive
terms and ideas.
 75

Rate your level of agreement with

the following statements.-Retail
stores and businesses should use 0.605 0.43
the term “holiday tree” instead of
“Christmas tree”.
Rate your level of agreement with
the following statements.-When a
charge of sexual assault is brought
forth, the alleged perpetrator
0.754 0.608
should have to prove his or her
innocence.
Rate your level of agreement with
the following statements.-If a
student is suspected of sexual
assault, he or she should be
0.661 0.535
suspended pending further
investigation.
Rate your level of agreement with
the following statements.-An
allegation of sexual assault is to
be rejected if there is reasonable
0.638 0.433
doubt about the guilt of the
alleged perpetrator.
Rate your level of agreement with
the following statements.-It is
wrong to criticize the status and
rights of women under Islam
0.522 0.364
because it is racist and
disrespectful of multiculturalism.

Rate your level of agreement with

the following statements.-Racial,
ethnic, and gender quotas should
exist in employment (i.e.,
numerical requirements for hiring
-0.888 0.796
and/or promoting members of a
particular racial, ethnic or gender
group).
Rate your level of agreement with
the following statements.-Racial,
ethnic, and gender quotas should
exist in education (i.e., numerical
requirements for admitting and/or
-0.834 0.744
graduating members of a
particular racial, ethnic or gender
group).
 76

Rate your level of agreement with

the following statements.-
Government interventions should
exist (in schools and companies) -0.713 0.639
to ensure equality in professions
where there is a historically large
inequality.
Rate your level of agreement with
the following statements.-In
academia and corporations,
ethnic, racial, and gender diversity
-0.572 0.558
are required to have a diverse
range of ideas.
Eigenvalue 5.554 3.002 1.619 1.476
(Rotated in brackets) (4.738) (2.921) (2.507) (3.514)
% Variance Explained 27.769 15.008 8.095 7.378
Note: Factor loadings <.32 are supressed
 77

Table 4
Scale statistics for PC attitudes subscales.
Scale # of Items M Variance α
Attitudes: Sexual
8 3.884 3.553 0.857
Propriety
Original Attitudes: Censorship 4 1.623 0.734 0.794
Set of Attitudes: Egalitarian
6 3.273 1.434 0.809
Items Beliefs & Policies
Attitudes: Punitive
4 2.798 1.415 0.636
Justice
Attitudes: Sexual
8 3.884 3.553 0.857
Propriety
Updated Attitudes: Censorship 4 1.623 0.734 0.794
Set of Attitudes: Egalitarian
Items 4 2.983 1.395 0.838
Beliefs & Policies
Attitudes: Punitive
4 2.798 1.415 0.636
Justice
 78

Table 5

Factor loadings and communalities based on a principal components analysis with varimax
rotation for 17 offence sensitivity items from the original version of the PC scale. This is the
forced three-factor solution (N=332).
Factor
Item F3: Offense Communalities
F1: Offense F2: Offense
Right Wing
Racial Power
Belief

Rate how offensive you find each of

the following terms. Please be as
honest as possible. There...-“coconut” 0.839 0.732
- a Hispanic person who has adopted
the values of white American society
Rate how offensive you find each of
the following terms. Please be as
honest as possible. There...-“Oreo”- a
black person who inappropriately
adopts or identifies with middle-class
0.821 0.691
white culture (e.g., attitudes,
fashions) as opposed to urban
African-American culture
Rate how offensive you find each of
the following terms. Please be as
honest as possible. There...-“towel 0.821 0.68
head” - man of Middle Eastern
descent
Rate how offensive you find each of
the following terms. Please be as
honest as possible. There...-“Jew
0.795 0.663
down” - to negotiate
Rate how offensive you find each of
the following terms. Please be as
honest as possible. There...-“wigger” 0.728 0.595
- a white person who mimics
stereotypical black mannerisms
Rate how offensive you find each of
the following terms. Please be as
honest as possible. There...-“Irish
0.681 0.525
wheelbarrow” - ambulance
 79

Rate how offensive you find each of

the following statements. Please be
as honest as possible. T...-“The white
race is the cancer of human history.”
0.888 0.796
- Susan Sontag, a prominent white
intellectual
Rate how offensive you find each of
the following statements. Please be
as honest as possible. T...-“The 0.849 0.725
common enemy is the white man.” -
Malcolm X, African American leader
Rate how offensive you find each of
the following statements. Please be
as honest as possible. T...-
“Intercourse remains a means or the
0.71 0.585
means of physiologically making a
woman inferior.” - Michael Finley
Rate how offensive you find each of
the following statements. Please be
as honest as possible. T...-“Violation 0.644 0.466
is a synonym for intercourse.” -
Andrea Dworkin
Rate how offensive you find each of
the following terms. Please be as
honest as possible. There...-“flip-
chart” - a large pad of paper, bound 0.839 0.706
so that each page can be turned over
at the top to reveal the next; used on a
stand at presentations
Rate how offensive you find each of
the following terms. Please be as
honest as possible. There...-“going
Dutch”/”Dutch date”/”Dutch treat” -
0.773 0.626
each person participating in the group
activity pays for themselves

Rate how offensive you find each of

the following terms. Please be as
honest as possible. There...-
“Machiavellianism” - employment of
cunning and deception in statecraft or 0.729 0.596
general conduct; derived from the
misinterpretation of the Italian
diplomat and writer Niccolò
Machiavelli’s book The Prince
4.560 2.097 1.729
Eigenvalue (Rotated in brackets)
(3.901) (2.516) (1.968)
% Variance Explained (Rotated in 35.078 16.130 13.297
brackets) (30.009) (19.355) (15.141)
Note: Factor loadings <.32 are supressed
     
 80

Table 6
Scale statistics for PC offense sensitivity subscales.
Scale # of Items M Variance α
Offense: Racial 7 3.039 1.948 0.881
Original
Offense: Power 4 3.088 2.04 0.795
Set of
Items Offense: Right Wing
4 1.493 0.944 0.645
Belief
Offense: Racial 6 3.082 1.875 0.886
Updated
Offense: Power 4 3.088 2.04 0.795
Set of
Items Offense: Right Wing
3 1.379 0.757 0.687
Belief
 81

Table 7

Factor loadings and communalities based on a maximum likelihood analysis with direct oblimin
rotation for 13 subscale scores and 6 uncategorized items from the original version of the PC
scale. This is the forced three-factor solution (N=332).
Factor
Item 3: Political Communalities
1: Liberalism 2: Authoritarianism
Correctness
Attitudes: Egalitarian
0.707 0.333 0.622
Beliefs & Policy
Diversity and inclusivity
training seminars 0.701 0.528
should…
Sexual harassment
awareness training 0.652 0.461
seminars should…
Rate the degree you think
each of the following
facts is a biological or
cultural phenomenon.
Pl...-On IQ tests,
individuals who identify
themselves as “white”
0.623 0.444
tend on average to score
higher than individuals of
African ancestry.
Additionally, individuals
of an East Asian
background tend to score
higher than whites.
Attitudes: Sexual
0.6 0.437
Propriety
Rate the degree you think
each of the following
facts is a biological or
cultural phenomenon.
Pl...-Women are on 0.599 0.388
average more agreeable
and more prone to
anxiety and emotional
pain than men.
System Injustice 0.567 0.428
Language 0.537 0.378 0.437
 82

General PC 0.395 0.362 0.374

Attitudes: Punitive Justice 0.666 0.47
Censorship Area 0.64 0.482
Attitudes: Censorship 0.59 0.375
Blasphemous, obscene,
and slang statements, as
0.574 0.445
well as racist slurs (e.g.,
nigger) and epithets...
The craft of compiling,
writing, and editing 0.512 0.29
dictionaries should be…
Punishment 0.507 0.379
Offense: Right Wing
0.469 0.346 0.263
Beliefs
Offense: Power
0.705 0.524
Differential
Offense: Racial 0.455 0.7 0.702
Offense: Sexist 0.656 0.522
Offense: Right Wing
0.611 0.34
Names
Eigenvalue (Rotated in 5.391 2.124 1.612
brackets) (3.817) (2.808) (2.502)
% Variance Explained 26.954 10.619 8.062
(Rotated in brackets) (19.084) (14.039) (12.512)
Note: Factor loadings <.32 are supressed
 83

Table 8

Factor loadings and communalities based on a maximum likelihood analysis with direct oblimin
rotation for 13 subscale scores and 6 uncategorized items from the original version of the PC
scale. This is the forced two-factor solution (N=332).
Factor
Item 1: PC- 2: PC- Communalities
Liberalism Authoritarianism
Diversity and inclusivity training
0.69 0.489
seminars should…
Sexual harassment awareness
0.65 0.434
training seminars should…
Offense: Racial 0.644 0.498
Attitudes: Egalitarian Beliefs &
0.625 0.433
Policy
Language 0.623 0.415
System Injustice 0.62 0.437
Rate the degree you think each of
the following facts is a biological or
cultural phenomenon. Pl...-On IQ
tests, individuals who identify
themselves as “white” tend on
0.608 0.438
average to score higher than
individuals of African ancestry.
Additionally, individuals of an East
Asian background tend to score
higher than whites.
Attitudes: Sexual Propriety 0.596 0.399
Rate the degree you think each of
the following facts is a biological or
cultural phenomenon. Pl...-Women
0.586 0.38
are on average more agreeable and
more prone to anxiety and
emotional pain than men.
General PC 0.478 0.364 0.36
Offense: Sexist 0.46 0.337 0.325
Behavioural Offense 0.353 0.344 0.243
Censorship Area 0.692 0.484
Blasphemous, obscene, and slang
statements, as well as racist slurs 0.583 0.434
(e.g., nigger) and epithets...
 84

Attitudes: Punitive Justice 0.571 0.335

Offense: Right Wing Beliefs 0.562 0.323
Punishment 0.535 0.379
Attitudes: Censorship 0.51 0.265
The craft of compiling, writing, and
0.499 0.266
editing dictionaries should be…
Offense: Right Wing Names 0.476 0.327
5.560 2.104
Eigenvalue
(4.438) (3.226)
27.799 10.519
% Variance Explained
(22.188) (16.131)
Note: Factor loadings <.32 are supressed
 85

Table 9

Correlations of two-factor solution PC factor scores (PC-Liberalism, PC-Authoritarianism) with

personality, intelligence, and disgust sensitivity scales.
F2: PC-
F1: PC-Liberalism
Authoritarianism
Volatility -0.071 0.065
Withdrawal -0.005 -0.009
Politeness 0.177*** 0.069
Compassion 0.222*** 0.114*
BFAS

Industriousness -0.031 0.118*

Orderliness -0.059 0.162***
Enthusiasm 0.066 0.12*
Assertiveness -0.001 0.069
Intellect 0.157** -0.108
Openness 0.239*** -0.005
Neuroticism -0.04 0.03
Agreeableness 0.22*** 0.102
Big 5

Conscientiousness -0.048 0.149**

Extraversion 0.035 0.103
Openness 0.223*** -0.064
Disgust Sensitivity 0.016 0.077
WAIS-IV

IQ Vocabulary 0.23*** -0.45***

IQ Knowledge 0.107 -0.261***

Crystallized Intelligence 0.198*** -0.417***

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.003.
 86

Table 10

Correlations of three-factor solution PC factor scores (Liberalism, Authoritarianism, Political

Correctness) with personality, intelligence, and disgust sensitivity scales.
F2: F3: Political
F1: Liberalism
Authoritarianism Correctness
Volatility -0.053 0.08 -0.085
Withdrawal 0.019 0.01 -0.091
Politeness 0.126* 0.026 0.204***
Compassion 0.149** 0.05 0.275***
BFAS

Industriousness -0.072 0.089 0.145**

Orderliness -0.054 0.187*** -0.001
Enthusiasm 0.025 0.085 0.158**
Assertiveness -0.035 0.037 0.101
Intellect 0.124* -0.143** 0.114*
Openness 0.2*** -0.047 0.145**
Neuroticism -0.019 0.048 -0.092
Agreeableness 0.152** 0.043 0.265***
Big 5

Conscientiousness -0.067 0.146** 0.08

Extraversion -0.006 0.066 0.141**
Openness 0.182*** -0.108* 0.146**
Disgust Sensitivity -0.012 0.046 0.079
WAIS-IV

IQ Vocabulary 0.195*** -0.511*** 0.074

IQ Knowledge 0.066 -0.315*** 0.090

Crystallized Intelligence 0.153** -0.484*** 0.096

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.003.
 87

Table 11

Correlations of PC total with personality, intelligence, and disgust sensitivity scales.

PC Total
Volatility -0.03
Withdrawal -0.034
Politeness 0.182***
Compassion 0.246***
BFAS

Industriousness 0.057
Orderliness 0.051
Enthusiasm 0.131*
Assertiveness 0.055
Intellect 0.06
Openness 0.184***
Neuroticism -0.033
Agreeableness 0.237***
Big 5

Conscientiousness 0.058
Extraversion 0.101
Openness 0.137*
Disgust Sensitivity 0.053
WAIS-IV

IQ Vocabulary -0.085

IQ Knowledge -0.058

Crystallized Intelligence -0.084

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01
***p<.003.
 88

Table 12

Personality, intelligence, and disgust sensitivity scale statistics.

