Dangerous & Competitive Worldview [2016]

A Politico-Psychological Analysis

Report generated

March 23, 2026

1 Study Characteristics

1.1 Items: Dangerous & Competitive Worldview

1.2 Sample

N=1500

To conduct a exploratory and a confirmatory large surveys during the general election, we hired a professional survey firm (SSI, a US-based market research company that recruits participants from a panel of 7,139,027 American citizens; more information can be found at www.surveysampling.com (now https://www.dynata.com/) to recruit a nationally representative sample of 1,500 Americans (50.7% women) who completed study materials during the general election from August 16-September 9, 2016. (Information about sampling and exclusion criteria is included in the Supplement). The age distribution was as follows: 18-24 (12.9%), 25-34 (17.6%), 35-44 (17.5%), 45-54 (19.5%), 55-65 (15.6%) and older than 65 (16.9%). The ethnic breakdown was: White/European American (82.5%), Black/African American (7.7%), Latino (5.9%) and “Other” (4.0%). Concerning religion, 67.6% identified as Christian, 17.1% as religiously affiliated but not Christian, and 15.3% as Atheist/Agnostic. With respect to education 35.1% indicated “high school only or lower,” 31.4 % indicated “some college,” and 33.6% indicated having received a “Bachelor” or “Graduate” degree. 2424 participants were directed to the survey, 1885 of which finished the survey (attrition rate 22%).

We followed recommendations to minimize the problem of careless responding in online studies. Specifically, we employed 10 random attention questions and time controls to check for data quality. There were 385 participants who failed more than one attention check or finished the survey in under ~22 minutes and were therefore excluded from the sample. For the 1500 participants who successfully finished the survey, completion time was 67 minutes on average (MD: 51min).

2 Descriptives

2.1 Means, SD, Range, & SE

Table 1: Descriptives

Descriptives for Dangerous & Competitive Worldview
	mean	sd	median	se
Dangerous_mean	4.46	1.21	4.50	0.03
Competitive_mean	6.01	1.91	6.00	0.05
WV	5.23	1.22	5.25	0.03
Note:
n = 1500, min = 1, max = 9

Table 2: Descriptives – Item Level

Descriptives for Dangerous & Competitive Worldview at Item Level
	mean	sd	median
Dangerous1	4.00	2.36	4.00
Dangerous2	4.91	2.24	5.00
Competitive1	5.08	2.21	5.00
Competitive2	6.93	2.43	8.00
WV	5.23	1.22	5.25
Dangerous_mean	4.46	1.21	4.50
Competitive_mean	6.01	1.91	6.00
Note:
All items: n = 1500, min = 1, max = 9, se = 0.06. WV: min = 1, max = 9, se = 0.03. Dangerous_mean: min = 1, max = 9, se = 0.03. Competitive_mean: min = 1, max = 9, se = 0.05

2.2 Response Distribution

Figure 1: Proportion of each facet of Dangerous & Competitive Worldview at item level: Dangerous

Figure 2: Proportion of each facet of Dangerous & Competitive Worldview at item level: Competitive

2.3 Correlations

2.3.1 Correlation Plots

Figure 5: Bivariate Spearman correlations: Dangerous & Competitive Worldview

Figure 6: Bivariate Spearman correlations: Dangerous

Figure 7: Bivariate Spearman correlations: Competitive

Note. Upper triangle shows Spearman’s rank-order correlations. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.

2.3.2 PIDF

Figure 8: Bivariate Spearman correlations by party identity: Dangerous & Competitive Worldview

Figure 9: Bivariate Spearman correlations by party identity: Dangerous

Figure 10: Bivariate Spearman correlations by party identity: Competitive

Note. Upper triangle shows Spearman’s rank-order correlations by party identity. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.

2.3.3 Correlation Matrix

3 Demographics

3.1 Social Class

Note on the Raincloud Plots

Statistical summary (top): Welch’s t-test (or ANOVA) results, effect size, confidence intervals, p-values, and sample sizes are shown above each plot.
Bayesian analysis (bottom): Log Bayes factor and credible intervals are reported below each plot.

