1. The “Prejudiced Personality” Revisited: (Low) Agreeableness is Associated with Generalized Prejudice, but Openness is Not JARRET T. CRAWFORD THE COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY MARK J. BRANDT TILBURG UNIVERSITY

2. A trait-based approach to prejudice  The Prejudiced Personality : “One of the facts of which we are most certain is that people who reject one out-group will tend to reject other out-groups. If a person is anti-Jewish, he is likely to be anti-Catholic, anti- Negro, anti any out-group.” (Allport, 1954, p. 68)  Hodson & Dhont (2015)—some traits are consistently associated with prejudice against multiple outgroups:  Authoritarianism  Political conservatism  Religiosity  Disgust sensitivity  Threat sensitivity  Low cognitive ability  (Low) Openness and Agreeableness

3. (Low) Openness & Agreeableness are related to generalized prejudice  Generalized prejudice expressed toward multiple groups  Sibley & Duckitt (2008) meta-analyzed 25 studies (N = 4,713) including Big Five traits and measures of target-specific and generalized prejudice  Openness r = -.30  Conscientiousness r =.02  Extraversion r = -.07  Agreeableness r = -.22  Neuroticism r = -.01

4. Defining vs. Operationalizing Prejudice  Most well-accepted definitions of prejudice are broad (Stangor, 2009):  “a negative evaluation of a group or of an individual on the basis of group membership” (Crandall et al., 2002, p. 359)  However, generalized prejudice has been operationalized narrowly towards socially disadvantaged and low status groups:  Ethnic and racial minorities, women, immigrants, sexual minorities, disabled, Muslims, poor/unemployed people, elderly people (e.g., Akrami et al., 2011; Bergh et al., 2012; Duckitt & Sibley, 2007; Ekehammar & Akrami, 2003)  Thus, mismatch between broad definition but narrow operationalization of prejudice

5. Replicated in e.g., Chambers et al., 2013; Crawford, 2014; Crawford et al., 2014; Crawford et al., 2015; Crawford & Pilanski, 2014; Iyengar & Westwood, 2014; van Prooijen et al., 2015; Wetherell et al., 2013 Ideological Conflict Perspective (Brandt et al. 2014, CDPS)  Low status and socially disadvantaged groups associated with liberal policies or liberal themselves (e.g., Chambers et al., 2013)  Conservatism does not predict prejudice per se; ideology-prejudice relationship depends on target’s political orientation  Worldview conflict (dissimilarity in beliefs/values)  Requires inclusion of targets from both left (e.g., gay men and lesbians; welfare recipients) and right (e.g., Evangelical Christians; Wall Street executives)

6. An ideological conflict approach to Big Five & generalized prejudice  Are Openness and/or Agreeableness still associated with generalized prejudice under an inclusive operationalization?  Are Conscientiousness, Extraversion, or Neuroticism now associated with generalized prejudice under an inclusive operationalization?

7. Studies 1 and 2  Study 1: nationally representative sample—2012 American National Election Studies (ANES) Time-Series (n = 5,510)—examined prejudice against 24 mostly heterogeneous target groups  Study 2: community sample from Mechanical Turk (n = 617) examined prejudice against 20 target groups drawn from previous ideological conflict studies  Both studies used Ten-item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling et al., 2003) to measure Big Five traits  Both studies used Feeling thermometer ratings (0 – 100; reverse scored) to measure prejudice  Generalized prejudice: average prejudice rating across all groups within each study

8. Study 1 & 2 Results Partial correlations between trait & prejudice while controlling for the other four traits OCEAN Study 1-.03.04-.09***-.19***.04* Study 2-.02.001-.10*-.19***-.02

9. Study 3  Study 3: community sample from MTurk (n = 509)  44-item Big Five Inventory (John & Srivistava, 1999) instead of TIPI  Tested potential moderation of effects of:  Openness (perceived conventionality; Brandt et al., 2015)  Agreeableness (perceived warmth towards others; Graziano et al., 2007; Yarkoni et al., 2015)  Extraversion (perceived assertiveness)  Perceived worldview conflict as possible mediator  Openness-prejudice relationships partially explained by worldview conflict (Brandt et al., 2015)  10 target groups to reduce participant fatigue

10. Study 3 Results Partial correlations between trait & prejudice while controlling for the other four traits Target GroupPersonality Trait OCEAN Atheists-.23***-.05.03.13**.02 Gay men and lesbians-.18***-.03-.10*-.12*-.20*** Poor People-.09.02-.04-.29***-.13** Pro-choice activists-.14**-.06-.03.02-.09 Welfare recipients-.09.07.01-.19***-.11* Anti-gay activists.19***-.01.04-.04.13** Investment bankers.07-.01-.06-.03.03 Evangelical Christians.15**.05-.07-.22***.02 Pro-life activists.20***.05-.07-.24***.01 Wealthy people.01.02-.07.05 Generalized Prejudice-.02.01-.07-.21***-.05

11. Moderation Analyses  Examined moderating effects of perceived conventionality, assertiveness, and warmth on each trait-prejudice and trait- worldview conflict relationship  No interactions with Agreeableness were significant  Openness x Conventionality  Neuroticism x Conventionality

