RWA and SDO each predict prejudice only toward groups matching their specific motivational trigger

Evidence

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. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2483

Categorization

• XREF: Directly complicates the vault’s existing claim that a single authoritarian dimension causes generalized prejudice; also notes ‘feminists’ as threatening+subordinate, echoing the immodesty/moral-panic material. — connects to: Glorification overlaps with but is not reducible to RWA or SDO. — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral…, 93
• SEED: Angle: ‘feminists’ sits at the intersection where both RWA and SDO fire — a crisp empirical hook for an article on how ideology splits which outgroups each disposition targets.