Authoritarians Go with the Flow: Social Norms Moderate the Link between Right‐Wing Authoritarianism and Outgroup‐Directed Attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aimed to provide a more nuanced understanding of the relations between social norms, right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA), outgroup‐directed prejudice, and hostile behavioral intentions toward outgroups. Three correlational studies, conducted in two countries and three different intergroup contexts ( n 1 = 997; n 2 = 1011; n 3 = 1992), investigated the moderating role of social norms (both positive and negative) on the relation between RWA and expression of prejudice as well as behavioral intentions toward outgroups. We found that in the presence of positive (i.e., tolerant) social norms, the previously well‐established positive relation between RWA and prejudice is reduced or even reversed, whereas in the presence of negative (i.e., intolerant) social norms, this relation is strengthened. Additionally, the lower (vs. higher) prejudice of high‐RWA individuals in the presence of positive (vs. negative) social norms mediated the link between RWA and behavioral intentions toward outgroups. The present research constitutes the first comprehensive demonstration of authoritarians' potential to be less prejudiced in response to prevailing tolerant social norms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".