This page and its contents are very much a work in progress.

Collective Narcissism

(de Zavala et al., 2009)
Collective narcissism describes an “ingroup identification tied to an emotional investment in an unrealistic belief about the unparalleled greatness of an ingroup” (Zavala et al., 2009). It extends the concept of individual narcissism as a personality trait to the intergroup domain, in which people are narcissistic in terms of their ingroup identity. Collective narcissism is an exaggerated and unstable collective self-esteem, which is a strong predictor for intergroup aggressiveness (Zavala et al., 2009).

Conspiracy Mentality

(Bruder et al., 2013; Lantian et al., 2016)
Conspiracy theories are defined as an “unverified and relatively implausible allegations, claiming that significant events are the result of a secret plot carried out by a preternaturally sinister and powerful group of people” (Brotherton & French, 2014, p. 238). It is thought that conspiracy theories constitute more than simple beliefs about isolated events, and instead form a higher-order belief system (Dagnall et al., 2015). This conspiracist ideation has been interpreted as a manifestation of an underlying conspiracy mentality (Moscovici, 1987; Imhoff & Bruder, 2014) or a monological belief system (Goertzel, 1994). This mindset is sometimes characterized as a thinking disposition, involving lower levels of analytic thinking (Swami et al., 2014) and personality profile (see Lantian et al., 2016).

Conspiratorial Thinking

Belief in Climate-change Conspiracies

Conspiracy theories claiming the scientific community’s consensus on global warming doesn’t reflect the reality and is motivated by political and/or financial reasons.


(Feldman, 1988; ANES 1983 Pilot Study)
Formal equality of all people regardless of their social status. Within the neoliberal logic, egalitarianism and economic individualism are conflicted. Therefore, formal or political quality is emphasized rather than equality of results (Feldman, 1988). Egalitarianism can be understood as equality in competition. It is then conceived as a mean to advancement rather than an asset itself (Potter, 1954).


(Davis, 1983)
Empathy is an important component of social cognition which relates to the “reactions of one individual to the observed experiences of another” (Davis, 1983). Empathy consists of distinct, but interrelated constructs with two mainly cognitive dimensions (fantasy and perspective taking) and two purely emotional dimensions (empathic concern and personal distress).

Empathic Concern

Captures feelings of sympathy and concern for (unfortunate) others (Davis, 1983).

Perspective Taking

Measures the tendency to spontaneously adopt the point of view of another person in order to understand his emotions and behavior (Davis 1983). It can be understood as a cognitive form of empathy, akin to the “theory of mind”

Personal Distress

Measures self-orientated feelings of personal anxiety and unease in tense interpersonal settings and can potentially prevent from helping others. Negatively related to measures of social functioning (Davis, 1983).


(ISSP, 2010; Laméris, 2015; Pew Research Center, 2009; Dunlap et al., 2000)
Attitudes towards the protection of the natural environment in the context of government law initiatives, economic growth and own sacrifices.

Justice Sensitivity

(Baumert et al., 2013)
Justice Sensitivity is considered a trait variable that reflects the individual concern for justice in everyday life. People differ significantly in their perception of and their reaction to injustice (Baumert et al., 2013). The quality of the reaction is strongly influenced by the perspective a person adopts in an unjust situation. Four different types of reactions are hypothesized: “Individuals react with distinct emotions and behavioral tendencies if they perceive themselves to be potential victims of injustice, passive beneficiaries, active perpetrators, or neutral bystanders” (e.g., Mikula, et al., 1990, cited as in Baumert et al. 2013).

Victim Perspective

Own disadvantage
Perspective on an unjust situation, where one sees oneself as the affected victim. Incorporating the victim perspective predicts emotional reactions like anger in reaction to one’s own assumed disadvantage (Mohiyeddini & Schmitt, 1997; Schmitt & Mohiyeddini, 1996). Individuals with high scores tend to feel that they have been treated unfairly and react with higher intentions of revenge compared to people low in victim sensitivity (Schmitt et al., 2008). It is further negatively related to agreeableness and positively to neuroticism (Schmitt et al., 2010) and anti-social tendencies (Gollwitzer et al., 2009; Rothmund et al., 2011). Victim sensitivity rather reflects a concern for justice for one self than for others and the fear of being exploited by interaction partners (Gollwitzer et al., 2005).

Beneficiary Perspective

Own advantage
Perspective on an unjust situation, in which the observing person is not directly involved or negatively affected but rather benefits from. Taking the beneficiary perspective predicts solidarity with the disadvantaged others (Baumert et al., 2013). Individuals with high score “(…) are found to experience existential guilt toward persons defaced by an accident or disease and are willing to support historically disadvantaged groups” (Gollwitzer et al., 2005).

Observer Perspective

Someone else disadvantage
Perspective on an unjust situation, in which the observing person is not directly involved. Taking an observer perspective predicts solidarity with the disadvantaged other, even if this solidarity leads to a personal detriment. (Baumert et al., 2013). ”From an observer perspective, a morally appropriate reaction to an perceived injustice is punishment of the perpetrator and/or compensation of the victim” (Thomas et al., 2012). It correlates with self-reported willingness to display civil courage (Kretek, 2007).

Perpetrator Perspective

Treat someone unfairly
Perspective on an unjust situation actively committed by the observing person thyself raising feelings of guilt. To restore justice, the perpetrator must either compensate the victim or punish thyself (Thomas et al., 2012).


Libertarianism is an ideology prevalent in the US that prioritizes liberty over other values. Libertarianism dictates that individual freedom – over and above deference to authority, traditional norms or equalitarian and justice concerns – is the paramount value. Liberty, in this context, is understood in negative terms (i.e., similar to the conception of negative rights, Libertarians see freedom as an inalienable right, which is not to be subjected to an action, abuse or coercion of another person, group, or government).

Scale (22 items)

Libertarianism Identification

Symbolic Libertarianism


(Bruder et al., 2013; Lantian et al., 2016)
Complex of personality traits and processes that involve a grandiose yet fragile sense of self and entitlement as well as a preoccupation with success and demands for admiration (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). This sub-clinical personality trait is to be distinguished from narcissism as a mental disorder.

National Identification

(Pehrson et al., 2009; Reicher & Hopkins, 2001)
Individuals Identification with their respective national group (Pehrson, Vignoles and Brown, 2009). In line with their in-group membership, people might overtake collectively preserved prejudices against members of other national groups (Pehrson et al., 2009). Whether or not identification with a nation entails prejudice against outgroups depends on national interests, the construction of that national identity as well as the construction of out-groups as either supportive, harmful or irrelevant (Reicher & Hopkins, 2001).


(Gellner, 2006; Hobsbawm, 1992; Ignatieff, 1993; Smith, 2002; Greenfeld, 1996; Connor, 1994; Pehrson et al., 2009)
Different conceptualizations across scientific disciplines. Principle that statehood and nationhood should become congruent by actualizing national unity, sovereignty and identity (Gellner, [1983] 2006; Hobsbawm, [1990]1992; Ignatieff, 1993; Smith, 2002). Common distinction between ethnic and civic nationalism. Ethnic nationalism treats nationality as immutable and biologically inherited; transcendent of political or economic circumstances (Connor, 1994). The national ingroup cannot be chosen but is defined in terms of ancestors and blood. Civic nationalism defines nationality in more inclusive terms, using criteria such as citizenship, language and culture, in which the nation is envisaged as the basic source of sovereignty and object of solidarity (Smith, 2002; Greenfeld, 1996). Within ethnic nationalism, unlike within civic nationalism, immigrants are per definition excluded from becoming national ingroup-members. Brubakker (1999) proposes a different distinction of nationalism between state-framed and counter-state nationalism. In the former, the nation is framed by the state regarding its territory and its institutions and is thus congruent with it. The latter imagines nations as distinct from states.


(Mudde, 2007, and 2019; Berntzen et al., 2017)
Nativism combines nationalism and xenophobia. It calls for states to comprise only members of the native group and considers non-native elements to be fundamentally threatening to the monocultural nation-state (Mudde, 2007, 19). Similar to ‘the people’ in populism, the ‘native’ population is imagined. Non-native elements are identified on the basis of cultural traits such as race, ethnicity, or religion and can include minorities from within the native ethnic group, such as homosexuals, as well as sections of the international community (Mudde, 2000). But the non-native is not only people, it can also be ideas (Mudde, 2017). Nativists imagine a native population or a native culture that should be given priority over other populations and cultures (Ivarsflaten, 2017). Nativism grows when people perceive a discrepancy between the state and the nation (Mudde, 2017).

Needs / Psychological Motivations

(Hennes et al., 2012; Jost et al., 2008)
Psychological needs are characterized as psychological requirements to manage uncertainty, threat and social belonging and creating certainty, security and solidarity. Elevations in those epimistic, existential and relational needs are associated with stronger adherence to system-justifying, conservative political and/or religious ideologies and predict system-justification (Hennes et al., 2012).

Epmistic Needs

Needs to attain certainty, consistency and meaning (Jost et al., 2008).

Existencial Needs

Needs to reduce threat and distress (Jost et al., 2008). The fear of death and the perception of the world as dangerous are associated with political conservatism, right-wing-authoritarianism, stereotyping and homonegativity (Altemeyer, 1998; Duckitt, 2001; Jost et al., 2003; Jost et al., 2007; Nail et al., 2009).

Relational Needs

Needs to manage social relationships and achieve shared reality with others (Jost et al., 2008).


(Schatz et al., 1999; Berns et al., 2001; Curti 1946; Mclntyre 2002; Sullivan et al., 1992; Viroli 1995; cited as Parker, 2010)
One of the most important forms of group attachment implicating positive identification and affections with/to one’s country (Schatz et al., 1999). Patriotism is a combination of “(…) affection for the country, its way of life and its core values with national institutions and policies responsible for sustaining it” (Parker, 2010). It is also an important predictor of political attitudes, preferences and political behavior.

Blind Patriotism

Blind patriotism is aligned with a stronger ideological perspective on the relationship between nation and individual and calls for uncritical support for national policies, its institutions and practices (Parker, 2010). It is characterized by unquestioning positive evaluation, staunch allegiance, conformity with prevailing group ways and intolerance of criticism (Schatz et al., 1999).

Constructive Patriotism

Constructive patriotism (also named symbolic patriotism) represents affective attachment to the nation and its core values through symbols (Parker, 2010). Following Schatz, Staub and Lavine (1999), constructive patriotism is characterized by “support for questioning and criticism of current group practices” yielding for positive change.

Political Ideology

Operational Ideology

Core Domains of Social and Economic Conservatism (Feldman & Johnston, 2014)
Pew Research Center 2012 (Zell & Bernstein, 2014)
Social and Economic Conservatism Scale (Everett 2013)
Political Issue Statements (Inbar et al., 2009)
Economic and Social Conservatism (Henningham, 1996 and 1997)

Symbolic Ideology

Liberalism vs. Conservatism (left-right)

Ideological Labels

Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, Populists
Economic Conservatives, Social Conservatives, Socially
Progressives, Economic Liberals

Political Sophistication

(based on Vasilopoulos, 2012)

10 items on Civics/Politics


(van Hauwaert, Schimpf, Azevedo, 2018)
Populism can be considered as an idiosyncratic construct containing a minimalist, yet dynamic collection of coherent ideas about how democracy is organized (Hauweartet al., 2019). Considering the large number of conceptual accounts of populism, it can best be defined as “an ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite”, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale [general will] of the people” (Mudde, 2004: 543). Populist attitudes predict political affiliations and votes and play an important role in shaping people thinking and behaviors (Hauweart et al., 2019). Anti-elitism, an manichean worldview and the general will of the people hold as core dimensions, whereas anti-pluralism, anti-expertise, representative gap and scientific skepticism function as important correlates.


Opposite to Pluralism. Pluralism acknowledges and values the diversity in society, favors the diffusion of power and emphasizes deliberation and consensus to overcome conflict (Wiesehofmeier, 2019, 93). The main idea of pluralism is that power should be distributed throughout society in order to avoid one group being privileged over another and that politics should reflect the interests and values of as many groups as possible (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017). It functions as the direct opposite of both populism and elitism.


Anti-elitism adopts the Manichean division of society into the people and the elite (Ackermann et al., 2014). Tendency to perceive elites (broadly construed) as a minority of corrupt forces who subvert the institutions (e.g., political system) to benefit their interests to the detriment of “the people’.


Believing in the concept of expertise, individuals think that an” essentially positivist “best solution” or “truth” for society as a whole can be identified scientifically and independently” (Shils 1956, as in Bertsou & Caramani, 2019). Experts are not political in the sense that they have not gained power trough elections. They belong to an intellectual elite and form political decisions rational, unbiased and independent from party opinions just relying on objective, scientific facts (Bertsou & Caramani, 2019). In contrast, Anti-Expertise can be depicted as the tendency to reject expertise knowledge and technocracy. “Mistrust of expertise indicates a general skepticism on science and expert opinion” and “reflects a faith in common wisdom, the idea that folk knowledge is more valid than expert opinion” (Oliver & Rahn, 2016, 198).

Manichean Worldview

Dualist perceptions which reduces all complexities to the cosmic struggle of two rival powers (May, 1966). Perception of a central dichotomy between ‘the good’ and ‘the evil’ (March, 2019). Manichean elements take place in political discourse, when complicated topics with multiple responsibilities are broken down to simple terms. In a Manichean outlook, overlapping of meanings and confusion are to be avoided by any means.

Representative Gap

Perception of people not feeling represented by politicians, political measures or agendas.

Scientific Skepticism

Tendency to mistrust scientific findings, when they do not match the own worldview. Suspicion, that scientists pursue their own/ their donor’s political agenda with their research. Closely related to Anti-Expertise

Volonté Général

Sovereignty of the people
Key component of Rousseau’s theory on democracy, who distinguished between the general will (volonté general) and the will of all (volonté de tous). The general will refers to “the capacity of the people to join together into a community and legislate to enforce their common interest (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017). Laws and policies shall therefore express the general will and favor it over individualistic agendas (Mudde 2007).


Black Antagonism

(based on McConahay, 1986; Sears and Henry 2002 and 2005)
Prejudices of white people against black people characterized by racial anxiety and antagonism (McConahay & Hough, 1976). These prejudices are hypothesized to stem from an “antiblack affect” (Kinder & Sears, 1981), which is thought to be acquired in preadult socialization. This affect might be subjectively experienced as fear and a desire for avoidance, rather than dislike or hostility against Blacks (Sears, 1988). It leads to a negative evaluation of Blacks and further yields into a wide variety of negative feelings towards them (Sears & Henry, 2003).


(based on Morrison and Morrison, 2002; Morrison et al., 2005)
Negative, prejudicial affective or behavioral responses ranging from verbal harassment to physical assault directed towards an individual because they is perceived to be homosexual (Cerny & Polyson, 1984, Herek, 1988; Van de Ven et al., 1996). Stems from the idea that homosexuals are mentally ill, immoral, dangerous for children and subordinate to heterosexuals. Related to authoritarianism, religiosity, political conservatism, machismo and modern sexism (Morrisson et al., 1999).


(Puimatti & Russo, 2019; Bolaffi, 2003)
Xenophobia can be defined as “attitudes, prejudices and behavior that reject, exclude and often vilify persons, based on the perception that they are outsiders or foreigners to the community, society or national identity.” It refers to feelings of fears which arise in the (real or imagined) presence of immigrants (Puimatti & Russo, 2019). It might stem from the abstract fear of losing the own national or ethnic identity (Bolaffi, 2003).


(Parker & Barreto, 2013, 2005)
Reactionary-ism is a form of conservatism and closely related to ethnocentrism, SDO and RWA. Unlike conventional conservatists, reactionary conservatists not only resent, but fear social change of any kind, especially if this change is perceived as threatening to the own way of life. Reactionary-ism aims at reversing political, economic and social changes which have already been made to restore the former unchallenged cultural dominance of their own respective in-group. It is considered a predisposition based on social learning processes during childhood (Parker & Barreto, 2013).

Right-wing Authoritarianism

(Funke, 2005; Altemeyer, 1981 and 1996)
Right-wing Authoritarianism (RWA) is an individual difference variable that measures in which extend do people support traditional values endorsed by authorities, submit to established authorities, and show aggression toward out-groups when this aggression is sanctioned by authorities (Altemeyer, 1981). This scale stems from the concept of authoritarian personality (Adorno et al., 1950).

RWA predicts generalized prejudice against out-groups and minorities, right-wing-extremism, and support for punitive and unjust actions by established authorities against individuals or groups regarded as deviants (Altemeyer, 1996). Higher scores in RWA tend to view the world as a threatening and dangerous place; these people’s need for safety and security translates in attempting to preserve social orders - for which they might defer to leaders/established authorities, with legal and moral authority over others, such as police officers and government leaders, for example. People with higher RWA scores also tend to exhibit hostile and/or aggressive behavior, support for punitive control measures, and tendency to conform to traditional religious, social and moral conventions.

Out of original “Authoritarian Personality” traits/F-Scale (Adorno et al., 1950), three are used to compose the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) Scale :

Authoritarian Aggression

Violent and destructive feelings and intentions against outgroups or deviants (Funke, 2005).

Authoritarian Submission

Intensified adherence to norms and agendas promoted by authorities (Funke, 2005).