Table 3

Table 4: Competitive as grouped by SES

(a)

SES	N	Mean	SD
Poor	38	0.13	0.91
Lower Middle Class	298	-0.09	1.04
Middle Middle Class	679	-0.01	0.99
Upper Middle Class	395	0.03	0.99
Rich	90	0.21	0.98

(b)

SES	N	Mean	SD
Poor	38	0.02	0.95
Lower Middle Class	298	-0.12	1.05
Middle Middle Class	679	0.00	0.98
Upper Middle Class	395	0.06	1.01
Rich	90	0.11	0.91

3.2 Gender

Figure 15: Dangerous & Competitive Worldview Facets, as grouped by Gender: Dangerous

Figure 16: Dangerous & Competitive Worldview Facets, as grouped by Gender: Competitive

Table 5

Table 6: Competitive as grouped by Gender

(a)

Gender	N	Mean	SD
Female	760	0.02	0.98
Male	740	-0.02	1.02

(b)

Gender	N	Mean	SD
Female	760	0.09	0.95
Male	740	-0.09	1.04

3.3 Age

Table 7

Table 8: Competitive as grouped by Age

(a)

Age	N	Mean	SD
18-24 years	193	-0.20	1.16
25-34 years	264	0.10	0.93
35-44 years	263	-0.02	1.05
45-54 years	292	0.02	0.98
55-64 years	234	-0.02	0.91
65+	254	0.05	0.97

(b)

Age	N	Mean	SD
18-24 years	193	-0.29	0.98
25-34 years	264	-0.16	1.02
35-44 years	263	-0.03	1.00
45-54 years	292	0.02	0.99
55-64 years	234	0.26	0.93
65+	254	0.16	0.98

3.4 Education

Table 9

Table 10: Competitive as grouped by Education

(a)

Education	N	Mean	SD
Less than High School	51	0.04	1.09
High School	475	-0.12	1.03
Some College	471	-0.04	1.00
Bachelor	310	0.08	0.92
Graduate	193	0.25	0.97

(b)

Education	N	Mean	SD
Less than High School	51	-0.24	1.15
High School	475	-0.12	1.02
Some College	471	0.05	1.00
Bachelor	310	0.10	0.96
Graduate	193	0.08	0.96

3.5 Income Levels

Table 11

Table 12: Competitive as grouped by Income Levels

(a)

Income Levels	N	Mean	SD
Less than $15,000	178	-0.09	1.05
$15,000-$24,999	180	0.01	1.02
$25,000-$34,999	176	-0.10	1.00
$35,000-$49,999	227	0.05	0.95
$50,000-$74,999	292	0.11	0.95
$75,000-$99,999	192	-0.04	0.92
$100,000-$149,999	160	0.04	1.04
$150,000 +	95	-0.10	1.18

(b)

Income Levels	N	Mean	SD
Less than $15,000	178	-0.04	1.03
$15,000-$24,999	180	-0.15	1.04
$25,000-$34,999	176	0.12	0.96
$35,000-$49,999	227	0.00	0.91
$50,000-$74,999	292	0.04	0.99
$75,000-$99,999	192	-0.02	1.01
$100,000-$149,999	160	0.05	1.08
$150,000 +	95	-0.01	1.02

3.6 Ethnicity

Note on the Okabe-Ito color palette. The Okabe-Ito color palette (seen above) is a set of colorblind-friendly categorical colors available in R. We are using this palette for graphs with non-ordered variables (e.g., groups, categories) for accessibility.

