The issue of personality and prejudice has been largely investigated in terms of authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. However, these seem more appropriately conceptualized as ideological attitudes than as personality dimensions. The authors describe a causal model linking dual dimensions of personality, social world view, ideological attitudes, and intergroup attitudes. Structural equation modeling with data from American and White Afrikaner students supported the model, suggesting that social conformity and belief in a dangerous world influence authoritarian attitudes, whereas toughmindedness and belief in a competitive jungle world influence social dominance attitudes, and these two ideological attitude dimensions influence intergroup attitudes. The model implies that dual motivational and cognitive processes, which may be activated by different kinds of situational and intergroup dynamics, may underlie 2 distinct dimensions of prejudice.

Citation for published item:f inD ul qF nd wilfontD i no vF nd u shim D oshihis nd filewi zD wi h l nd horonD quy nd q r rsd¡ ottirD gn fF nd qouvei D ldiney F nd qu nD njun nd toh nssonD v rsEylof nd squ liD g rlot nd gorr lE erdugoD i tor nd er gonesD tu n sgn io nd tsugiD ekir nd hem rqueD ghristophe nd yttoD iegm r nd rkD toonh nd ol ndD w rtin nd tegD vind nd qonz¡ lezD o erto nd ve edev D x dezhd nd w dsenD yle t o nd gnerD gl ire nd ekoti D gh rity F nd uurzD im nd izD tos¡ e vF nd hultzD F esley nd iin rsd¡ ottirD qr¡ o nd violidisD xin wF @PHITA 9goE ene(ts of ddressing lim te h nge n motiv te tion round the worldF9D x ture lim te h ngeFD T @PAF ppF ISREISUF Further information on publisher's website:httpXGGdxFdoiForgGIHFIHQVGn lim tePVIR Publisher's copyright statement:Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. It is traditionally thought that the public must be convinced of the reality and importance of anthropogenic climate change in order to take personal and political action.However, convincing the broad public involves overcoming powerful ideological obstacles 1-4 , and in many places climate change is slipping in public importance 5,6 . Here we examined whether beliefs about the "co-benefits" of mitigating climate change 7 can avoid these obstacles by motivating behavior in both those who accept climate change and those who are unconvinced or unconcerned. We describe an integrative framework for assessing cobenefits 8 , distinguishing sociological dimensions (e.g., pollution, disease, economic development), and community character (e.g., benevolence, competence). Data from all inhabited continents (24 countries; N=6059), showed that two types of co-benefits, Development (economic and scientific advancement) and Benevolence (a more moral and caring community), rivalled climate change importance in the strength of their relationships with motivations to act. These co-benefits showed effects independent of climate change importance beliefs, and showed similar effects for both climate change believers and skeptics. Communicating these co-benefits of addressing climate change can help motivate action on climate change where traditional approaches have stalled.Those trying to motivate widespread public action on climate change face two hurdles.The first is to convince enough people that climate change is real and important. The second is to move people from accepting its reality and importance to taking action, both in their own lives and in convincing their governments to act. A sing...

s pe c i a l r e p o r t T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine n engl j med 369;21 nejm.org november 21, 2013

No abstract