Authoritarian Conventionalism

Adherence especially to social norms and traditional values. Closely related to submission. (Funke, 2005; McFarland et al., 1992).

Social-Dominance Orientation

(Ho et al., 2015; Jost & Thompson, 2000)
Social dominance orientation (SDO) is an individual difference variable that measures support for group-based inequality and hierarchies (Pratto et al., 1994), it is also central to the concept of authoritarianism and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). SDO levels might be influenced by some key factors, such as group status/position, gender, socialization processes, and personality & temperament. SDO has been shown to be a strong predictor of prejudice (Altemeyer, 1998; McFarland, 2010; Sibley and Duckitt, 2008), generalized prejudice tendencies (Altemeyer, 1998; McFarland, 2010; Sibley and Duckitt, 2008 and Hodson 2015; Sidanius and Pratto 1999), and of a variety of prejudices – such as sexism, racism, and, anti-gay prejudice, among others. It also predicts various social ideologies including political conservatism, just world beliefs, nationalism, militarism and patriotism and policies that maintain hierarchical structures (Ho et al., 2015).

This construct has two facets/subdimensions (e.g., Ho et al. 2012, 2015; Jost & Thompson, 2000) :

Intergroup Dominance

Group-based dominance
“The dominance dimension is characterized by support for the active, even violent, maintenance of oppressive hierarchies in which high status groups dominate and control the prerogatives of low status groups.” (Ho et al. 2015). It predicts blatant forms of dehumanization and the denial of outgroup humanity (Ho et al. 2015).

Intergroup Anti-Egalitarianism

Opposition to equality
“The anti-egalitarian dimension entails a preference for intergroup inequalities that are maintained by an interrelated network of subtle hierarchy-enhancing ideologies and social policies” (Ho, 2015). It predicts the support for ideologies and policies emphasizing and/or maintaining inequalities. In contrast to dominance, anti-egalitarian attitudes and policies do not involve violent confrontation (Ho, 2015).

Stealth Democracy

(Hibbing Theiss-Morse, 2002)
Stealth democracy is a political concept about governmental procedures in modern democracies. It aims at directing decision processes done by politicians in favor of the needs of the citizen they decide upon, without the requirement of their active participation. People’s desire regarding the political system is not a greater active involvement, but political actors making empathetic and non-self-interested decisions, political functioning which doesn’t require sustained input from the citizen with the warranty that governmental decisions become visible and influenceable if wished for (Hibbing & Theiss-Morse, 2002).

System Justification

(Kay and Jost, 2003; Jost and Thompson, 2000; Jost & Kay, 2005)

General System Justification

System justification theory suggests that people are motivated to perceive the existing social, political and economic order as fair, legitimate, and justified and are therefore motivated to defend and bolster social, economic and political arrangements (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Kay & Jost 2003; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Jost & van der Toorn, 2012). It serves as a rationalization of the status quo and includes stereotypes, attitudes and ideologies towards authorities and systems (Jost & Burgess, 2000; Jost, Pelham, Sheldon & Sullivan, 2003; Jost and Thompson, 2000). Moreover, it helps explaining in-group ambivalence, out-group favoritism, depressed entitlement, and the internalization of inferiority among members of disadvantaged groups (Kay & Jost, 2003). System justification processes are thought to happen on an unconscious level and are highly appealing in a psychological sense, because they address fundamental needs and motives (Hennes, Nam, Stern and Jost, 2012).

Economic System Justification

Where the unequal distribution of financial means among people is perceived as fair and legitimate. Following complementary stereotypes (e.g. poor people have low financial means but are happy; rich people have money, but are miserable), Economic System Justification helps to rationalize, tolerate, legitimize and maintain inequality in society (Lane, 1959).

Gender-specific System Justification

Where cultural divisions of labor between man and women are characterized as natural, legitimate and inevitable, gender-stereotype-based system justification takes place (Jost & Hamilton, 2005). “Believing that women are relatively incompetent but also warm, friendly and caring, allows people to rationalize the unequal distribution of social roles and to conceal the exploitative nature of gender relations in a patriarchal society” (Kay & Jost, 2003). It serves as an ideological rationalization about men and women holding complementary, but equal positions in society (Bem & Bem, 1970).


(Cieciuch et al., 2014; Schwartz, 2012)

Basic Human Values


Social identification with a political party (e.g. democrats, republicans, libertarians, green, tea-party).