M SD α
Volatility 2.514 1.217 0.931
Withdrawal 2.673 1.329 0.909
Politeness 3.93 0.854 0.765
Compassion 3.918 0.827 0.929
BFAS

Industriousness 3.653 1.055 0.904

Orderliness 3.565 1.082 0.857
Enthusiasm 3.34 1.208 0.881
Assertiveness 3.161 1.169 0.902
Intellect 3.814 0.933 0.867
Openness 3.755 1.116 0.829
Neuroticism 2.593 1.273 0.95
Agreeableness 3.924 0.84 0.901
Big 5

Conscientiousness 3.609 1.068 0.92

Extraversion 3.251 1.189 0.919
Openness 3.784 1.025 0.872
Disgust Sensitivity 3.041 1.527 0.892
WAIS-IV

IQ Vocabulary 20.84 5.798 0.853

IQ Knowledge 7.15 2.435 0.565

Crystallized
0.8549
Intelligence 0.855
 89

Table 13

Coefficients from regression run on PC-Liberalism factor scores with 3 predictor variables: 2
Big-5 factor scores and the crystallized intelligence score. Predictor variables had significant
zero-order correlations with PC- Liberalism (N=332).
Model 1 Model 2
B β B β
Crystallized Intelligence 0.231 .198*** 0.176 .151**
Agreeableness 0.009 0.129
Big 5

Openness 0.008 0.119

R2 0.039 0.088
F for ΔR2 13.456*** 8.652***

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

 90

Table 14

Coefficients from regression run on PC-Liberalism factor scores with 5 predictor variables: 4
BFAS aspect scores and the IQ vocabulary score. Predictor variables had significant zero-order
correlations with PC- Liberalism (N=332).
Model 1 Model 2
B β B β
WAIS-IV

IQ Vocabulary 0.039 0.229*** 0.034 0.197***

Politeness 0 -0.003
BFAS

Compassion 0.017 0.135

Intellect -0.011 -0.091
Openness 0.027 .207**
R2 0.052 0.118
F for ΔR2 18.159*** 6.067***

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

 91

Table 15

Coefficients from regression run on PC-Authoritarianism factor scores with 2 predictor

variables: 1 Big-5 factor score and the crystallized intelligence score. Predictor variables had
significant zero-order correlations with PC-Authoritarianism (N=332).
Model 1 Model 2
B β B β
Crystallized Intelligence -0.488 -0.417*** -0.484 -0.414***
Big 5

Conscientiousness 0.009 0.139**

R2 0.174 0.193
F for ΔR2 69.213*** 7.873**

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

 92

Table 16

Coefficients from regression run on PC-Authoritarianism factor scores with 3 predictor

variables: 1 BFAS aspect score and 2 WAIS-IV scale scores. Predictor variables had significant
zero-order correlations with PC-Authoritarianism (N=332).
Model 1 Model 2
B β B β
BFAS WAIS-IV

IQ Vocabulary -0.072 -0.417*** -0.071 -0.412***

IQ Knowledge -0.03 -0.072 -0.028 -0.067

Orderliness 0.016 0.138**

R2 0.206 0.225
F for ΔR2 42.556*** 7.964**

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

 93

Table 17

Coefficients from regression run on Liberalism factor scores with 3 predictor variables: 2 Big-5
factor scores and the crystallized intelligence score. Predictor variables had significant zero-
order correlations with Liberalism (N=332).
Model 1 Model 2
B β B β
Crystallized Intelligence 0.179 0.154** 0.131 0.113*
Agreeableness 0.004 0.057
Big 5

Openness 0.01 0.136

R2 0.024 0.054
F for ΔR2 7.978** 0.5219**

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

 94

Table 18

Coefficients from regression run on Liberalism factor scores with 3 predictor variables: 2 BFAS
aspect score and the IQ vocabulary scale score. Predictor variables had significant zero-order
correlations with Liberalism (N=332).
Model 1 Model 2
B β B β
BFAS WAIS-IV

IQ Vocabulary 0.033 0.193*** 0.026 0.151**

Compassion 0.004 0.037

Openness 0.024 0.185**
R2 0.037 0.079
F for ΔR2 12.736*** 7.426***

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

 95

Table 19

Coefficients from regression run on Authoritarianism factor scores with 2 predictor variables: 1
Big-5 factor score and the crystallized intelligence score. Predictor variables had significant
zero-order correlations with Authoritarianism (N=332).
Model 1 Model 2
B β B β
Crystallized Intelligence -0.567 -0.484*** -0.563 -0.481***
Big 5

Conscientiousness 0.008 0.003**

R2 0.234 0.252
F for ΔR2 100.687*** 7.974**

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

 96

Table 20

Coefficients from regression run on Authoritarianism factor scores with 4 predictor variables: 2
BFAS aspect score and 2 WAIS-IV scale scores. Predictor variables had significant zero-order
correlations with Authoritarianism (N=332).
Model 1 Model 2
B β B β
BFAS WAIS-IV

IQ Vocabulary -0.08 -0.463*** -0.075 -0.437***

IQ Knowledge -0.043 -0.104 -0.038 -0.092

Orderliness 0.023 0.194***
Intellect -0.01 -0.08
2
R 0.269 0.3
F for ΔR2 60.484*** 7.051***

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

 97

Table 21

Coefficients from regression run on Political Correctness factor scores with 3 predictor
variables: 3 Big-5 factor scores. Predictor variables had significant zero-order correlations with
Political Correctness (N=332).
B β
Agreeableness 0.021 0.289***
Big 5

Extraversion 0.001 0.01

Openness -0.004 -0.051
R2 0.07
F for ΔR2 8.248***

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

 98

Table 22

Coefficients from regression run on Political Correctness factor scores with 5 predictor
variables: 5 BFAS aspect scores. Predictor variables had significant zero-order correlations
with Political Correctness (N=332).
B β
Politeness 0.005 0.035
Compassion 0.037 0.296***
BFAS

Industriousness 0.004 0.035

Enthusiasm -0.007 -0.063
Openness -0.005 -0.038
R2 0.078
F for ΔR2 5.496***

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

 99

Table 23

Coefficients from regression run on PC Total scores with 1 predictor variable: 1 Big-5 factor
score. Predictor variables had significant zero-order correlations with PC Total (N=332).
B β
Big 5

Agreeableness 0.008 0.237***

R2 0.056
F for ΔR2 19.754***

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

 100

Table 24

Coefficients from regression run on PC Total scores with 5 predictor variables: 3 BFAS aspect
scores. Predictor variables had significant zero-order correlations with PC Total (N=332).
B β
Politeness 0.002 0.023
BFAS

Compassion 0.012 0.197*

Openness 0.004 0.057
R2 0.063
F for ΔR2 7.402***

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

 101

Table 25

Items from the original pool of 203 PC items that were excluded from shortened PC scale.
Exclusions were based on the other reported statistics: item correlations with scale-level factor
analysis factor scores, item-level factor analysis factor loadings, difference in item-factor
correlations, and difference in item-factor loadings.
r with r
Reason For r with PC- PC- PCAuth
Item F1 F2 F1 - F2
Removal Liberalism Authorit -
arianism rPCLib
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-Western Civilization courses, examining
scale-level factor solely the “great books” of Western culture (e.g.,
analysis: difference Darwin, Shakespeare, Plato’s Republic, Dante’s
0.212 0.234 0.17 0.307 0.022 -0.137
in item-factor score Inferno) should be replaced by multiculturalist
correlations <.10 courses which confront issues relating to class,
ethnicity, race, religion, gender, and sexual
orientation (e.g., books by women and minorities).
Rate your level of agreement with the following
scale-level & item- statements.-Students should be required to take at
level main factor least one course in ethnic studies, while courses on 0.36 0.235 0.225 0.357 -0.125 -0.132
loading different Western Civilization and American/Canadian history
should be optional.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
item-level factor
statements.-Teachers of technical courses, such as
analysis: difference
mathematics, should be concerned with using a 0.373 0.24 0.301 0.325 -0.133 -0.024
in factor loadings
multicultural approach (e.g., discussing the cultural
<.10
and historical background of methods and functions).
Rate your level of agreement with the following
main scale-factor
statements.-There are no universal standards for what
correlation <.2,
is “good”, “bad”, “right”, or “wrong”. These 0.191 -0.032 0.161 -0.223 0.161
main item-factor
benchmarks are relative to the traditions, customs, or
loading <.2
practices of an individual and their culture.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-We should tolerate behaviour that runs 0.286 -0.132 0.333 -0.418 0.333
counter to our personal/cultural moral standards.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
item-level factor
statements.-Racial, ethnic, and gender quotas should
analysis: difference
exist in education (i.e., numerical requirements for 0.488 0.157 0.358 0.315 -0.331 0.043
in factor loadings
admitting and/or graduating members of a particular
<.10
racial, ethnic or gender group).
Rate your level of agreement with the following
item-level factor
statements.-Government interventions should exist
analysis: difference
(in schools and companies) to ensure equality in 0.514 0.18 0.379 0.349 -0.334 0.03
in factor loadings
professions where there is a historically large
<.10
inequality.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
item-level factor
statements.-Racial, ethnic, and gender quotas should
analysis: difference
exist in employment (i.e., numerical requirements for 0.487 0.161 0.33 0.316 -0.326 0.014
in factor loadings
hiring and/or promoting members of a particular
<.10
racial, ethnic or gender group).
 102

Rate your level of agreement with the following

statements.-Research articles indicating the existence
Multicollinearity:
of performance differences (intelligence,
negative Beta 0.152 0.33 0.364 0.178 -0.364
achievement, personality) as a consequence of
weight
gender, race, or ethnicity are biased and should not
be published.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-Schools should censor words in classic
books, such as J. D. Salinger’s “The Catcher in the -0.046 0.479 0.41 0.525 -0.41
Rye” and Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn”, that
have racist or offensive terms and ideas.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-Older books that use terms now regarded
0.09 0.441 0.419 0.351 -0.419
as racist or otherwise offensive should not be used in
schools.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-It is wrong to criticize the status and
0 0.471 0.418 0.471 -0.418
rights of women under Islam because it is racist and
disrespectful of multiculturalism.
item-level factor
Rate your level of agreement with the following
analysis: difference
statements.-Retail stores and businesses should use 0.096 0.304 0.159 0.23 0.208 -0.071
in factor loadings
the term “holiday tree” instead of “Christmas tree”.
<.10
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-Retail stores should avoid using the word
0.088 0.42 0.122 0.333 0.332 -0.211
“Christmas” in their November and December
advertising campaigns.
scale-level factor Rate your level of agreement with the following
analysis: difference statements.-The individual creative imagination (e.g.,
0.261 0.282 0.153 0.38 0.021 -0.227
in item-factor score authors, painters) should be mindful of
correlations <.10 multiculturalism and equality.
item-level factor Rate your level of agreement with the following
analysis: difference statements.-In academia and corporations, ethnic,
0.571 0.178 0.384 0.357 -0.393 0.027
in factor loadings racial, and gender diversity are required to have a
<.10 diverse range of ideas.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
Multicollinearity:
statements.-The words of classic nursery rhymes,
tolerance <.2, 0.063 0.411 0.327 0.348 -0.327
such as “Baa Baa Black Sheep”, should be changed
VIF>.5
to more inclusive lyrics.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
scale-level factor
statements.-Research articles claiming that the sun is
analysis: difference
the main driver of climate change, and not man-made 0.201 0.194 0.149 0.262 -0.007 -0.113
in item-factor score
carbon emissions, are biased and should no longer be
correlations <.10
published.
scale-level factor
Rate your level of agreement with the following
analysis: difference
statements.-Race-based crime data should be 0.121 0.066 0.176 -0.055 0.176
in item-factor score
collected and published.
correlations <.10
Multicollinearity: Rate your level of agreement with the following
negative Beta statements.-Men are completely to blame for issues 0.061 0.284 0.269 0.223 -0.269
weight of domestic violence.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-When a charge of sexual assault is
0.009 0.443 0.398 0.434 -0.398
brought forth, the alleged perpetrator should have to
prove his or her innocence.
 103

item-level factor Rate your level of agreement with the following

analysis: difference statements.-“The creation of an intimidating, hostile,
0.443 0.122 0.325 0.301 -0.321 0.024
in factor loadings or offensive environment” is a suitable definition for
<.10 sexual harassment.
item-level factor Rate your level of agreement with the following
analysis: difference statements.-All companies should require employees
0.461 0.118 0.251 0.316 -0.343 -0.065
in factor loadings with supervisory responsibility to regularly take a
<.10 course in sexual harassment training and education.
scale-level factor Rate your level of agreement with the following
analysis: difference statements.-All sexual contact, including touching
0.343 0.279 0.15 0.423 -0.064 -0.273
in item-factor score and kissing, must be agreed upon explicitly before
correlations <.10 initiation.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
scale-level & item-
statements.-There must be explicit consent provided
level main factor 0.447 0.156 0.227 0.342 -0.291 -0.115
before any intimate contact is initiated, even between
loading different
married couples.
scale-level factor Rate your level of agreement with the following
analysis: difference statements.-It is not possible for someone who has
0.233 0.189 0.128 0.282 -0.044 -0.154
in item-factor score been drinking to provide valid explicit consent for
correlations <.10 intimate or sexual contact.
scale-level factor Rate your level of agreement with the following
analysis: difference statements.-It is not possible for someone who has
0.191 0.186 0.106 0.27 -0.005 -0.164
in item-factor score been using recreational drugs to provide valid
correlations <.10 explicit consent for intimate or sexual contact.
scale-level factor Rate your level of agreement with the following
analysis: difference statements.-Universities and other organizations
0.169 0.251 0.315 0.082 -0.315
in item-factor score should establish boards or tribunals to handle
correlations <.10 allegations of sexual assault.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-If a student is suspected of sexual assault,
0.152 0.377 0.384 0.225 -0.384
he or she should be suspended pending further
investigation.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
scale-level & item- statements.-All intimate contact must be preceded by
level main factor “affirmative consent” (meaning affirmative, 0.483 0.222 0.245 0.406 -0.261 -0.161
loading different conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in
sexual activity).
Rate your level of agreement with the following
item-level factor
statements.-It is the responsibility of each person
analysis: difference
involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or 0.452 0.08 0.223 0.286 -0.372 -0.063
in factor loadings
she has the affirmative consent of the other or others
<.10
to engage in the sexual activity.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-The existence of a dating relationship
between the persons involved, or the fact of past 0.365 0.004 0.286 0.12 -0.361 0.166
sexual relations between them, should never by itself
be assumed to be an indicator of consent.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-An allegation of sexual assault is to be
increase reliability 0.114 0.277 0.23 0.163 -0.23
rejected if there is reasonable doubt about the guilt of
the alleged perpetrator.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
scale-level factor
statements.-An allegation of sexual assault is to be
analysis: difference
considered proven if the preponderance of the 0.169 0.222 0.307 0.053 -0.307
in item-factor score
evidence (more likely than not/more than 50%
correlations <.10
chance true) suggests guilt.
 104