Table 13

Table 14: Competitive as grouped by Ethnicity

(a)

Ethnicity	N	Mean	SD
Caucasian/European origin	1237	0.01	0.98
Black/African American	115	-0.15	1.14
Latino	88	0.01	1.08
Asian/Pacific Islander	29	0.06	1.28
Native American	13	0.42	0.92
Other	18	0.08	0.80

(b)

Ethnicity	N	Mean	SD
Caucasian/European origin	1237	0.03	1.00
Black/African American	115	-0.16	1.02
Latino	88	-0.22	0.87
Asian/Pacific Islander	29	-0.18	1.03
Native American	13	-0.33	0.82
Other	18	0.29	0.97

3.7 Occupation

Table 15

Table 16: Competitive as grouped by Occupation

(a)

Occupation	N	Mean	SD
Employed	768	-0.01	1.04
Retired	268	0.08	0.86
Unemployed	146	-0.01	1.04
Parent	104	-0.12	1.02
Disabled	98	0.04	0.91
Student	85	-0.01	1.02
Full-time caregiver	31	-0.10	1.15

(b)

Occupation	N	Mean	SD
Employed	768	-0.04	1.00
Retired	268	0.24	0.94
Unemployed	146	-0.04	1.02
Parent	104	-0.01	0.99
Disabled	98	0.04	1.02
Student	85	-0.29	1.00
Full-time caregiver	31	-0.15	1.02

3.8 Area

Table 17

Table 18: Competitive as grouped by Area

(a)

Area	N	Mean	SD
Urban	955	0.02	1
Rural	545	-0.04	1

(b)

Area	N	Mean	SD
Urban	955	-0.01	1.00
Rural	545	0.02	0.99

3.9 Religious Affiliation

Table 19

Table 20: Competitive as grouped by Religious Affiliation

(a)

Religious Affiliation	N	Mean	SD
Christian	1014	-0.04	1.00
Muslim	9	-0.29	1.18
Jewish	52	0.27	1.03
Atheist/Agnostic	230	0.13	0.88
Not listed, No religion	195	-0.02	1.10

(b)

Religious Affiliation	N	Mean	SD
Christian	1014	0.02	1.01
Muslim	9	-0.44	1.08
Jewish	52	0.04	0.99
Atheist/Agnostic	230	0.05	0.99
Not listed, No religion	195	-0.14	0.96

3.10 Section Summary

	Dangerous & Competitive Worldview
Predictors	Estimates	CI	p
(Intercept)	4.95	4.69 – 5.20	<.001
Age	0.11	0.08 – 0.15	<.001
Income	-0.03	-0.07 – 0.00	.054
Education	0.14	0.08 – 0.21	<.001
Gender (Male)	-0.28	-0.41 – -0.16	<.001
Observations	1500
R² / R² adjusted	.046 / .043

4 Political Behavior

4.1 Political Orientation

Correlation with General Conservatism, Economic Conservatism, Social Conservatism

Note. The y-axis shows residuals after regressing the outcome on demographics (Age, Income, Education, Gender). This illustrates how much the focal construct explains beyond demographic factors.

Table 21: Dangerous & Competitive Worldview and Political Orientation

Table 22: Dangerous & Competitive Worldview models and Demographics

4.2 Partisanship

Table 23: Mean Dangerous by Party Identity (raw means)

Party Identity	N	Mean	SD
Strong Democrat	351	4.51	1.28
Democrat	223	4.48	1.30
Leaning Democrat	124	4.69	0.95
Independent	84	4.43	1.17
Leaning Republican	111	4.34	1.01
Republican	255	4.36	1.22
Strong Republican	318	4.38	1.21

Table 24: Mean Competitive by Party Identity (raw means)

Party Identity	N	Mean	SD
Strong Democrat	351	6.23	2.07
Democrat	223	5.62	1.83
Leaning Democrat	124	6.08	1.61
Independent	84	5.57	1.88
Leaning Republican	111	6.03	2.04
Republican	255	5.94	1.87
Strong Republican	318	6.19	1.84

Table 25: Dangerous & Competitive Worldview & Party Identity (7-point)

Table 26: Dangerous & Competitive Worldview & Party Identity with Controls

4.3 Religiosity

Note. The y-axis shows residuals after regressing the outcome on demographics (Age, Income, Education, Gender). This illustrates how much the focal construct explains beyond demographic factors.

