This paper examines the ideological asymmetry hypothesis with respect to the interface between legitimizing ideologies and psychological attachment to one's ethnic group. The ideological asymmetry hypothesis suggests that hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing ideologies should be positively associated with ingroup attachment among high-status groups, but that among low-status groups these associations should be either less positive in magnitude (isotropic asymmetry) relative to high-status groups or negative in direction (anisotropic asymmetry). The opposite pattern should be found with respect to the interface between hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing ideologies and ingroup attachment: Among high-status groups these associations should be negative, but among low-status groups these associations should be either less negative in magnitude (isotropic asymmetry) relative to high-status groups or positive in direction (anisotropic asymmetry). The presence of isotropic versus anisotropic asymmetry is hypothesized to depend on the degree of disparity in status between the groups being compared: Wider status gaps should tend toward anisotropic asymmetries. The relationships between legitimizing ideologies and ingroup attachment were compared for (1) relatively high-status ethnic groups (European and Asian Americans) versus relatively low-status ethnic groups (Latinos and African Americans) in the United States, (2) the higher-status Jewish ethnic group (Ashkenazim) versus the lower-status Jewish ethnic group (Mizrachim) in Israel, and (3) the high-status Israeli Jews versus the low-status IsraeliArabs. The data were largely consistent with the ideological asymmetry hypothesis. The implications of these findings are discussed within the theoretical frameworks of social dominance theory and other approaches to intergroup relations.

Using vocational choice and social dominance theories as theoretical frameworks, the authors examined the effects of ideology/ role congruency on differential institutional rewards. The authors reasoned that congruents (i.e., individuals high in antiegalitarianism in hierarchy-enhancing [HE] social roles and low in antiegalitarianism in hierarchy-attenuating [HA] roles) would receive higher institutional rewards than would incongruents (i.e., individuals high in antiegalitarianism in HA social roles and low in antiegalitarianism in HE roles).Furthermore, it was predicted that ones continued exposure to the university environment would increase the probability of being a congruent. The authors used a large sample of university students, with grade point average as the operationalization of institutional reward. Role was defined as the students major, and antiegalitarianism was defined by a classical racism scale.As expected, (a) ever ything else being equal, congruents received higher grades than did incongruents, and (b) the probability of being a congruent increased with university experience.The assumption that the congruence between workers personalities and job types is associated with greater job satisfaction and occupational success has been a major theme within vocational psychology for some time (see, e.g.,

Based on both classical and contemporary perspectives on the psychology of legitimacy, it was hypothesized that the pattern of relationships between social dominance orientation (SDO) and favoritism for high-status groups would depend on the status of one’s group and the perceived legitimacy of the group-based status distinction. Among members of high-status groups, SDO was expected to be positively related to favoritism for the high-status group at both high and low levels of legitimacy. Among members of low-status groups, SDO and high-status group favoritism were only expected to be positively related when the system was perceived to be legitimate. The results of two studies provided a clear pattern of support for these expectations. Implications for social dominance theory and other perspectives on the psychology of legitimacy are discussed.

In two studies, the authors examined the relationship between desire for group-based dominance (i.e., SDO), gender, and group attachment. As expected, the relationship between social dominance orientation and gender was invariant across ethnic groups. Across ethnic groups, males were found to have higher levels of social dominance orientation than were females. Furthermore, for members of high-status groups, there were positive relationships between desire for group-based dominance and group affiliation, whereas for members of low-status groups, these relationships were significantly less positive and even negative. The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.

Measures of symbolic racism (SR) have often been used to tap racial prejudice toward Blacks. However, given the wording of questions used for this purpose, some of the apparent effects on attitudes toward policies to help Blacks may instead be due to political conservatism, attitudes toward government, and/or attitudes toward redistributive government policies in general. Using data from national probability sample surveys and an experiment, we explored whether SR has effects even when controlling for these potential confounds and whether its effects are specific to policies involving Blacks. Holding constant conservatism and attitudes toward limited government, SR predicted Whites' opposition to policies designed to help Blacks and more weakly predicted attitudes toward social programs whose beneficiaries were racially ambiguous. An experimental manipulation of policy beneficiaries revealed that SR predicted policy attitudes when Blacks were the beneficiary but not when women were. These findings are consistent with the claim that SR's association with racial policy preferences is not due to these confounds. Keywords symbolic racism; modern racism; prejudice; policy attitudes; liberal-conservative ideology; structural equation modeling One of the most contested issues in studies of race in America concerns the role of government in addressing social inequality. To state the question at issue in its simplest form, "Exactly why do some White Americans oppose government policies designed to aid Black Americans?" Researchers have debated to what extent it is due to racial prejudice or adherence to less racial value systems (e.g., equality, individualism, and/or opposition to big government). Symbolic racism (SR) theory (McConahay & Hough, 1976;Sears, 1988;Sears & Henry, 2005;Sears & Kinder, 1971;Sears, van Laar, Carrillo, & Kosterman, 1997)-and its close relatives, such as modern racism (McConahay, 1986) and racial resentment (Kinder & Sanders, 1996)-is a particularly visible theory of racial prejudice. Although measures of SR have been used extensively throughout the social scientific literature, two particular concerns about them have been raised that merit investigation. First, we test whether the NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript confounding of SR with race-neutral beliefs and ideologies is in fact responsible for SR's apparent effects instead of racial prejudice. We also explore whether the apparent effects of Black-focused SR on policy preferences are specific to policies that benefit Blacks in particular. Symbolic RacismOn the one hand, most White Americans appear to be dedicated to ideals of equality and true integration. But at the same time, many of those same White Americans were unwilling to support the implementation of specific policies designed to ameliorate unfair group differences. How, then, to explain this "principle-implementation gap" (Bobo, 1997;Schuman, Steeh, Bobo, & Krysan, 1997)? The tendency to oppose racial policies might still be fueled b...