item-level factor Rate your level of agreement with the following

analysis: difference statements.-All universities should be responsible for
0.304 0.078 0.215 0.212 -0.226 0.003
in factor loadings developing a victim interview protocol for victims of
<.10 alleged sexual assault.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
item-level factor
statements.-In order to receive government funding,
analysis: difference
all universities must implement prevention and 0.536 0.125 0.356 0.33 -0.411 0.026
in factor loadings
outreach programs addressing sexual violence,
<.10
domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-Lack of protest or resistance does not
0.471 0.065 0.349 0.224 -0.406 0.125
mean consent to intimate behaviour, nor does silence
mean consent.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements.-Before a formal complaint, investigation,
scale-level factor hearing, or final decision on a sexual harassment case
analysis: difference has been made, schools should change the housing,
0.308 0.217 0.364 -0.091 -0.364
in item-factor score class or sports schedule, campus job, or
correlations <.10 extracurricular activities and clubs of the accused
perpetrator, to ensure no contact between them and
the victim.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements, or if you feel you do not have enoug...-
There are no biologically based differences in 0.471 0.032 0.356 0.182 -0.439 0.174
personality, talent, and ability to reason, between
racial groups.
item-level factor Rate your level of agreement with the following
analysis: difference statements, or if you feel you do not have enoug...-
0.428 0.048 0.296 0.216 -0.38 0.08
in factor loadings The world is warming because the human species
<.10 burns too much fossil fuel.
Rate your level of agreement with the following
statements, or if you feel you do not have enoug...-
Raising meat hurts the environment, uses up valuable 0.259 -0.006 0.276 -0.265 0.276
land and resources and is toxic to the planet as a
whole.
increase reliability A kindred human being. 0.272 0.126 0.385 -0.146 0.385
item-level factor
analysis: difference
The action of caring for or looking after a child. 0.135 -0.004 -0.139 0
in factor loadings
<.10
Referring to someone when you do not know their
0.264 0.077 0.368 -0.187 0.368
name.
Someone who has a condition that markedly restricts
increase reliability 0.294 -0.025 0.374 -0.319 0.374
their ability to function physically.
no significant
correlations with
Referring to a group of men and women. 0.123 0.01 0.286 -0.113 0.286
scale-level factor
scores
Someone who has a condition that interferes with
0.293 0.01 0.337 -0.283 0.337
normal physical, intellectual, or emotional dev…
increase reliability Someone with low intelligence. 0.343 0.123 0.382 0.109 -0.22 0.273
scale-level factor
analysis: difference A matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or an
0.092 0.135 0.219 0.043 0.219
in item-factor score obstacle.
correlations <.10
 105

Someone who is lacking sufficient money to live at a

0.278 0.069 0.365 -0.209 0.365
increase reliability standard considered comfortable or normal i…
scale-level factor
analysis: difference Someone with a long-term, pathological use of
0.168 0.134 0.261 0.11 -0.034 0.151
in item-factor score drugs, characterized by daily intoxication, inabil…
correlations <.10
Multicollinearity:
Someone with a long-term, pathological use of
negative Beta 0.212 0.087 0.346 -0.125 0.346
alcohol, characterized by daily intoxication, inab…
weight
Someone who is well above one’s normal (or
0.37 0.118 0.44 0.129 -0.252 0.311
healthy) weight.
The human race. 0.387 0.072 0.523 -0.315 0.523
A person who engages in sexual activity for payment. 0.363 0.044 0.501 -0.319 0.501
scale-level factor
analysis: difference
Someone who is unable to see. 0.294 0.205 0.433 0.17 -0.089 0.263
in item-factor score
correlations <.10
scale-level factor
analysis: difference
Someone who is unable to hear. 0.275 0.245 0.42 0.167 -0.03 0.253
in item-factor score
correlations <.10
The title you apply when addressing a woman. 0.272 0.091 0.322 0.118 -0.181 0.204
item-level factor
analysis: difference A person bringing up a child or children without a
0.017 0.024 0.007 0
in factor loadings partner.
<.10
Multicollinearity:
inter-item
When asking about the individual a man is dating,
correlations >.8, 0.358 0.107 0.457 0.108 -0.251 0.349
you ask who is his…
tolerance <.2,
VIF>.5
When asking about the individual a woman is dating,
0.366 0.136 0.484 0.121 -0.23 0.363
you ask who is her…
no significant
correlations with The people whose job is to serve customers at their -
0.127 -0.066 0.268 -0.193 0.401
scale-level factor tables in a restaurant. 0.133
scores
scale-level factor
analysis: difference
A person who sews for a living. 0.111 0.057 0.227 -0.054 0.227
in item-factor score
correlations <.10
main scale-factor
A person who fishes for a living. 0.151 -0.001 0.326 -0.152 0.326
correlation <.2
A person who delivers your mail. 0.332 -0.017 0.488 -0.349 0.488
A person whose job is to extinguish fires. 0.337 0.088 0.405 0.102 -0.249 0.303
scale-level factor
analysis: difference A person whose intellectual ability is significantly
0.13 0.144 0.21 0.109 0.014 0.101
in item-factor score higher than average.
correlations <.10
Multicollinearity:
A person designated to preside over a meeting or
negative Beta 0.435 0.065 0.581 -0.37 0.581
who is the administrative head of a department…
weight
Multicollinearity:
A person who is an officer of the law. 0.3 -0.008 0.404 -0.308 0.404
negative Beta
 106

weight

A person whose job involves selling or promoting

0.408 0.073 0.536 -0.335 0.536
commercial products.
A person who repairs vehicles, machinery, or
0.284 0.128 0.448 -0.156 0.448
appliances.
scale-level factor
analysis: difference A person able or employed to do occasional domestic
0.168 0.191 0.349 0.023 0.349
in item-factor score repairs and minor renovations.
correlations <.10
A person who makes statements on behalf of a group
0.361 0.13 0.409 0.152 -0.231 0.257
or individual.
scale-level factor
analysis: difference A person employed to cart away household trash and
0.202 0.21 0.322 0.139 0.008 0.183
in item-factor score garbage.
correlations <.10
A person employed to provide meals for and
otherwise look after the passengers on a ship or 0.181 0.011 0.234 -0.17 0.234
airc…
A person who broadcasts a description and forecast
0.342 0 0.419 -0.342 0.419
of weather conditions.
item-level factor
analysis: difference Terms or vocabulary a person without professional or
0.123 0.237 0.216 0.185 0.114 0.031
in factor loadings specialized knowledge in a particular sub…
<.10
Multicollinearity:
A person whose profession is operating a television
negative Beta 0.258 0.07 0.432 -0.188 0.432
or movie camera.
weight
Multicollinearity:
A person employed by a retail store to deliver small
negative Beta 0.379 0.022 0.509 -0.357 0.509
orders to customers on call.
weight
A first-year student at a university, college, or high
increase reliability 0.214 0.048 0.325 -0.166 0.325
school.
scale-level factor
analysis: difference A man such as a porter, bouncer, or janitor who is on
0.202 0.222 0.357 0.148 0.02 0.209
in item-factor score duty at the entrance to a large building.
correlations <.10
Made or caused by human beings (as opposed to
increase reliability 0.22 0.002 0.321 -0.218 0.321
occurring or being made naturally).
Unable to walk through injury, illness, etc. and
increase reliability 0.181 -0.06 0.219 -0.241 0.219
relying on a wheelchair to move around.
main scale-factor
correlation <.2, Someone who uses a gun to commit a crime or
0.149 -0.051 0.174 -0.2 0.174
main item-factor terrorist act.
loading <.2
scale-level & item-
A representation of a human figure created with
level main factor 0.074 0.193 0.235 0.106 0.119 0.129
compressed snow.
loading different
Multicollinearity:
Someone who does not have a great deal of
negative Beta 0.254 -0.004 0.467 -0.258 0.467
education, or perhaps none at all.
weight
scale-level factor
analysis: difference A small covered opening in a floor, pavement, or
0.167 0.149 0.276 0.12 -0.018 0.156
in item-factor score other surface to allow a person to enter, espec…
correlations <.10
 107

scale-level factor
analysis: difference
An elderly person. 0.161 0.085 0.243 -0.076 0.243
in item-factor score
correlations <.10
no significant
correlations with
A minor untruth. 0.107 -0.009 0.133 -0.116 0.133
scale-level factor
scores
A person who manages a home. 0.318 0.038 0.371 -0.28 0.371
A non-citizen who is present in a country unlawfully
0.443 0.071 0.492 0.109 -0.372 0.383
or without the country's authorization.
scale-level factor
analysis: difference
People from the Jewish ethnoreligious group. 0.232 0.158 0.292 0.131 -0.074 0.161
in item-factor score
correlations <.10
no significant
correlations with
A member of a dark-skinned people. 0.05 -0.171 -0.12 -0.221 0.12
scale-level factor
scores
Multicollinearity:
negative Beta A member of any of the indigenous peoples. 0.402 0.032 0.446 -0.37 0.446
weight
A country with little industrial and economic activity,
0.329 0.085 0.46 -0.244 0.46
low incomes, and little money spen…
item-level factor
analysis: difference A member of a white-skinned people, of European
0.138 -0.025 -0.163 0
in factor loadings origin.
<.10
main scale-factor
correlation <.2,
A person of Italian origin. 0.142 0.028 0.11 -0.114 0.11
main item-factor
loading <.2
increase reliability A native of Asia or person of Asian descent. 0.204 -0.099 0.159 -0.303 0.159
A person who is sexually attracted to people of their
increase reliability 0.239 -0.003 0.175 -0.242 0.175
own sex.
Criticizing someone who does not make a very
increase reliability 0.237 0.055 0.265 -0.182 0.265
intelligent decision.
item-level factor
analysis: difference Criticizing an idea that is very bad, useless, or
0.014 -0.103 -0.117 0
in factor loadings worthless.
<.10
scale-level factor
analysis: difference A building in which people are legally held as a
0.214 0.167 0.325 0.105 -0.047 0.22
in item-factor score punishment for crimes they have committed or wh…
correlations <.10
An individual who is very small in stature. 0.435 0.08 0.459 0.135 -0.355 0.324
increase reliability Someone who contracts AIDS. 0.315 -0.071 0.4 -0.386 0.4
item-level factor
analysis: difference A domestic or tamed animal or bird treated with care
0.158 0.192 0.234 0.181 0.034 0.053
in factor loadings and affection.
<.10
Multicollinearity:
A greeting said during the month of December, and
negative Beta 0.314 0.033 0.453 -0.281 0.453
particularly on December 25th.
weight
 108

item-level factor
analysis: difference A list of persons under suspicion, disfavor, censure,
0.072 0.046 -0.026 0
in factor loadings etc.
<.10
scale-level factor
analysis: difference To take care of a place or situation in another’s
0.213 0.129 0.304 0.102 -0.084 0.202
in item-factor score absence.
correlations <.10
scale-level factor
analysis: difference A person who has been rejected by society or a social
0.044 -0.037 0.125 -0.081 0.125
in item-factor score group.
correlations <.10
item-level factor
analysis: difference
People who are no longer possible to manage. -0.003 -0.063 -0.06 0
in factor loadings
<.10
No variance in
An adult human female. . . 0
responding
no significant
correlations with The study of past events, particularly in human
0.136 0.032 0.169 -0.104 0.169
scale-level factor affairs.
scores
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“Oreo”- a black person who inappropriately adopts or
0.566 0.277 0.571 0.226 -0.289 0.345
identifies with middle-class white culture (e.g.,
attitudes, fashions) as opposed to urban African-
American culture
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
0.523 0.263 0.57 0.328 -0.26 0.242
“coconut” - a Hispanic person who has adopted the
values of white American society
scale-level factor Rate how offensive you find each of the following
analysis: difference terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
0.438 0.364 0.544 0.292 -0.074 0.252
in item-factor score “wigger” - a white person who mimics stereotypical
correlations <.10 black mannerisms
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...- 0.588 0.168 0.536 0.159 -0.42 0.377
“towel head” - man of Middle Eastern descent
item-level factor Rate how offensive you find each of the following
analysis: difference terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
0.369 0.308 0.437 0.377 -0.061 0.06
in factor loadings “ghetto-blaster” - a large portable radio and cassette
<.10 or CD player
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-“flip-
chart” - a large pad of paper, bound so that each page -0.063 0.427 0.142 0.49 -0.142
can be turned over at the top to reveal the next; used
on a stand at presentations
scale-level & item- Rate how offensive you find each of the following
level main factor terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-“Irish 0.429 0.247 0.158 -0.182 -0.158
loading different dividend” - fictitious profit
item-level factor
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
analysis: difference
terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-“Irish 0.357 0.056 0.192 0.182 -0.301 0.01
in factor loadings
beauty” - woman with 2 black eyes
<.10
 109

