Rigid cognitive styles correlate with conservatism but are not causally responsible for prejudice

Evidence

Rokeach’s research, however, stimulated the development of new measures of cognitive style, such as integrative complexity, intolerance of ambiguity, cognitive flexibility, need for structure, uncertainty tolerance, and need for cognitive closure, and new research on their relationships with prejudice, authoritarianism, and conservatism. This research found that restricted, limited, rigid cognitive styles were consistently associated with conservatism and authoritarianism (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003), but only relatively weakly associated with prejudice (Altemyer, 1998; Duckitt, 1992, pp. 188–90; McFarland, 1998). Moreover, with cognitive style controlled, authoritarianism still predicted prejudice significantly, while controlling authoritarianism eliminated the effects of cognitive style on prejudice (Altemeyer, 1998; McFarland & Adelson, 1996; McFarland, 1998). These findings suggest that rigid, limited cognitive styles are integral aspects of authoritarianism, but are not themselves responsible for the relationship of authoritarianism to prejudice. Interestingly, this is entirely consistent with Allport’s original conceptualization that fearfulness and insecurity was responsible for authoritarians’ prejudice as well as their rigid, limited cognitive styles. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2447

Categorization

• XREF: Directly engages the classic Allport authoritarianism concept and its causal structure; bears on the vault’s prejudice-psychology claims.