Authoritarianism and social dominance target different outgroups

Evidence

Recent findings support these predictions. For example, the effect of RWA on antigay prejudice is mediated by perceived threat (Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993), while the effect of SDO on anti-immigrant attitudes is mediated by economic competitiveness (Esses, Dovidio, Jackson, & Armstrong, 2001). More recently, RWA was found to predict negative attitudes to social categories rated as socially threatening but not socially subordinate (e.g., “rock stars,” “drug dealers”) while SDO did not, with the effect of RWA mediated by perceived threat from these groups, and not by competitiveness with them (Duckitt, 2003). In contrast, SDO predicted negative attitudes toward social categories rated as socially subordinate but not threatening (e.g., “housewives,” “physically disabled persons,” “unemployment beneficiaries”) while RWA did not, with the effect of SDO mediated by competitiveness with these groups, and not by perceived threat. When social groups or categories were rated as threatening and socially subordinate (e.g., “feminists”) both RWA and SDO predicted negative attitudes toward them with the effect of RWA mediated by perceived threat and of SDO by competitiveness. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2483

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the book-length theme of Allport’s The Nature of Prejudice and pre-modern theories of personality-and-prejudice.
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: do these distinct mediators produce measurably different behavioral outcomes (e.g., policy preferences) versus just different targets?
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 2483