Rate how offensive you find each of the following

terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-“Irish 0.43 0.207 0.236 -0.223 0.236
wheelbarrow” - ambulance
item-level factor
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
analysis: difference
terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...- 0.382 0.326 0.428 0.338 -0.056 0.09
in factor loadings
“Dutch courage” - courage gained from intoxication
<.10
item-level factor
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
analysis: difference
terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...- 0.434 0.386 0.408 0.337 -0.048 0.071
in factor loadings
“Dutch widow” - prostitute
<.10
item-level factor
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
analysis: difference
terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...- 0.353 0.314 0.351 0.307 -0.039 0.044
in factor loadings
“Dutch feast” - host gets drunk before his guests
<.10
item-level factor
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
analysis: difference
terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...- 0.295 0.317 0.247 0.255 0.022 -0.008
in factor loadings
“Dutch cap” - condom
<.10
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“going Dutch”/”Dutch date”/”Dutch treat” - each 0.062 0.438 0.112 0.357 0.376 -0.245
person participating in the group activity pays for
themselves
item-level factor
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
analysis: difference
terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-“Jew 0.543 0.096 0.361 0.367 -0.447 -0.006
in factor loadings
down” - to negotiate
<.10
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“Machiavellianism” - employment of cunning and
0.156 0.472 0.314 0.316 -0.314
deception in statecraft or general conduct; derived
from the misinterpretation of the Italian diplomat and
writer Niccolò Machiavelli’s book The Prince
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
increase reliability terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...- 0.171 0.028 0.5 0.275 -0.143 0.225
Saying “God bless” at a local event.
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
Using “ghetto” to describe
0.477 0.337 0.414 -0.14 0.414
someone/something/somewhere: poor quality, poor
looking; dirty, not presentable; old, broken, worn out;
classless
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
scale-level & item-
statements. Please be as honest as possible. T...-“The
level main factor -0.104 0.198 0.476 0.225 0.302 0.251
white race is the cancer of human history.” - Susan
loading different
Sontag, a prominent white intellectual
item-level factor Rate how offensive you find each of the following
analysis: difference statements. Please be as honest as possible. T...-“The
-0.074 0.173 0.411 0.434 0.247 -0.023
in factor loadings common enemy is the white man.” - Malcolm X,
<.10 African American leader
scale-level factor Rate how offensive you find each of the following
analysis: difference statements. Please be as honest as possible. T...-The
0.221 0.233 0.123 0.355 0.012 -0.232
in item-factor score Islamic faith and Quaran view homosexuality as
correlations <.10 sinful.
 110

scale-level & item- Rate how offensive you find each of the following
level main factor statements. Please be as honest as possible. T...-Rape 0.106 0.376 0.227 0.27 0.227
loading different is a crime of violence not sexuality.
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
scale-level & item-
statements. Please be as honest as possible. T...-
level main factor 0.208 0.044 0.171 0.419 -0.164 -0.248
“Violation is a synonym for intercourse.” - Andrea
loading different
Dworkin
Rate how offensive you find each of the following
item-level factor
statements. Please be as honest as possible. T...-
analysis: difference
“Intercourse remains a means or the means of 0.208 0.149 0.466 0.395 -0.059 0.071
in factor loadings
physiologically making a woman inferior.” - Michael
<.10
Finley
Someone (e.g., mayor, cop, boss, parent) who legally
0.323 0.433 0.277 0.395 0.11 -0.118
issues harsh, micro-managing, insensitive, o...-Nazi
item-level factor
analysis: difference Someone (e.g., mayor, cop, boss, parent) who legally
0.263 0.455 0.298 0.386 0.192 -0.088
in factor loadings issues harsh, micro-managing, insensitive, o...-fascist
<.10
scale-level factor
analysis: difference
An unpleasant woman.-bitch 0.342 0.365 0.267 0.418 0.023 -0.151
in item-factor score
correlations <.10
item-level factor
analysis: difference
An unpleasant woman.-slut 0.462 0.31 0.381 0.365 -0.152 0.016
in factor loadings
<.10
item-level factor
analysis: difference
An unpleasant woman.-whore 0.46 0.305 0.373 0.363 -0.155 0.01
in factor loadings
<.10
scale-level factor
analysis: difference
An unpleasant woman.-cunt 0.328 0.269 0.212 0.329 -0.059 -0.117
in item-factor score
correlations <.10
item-level factor
analysis: difference
An unpleasant woman.-ho 0.419 0.339 0.338 0.374 -0.08 -0.036
in factor loadings
<.10
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
is a biological or cultural phenomenon. Pl...-Women
0.586 -0.19 0.495 -0.776 0.495
are on average more agreeable and more prone to
anxiety and emotional pain than men.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
is a biological or cultural phenomenon. Pl...-On IQ
tests, individuals who identify themselves as “white”
0.608 -0.262 0.441 -0.87 0.441
tend on average to score higher than individuals of
African ancestry. Additionally, individuals of an East
Asian background tend to score higher than whites.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-Only
0.575 0.143 0.52 0.337 -0.432 0.183
5% of the Fortune 500 companies have women as
CEOs.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-In 2011,
0.62 0.065 0.583 0.284 -0.555 0.299
women accounted for 23% of those who graduated
from engineering, and 30% of those who graduated
 111

from math and computer science programs.

Rate the degree you think each of the following facts

is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-There
have been no Black prime ministers in Canada or the 0.596 0.18 0.501 0.387 -0.416 0.114
UK, and the United States has only had one Black
president.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-In 2013,
0.634 0.055 0.595 0.245 -0.579 0.35
the poverty rate for Blacks in the United States was
27%, while the rate for Whites was 10%.
Multicollinearity: Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
negative Beta is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-Only 0.456 0.172 0.479 0.344 -0.284 0.135
weight 8% of registered nurses in the United States are male.
Multicollinearity: Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
negative Beta is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-Only 0.428 0.224 0.469 0.369 -0.204 0.1
weight 2% of dental hygienists in the United States are male.
item-level factor Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
analysis: difference is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-Only
0.43 0.224 0.441 0.384 -0.206 0.057
in factor loadings 8% of occupational therapists in the United States are
<.10 male.
item-level factor
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
analysis: difference
is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-81% of 0.345 0.261 0.399 0.38 -0.084 0.019
in factor loadings
social workers are female in the United States.
<.10
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-Only
0.42 0.156 0.457 0.293 -0.264 0.164
20% of elementary school teachers in the United
States are male.
item-level factor Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
analysis: difference is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-77% of
0.333 0.295 0.379 0.399 -0.038 -0.02
in factor loadings meeting, convention, and event planners in the
<.10 United States are female.
item-level factor
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
analysis: difference
is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-72% of 0.335 0.273 0.4 0.37 -0.062 0.03
in factor loadings
physical therapists in the United States are women.
<.10
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
Multicollinearity:
is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-Only
negative Beta 0.442 0.185 0.487 0.336 -0.257 0.151
29% of mental health counsellors in the United States
weight
are men.
item-level factor Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
analysis: difference is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-Only
0.413 0.289 0.423 0.416 -0.124 0.007
in factor loadings 32% of interpreters and translators are men in the
<.10 United States.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-100% of
0.504 0.15 0.515 0.303 -0.354 0.212
construction workers and masons in the United States
are men.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-Only
0.502 0.169 0.545 0.316 -0.333 0.229
5% of tractor-trailer truck drivers in the United States
are women.
 112

Multicollinearity:
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
inter-item
is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-Only
correlations >.8, 0.583 0.157 0.584 0.343 -0.426 0.241
22% of software developers in the United States are
tolerance <.2,
women.
VIF>.5
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
Multicollinearity:
is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-Only
negative Beta 0.547 0.178 0.551 0.361 -0.369 0.19
27% of sales representatives (wholesale and
weight
manufacturing) in the United States are women.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-64% of 0.531 0.118 0.555 0.289 -0.413 0.266
physicians and surgeons are men in the United States.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts
Multicollinearity:
is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-Only
negative Beta 0.558 0.212 0.551 0.39 -0.346 0.161
31% of personal financial advisors in the United
weight
States are women.
Blasphemous, obscene, and slang statements, as well
0.306 0.583 0.134 0.552 0.277 -0.418
as racist slurs (e.g., nigger) and epithets...
The craft of compiling, writing, and editing -
-0.128 0.499 0.314 0.627 -0.421
dictionaries should be… 0.107
item-level factor
analysis: difference
Diversity and inclusivity training seminars should… 0.69 0.112 0.389 0.329 -0.578 0.06
in factor loadings
<.10
item-level factor
analysis: difference Sexual harassment awareness training seminars
0.65 0.106 0.333 0.32 -0.544 0.013
in factor loadings should…
<.10
main scale-factor
correlation <.2,
Are you a vegetarian or vegan? 0.173 0.022 0.186 -0.151 0.186
main item-factor
loading <.2
Multicollinearity: Do you believe that works in these categories should
negative Beta be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-Work 0.148 0.336 0.422 0.188 -0.422
weight seen by children
Multicollinearity: Do you believe that works in these categories should
negative Beta be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-Work 0.149 0.515 0.626 0.366 -0.626
weight seen by adults
Multicollinearity: Do you believe that works in these categories should
negative Beta be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-Private 0.093 0.534 0.589 0.441 -0.589
weight works (i.e., between friends & family)
Do you believe that works in these categories should
be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-Public 0.133 0.385 0.518 0.252 -0.518
works
Multicollinearity:
inter-item
Do you believe that works in these categories should -
correlations >.8, 0.055 0.62 0.709 0.565 -0.846
be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-Books 0.137
tolerance <.2,
VIF>.5
Multicollinearity:
inter-item
Do you believe that works in these categories should -
correlations >.8, 0.012 0.617 0.69 0.605 -0.883
be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-Movies 0.193
tolerance <.2,
VIF>.5
Do you believe that works in these categories should -
0.066 0.564 0.673 0.498 -0.797
be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-Art 0.124
 113

Do you believe that works in these categories should -

0.028 0.616 0.68 0.588 -0.843
be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-Music 0.163
Multicollinearity:
inter-item Do you believe that works in these categories should
-
correlations >.8, be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...- 0.063 0.649 0.72 0.586 -0.864
0.144
tolerance <.2, Television
VIF>.5
Multicollinearity:
inter-item
Do you believe that works in these categories should
correlations >.8, 0.096 0.609 0.686 0.513 -0.686
be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-Radio
tolerance <.2,
VIF>.5
Do you believe that works in these categories should
-
be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...- 0.107 0.596 0.695 0.489 -0.798
0.103
Newspaper
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they
should be punished for using a racist, sexi...- 0.169 0.38 0.452 0.211 -0.452
Individual in a business meeting
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they
should be punished for using a racist, sexi...-Student 0.198 0.446 0.517 0.248 -0.517
on campus or in residence
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they
should be punished for using a racist, sexi...- 0.142 0.446 0.533 0.304 -0.533
Professor teaching class
Multicollinearity: For each of the individuals below, rate whether they
negative Beta should be punished for using a racist, sexi...- 0.27 0.418 0.177 0.463 0.148 -0.286
weight Individual in a locker room/bar
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they
should be punished for using a racist, sexi...- 0.26 0.468 0.557 0.208 -0.557
Individual on a talk show
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they
should be punished for using a racist, sexi...-Member 0.218 0.396 0.498 0.178 -0.498
of government
Multicollinearity: For each of the individuals below, rate whether they
negative Beta should be punished for using a racist, sexi...- 0.225 0.444 0.137 0.482 0.219 -0.345
weight Individual writing on Facebook or other social media
Multicollinearity: For each of the individuals below, rate whether they
negative Beta should be punished for openly denying the g...- 0.202 0.318 0.381 0.116 -0.381
weight Individual in a business meeting
Multicollinearity: For each of the individuals below, rate whether they
negative Beta should be punished for openly denying the g...- 0.222 0.35 0.132 0.419 0.128 -0.287
weight Student on campus or in residence
scale-level factor
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they
analysis: difference
should be punished for openly denying the g...- 0.214 0.264 0.133 0.331 0.05 -0.198
in item-factor score
Professor teaching class
correlations <.10
Multicollinearity: For each of the individuals below, rate whether they
negative Beta should be punished for openly denying the g...- 0.205 0.369 0.124 0.421 0.164 -0.297
weight Individual in a locker room/bar
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they
should be punished for openly denying the g...- 0.209 0.383 0.118 0.444 0.174 -0.326
Individual on a talk show
scale-level factor
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they
analysis: difference
should be punished for openly denying the g...- 0.207 0.242 0.126 0.317 0.035 -0.191
in item-factor score
Member of government
correlations <.10
 114

item-level factor
Rate how often you have felt offended by things
analysis: difference
people said, in the past month, in the following...-On 0.33 0.239 0.275 0.316 -0.091 -0.041
in factor loadings
social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter).
<.10
Rate how often you have felt offended by things
people said, in the past month, in the following...-At 0.187 0.305 0.132 0.358 0.118 -0.226
work/in school.
Rate how often you have felt offended by things
people said, in the past month, in the following...- 0.158 0.324 0.375 0.166 -0.375
Among friends.
scale-level factor
Rate how often you have felt offended by things
analysis: difference
people said, in the past month, in the following...- 0.23 0.222 0.155 0.299 -0.008 -0.144
in item-factor score
Among family.
correlations <.10
scale-level factor
Rate how often you have felt offended by things
analysis: difference
people said, in the past month, in the following...-On 0.304 0.298 0.227 0.395 -0.006 -0.168
in item-factor score
media such as TV, radio, newspapers or magazines.
correlations <.10
item-level factor
Rate how often you have felt offended by things
analysis: difference
people said, in the past month, in the following...- 0.375 0.248 0.318 0.335 -0.127 -0.017
in factor loadings
While browsing the web.
<.10
scale-level & item- Rate your level of agreement with the following
level main factor statements.-It is important for me to be “politically 0.473 0.367 0.321 0.462 -0.106 -0.141
loading different correct”.
scale-level factor
Rate your level of agreement with the following
analysis: difference
statements.-I take great care to ensure my language is 0.44 0.352 0.297 0.431 -0.088 -0.134
in item-factor score
“politically correct”.
correlations <.10
scale-level & item- Rate your level of agreement with the following
level main factor statements.-I take great care to ensure my behaviour 0.466 0.331 0.289 0.444 -0.135 -0.155
loading different and choices are “politically correct”.
scale-level factor
Rate your level of agreement with the following
analysis: difference
statements.-I am offended when others are not 0.411 0.32 0.266 0.449 -0.091 -0.183
in item-factor score
“politically correct”.
correlations <.10
 115