12. Mediation of Worldview Conflict  High in Openness (+1 SD)  Low in Openness (-1 SD)  High in Neuroticism (+1 SD)  Low in Neuroticism (-1 SD) Prejudice Conventionality Worldview Conflict Conventionality Worldview Conflict Prejudice.14(.04)*** 3.61(.27)*** 3.56(.27)*** -.02(.04).15(.04)*** -.02(.05) 3.56(.27)*** Sobel 3.38(.15)*** -.50(.15) 3.61(.15)*** -.40(.18)

13. Meta-Analyses (total n = 7,040)

14. Implications  Low Openness does not orient people towards negative attitudes towards others  Openness-prejudice relationship function of perceived worldview conflict with conventional/unconventional targets (Brandt et al., 2015)  Low Agreeableness does orient people towards negative attitudes towards others  Consistent relationship across studies (MA r = -.19)  Relationship not moderated by worldview conflict, perceived warmth towards others, etc.  Unrelated to worldview conflict  Associated with prejudice against groups across political spectrum (e.g., liberals, conservatives, gay men/lesbians, Evangelicals)  Make operationalization of “generalized prejudice” consistent with broad definitions of “prejudice” to understand processes underlying prejudice

15. Thank you!

16. Operationalization of prejudice matters for conclusions about individual differences-prejudice relationships  Ideological conflict model perspective (Brandt, Reyna, Chambers, Crawford, & Wetherell, 2014):  Low status and socially disadvantaged groups tend to be associated with liberal policies or are politically liberal themselves (e.g., Chambers et al., 2013)  Conservatism does not predict prejudice per se; rather, the ideology- prejudice relationship depends on the political orientation of target  Worldview conflict (dissimilarity in beliefs/values)  This approach requires the inclusion of targets from across the political spectrum, from the left (e.g., gay men and lesbians; welfare recipients) to the right (e.g., Evangelical Christians; Wall Street executives)

17. Replicated in e.g., Crawford, 2014; Crawford et al., 2014; Crawford et al., 2015; Iyengar & Westwood, 2014; van Prooijen et al., 2015 Wetherell et al. (2013)Crawford & Pilanski (2014) Chambers et al. (2013) From Brandt et al. 2014 CDPS

18. Study 1 Results Target GroupPersonality Trait OCEAN Atheists-.10***.09***.001.01.02 Feminists -.12***.06**-.04*-.11***-.02 Gay men and lesbians-.16***.08***-.08***-.10***-.01 Labor unions-.10***.10***-.02-.04-.004 Liberals-.18***.12***-.02-.07***-.03 Muslims-.12***.07**-.01-.09***.02 People on welfare-.08***.13***.02-.11***.02 Poor people-.06**.07**-.03-.14***-.01 Big business.06**-.002-.05*-.02.05* Catholics.07**-.06**-.05*-.07**.03 Christian Fundamentalists.12***-.04-.03-.05*.003 Christians.08***-.06** -.14***.01 Conservatives.16***-.08***-.05*-.04*.01 Middle class people-.02-.04-.08***-.10***.02 Military.09***-.05*-.07***-.09***.01 Mormons.08***-.05*-.03-.09***.05* Rich people.02-.04-.08***-.07***.07** Tea Party.14***-.04*-.02.02 Working class people-.002-.06**-.07***-.12***-.01 Blacks-.07**.01-.04-.13***.04 Whites.05*-.05*-.10***-.11***.03 Asians-.06**-.03-.02-.08***.08*** Hispanics-.07**-.01-.04-.11***.04 Illegal immigrants-.09***.12***.01-.04.04 Generalized Prejudice-.03.04-.09***-.19***.04* Partial correlations between trait & prejudice while controlling for the other four traits

19. Study 2 Results Partial correlations between trait & prejudice while controlling for the other four traits Target GroupPersonality Trait OCEAN Atheists-.16***.06.05.06.02 Feminists-.18***.04-.05-.13**-.17*** Gays and lesbians-.25***.02-.05-.09*-.15*** Poor people-.13**.07.02-.21***-.07 Pro-choice activists-.23***.02-.06.03-.11** Sluts-.17***.18***.02.07-.03 Socialists-.15***.10*.03-.05-.07 Unemployed people-.11**.08-.01-.17***-.09* Labor unions-.08*.04.02-.07 Welfare recipients-.12**.15***.02-.15***-.07 Anti-gay activists.18***-.02 -.04-.08 Bankers.12**-.08-.18***-.04-.01 Businesspeople.05-.10*-.14**-.01.07 Elderly people-.03-.06-.03-.26***-.06 Evangelical Christians.18***-.02-.08*-.15***-.01 Pro-life activists.20***-.08*-.07-.17***.10* Prudes.07.04-.03-.01-.08 Small business owners-.09*-.04-.05-.10*-.01 Wall street executives.15***-.07-.12**-.02.04 Wealthy people.07-.03-.15***-.06.09* Generalized Prejudice-.02.001-.10*-.19***-.02

20. Future Directions  Moderation of Extraversion-prejudice and Agreeableness-prejudice relationships?  Extend from Big Five to HEXACO  Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness