Political conservatives' opposition to COVID-19 restrictions is puzzling given the well-documented links between conservatism and conformity, threat sensitivity, and pathogen aversion. We propose a resolution based on the Dual Foundations Theory of ideology, which holds that ideology comprises two dimensions, one reflecting trade-offs between threat-driven conformity and individualism, and another reflecting trade-offs between empathy-driven cooperation and competition. We test predictions derived from this theory in a UK sample using individuals' responses to COVID-19 and widely-used measures of the two dimensions – ‘right-wing authoritarianism’ (RWA) and ‘social dominance orientation’ (SDO), respectively. Consistent with our predictions, we show that RWA, but not SDO, increased following the pandemic and that high-RWA conservatives do display more concerned, conformist, pro-lockdown attitudes, while high-SDO conservatives display less empathic, cooperative attitudes and are anti-lockdown. This helps explain paradoxical prior results and highlights how a focus on unidimensional ideology can mask divergent motives across the ideological landscape.

Right-wing ideology and cognitive ability, including objective numeracy, have been found to relate negatively. Although objective and subjective numeracy correlate positively, it is unclear whether subjective numeracy relates to political ideology in the same way. Replicating and extending previous research, across two samples of American adults (ns= 455, 406), those who performed worse on objective numeracy tasks scored higher on right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), and they self-identified as more conservative on general, social, and economic continua. Controlling for objective numeracy, subjective numeracy related positively to measures of right-wing ideologies. In other words, those who strongly (vs. weakly) endorsed right-wing ideologies believed they are good with numbers yet performed worse on numeracy tasks. We discuss implications for the opposing direction of associations between ideology with objective versus subjective numeracy and similarities with literature on overconfidence.

Medicalizing beliefs about schizophrenia (biogenetic causes and psychiatric labels) are connected to the belief that people with schizophrenia are dangerous and to discriminating intentions towards them. In this research, we draw on the Social Dominance theory and we examine these beliefs as legitimizing myths that are connected to the individuals’ social dominance orientation (SDO) and that legitimize discrimination. In total, 238 Humanities students participated in the current research (Mage = 20.4; SD = 3.03; 107 male and 131 female). A vignette presenting a person with schizophrenia symptoms that offered no labels or explanations about the depicted person’s condition was presented to research participants. A structural equation modeling analysis was carried out, in order to confirm our hypotheses in accordance with social dominance theory. Participants’ social dominance orientation (SDO) was associated with higher endorsement of medicalizing (β = .16, p < .01) and dangerousness beliefs (β = .22, p < .001). In turn, medicalizing beliefs were connected to dangerousness (β = .21, p < .001) and higher discriminating intentions, both for desired social distance (β = .15, p < .05) and for deprivation of sociopolitical rights (β = .14, p < .05). Dangerousness was highly associated with both these measures (β = .28, p < .001 and β = 43, p < .001 respectively) while SDO was not significantly associated with discriminating intentions. Our model showed good fit to the data. This study confirms the role of SDO in schizophrenia stigma and the fact that ideological and power factors underpin the stigma of schizophrenia.

This article presents two studies dealing with ageism. The objective of the first study was to adapt to French language and validate the Fraboni of Ageism Scale-Revised (FSA-R) which contains 23 items, while the objective of the second study was to test a structural model containing ageism as measured by the FSA-R and the “Big Three”: empathy, social dominance orientation, and dogmatism, controlled for by sex and age. The results of the first study (n = 323) generated a version of the FSA-R comprising 14 items, of which the psychometric properties were very satisfactory. Using structural equation modelling and bootstrap procedure, the results of the second study (n = 284) showed a direct negative and significant effect of empathy on agism. They also showed that this negative effect was mediated by dogmatism and social dominance orientation, which both exerted a positive effect on ageism.