Table 26

Results from hierarchical regression run on PC-Liberalism factor scores with 35 predictor
variables: the selected PC questionnaire items. Predictor variables had significant zero-order
correlations with PC-Liberalism (N=332).
Model R R2 Adjusted R2 ΔR2 F for ΔR2
1 0.588 0.345 0.343 0.345 173.963**
2 0.644 0.415 0.411 0.069 38.978**
Step 1
3 0.666 0.444 0.439 0.029 17.222**
4 0.672 0.452 0.445 0.008 4.798*
5 0.731 0.534 0.527 0.083 57.903**
Step 2
6 0.74 0.548 0.54 0.014 9.864*
7 0.758 0.575 0.566 0.027 20.286**
8 0.771 0.594 0.584 0.02 15.662**
9 0.781 0.609 0.598 0.015 12.218**
Step 3
10 0.787 0.619 0.607 0.01 8.321*
11 0.791 0.625 0.612 0.006 5.174*
12 0.794 0.631 0.671 0.005 4.587*
13 0.84 0.706 0.694 0.076 82.078**
Step 4 14 0.853 0.728 0.716 0.022 25.094**
15 0.857 0.734 0.722 0.006 7.581*
16 0.891 0.793 0.783 0.059 89.949**
Step 5
17 0.91 0.829 0.819 0.035 65.02**
18 0.916 0.84 0.831 0.011 21.874**
Step 6
19 0.919 0.845 0.835 0.005 9.489*

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

 116

Table 27

Coefficients from last step of hierarchical regression run on PC-Liberalism factor scores with 35
predictor variables: the selected PC questionnaire items. Predictor variables had significant
zero-order correlations with PC-Liberalism (N=332).
Variable B SE B β
Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please
be as honest as possible. There...-“towel head” - man of Middle 0.058 0.024 0.078*
Eastern descent

Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please
be as honest as possible. There...-“Oreo”- a black person who 0.078 0.024 0.106***
inappropriately adopts or identifies with middle-class white
culture (e.g., attitudes, fashions) as opposed to urban African-
American culture

Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please 0.034 0.022 0.044
be as honest as possible. There...-Using “ghetto” to describe
someone/something/somewhere: poor quality, poor looking;
dirty, not presentable; old, broken, worn out; classless

Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please
be as honest as possible. There...-“Irish wheelbarrow” - 0.054 0.02 0.075**
ambulance

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements, or if

you feel you do not have enoug...-There are no biologically 0.042 0.02 0.056*
based differences in personality, talent, and ability to reason,
between racial groups.

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-We

should tolerate behaviour that runs counter to our 0.016 0.023 0.016
personal/cultural moral standards.
A non-citizen who is present in a country unlawfully or without
the country's authorization. 0.025 0.014 0.046
An individual who is very small in stature. 0.032 0.013 0.066**
Someone who is well above one’s normal (or healthy) weight. 0.023 0.01 0.055*
A person whose job is to extinguish fires. 0.023 0.015 0.039
The human race. 0.042 0.015 0.07**
A person who manages a home. 0.04 0.014 0.068**

Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence
of an unjust system. Please be...-In 2013, the poverty rate for 0.06 0.026 0.082*
Blacks in the United States was 27%, while the rate for Whites
was 10%.
 117

Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence 0.054 0.028 0.066
of an unjust system. Please be...-In 2011, women accounted for
23% of those who graduated from engineering, and 30% of
those who graduated from math and computer science programs.

Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence
of an unjust system. Please be...-Only 5% of the Fortune 500 0.093 0.024 0.128***
companies have women as CEOs.

Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is a

biological or cultural phenomenon. Pl...-On IQ tests, individuals
who identify themselves as “white” tend on average to score 0.259 0.028 0.252***
higher than individuals of African ancestry. Additionally,
individuals of an East Asian background tend to score higher
than whites.

Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is a

biological or cultural phenomenon. Pl...-Women are on average 0.218 0.025 0.23***
more agreeable and more prone to anxiety and emotional pain
than men.

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.- 0.086 0.028 0.086**
Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent to intimate
behaviour, nor does silence mean consent.

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-The 0.082 0.027 0.081**
existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved,
or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never
by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

 118

Table 28

Results from hierarchical regression run on PC-Authoritarianism factor scores with 24 predictor
variables: the selected PC questionnaire items. Predictor variables had significant zero-order
correlations with PC-Authoritarianism (N=332).
Model R R2 Adjusted R2 ΔR2 F for ΔR2
1 0.616 0.379 0.378 0.379 201.781***
Step 1
2 0.663 0.44 0.436 0.06 35.364***
3 0.739 0.546 0.542 0.106 76.722***
Step 2 4 0.774 0.599 0.594 0.053 43.28***
5 0.779 0.606 0.6 0.007 6.048*
6 0.827 0.683 0.677 0.077 78.942***
Step 3 7 0.844 0.712 0.705 0.028 31.99***
8 0.85 0.722 0.715 0.01 12.07**
9 0.869 0.756 0.749 0.034 44.335***
Step 4 10 0.874 0.764 0.756 0.008 10.697**
11 0.878 0.77 0.762 0.007 9.187*
12 0.894 0.8 0.792 0.03 47.075***
Step 5
13 0.9 0.811 0.803 0.011 18.127***
14 0.923 0.851 0.845 0.041 87.408***
Step 6
15 0.934 0.873 0.867 0.021 53.392***
Step 7 16 0.946 0.894 0.889 0.021 62.87***
Step 8 17 0.948 0.898 0.892 0.004 11.95**

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

 119

Table 29

Coefficients from last step of hierarchical regression run on PC-Authoritarianism factor scores
with 24 predictor variables: the selected PC questionnaire items. Predictor variables had
significant zero-order correlations with PC-Authoritarianism (N=332).
Variable B SE B β
Do you believe that works in these categories should be 0.154 0.023 0.174***
screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-Music
Do you believe that works in these categories should be 0.102 0.021 0.128***
screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-Newspaper

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.- 0.095 0.017 0.118***
When a charge of sexual assault is brought forth, the alleged
perpetrator should have to prove his or her innocence.

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-It 0.093 0.017 0.114***
is wrong to criticize the status and rights of women under
Islam because it is racist and disrespectful of multiculturalism.

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-If

a student is suspected of sexual assault, he or she should be 0.058 0.018 0.068***
suspended pending further investigation.

Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. 0.149 0.035 0.095***
Please be as honest as possible. There...-“flip-chart” - a large
pad of paper, bound so that each page can be turned over at the
top to reveal the next; used on a stand at presentations

Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms.

Please be as honest as possible. There...-“Machiavellianism” - 0.12 0.023 0.116***
employment of cunning and deception in statecraft or general
conduct; derived from the misinterpretation of the Italian
diplomat and writer Niccolò Machiavelli’s book The Prince

Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms.

Please be as honest as possible. There...-“going 0.081 0.023 0.078***
Dutch”/”Dutch date”/”Dutch treat” - each person participating
in the group activity pays for themselves

For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be 0.016 0.015 0.029
punished for using a racist, sexi...-Individual on a talk show
 120

For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be 0.042 0.014 0.066**
punished for using a racist, sexi...-Professor teaching class

For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be 0.033 0.013 0.061*
punished for openly denying the g...-Individual on a talk show

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-

Schools should censor words in classic books, such as J. D. 0.135 0.025 0.117***
Salinger’s “The Catcher in the Rye” and Mark Twain’s
“Huckleberry Finn”, that have racist or offensive terms and
ideas.

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.- 0.118 0.026 0.097***
Retail stores should avoid using the word “Christmas” in their
November and December advertising campaigns.
The craft of compiling, writing, and editing dictionaries should 0.654 0.056 0.234***
be…
Blasphemous, obscene, and slang statements, as well as racist 0.24 0.037 0.143***
slurs (e.g., nigger) and epithets...
Someone (e.g., mayor, cop, boss, parent) who legally issues 0.111 0.014 0.158***
harsh, micro-managing, insensitive, o...-Nazi

Rate how often you have felt offended by things people said, 0.065 0.019 0.069***
in the past month, in the following...-At work/in school.

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

 121

Table 30
Items for the shortened PC scale and its subscales: PCL-S and PSA-S.
PCL-S
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-We should
1 tolerate behaviour that runs counter to our personal/cultural moral standards.

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements, or if you feel
2 you do not have enough...-There are no biologically based differences in
personality, talent, and ability to reason, between racial groups.

3 Someone who is well above one’s normal (or healthy) weight.

4 The human race.
5 A person whose job is to extinguish fires.
6 A person who manages a home.
A non-citizen who is present in a country unlawfully or without the country's
7 authorization.
8 An individual who is very small in stature.

Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest
as possible. There...-“Oreo”- a black person who inappropriately adopts or
9 identifies with middle-class white culture (e.g., attitudes, fashions) as
opposed to urban African-American culture

Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest
10 as possible. There...-“towel head” - man of Middle Eastern descent

Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest
11 as possible. There...-“Irish wheelbarrow” - ambulance

Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest
as possible. There...-Using “ghetto” to describe
12 someone/something/somewhere: poor quality, poor looking; dirty, not
presentable; old, broken, worn out; classless

Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is a biological or
13 cultural phenomenon. Pl...-Women are on average more agreeable and more
prone to anxiety and emotional pain than men.

Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is a biological or
cultural phenomenon. Pl...-On IQ tests, individuals who identify themselves
14 as “white” tend on average to score higher than individuals of African
ancestry. Additionally, individuals of an East Asian background tend to
score higher than whites.
 122

Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust
15 system. Please be...-Only 5% of the Fortune 500 companies have women as
CEOs.

Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust
system. Please be...-In 2011, women accounted for 23% of those who
16 graduated from engineering, and 30% of those who graduated from math and
computer science programs.

Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust
17 system. Please be...-In 2013, the poverty rate for Blacks in the United States
was 27%, while the rate for Whites was 10%.

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-The existence of

a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual
18 relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator
of consent.

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Lack of protest

19 or resistance does not mean consent to intimate behaviour, nor does silence
mean consent.

PCA-S

Do you believe that works in these categories should be screened for

20 offensive, racist, sexist o...-Music
Do you believe that works in these categories should be screened for
21 offensive, racist, sexist o...-Newspaper
Blasphemous, obscene, and slang statements, as well as racist slurs (e.g.,
22 nigger) and epithets...

23 The craft of compiling, writing, and editing dictionaries should be…

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Schools should

censor words in classic books, such as J. D. Salinger’s “The Catcher in the
24 Rye” and Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn”, that have racist or offensive
terms and ideas.

Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest
as possible. There...-“Machiavellianism” - employment of cunning and
25 deception in statecraft or general conduct; derived from the misinterpretation
of the Italian diplomat and writer Niccolò Machiavelli’s book The Prince

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-It is wrong to

26 criticize the status and rights of women under Islam because it is racist and
disrespectful of multiculturalism.

For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be punished for
27 using a racist, sexi...-Individual on a talk show
 123

For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be punished for
28 using a racist, sexi...-Professor teaching class

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-When a charge

29 of sexual assault is brought forth, the alleged perpetrator should have to
prove his or her innocence.

Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest
30 as possible. There...-“going Dutch”/”Dutch date”/”Dutch treat” - each person
participating in the group activity pays for themselves

Someone (e.g., mayor, cop, boss, parent) who legally issues harsh, micro-
31 managing, insensitive, o...-Nazi

Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest
as possible. There...-“flip-chart” - a large pad of paper, bound so that each
32 page can be turned over at the top to reveal the next; used on a stand at
presentations

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Retail stores

33 should avoid using the word “Christmas” in their November and December
advertising campaigns.

