15. Contemporary study Cohrs et al 2012

Question 1

Describe Duckett’s Dual Process model.

Answer 1

-John Duckett created a model to explain prejudice, that combines the concepts of RWA and SDO.
-He suggested that these dimensions develop when people with specific personality profiles (eg low openness) are exposed to certain ideologies of the world and that these ideological attitudes in turn lead them to be prejudiced.
-This is the model that Christopher Cohrs et al tested in our contemporary study.

Question 2

What was the background research to the study?

Answer 2

-Previous research had suggested there was a link between different personality types and prejudice.
-Cohrs et al (2012) raised concerns with the validity and reliability of the methods used to the premise of the study is to established whether previous research methods can be supported with more comprehensive methodology.
-They argue self report data may not be accurate or consistent over time as such this research used peer-report data to cross-check for validity and reliability.

Question 3

What had previous research found?

Answer 3

-Ideological attitudes mediate personality influences on prejudice.
-RWA and SDO contribute to ideological attitudes (world views).
-There is a link between personality traits (openness to experience and agreeableness) and ideological views, which lead to prejudice.

Question 4

What are the ‘Big Five’ Dimensions

Answer 4

1. Openness
2. Conscientiousness
3. Extraversion
4. Agreeableness
5. Neuroticism

(OCEAN)

Question 5

What did Cohrs et al predict?

Answer 5

1. Right wing authoritarian (RWA) would correlate positively with high conscientious and low openness.
2. Social dominance orientation (SDO) would correlate negatively with agreeableness.
3. Both RWA and SDO will correlate positively with generalised prejudice.

Question 6

What was the study’s aims?

Answer 6

-Cohrs et al aimed to examine the interrelations among the Big Five personality dimensions, right wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), and prejudice,
-They wanted to see whether the findings of previous research (had found a like between certain personality traits and ideological views, which leads to prejudice) would be supported using two data collection methods, rather than just relying on self-report data.
-The use of peer reports would be used to cross-check the self-report data. To see whether conscientiousness correlated positively with RWA, and that RWA and SDO correlates positively with prejudice.

Question 7

Describe the procedure of study one.

Answer 7

1. One participant + one peer rater.
2. An opportunity sample of 193 people (125 women, 64 men + 4 who didn’t specify gender).
3. To measure personality dimensions a likert scale was used: 1 (not true at all) to 7 (completely true).
4. To measure RWA, a 12-item scale was used, including reverse order questions.
5. To measure SDO, another short scale was used (Pratto) translated into German.
6. Prejudice was measure towards gay men, lesbians, foreigners (Turks) and people with disabilities.

Question 8

Summarise the procedure of study 1.

Answer 8

1. The ppts completed a questionnaires about themselves, whilst the acquaintance completed a questionnaire about them.
2. The questionnaire was anonymous.
3. The questionnaire asked about the Big 5 Personality dimensions, RWA and SDO and also focused on measuring prejudice in the form of negative attitudes to homosexuality, disability and foreigners.

Question 9

Evaluate the procedure.

Answer 9

-Questionnaires were standardised, established questionnaires so all ppts received the same questionnaires for the Big Five personality dimensions, Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO).
-Using closed questions with rating scales, such as the NEO five factor inventory scales of 1 (not true at all) to 7 (completely true) prevented the ppts from explaining their answers.
-Closed questions can reduce the validity of the findings about attitudes because the results do not represent the reasons why the ppts may be prejudiced.
-Researchers can retest the standardised questionnaires they used in increasing the reliability of the instrument used to test attitudes and prejudice.

Question 10

Describe the sample of study one.

Answer 10

-Opportunity sample of 193 people (125 women and 64 men + 4 who didn’t specify gender.
-Aged 18-67 (mean age 34).
-From diverse social backgrounds, gathered from a region of East Germany.
-The peers (recruited by each ppt) were also from East Germany and knew the target person ‘well’ or ‘very well’. Even split of M and F peer rates aged 13-73 (mean age 34).

Question 11

How was data analysed from study 1?

Answer 11

-Results from the ppts were analysed to investigate correlations between personality traits, ideological attitudes and prejudice.
-For example, openness was correlated with SDO.
-SDO was correlated with generalised prejudice.

Question 12

Evaluate the data analysis.

