Intergroup Ideology and Environmental Inequality

Jackson, Lynne M.; Bitacola, Lisa M.; Janes, Leslie M.; Esses, Victoria M.

doi:10.1111/asap.12035

Cited by 35 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Findings suggest that ideological views about hierarchy are predictive not only of intergroup attitudes, but also attitudes towards the natural environment (e.g. Jackson et al, 2013;Milfont & Duckitt, 2010). We therefore predict and test a mediational model in which the effect of intergroup contact on environmental outcomes is explained by reductions in SDO.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 96%

Intergroup contact, social dominance, and environmental concern: A test of the cognitive-liberalization hypothesis.

Meleady¹,

Crisp²,

Dhont³

et al. 2020

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intergroup contact is among the most effective ways to improve intergroup attitudes. While it is now beyond any doubt that contact can reduce prejudice, in this paper we provide evidence that its benefits can extend beyond intergroup relations-a process referred to as cognitive liberalization (Hodson, Crisp, Meleady & Earle, 2018). We focus specifically on the impact of intergroup contact on environmentally-relevant attitudes and behavior. Recent studies suggest that support for an inequality-based ideology (Social Dominance Orientation) can predict both intergroup attitudes and broader environmental conduct. Individuals higher in SDO are more willing to exploit the environment in unsustainable ways because doing so aids the production and maintenance of hierarchical social structures. In four studies, we show that by promoting less hierarchical and more egalitarian viewpoints (reduced SDO), intergroup contact encourages more environmentally responsible attitudes and behavior. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal data support this model. Effects are more strongly explained by reductions in an anti-egalitarian motive (SDO-E) than a dominance motive (SDO-D). We discuss how these findings help define an expanded vision for intergroup contact theory that moves beyond traditional conflict-related outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 96%

Intergroup contact, social dominance, and environmental concern: A test of the cognitive-liberalization hypothesis.

Meleady¹,

Crisp²,

Dhont³

et al. 2020

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Existing literature has demonstrated that social dominance orientation is inimical to pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors (Milfont and Duckitt, 2010; Milfont et al, 2013; Panno et al, 2017; Stanley et al, 2017). Individuals with high social dominance orientation show less concern about environmental issues (Milfont et al, 2013), are less supportive of environmental policies (Pratto et al, 1994) and more supportive of environmental inequality (Jackson et al, 2013), prioritize business gains over environmental protection, and exploit the environment in unsustainable ways (Son Hing et al, 2007). The need to maintain and enforce group-based hierarchical social structures causes them to dominate over the environment (Milfont and Sibley, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relation Between Awe and Environmentalism: The Role of Social Dominance Orientation

Zhao

Zhang

et al. 2018

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study attempts to explore the effect of awe on environmentalism and the mediating role of social dominance orientation in generating this effect. In Study 1, a series of questionnaires were used to investigate the correlation among trait awe, social dominance orientation, and ecological behavior. Results demonstrated that, while trait awe was positively correlated with ecological behavior, it was partially mediated by social dominance orientation. In follow-up studies, two priming experiments were conducted to test the causal relationship and the psychological mechanisms between awe and environmentalism. Results revealed that inductions of awe (relative to various control states) decreased participants’ social dominance orientation, which in turn partially enhanced their willingness to make personal sacrifices for the environment (Study 2), and intentions to engage in pro-environmental behavior (Study 3). This study not only corroborates the critical role of awe in promoting environmentalism, but also highlights the importance of social dominance orientation in explaining why awe increases environmentalism. Implications and future directions were also discussed.

show abstract

“…Free market ideology emerges as an important predictor of a range of environmental attitudes in other settings. Across different contexts, researchers have shown that free market ideology is associated with disbelief in climate change (Heath and Gifford 2006; Lewandowksy and Oberaurer 2013; Cook and Jacobs 2014) and low general environmental concern (Jackson et al 2013). Similarly, Longo and Baker (2014) show that people who support deregulation have less environmental concern.…”

Section: Empirical and Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Free market ideology and deregulation in Colorado’s oil fields: Evidence for triple movement activism?

Malin

Mayer

Shreeve

et al. 2017

Environmental Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unconventional oil and gas extraction (UOGE) has spurred an unprecedented boom in on-shore production in the U.S. Despite a surge in related research, a void exists regarding inquiries into policy outcomes and perceptions. To address this, support for federal regulatory exemptions for UOGE is examined using survey data collected in 2015 from two northern Colorado communities. Current regulatory exemptions for UOGE can be understood as components of broader societal processes of neoliberalization. Free market ideology increases public support for federal regulatory exemptions for UOGE. Perceived negative impacts do not necessarily drive people to support increased federal regulation. Utilizing neo-Polanyian theory, interaction between free market ideology and perceived negative impacts is explored. Free market ideology appears to moderate people’s views of regulation: increasing the effect of perceived negative impacts while simultaneously increasing support for deregulation. To conclude, the ways in which free market ideology might normalize the impacts of UOGE activity are discussed.

show abstract

Intergroup Ideology and Environmental Inequality

Cited by 35 publications

References 35 publications

Intergroup contact, social dominance, and environmental concern: A test of the cognitive-liberalization hypothesis.

Intergroup contact, social dominance, and environmental concern: A test of the cognitive-liberalization hypothesis.

Relation Between Awe and Environmentalism: The Role of Social Dominance Orientation

Free market ideology and deregulation in Colorado’s oil fields: Evidence for triple movement activism?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About