For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be punished for
34 openly denying the g...-Individual on a talk show

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-If a student is

35 suspected of sexual assault, he or she should be suspended pending further
investigation.

Rate how often you have felt offended by things people said, in the past
36 month, in the following...-At work/in school.
 124

Table 31
Scale statistics for shortened PC scale and its subscales: PCL-S and PSA-S.
Standardized
Scale # of Items ra
α
PCL-S 19 0.858 0.892
PCA-S 17 0.811 0.892
PCT-S 36 0.863
a
Correlation with factor scores from original PC scale
 125

Table 32
Correlations of 19-item PCL-S scores and PC-Liberalism factor scores with personality,
intelligence and disgust sensitivity scales.
PCL-S
PC-Liberalism
(Mean of 19 Difference in r
Factor Scores
items)
BFAS
Neuroticism Volatility -0.071 -0.053 0.018
Neuroticism Withdrawal -0.005 0.013 0.018
Agreeableness Politeness 0.177*** 0.163*** 0.014
Agreeableness Compassion 0.222*** 0.244*** 0.022
Conscientiousness
-0.031 -0.061
Industriousness 0.03
Conscientiousness Orderliness -0.059 -0.098 0.039
Extraversion Enthusiasm 0.066 0.076 0.01
Extraversion Assertiveness -0.001 0.015 0.016
Openness Intellect 0.157** 0.135* 0.022
Openness Openness 0.239*** 0.252*** 0.013
Big-5
Neuroticism -0.04 -0.022 0.018
Agreeableness 0.22*** 0.227*** 0.007
Conscientiousness -0.048 -0.084 0.036
Extraversion 0.035 0.049 0.014
Openness 0.223*** 0.218*** 0.005
Disgust Sensitivity 0.016 0.03 0.014
WAIS-IV
IQ Vocabulary 0.23*** 0.21*** 0.02
IQ Knowledge 0.107 0.102 0.005
Crystallized Intelligence 0.198*** 0.183*** 0.015
Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.003.
 126

Table 33
Correlations of 17-item PCA-S scores and PC-Authoritarianism factor scores with personality,
intelligence and disgust sensitivity scales.
PC- PCA-S
Authoritarianism (Mean of 17 Difference in r
Factor Scores items)
BFAS
Neuroticism Volatility 0.078 0.054 0.024
Neuroticism Withdrawal 0.018 -0.017 0.035
Agreeableness Politeness 0.118* 0.061 0.057
Agreeableness Compassion 0.15** 0.098 0.052
Conscientiousness
0.112* 0.099 0.013
Industriousness
Conscientiousness Orderliness 0.181*** 0.145** 0.036*
Extraversion Enthusiasm 0.116* 0.111* 0.005
Extraversion Assertiveness 0.052 0.072 0.02
Openness Intellect -0.063 -0.071 0.008
Openness Openness 0.039 0.021 0.018
Big-5
Neuroticism 0.051 0.02 0.031
Agreeableness 0.148** 0.089 0.059
Conscientiousness 0.155** 0.13* 0.025
Extraversion 0.091 0.1 0.009
Openness -0.014 -0.029 0.015
Disgust Sensitivity 0.12* 0.073 0.047
WAIS-IV
IQ Vocabulary -0.352*** -0.434*** 0.082
IQ Knowledge -0.178*** -0.246*** 0.068
Crystallized Intelligence -0.311*** -0.398*** 0.087
Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.003.
 127

Table 34
Correlations of 36-item PCT-S scores and PC Total scores with personality, intelligence and
disgust sensitivity scales.
PC Total PCT-S
Difference in r
(Long Version) (Short Version)
BFAS
Neuroticism Volatility -0.03 0.005 -0.035
Neuroticism Withdrawal -0.034 -0.001 -0.033
Agreeableness Politeness 0.182*** 0.145** 0.037
Agreeableness Compassion 0.246*** 0.220*** 0.026
Conscientiousness
0.057 0.015 0.042
Industriousness
Conscientiousness Orderliness 0.051 0.016 0.035
Extraversion Enthusiasm 0.131* .114* 0.017
Extraversion Assertiveness 0.055 0.051 0.004
Openness Intellect 0.06 0.051 0.009
Openness Openness 0.184*** 0.182*** 0.002
Big-5
Neuroticism -0.033 -0.004 -0.029
Agreeableness 0.237*** 0.203*** 0.034
Conscientiousness 0.058 0.017 0.041
Extraversion 0.101 0.09 0.011
Openness 0.137* 0.131* 0.006
Disgust Sensitivity 0.053 0.062 -0.009
WAIS-IV
IQ Vocabulary -0.085 -0.104 0.082
IQ Knowledge -0.058 -0.071 0.068
Crystallized Intelligence -0.084 -0.103 0.087

Note. Significance levels correspond to *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.003.

 128

Figure 1
Derivation of subscale scores.
 129

Figure 2
Model of political belief.
 130

Appendix A
Political Correctness Scale

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.

Completely Disagree Neither Agree Completely

Disagree Agree or Agree
Disagree

Western Civilization courses, examining solely

the “great books” of Western culture (e.g.,
Darwin, Shakespeare, Plato’s Republic, Dante’s
Inferno) should be replaced by multiculturalist
1.
courses which confront issues relating to class,
ethnicity, race, religion, gender, and sexual
orientation (e.g., books by women and
minorities).

Students should be required to take at least one

course in ethnic studies, while courses on
2.
Western Civilization and American/Canadian
history should be optional.

Teachers of technical courses, such as

mathematics, should be concerned with using a

3. multicultural approach (e.g., discussing the

cultural and historical background of methods
and functions).

a. There are no universal standards for what is

“good”, “bad”, “right”, or “wrong”. These
benchmarks are relative to the traditions,
customs, or practices of an individual and
4. their culture.
b. We should tolerate behaviour that runs
counter to our personal/cultural moral
standards.

Racial, ethnic, and gender quotas should exist in

education (i.e., numerical requirements for
5.
admitting and/or graduating members of a
particular racial, ethnic or gender group).
 131

Government interventions should exist (in

schools and companies) to ensure equality in
6.
professions where there is a historically large
inequality.

Racial, ethnic, and gender quotas should exist in

employment (i.e., numerical requirements for
7.
hiring and/or promoting members of a particular
racial, ethnic or gender group).

Research articles indicating the existence of

performance differences (intelligence,

8. achievement, personality) as a consequence of

gender, race, or ethnicity are biased and should
not be published.

Schools should censor words in classic books,

such as J. D. Salinger’s “The Catcher in the
9.
Rye” and Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn”,
that have racist or offensive terms and ideas.

Older books that use terms that would now be

10. regarded as racist or otherwise offensive should

not be used in schools.

It is wrong to criticize the status and rights of

11. women under Islam because it is racist and

disrespectful of multiculturalism.

Retail stores and businesses should use the term

12.
“holiday tree” instead of “Christmas tree”.

Retail stores should avoid using the word

13. “Christmas” in their November and December

advertising campaigns.

The individual creative imagination (e.g.,

14. authors, painters) should be mindful of

multiculturalism and equality.
 132

In academia and corporations, ethnic, racial,

15. and gender diversity are required to have a

diverse range of ideas.

The words of classic nursery rhymes, such as

16. “Baa Baa Black Sheep”, should be changed to

more inclusive lyrics.

Research articles claiming that the sun is the

main driver of climate change, and not man-
17.
made carbon emissions, are biased and should
no longer be published.

Race-based crime data should be collected and

18.
published.

Men are completely to blame for issues of

19.
domestic violence.

When a charge of sexual assault is brought

20. forth, the alleged perpetrator should have to

prove his or her innocence.

“The creation of an intimidating, hostile, or

21. offensive environment” is a suitable definition

for sexual harassment.

All companies should be require employees

with supervisory responsibility to regularly take
22.
a course in sexual harassment training and
education.

All sexual contact, including touching and

23. kissing, must be agreed upon explicitly before

initiation.

There must be explicit consent provided before

24. any intimate contact is initiated, even between

married couples.
 133

It is not possible for someone who has been

25. drinking to provide valid explicit consent for

intimate or sexual contact.

It is not possible for someone who has been

26. using recreational drugs to provide valid

explicit consent for intimate or sexual contact.

Universities and other organizations should

27. establish boards or tribunals to handle

allegations of sexual assault.

If a student is suspected of sexual assault, he or

28. she should be suspended pending further

investigation.

All intimate contact must be preceded by

“Affirmative consent” (meaning affirmative,
29.
conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage
in sexual activity).

It is the responsibility of each person involved

in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has
30.
the affirmative consent of the other or others to
engage in the sexual activity.

The existence of a dating relationship between

the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual
31.
relations between them, should never by itself
be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

An allegation of sexual assault is to be rejected

32. if there is reasonable doubt about the guilt of

the alleged perpetrator.

An allegation of sexual assault is to be

33. considered proven if the preponderance of the

evidence suggests guilt.
 134

All universities should be responsible for

34. developing a victim interview protocol for

victims of alleged sexual assault.

In order to receive government funding, all

universities must implement prevention and

35. outreach programs addressing sexual violence,

domestic violence, dating violence, and
stalking.

Lack of protest or resistance does not mean

36. consent to intimate behavior, nor does silence

mean consent.

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements, or if you feel you do not have enough background
information to make a decision.

Completely Disagree Neither Agree Completely Not Enough

Disagree Agree or Agree Background
Disagree Information

37. There are no biologically based

differences in personality, talent, and
ability to reason, between racial
groups.

38. The world is warming because the

human species burns too much fossil
fuel.

39. Raising meat hurts the environment,

uses up valuable land and resources
and is toxic to the planet as a whole.
 135

For each definition, select the statement(s) you prefer to use in your everyday language. Please be as honest as
possible. There is no right or wrong answer.

40. A kindred human being.

a. fellow man
b. fellow person
41. The action of caring for or looking after a child.
a. mothering
b. fathering
c. parenting
42. Referring to someone when you do not know their name.
a. that guy
b. that person
43. Referring to a group of men and women.
a. guys
b. friends
c. folks
d. group
44. Someone who has a condition that markedly restricts their ability to function physically.
a. handicapped
b. crippled
c. disabled
d. invalid
e. person with a disability
f. physically challenged
g. differently abled
h. special needs
45. A matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or an obstacle.
a. problem
b. challenge
46. Someone who has a condition that interferes with normal physical, intellectual, or emotional development.
a. mentally disabled
b. crazy
c. mad
d. person with a mental disability
e. mentally challenged
47. Someone with low intelligence.
a. simple
b. moron
 136

c. idiot
d. imbecile
e. feeble-minded
f. retarded
g. backward
h. brain-damaged
i. slow developer
j. late developer
k. thick
l. not all there
m. mentally/developmentally challenged
n. differently abled
o. special needs
48. Someone who is lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in society.
a. poor
b. under-resourced
c. underclass
d. underprivileged
e. disadvantaged
f. working class
g. lower class
49. Someone with a long-term, pathological use of drugs, characterized by daily intoxication, inability to reduce
consumption, and impairment in social or occupational functioning.
a. drug addict
b. dope fiend
c. junkie
d. addict
e. substance abuser
f. person with a substance use disorder
50. Someone with a long-term, pathological use of alcohol, characterized by daily intoxication, inability to reduce
consumption, and impairment in social or occupational functioning.
a. alcoholic
b. person with alcoholism
c. person with alcohol dependence syndrome
51. Someone who is well above one’s normal (or healthy) weight.
a. fat
b. obese
c. overweight
 137

d. plus-size
e. curvy
f. chunky
g. large
h. ample figure
i. person with a portion control problem
j. person with a weight problem
52. The human race.
a. mankind
b. humankind
c. personkind
53. A person who engages in sexual activity for payment.
a. prostitute
b. sex worker
c. whore
d. hooker
54. Someone who is unable to see.
a. blind
b. visually impaired
55. Someone who is unable to hear.
a. deaf
b. hearing impaired
56. The title you apply when addressing a woman.
a. Miss or Mrs.
b. Ms.
57. A person bringing up a child or children without a partner.
a. single parent
b. lone parent
58. When asking about the individual a man is dating, you ask who is his…
a. boyfriend/girlfriend
b. significant other
c. partner/companion
59. When asking about the individual a woman is dating, you ask who is her…
a. boyfriend/girlfriend
b. significant other
c. partner/companion
60. The people whose job is to serve customers at their tables in a restaurant.
a. waiters
 138

b. waitresses
c. waitrons
d. waitpersons
61. A person who sews for a living.
a. seamstress
b. sewer
62. A person who fishes for a living.
a. fisherman
b. fisher
c. fisherperson
63. A person who delivers your mail.
a. postman
b. mailman
c. mail/letter carrier
d. mailperson
e. postperson
64. A person whose job is to extinguish fires.
a. fireman
b. firefighter
65. A person whose intellectual ability is significantly higher than average.
a. gifted
b. advanced learner
c. special needs
66. A person designated to preside over a meeting or who is the administrative head of a department of
instruction at a college or university.
a. chairman
b. chair
c. chairperson
67. A person who is an officer of the law.
a. policeman
b. police officer
68. A person whose job involves selling or promoting commercial products.
a. salesman
b. salesperson
c. sales representative
69. A person who repairs vehicles, machinery, or appliances.
a. repairman
b. service technician
 139