  • Conformity
    Emphasizes the compliance with laws, norms and societal expectations and the avoidance of upsetting or harming other people in every day interaction. It derives from the requirement that individuals inhibit inclinations that might disrupt and undermine smooth interaction and group functioning. Together with Tradition it shares the goal of subordinating the self to socially imposed expectations. Subordinate to Conservation Values (Schwartz et al. 2012, Schwartz 2012).

  • Security
    Emphasizes the desire for safety for oneself, one’s immediate environment and stability in the wider society. Subordinate to Conservation Values (Schwartz et al. 2012).

  • Tradition
    Emphasizes the pursuit of maintaining and preserving cultural, family or religious traditions in order to symbolize the group’s solidarity, express its unique worth and contribute to its survival (Schwartz et al. 2012, Durkheim 1912/1954; Parsons 1951). Together with Conformity it shares the goal of subordinating the self to socially imposed expectations. Subordinate to Conservation Values (Schwartz 2012).

Openness to Change

Social Identification with an ideology.

  • Hedonism
    Emphasizes the pursuit of pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself, which derive from organismic needs (Schwartz 2012).

  • Self-Direction
    Emphasizes the capability to independently think and act. Two subtypes: Autonomy of thought referring to one’s intellectual understanding and competence and autonomy of action referring to exercising this capacity to attain self-chosen goals. It derives from the organismic needs for control and mastery as well as for autonomy and independence (Schwartz et al. 2012).

  • Stimulation
    Emphasizes the pursuit of excitement, novelty and challenge in life, which derive from the organismic need for variety and alternation in order to maintain an optimal level of activation (Schwartz 2012).


Social identification with an ethnic group.

  • Hedonism
    Emphasizes the pursuit of pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself, which derive from organismic needs (Schwartz 2012).

  • Achievement
    Emphasizes the pursuit of personal success according to the normative standard of one’s culture and the desire to be admired for it by others. Achievement values stress the demonstration of competence in terms of prevailing cultural standards and thereby obtaining social approval (Schwartz 2012).

  • Power Dominance
    Emphasizes the control and dominance over other people and resources in order to gain social status and prestige. In contrast to achievement it stresses not an active implementation, but rather a preservation of an already reached dominant position. (Schwartz et al. 2012, Schwartz 2012).


Social identification with a political party (e.g. democrats, republicans, libertarians, green, tea-party).

  • Universalism
    Emphasizes the understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature (quote from: Schwartz 2012). Three subtypes: tolerance (acceptance and understanding of those who are different from oneself), societal concern (commitment to equality, justice and protection for all people) and nature (protection and preservation of the natural environment) (Schwartz et al. 2012).

  • Benevolence
    Emphasizes voluntary concern for the preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact (Schwartz 2012). It derives from the basic requirement for smooth group functioning (Kluckhohn 1951) and the need for affiliation (Maslow 1965).


(Ho et al., 2003; (Perry et al., 2013)

Competitive Worldview

A competitive worldview can be characterized as a “competition-based cognitive-motivational process that determines individual differences in prejudice” (Perry, et al. 2013). Tendency to perceive the social world as competitive and cut-throat. Strong predictor for Social Dominance Orientation (SDO).

Dangerous Worldview

A dangerous worldview can be characterized as a “threat-based cognitive motivational process that determines individual differences in prejudice” (Perry, et al., 2013). Tendency to perceive the social world as dangerous. Dangerous worldview is a strong predictor for Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA).


(van der Bles et al., 2015)
Zeitgeist is a collective, global evaluation of the current and future society, which is strongly influenced by perceived social consensus and guides individual judgment about specific societal issues. It can be seen as some form of collective prejudice against one’s own society. It is relatively independent personal level judgment resulting in strong discrepancies between the perceptions of the same societal problems at the personal and collective level (van de Bles, Postmes & Meijer 2015).

Social Discontent (Average American); Collective-level
Personal Discontent (Self); Personal-level

  • Personal safety, Crime, Alcohol or drugs abuse, Indecent or antisocial behavior
  • Discrimination, Immigrants, Social Injustice, Social cohesion
  • Unemployment, The economy, Money shortages or budget cuts, Income inequality
  • Unequal opportunities for unprivileged groups, Unequal opportunities for privileged groups
  • Lack of democracy, Lack of respect, Lack of freedom
  • Overregulation (i.e. red tape), Corruption and/or fraud, The government, Health care provision
  • Privacy, Global warming
  • Quality of the Justice System, Quality of police work, Quality of politicians’ work, Quality of journalism, Quality of education, Quality of health care