Answer 12

-The use of peer reports and self reports in the data collection allows Cohrs et al (2012) to compare the results to determine the effectiveness of the methods when testing for links between openness to experience and agreeableness and prejudice.
-Cohrs used correlational analysis to look for relationships between variables.

Question 13

What is a weakness of the data analysis method?

Answer 13

-Self reports may result in social desirability bias.
-Peer reports may be subject to same biases as self-reports and therefore also lacks validity. Peers may be just as motivated as the individuals themselves to view their friends/acquaintances in a positive light.
-Therefore data may lack validity, rendering the resulting correlations meaningless.

Question 14

What were the results of study 1?

Answer 14

1. Personalities did correlate positively with prejudice attitudes (RWA 0.57, SDO 0.27).
2. Openness to experience correlated negatively with RWA (-0.43) and prejudice (-0.43).
3. Agreeableness is negatively correlated with SDO (-0.28) and prejudice (-0.20).
4. Correlation with self and peer-reports was shown, significant correlations with all but one the measures.

Question 15

Describe the procedure of study two.

Answer 15

1. One participant plus two peer raters.
2. 424 participants (103 men and 321 women), aged between 18 and 82 years old. But only 371 had both peer reports available (the other 53 only had one peer report). Peer rates were 554 women and 224 men.
3. Rated the particpants using a different scale ranging from 1 (reject very much) to 7 (agree very much).

Question 16

Summarise the procedure of study 2.

Answer 16

1. Self report data in the form of questionnaires and personality scales.
2. The questionnaire, RWA and SDO scales measured personality and attitudes.
3. The questionnaire also focused on measuring prejudice in the form of negative attitudes to homosexuality, disability and foreigners with a particular emphasis on Turks (largest non-native group in Germany), mental disability and wheelchair users.

Question 17

Describe the sample of study 2.

Answer 17

-Opportunity sampling, half of the sample were gathered using the Jena Twin registry of multiple births. The other half was from volunteers who called them or by approaching them at ‘twin club’.
-One twin from each pair of twins was given a self-report questionnaire, which was also given to two peer acquaintances to complete about the participant.
-The sample was made up of 424 ppts, 103 men and 321 women, aged between 18 and 82 years old. But only 371 had both peer reports available (the other 53 only had one peer report). Peer rates were 554 women and 224 men.

Question 18

How was data analysed from study 2?

Answer 18

-Results from the ppt were correlated with results from the two peers to see how valid and reliable the self-report results were.

Question 19

What were the results of study 2?

Answer 19

-For agreeableness and RWA, mean scores were similar between peer and self-report, eg for agreeableness, both self-report and peer-report reported a mean score of 3.53
-There were some small differences, but largely the two types of data matched, eg for general prejudice, self report was a mean score of 2.09 and peer-report reported a mean score of 2.23
-Where there were differences in ratings of, eg prejudice, ppts rated themselves as less prejudiced than the peer reported. This suggests that self-report data are more open to social desirability bias than peer-report data.

Question 20

What did Cohrs et al contemporary study conclude?

Answer 20

-There is a relationship between the ‘Big Five’ personality dimensions, ideological attitudes (RWA and SDO) and prejudice. If someone is more conscientious, they are likely to be more RWA. If they have RWA or SDO, they are more likely to be prejudiced.
-Findings of previous research finding the same relationship between personality, prejudice and ideology which just uses self-reports were found to be reliable when compared with using self-reports and peer-reports from Cohrs’ data.
-There was still concern about the validity of peer and self-report accuracy, despite being reliable, as both may be affected by social desirability bias.

Question 21

What is the conclusion of the study, and how can these findings be applied?

Answer 21

-It appears that prejudice is indeed related to personality. This understanding is important because it shows that some people are more at risk of becoming prejudiced than others when exposed to, for example, exaggerated news broadcasts that emphasise how dangerous the world is.
-These findings can be applied to improve society by reducing prejudice.

Question 22

Describe the issues of social control.

Answer 22

-Findings show that by exposing people to certain world views through the media, they can be made more or less prejudiced which shows that they are being socially controlled.
-Using strategies to try to alter people’s world views is an issue of social control, which does not benefit individuals and is therefore a weakness of application of the findings that personality and world views correlate with prejudice.