70. A person able or employed to do occasional domestic repairs and minor renovations.
a. handyman
b. handyperson
71. A person who makes statements on behalf of a group or individual.
a. spokesman
b. spokesperson
72. A person employed to cart away household trash and garbage.
a. garbage collector
b. sanitation worker
73. A person employed to provide meals for and otherwise look after the passengers on a ship or aircraft.
a. stewardess
b. flight attendant
74. A person who broadcasts a description and forecast of weather conditions.
a. weatherman
b. meteorologist
75. Terms or vocabulary a person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject would
understand.
a. layman’s terms
b. nonprofessional terms
76. A person whose profession is operating a television or movie camera.
a. cameraman
b. cinematographer
77. A person employed by a retail store to deliver small orders to customers on call.
a. delivery boy
b. deliveryman
c. delivery person
d. messenger
78. A first-year student at a university, college, or high school.
a. freshman
b. first-year student
79. A man such as a porter, bouncer, or janitor who is on duty at the entrance to a large building.
a. doorman
b. doorperson
80. Made or caused by human beings (as opposed to occurring or being made naturally).
a. man-made
b. synthetic
81. Unable to walk through injury, illness, etc. and relying on a wheelchair to move around.
a. wheelchair bound
 140

b. a person who uses a wheelchair

82. Someone who uses a gun to commit a crime or terrorist act.
a. gunman
b. shooter
83. A representation of a human figure created with compressed snow.
a. snowman
b. snowfriend/snowpal
84. Someone who does not have a great deal of education, or perhaps none at all.
a. uneducated
b. lacking a formal education
85. A small covered opening in a floor, pavement, or other surface to allow a person to enter, especially an
opening in a city street leading to a sewer.
a. manhole
b. utility hole
86. An elderly person.
a. senior
b. old person
c. chronologically advantaged
87. A minor untruth.
a. White lie
b. lie
88. A person who manages a home.
a. housewife
b. homemaker
89. A non-citizen who is present in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.
a. illegal alien
b. undocumented/illegal immigrant
90. People from the Jewish ethnoreligious group.
a. Jews
b. Kikes
c. members of the Jewish community
91. A member of a dark-skinned people.
a. negro
b. nigger
c. spade
d. African American
e. black
f. coloured
 141

g. person of colour
h. non-white
92. A member of any of the indigenous peoples.
a. barbarian
b. savage
c. Indian
d. Red Indian
e. Redskin
f. Native American/Native Canadian
g. First Nations person
h. Aboriginal
i. Eskimo
j. Inuit
93. A country with little industrial and economic activity, low incomes, and little money spent on education,
health care, etc.
a. Third World country
b. underdeveloped country
c. developing country
94. A member of a white-skinned people, of European origin.
a. Caucasian
b. white
c. white boy
d. white bread
e. cracker
f. devil
g. whitey
h. pig
i. honky
j. redneck
95. A person of Italian origin.
a. Italian/Spanish/Portuguese
b. dago
c. eytie
d. greaseball
e. guinea
f. spic
g. wop
96. A native of Asia or person of Asian descent.
 142

a. Asian
b. Oriental
c. yellow
d. Jap (specific to the Japanese)
97. A person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
a. miss nancy
b. fairy
c. queen
d. pansy
e. queer
f. bent
g. faggot
h. gay
i. homosexual
j. homo
k. lesbian (specifically for females)
l. dyke (specifically for females)
98. Criticizing an idea that is very bad, useless, or worthless.
a. gay
b. useless
c. garbage
d. crap
e. shit
f. bollocks
99. Criticizing someone who does not make a very intelligent decision.
a. retarded
b. stupid
c. spastic
d. spaz
e. thick
f. idiot
g. dumb
h. unintelligent
i. moron
j. acting blonde
100. A building in which people are legally held as a punishment for crimes they have committed or while
awaiting trial.
a. prison
 143

b. correctional facility
101. An individual who is very small in stature.
a. dwarf
b. little person
c. midget
102. Someone who contracts AIDS.
a. AIDS victim
b. AIDS survivor
c. dying of AIDS
d. living with AIDS/person with AIDS
103. A domestic or tamed animal or bird treated with care and affection.
a. pet
b. animal companion
104. A greeting said during the month of December, and particularly on December 25th.
a. Merry Christmas
b. Happy Holidays
105. A list of persons under suspicion, disfavor, censure, etc.
a. blacklisted
b. banned
106. To take care of a place or situation in another’s absence.
a. man the fort/the project/the ship
b. staffing the project
107. A person who has been rejected by society or a social group.
a. black sheep
b. outcast
108. People who are no longer possible to manage.
a. hooligans
b. out of control
c. acting like wild Indians

For each term, select the spelling you prefer. Please be as honest as possible. There is no right or wrong answer.
109. An adult human female.
a. wimmin
b. woman
110. The study of past events, particularly in human affairs.
c. herstory
d. history
 144

Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There is no right or wrong
answer.

Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely

“Oreo”

– a black person who inappropriately

111. adopts or identifies with middle-class
white culture (e.g., attitudes, fashions)
as opposed to urban African-American
culture

“coconut”
112.
– a Hispanic person who has adopted the
values of white American society

“wigger”
113.
-­‐ a white person who mimics
stereotypical black mannerisms

“towel head”
114.
-­‐ man of Middle Eastern descent

“ghetto-blaster”
115.
-­‐ a large portable radio and cassette or
CD player

“flip-chart”

-­‐ a large pad of paper, bound so that

116.
each page can be turned over at the top
to reveal the next
-­‐ used on a stand at presentations

“Irish dividend”
117.
-­‐ fictitious profit

“Irish beauty”
118.
-­‐ woman with 2 black eyes

“Irish wheelbarrow”
119.
-­‐ ambulance

120. “Dutch courage”

 145

-­‐ courage gained from intoxication

“Dutch widow”
121.
-­‐ prostitute

“Dutch feast”
122.
-­‐ host gets drunk before his guests

“Dutch cap”
123.
-­‐ condom

“going Dutch”/”Dutch date”/”Dutch treat”

124.
-­‐ each person participating in the group
activity pays for themselves

“Jew down”
125.
-­‐ to negotiate

“Machiavellianism”

-­‐ employment of cunning and deception

126. in statecraft or general conduct
-­‐ derived from the misinterpretation of
the Italian diplomat and writer Niccolò
Machiavelli’s book The Prince

127. Saying “God bless” at a local event.

Using “ghetto” to describe

someone/something/somewhere:

128. -­‐ poor quality, poor looking

-­‐ dirty, not presentable
-­‐ old, broken, worn out
-­‐ classless

Rate how offensive you find each of the following statements. Please be as honest as possible. There is no right or
wrong answer.

Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely

“The white race is the cancer of

129.
human history”.
 146

- Susan Sontag, a prominent white

intellectual

“The white race is the cancer of

human history”.
130.
- Susan Sontag, a prominent black
intellectual

The Islamic faith and Quaran view

131.
homosexuality as sinful.

Rape is a crime of violence not

132.
sexuality.

Violation is a synonym for

133.
intercourse.

Intercourse remains a means or the

134. means of physiologically making a

woman inferior.

Rate how offensive you find each of the following insults. Please be as honest as possible. There is no right or
wrong answer.

Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely

Someone (e.g., mayor, cop, Nazi

boss, parent) who legally
issues harsh, micro-
managing, insensitive, or
uncaring orders -- especially
135. when they know, or should
fascist
know, that their goals can be
accomplished with more
autonomy and much less
distress.
 147

An unpleasant woman. bitch

slut

136. whore

cunt

ho

Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is a biological or cultural phenomenon. Please be as honest as
possible. There is no right or wrong answer.

Equally
Completely Mostly Mostly Completely
Biological &
Biological Biological Cultural Cultural
Cultural

Women are on average more agreeable and

139 more prone to anxiety and emotional pain

than men.

On IQ tests, individuals who identify

themselves as “white” tend on average to
score higher than individuals of African
140
ancestry. Additionally, individuals of an
East Asian background tend to score
higher than whites.

Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be as honest as
possible. There is no right or wrong answer.

Little Strong
Not at all Fair
evidence of Good evidence evidence of
evidence of evidence of
unjust of injustice unjust
unjust system injustice
system system

Only 5% of the Fortune 500 companies

141
have women as CEOs.
 148

In 2011, women accounted for 23% of

those who graduated from engineering,
142
and 30% of those who graduated from
math and computer science programs.

There have been no Black prime ministers

143 in Canada or the UK, and the United States

has only had one Black president.

In 2013, the poverty rate for Blacks in the

144 United States was 27%, while the rate for

Whites was 10%.

Only 8% of registered nurses in the United

145
States are male.

146 Blasphemous, obscene, and slang statements, as well as racist slurs (e.g., nigger) and epithets (e.g., slit-eyes)
should be…
a. completely omitted from the dictionary.
b. included in the dictionary, but with labels (e.g., slang, vulgar), warnings (e.g., “Inclusion of words that
many will find offensive does not mean that the editors endorse the sentiments they frequently express”),
or usage markers (e.g., “was often used familiarly; now chiefly contemptuously.”).
c. always included in the dictionary, just as any other word.
147 The craft of compiling, writing, and editing dictionaries should be…
a. prescriptive - ruling what words are acceptable and what they should mean
b. descriptive – reflecting actual usage
148 Diversity and inclusivity training seminars should…
a. be mandatory for everyone.
b. be mandatory for members of the majority, optional for members of the minority.
c. be optional for everyone.
d. not necessarily be provided, the business/institution should not have to pay for these.
149 Sexual harassment awareness training seminars should…
a. be mandatory for everyone.
b. be mandatory for men, optional for women.
c. be optional for everyone.
d. not necessarily be provided, the business/institution should not have to pay for these.
150 Are you a vegetarian or vegan?
 149

a. Yes
b. No

If yes, is it for:

a. Health reasons
b. Moral or religious reasons

Do you believe that works in these categories should be screened for offensive, racist, sexist or otherwise
discriminatory language and/or ideas?

Not at all A little Somewhat Much A great deal

151 Work seen by children

152 Work seen by adults

Private works (i.e., between

153
friends & family)

154 Public works

155 Books

156 Movies

157 Art

158 Music

159 Television

160 Radio

161 Newspaper
 150

Speech Code

For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be punished for using a racist, sexist, or homophobic
slur, and to what degree.

1 = Not punished.

2 = Must attend a series of diversity and inclusivity training seminars.

3 = Given a warning. 3 warnings and they are expelled/dismissed/asked to leave the building or business.

4 = Monetary fine.

5 = Fail class/demotion or denied tenure.

6 = Immediately expelled/dismissed/asked to leave the building or business.

7 = Court trial determines punishment (fine, community service, prison time, etc.).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

162 Individual in a business meeting

163 Student on campus or in residence

164 Professor teaching class

165 Individual in a locker room/bar

166 Individual on a talk show

167 Member of government

Individual writing on Facebook or

168
other social media
 151

For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be punished for openly denying the genocide of Jews in
the Holocaust, during World War II, (i.e., a Holocaust denier/revisionist).

1 = Not punished.

2 = Must attend a series of diversity and inclusivity training seminars.

3 = Given a warning. 3 warnings and they are expelled/dismissed/asked to leave the building or business.

4 = Monetary fine.

5 = Fail class/demotion or denied tenure.

6 = Immediately expelled/dismissed/asked to leave the building or business.

7 = Court trial determines punishment (fine, community service, prison time, etc.).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

169 Individual in a business meeting

170 Student on campus or in residence

171 Professor teaching class

172 Individual in a locker room/bar

173 Individual on a talk show

174 Member of government

Behavioural

Rate how often you have felt offended by things people said, in the past month, in the following places.

1 = Never

2 = Very Rarely (once a month)

 152

3 = Rarely (once every 2 weeks)

4 = Occasionally (once a week)

5 = Frequently (a few times a week)

6 = Very Frequently (every day – sometimes multiple times per day)

1 2 3 4 5 6

On social media (e.g., Facebook,

175
Twitter).

176 At work/in school.

177 Among friends.

178 Among family.

On media such as TV, radio,

179
newspapers or magazines.

180 While browsing the web.

General

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.

Completely Disagree Neither Agree Completely

Disagree Agree or Agree
Disagree

181 It is important for me to be “politically

correct”.

182 I take great care to ensure my language is

“politically correct”.
 153

183 I take great care to ensure my behaviour and

choices are “politically correct”.

184 I am offended when others are not “politically

correct”.
 154

Appendix B
Political Correctness Scale subjectively organized by scale and sentence structure

Attitudes
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Western Civilization courses,
examining solely the “great books” of Western culture (e.g., Darwin, Shakespeare, Plato’s
Republic, Dante’s Inferno) should be replaced by multiculturalist courses which confront issues
relating to class, ethnicity, race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation (e.g., books by women and
minorities).
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Students should be required to take at
least one course in ethnic studies, while courses on Western Civilization and American/Canadian
history should be optional.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Teachers of technical courses, such as
mathematics, should be concerned with using a multicultural approach (e.g., discussing the
cultural and historical background of methods and functions).
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-There are no universal standards for
what is “good”, “bad”, “right”, or “wrong”. These benchmarks are relative to the traditions,
customs, or practices of an individual and their culture.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-We should tolerate behaviour that
runs counter to our personal/cultural moral standards.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Racial, ethnic, and gender quotas
should exist in education (i.e., numerical requirements for admitting and/or graduating members of
a particular racial, ethnic or gender group).
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Government interventions should
exist (in schools and companies) to ensure equality in professions where there is a historically
large inequality.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Racial, ethnic, and gender quotas
should exist in employment (i.e., numerical requirements for hiring and/or promoting members of
a particular racial, ethnic or gender group).
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Research articles indicating the
existence of performance differences (intelligence, achievement, personality) as a consequence of
gender, race, or ethnicity are biased and should not be published.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Schools should censor words in
classic books, such as J. D. Salinger’s “The Catcher in the Rye” and Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry
Finn”, that have racist or offensive terms and ideas.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Older books that use terms now
regarded as racist or otherwise offensive should not be used in schools.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-It is wrong to criticize the status and
rights of women under Islam because it is racist and disrespectful of multiculturalism.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Retail stores and businesses should
use the term “holiday tree” instead of “Christmas tree”.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Retail stores should avoid using the
word “Christmas” in their November and December advertising campaigns.
 155

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-The individual creative imagination
(e.g., authors, painters) should be mindful of multiculturalism and equality.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-In academia and corporations, ethnic,
racial, and gender diversity are required to have a diverse range of ideas.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-The words of classic nursery rhymes,
such as “Baa Baa Black Sheep”, should be changed to more inclusive lyrics.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Research articles claiming that the
sun is the main driver of climate change, and not man-made carbon emissions, are biased and
should no longer be published.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Race-based crime data should be
collected and published.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Men are completely to blame for
issues of domestic violence.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-When a charge of sexual assault is
brought forth, the alleged perpetrator should have to prove his or her innocence.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-“The creation of an intimidating,
hostile, or offensive environment” is a suitable definition for sexual harassment.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-All companies should require
employees with supervisory responsibility to regularly take a course in sexual harassment training
and education.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-All sexual contact, including touching
and kissing, must be agreed upon explicitly before initiation.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-There must be explicit consent
provided before any intimate contact is initiated, even between married couples.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-It is not possible for someone who has
been drinking to provide valid explicit consent for intimate or sexual contact.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-It is not possible for someone who has
been using recreational drugs to provide valid explicit consent for intimate or sexual contact.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Universities and other organizations
should establish boards or tribunals to handle allegations of sexual assault.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-If a student is suspected of sexual
assault, he or she should be suspended pending further investigation.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-All intimate contact must be preceded
by “affirmative consent” (meaning affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in
sexual activity).
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-It is the responsibility of each person
involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or
others to engage in the sexual activity.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-The existence of a dating relationship
between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by
itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-An allegation of sexual assault is to
be rejected if there is reasonable doubt about the guilt of the alleged perpetrator.
 156

Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-An allegation of sexual assault is to
be considered proven if the preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not/more than 50%
chance true) suggests guilt.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-All universities should be responsible
for developing a victim interview protocol for victims of alleged sexual assault.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-In order to receive government
funding, all universities must implement prevention and outreach programs addressing sexual
violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Lack of protest or resistance does not
mean consent to intimate behaviour, nor does silence mean consent.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-Before a formal complaint,
investigation, hearing, or final decision on a sexual harassment case has been made, schools
should change the housing, class or sports schedule, campus job, or extracurricular activities and
clubs of the accused perpetrator, to ensure no contact between them and the victim.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements, or if you feel you do not have
enough...-There are no biologically based differences in personality, talent, and ability to reason,
between racial groups.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements, or if you feel you do not have
enough...-The world is warming because the human species burns too much fossil fuel.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements, or if you feel you do not have
enough...-Raising meat hurts the environment, uses up valuable land and resources and is toxic to
the planet as a whole.
Language
A kindred human being.
The action of caring for or looking after a child.
Referring to someone when you do not know their name.
Someone who has a condition that markedly restricts their ability to function physically.
Referring to a group of men and women.
Someone who has a condition that interferes with normal physical, intellectual, or emotional
dev…
Someone with low intelligence.
A matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or an obstacle.
Someone who is lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal
i…
Someone with a long-term, pathological use of drugs, characterized by daily intoxication, inabil…
Someone with a long-term, pathological use of alcohol, characterized by daily intoxication, inab…
Someone who is well above one’s normal (or healthy) weight.
The human race.
A person who engages in sexual activity for payment.
Someone who is unable to see.
 157

Someone who is unable to hear.

The title you apply when addressing a woman.
A person bringing up a child or children without a partner.
When asking about the individual a man is dating, you ask who is his…
When asking about the individual a woman is dating, you ask who is her…
The people whose job is to serve customers at their tables in a restaurant.
A person who sews for a living.
A person who fishes for a living.
A person who delivers your mail.
A person whose job is to extinguish fires.
A person whose intellectual ability is significantly higher than average.
A person designated to preside over a meeting or who is the administrative head of a department…
A person who is an officer of the law.
A person whose job involves selling or promoting commercial products.
A person who repairs vehicles, machinery, or appliances.
A person able or employed to do occasional domestic repairs and minor renovations.
A person who makes statements on behalf of a group or individual.
A person employed to cart away household trash and garbage.
A person employed to provide meals for and otherwise look after the passengers on a ship or
airc…
A person who broadcasts a description and forecast of weather conditions.
Terms or vocabulary a person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular sub…
A person whose profession is operating a television or movie camera.
A person employed by a retail store to deliver small orders to customers on call.
A first-year student at a university, college, or high school.
A man such as a porter, bouncer, or janitor who is on duty at the entrance to a large building.
Made or caused by human beings (as opposed to occurring or being made naturally).
Unable to walk through injury, illness, etc. and relying on a wheelchair to move around.
Someone who uses a gun to commit a crime or terrorist act.
A representation of a human figure created with compressed snow.
Someone who does not have a great deal of education, or perhaps none at all.
A small covered opening in a floor, pavement, or other surface to allow a person to enter, espec…
An elderly person.
A minor untruth.
A person who manages a home.
 158

A non-citizen who is present in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.

People from the Jewish ethnoreligious group.
A member of a dark-skinned people.
A member of any of the indigenous peoples.
A country with little industrial and economic activity, low incomes, and little money spen…
A member of a white-skinned people, of European origin.
A person of Italian origin.
A native of Asia or person of Asian descent.
A person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
Criticizing someone who does not make a very intelligent decision.
Criticizing an idea that is very bad, useless, or worthless.
A building in which people are legally held as a punishment for crimes they have committed or
wh…
An individual who is very small in stature.
Someone who contracts AIDS.
A domestic or tamed animal or bird treated with care and affection.
A greeting said during the month of December, and particularly on December 25th.
A list of persons under suspicion, disfavour, censure, etc.
To take care of a place or situation in another’s absence.
A person who has been rejected by society or a social group.
People who are no longer possible to manage.
An adult human female.
The study of past events, particularly in human affairs.
Sensitivity to Offence
Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“Oreo”- a black person who inappropriately adopts or identifies with middle-class white culture
(e.g., attitudes, fashions) as opposed to urban African-American culture
Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“coconut” - a Hispanic person who has adopted the values of white American society
Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“wigger” - a white person who mimics stereotypical black mannerisms
Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“towel head” - man of Middle Eastern descent
Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“ghetto-blaster” - a large portable radio and cassette or CD player
Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“flip-chart” - a large pad of paper, bound so that each page can be turned over at the top to reveal
the next; used on a stand at presentations
 159

Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“Irish dividend” - fictitious profit
Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“Irish beauty” - woman with 2 black eyes
Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“Irish wheelbarrow” - ambulance
Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“Dutch courage” - courage gained from intoxication
Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“Dutch widow” - prostitute
Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“Dutch feast” - host gets drunk before his guests
Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“Dutch cap” - condom
Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“going Dutch”/”Dutch date”/”Dutch treat” - each person participating in the group activity pays
for themselves
Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“Jew down” - to negotiate
Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
“Machiavellianism” - employment of cunning and deception in statecraft or general conduct;
derived from the misinterpretation of the Italian diplomat and writer Niccolò Machiavelli’s book
The Prince
Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
Saying “God bless” at a local event.
Rate how offensive you find each of the following terms. Please be as honest as possible. There...-
Using “ghetto” to describe someone/something/somewhere: poor quality, poor looking; dirty, not
presentable; old, broken, worn out; classless
Rate how offensive you find each of the following statements. Please be as honest as possible.
T...-“The white race is the cancer of human history.” - Susan Sontag, a prominent white
intellectual
Rate how offensive you find each of the following statements. Please be as honest as possible.
T...-“The common enemy is the white man.” - Malcolm X, African American leader
Rate how offensive you find each of the following statements. Please be as honest as possible.
T...-The Islamic faith and Quaran view homosexuality as sinful.
Rate how offensive you find each of the following statements. Please be as honest as possible.
T...-Rape is a crime of violence not sexuality.
Rate how offensive you find each of the following statements. Please be as honest as possible.
T...-“Violation is a synonym for intercourse.” - Andrea Dworkin
Rate how offensive you find each of the following statements. Please be as honest as possible.
T...-“Intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior.” -
Michael Finley
Sensitivity to Right Wing Name Insults
 160

Someone (e.g., mayor, cop, boss, parent) who legally issues harsh, micro-managing, insensitive,
o...-Nazi
Someone (e.g., mayor, cop, boss, parent) who legally issues harsh, micro-managing, insensitive,
o...-fascist
Sensitivity to Sexist Insults
An unpleasant woman.-bitch
An unpleasant woman.-slut
An unpleasant woman.-whore
An unpleasant woman.-cunt
An unpleasant woman.-ho
Unjust System
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
Only 5% of the Fortune 500 companies have women as CEOs.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
In 2011, women accounted for 23% of those who graduated from engineering, and 30% of those
who graduated from math and computer science programs.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
There have been no Black prime ministers in Canada or the UK, and the United States has only
had one Black president.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
In 2013, the poverty rate for Blacks in the United States was 27%, while the rate for Whites was
10%.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
Only 8% of registered nurses in the United States are male.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
Only 2% of dental hygienists in the United States are male.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
Only 8% of occupational therapists in the United States are male.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
81% of social workers are female in the United States.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
Only 20% of elementary school teachers in the United States are male.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
77% of meeting, convention, and event planners in the United States are female.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
72% of physical therapists in the United States are women.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
Only 29% of mental health counsellors in the United States are men.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
Only 32% of interpreters and translators are men in the United States.

Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
 161

100% of construction workers and masons in the United States are men.

Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
Only 5% of tractor-trailer truck drivers in the United States are women.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
Only 22% of software developers in the United States are women.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
Only 27% of sales representatives (wholesale and manufacturing) in the United States are women.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
64% of physicians and surgeons are men in the United States.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is evidence of an unjust system. Please be...-
Only 31% of personal financial advisors in the United States are women.
Censorship
Do you believe that works in these categories should be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-
Work seen by children
Do you believe that works in these categories should be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-
Work seen by adults
Do you believe that works in these categories should be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-
Private works (i.e., between friends & family)
Do you believe that works in these categories should be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-
Public works
Do you believe that works in these categories should be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-
Books
Do you believe that works in these categories should be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-
Movies
Do you believe that works in these categories should be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-
Art
Do you believe that works in these categories should be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-
Music
Do you believe that works in these categories should be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-
Television
Do you believe that works in these categories should be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-
Radio
Do you believe that works in these categories should be screened for offensive, racist, sexist o...-
Newspaper
Punishment
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be punished for using a racist, sexi...-
Individual in a business meeting
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be punished for using a racist, sexi...-
Student on campus or in residence
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be punished for using a racist, sexi...-
Professor teaching class
 162

For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be punished for using a racist, sexi...-
Individual in a locker room/bar
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be punished for using a racist, sexi...-
Individual on a talk show
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be punished for using a racist, sexi...-
Member of government
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be punished for using a racist, sexi...-
Individual writing on Facebook or other social media
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be punished for openly denying the
g...-Individual in a business meeting
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be punished for openly denying the
g...-Student on campus or in residence
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be punished for openly denying the
g...-Professor teaching class
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be punished for openly denying the
g...-Individual in a locker room/bar
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be punished for openly denying the
g...-Individual on a talk show
For each of the individuals below, rate whether they should be punished for openly denying the
g...-Member of government
Behavioural Offence
Rate how often you have felt offended by things people said, in the past month, in the following...-
On social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter).
Rate how often you have felt offended by things people said, in the past month, in the following...-
At work/in school.
Rate how often you have felt offended by things people said, in the past month, in the following...-
Among friends.
Rate how often you have felt offended by things people said, in the past month, in the following...-
Among family.
Rate how often you have felt offended by things people said, in the past month, in the following...-
On media such as TV, radio, newspapers or magazines.
Rate how often you have felt offended by things people said, in the past month, in the following...-
While browsing the web.
General PC
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-It is important for me to be
“politically correct”.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-I take great care to ensure my
language is “politically correct”.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-I take great care to ensure my
behaviour and choices are “politically correct”.
Rate your level of agreement with the following statements.-I am offended when others are not
“politically correct”.
 163

Uncategorized
Blasphemous, obscene, and slang statements, as well as racist slurs (e.g., nigger) and epithets...
The craft of compiling, writing, and editing dictionaries should be…
Diversity and inclusivity training seminars should…
Sexual harassment awareness training seminars should…
Are you a vegetarian or vegan?
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is a biological or cultural phenomenon. Pl...-
Women are on average more agreeable and more prone to anxiety and emotional pain than men.
Rate the degree you think each of the following facts is a biological or cultural phenomenon. Pl...-
On IQ tests, individuals who identify themselves as “white” tend on average to score higher than
individuals of African ancestry. Additionally, individuals of an East Asian background tend to
score higher than whites.