http://www.diva-portal.org
This is a poster presented at The Biennial Conference of the International Society for Justice Research (ISJR), New York, USA, June 19-22, 2014.
Dimdins, G., Sandgren, M. & Montgomery, H. (2014).
Uncertainty avoidance and tough-mindedness as the bases for system justification and dependence on others.
N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.
Permanent link to this version:
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-26773
Uncertainty avoidance and tough-mindedness as the bases for system justification and dependence on others
Girts Dimdins
1,2, Maria Sandgren
1, and Henry Montgomery
1,31Södertörns University, 2University of Latvia, 3Uppsala University
Results and Discussion
The results of MDS analysis are depicted in Figures 2 and 3 for the Swedish and Latvian samples, respectively (note that in both figures the placement of the variables in the model has been rotated relative to Figure 1 and to each other). The results of the regression analyses are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
The results do not support the four-dimensional model:
MDS analysis shows that system justification is closely
related to tough-mindedness in both samples, and is mostly unrelated to uncertainty avoidance (except for regression analysis of the Swedish data, where conservation is related to system justification in Model 1).
The Schwartz value dimensions are more orthogonal in the Swedish sample than in the Latvian sample, where self-enhancement and change are more closely related.
Normativism predicts system justification negatively in the Latvian sample, but positively in the Swedish sample. The two primary axes of political orientation are orthogonal in both samples, but variables related to social conservatism (such as RWA and normativism) and economic rightist
ideology (such as SDO and system justification) are more closely related in the Swedish sample than in the Latvian sample, replicating a pattern found in other studies
comparing Western and post-Communist cultures.
One notable result is that the openness to change value index positively predicts system justification in the
Swedish sample; this relation remains marginally significant (p = .06) also in Model 2. One possible explanation for this result is that economic equality to a large extent is
perceived as the status quo situation in Sweden, and
support for the system justification items (which measure support for inequality) is related to openness to social
change and readiness to alter the existing circumstances.
Introduction
We propose a theoretical model where the social dimension of political orientation (acceptance vs. rejection of social change) is represented as acceptance vs. avoidance of uncertainty, and the economic dimension (acceptance vs. rejection of inequality) is
represented as tough mindedness vs.
empathy (Figure 1).
The former axis corresponds to the conservation vs. openness to change
dimension in the Schwartz's (1992) value model; the latter axis corresponds to the self-enhancement vs. self-transcendence dimension. Two secondary axes represent the possible combinations of the variables defining the primary axes. Tough
mindedness in combination with uncertainty avoidance result in high system justification, whereas empathy in combination with
uncertainty acceptance represents low
system justification. This axis corresponds to the self-protection vs. growth dimension of the refined Schwartz et al. (2012) value model. Tough mindedness in combination with uncertainty acceptance results in
preference for self-reliance, whereas the opposite combination represents
preference for dependence on others. This axis corresponds to the personal vs. social focus of the Schwartz et al. (2012) value model.
We tested the model in two samples, one representing an old democracy with an established political culture (Sweden), and the other a new democracy with still
developing political culture and party system (Latvia).
Figure 1. The initial theoretical model
Method
Sample. The participants in the study were Latvian (N = 264, 77% female, mean age = 23.9 years, SD = 5.8 years) and Swedish (N = 320, 67% female, mean age = 27.5 years, SD = 8.6 years) students.
Measures. The respondents indicated on separate scales their level of social conservatism (marked political_social1 in Figures 2 and 3) and rightist economic orientation (marked political_econ2), and completed measures of social dominance orientation
(Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), right wing authoritarianism (Zakrisson, 2005), system justification (Jost & Thompson, 2000), tolerance for ambiguity (Herman et al., 2010), moral foundations (MFQ30, Graham et al., 2011), humanism and normativism (Nilsson, 2014), and dependence on others. Based on the MFQ data, we calculated indexes for the importance of individualizing moral foundations
(including harm and fairness) and binding moral foundations (including in-group, authority, and purity).
The respondents also completed the 21-item version of Portrait Values Questionnaire (Schwartz, 2006), which includes
measures of 10 basic values. Based on the PVQ data, we calculated indexes for conservation (including the values of conformity, tradition, and security, marked Cons in Figures 2 and 3), openness to change (including self-direction, stimulation, and hedonism, marked Change), self-enhancement (including achievement and power, marked Selfenh), and self-transcendence (including
benevolence and universalism, marked Selftrans).
Data Analysis
The collected measures were subjected to multidimensional scaling (ALSCAL, using z-transformed values as input) separately for each sample. We also calculated multiple regression analyses separately for each sample. In the first model, we entered the four value indices as predictors, with system justification as outcome. In the second model, we added all other measures as predictors (See Tables 1 and 2).
References
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H.
(2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366-385.
Herman, J. L., Stevens, M. J., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G.
(2010). The Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale: Towards a more refined measure for international management research. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 58-65.
Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem,
ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 36, 209-232.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values:
Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., . . . Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic
individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 663-688.
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Value orientations: Measurement, antecedents and consequences across nations. In Jowell, R., Roberts, C.,
Fitzgerald, R. & Eva, G. (Eds.) Measuring attitudes cross-nationally - Lessons from the European Social Survey (pp.169-203). London,
UK: Sage.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zakrisson, I. (2005). Construction of a short version of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(5), 863-872.
Figure 3. Results of multidimensional scaling (Latvian sample).
Table 1. Results of regression analysis (Swedish sample) Table 2. Results of regression analysis (Latvian sample)
With questions about this study contact Girts Dimdins, girts.dimdins@lu.lv, Maria Sandgren, maria.sandgren@sh.se, or Henry Montgomery, hmy@psychology.su.se
Figure 2. Results of multidimensional scaling (Swedish sample).
High uncertainty avoidance
Low uncertainty avoidance High tough-mindedness
Low tough-mindedness High uncertainty avoidance
Low uncertainty avoidance
High tough-mindedness
Low tough-mindedness