4.4 Candidate Preferences

Table 27: Candidate Preference and Dangerous [centered]

Candidate Preference	N	Mean	SD
Donald Trump	444	-0.07	0.99
Hillary Clinton	371	0.04	1.07
Bernie Sanders	362	0.08	0.95
Ted Cruz	122	-0.05	0.94
Jeb Bush	83	-0.02	0.90
Gary Johnson	68	0.04	1.00
Rand Paul	44	-0.19	1.25

Table 28: Candidate Preference and Competitive [centered]

Candidate Preference	N	Mean	SD
Donald Trump	444	-0.09	0.99
Hillary Clinton	371	0.04	0.98
Bernie Sanders	362	-0.02	1.02
Ted Cruz	122	0.26	1.02
Jeb Bush	83	0.15	0.89
Gary Johnson	68	-0.13	1.09
Rand Paul	44	-0.07	0.96

Table 29: Candidate Preference and Dangerous [raw means]

Candidate Preference	N	Mean	SD
Donald Trump	444	4.37	1.20
Hillary Clinton	371	4.50	1.30
Bernie Sanders	362	4.56	1.15
Ted Cruz	122	4.39	1.14
Jeb Bush	83	4.43	1.08
Gary Johnson	68	4.50	1.21
Rand Paul	44	4.23	1.51

Table 30: Candidate Preference and Competitive [raw means]

Candidate Preference	N	Mean	SD
Donald Trump	444	5.84	1.90
Hillary Clinton	371	6.09	1.86
Bernie Sanders	362	5.97	1.95
Ted Cruz	122	6.50	1.94
Jeb Bush	83	6.30	1.70
Gary Johnson	68	5.76	2.08
Rand Paul	44	5.88	1.83

4.5 Party Preferences

Table 31: Party Preference and Dangerous [centered]

Party Preference	N	Mean	SD
Democratic Party	560	0.07	1.05
Republican Party	508	-0.06	0.99
Libertarian Party	100	-0.04	0.90
Green Party	40	0.09	0.63
Tea Party	68	-0.13	0.98
Constitution Party	14	-0.08	0.89
None	120	0.00	0.96
Don't know	90	0.01	1.04

Table 32: Party Preference and Competitive [centered]

Party Preference	N	Mean	SD
Democratic Party	560	0.02	1.04
Republican Party	508	0.01	0.99
Libertarian Party	100	-0.02	1.00
Green Party	40	0.20	1.00
Tea Party	68	0.24	0.92
Constitution Party	14	-0.04	1.06
None	120	-0.13	0.91
Don't know	90	-0.22	0.93

Table 33: Party Preference and Dangerous [raw means]

Party Preference	N	Mean	SD
Democratic Party	560	4.54	1.27
Republican Party	508	4.39	1.20
Libertarian Party	100	4.41	1.09
Green Party	40	4.56	0.76
Tea Party	68	4.30	1.19
Constitution Party	14	4.36	1.08
None	120	4.45	1.17
Don't know	90	4.47	1.26

Table 34: Party Preference and Competitive [raw means]

Party Preference	N	Mean	SD
Democratic Party	560	6.04	1.98
Republican Party	508	6.03	1.89
Libertarian Party	100	5.96	1.91
Green Party	40	6.39	1.90
Tea Party	68	6.46	1.76
Constitution Party	14	5.93	2.03
None	120	5.76	1.74
Don't know	90	5.58	1.78

4.6 Voting

Table 35

4.7 Voting & Party Identity

Table 36: Dangerous and Party Identity

	Donald Trump	Hilary Clinton
Strong Republican	282	7
Republican	166	24
Leaning Republican	58	7
Independent	17	16
Leaning Democrat	10	65
Democrat	27	129
Strong Democrat	4	323

Table 37: Competitive and Party Identity

	Donald Trump	Hilary Clinton
Strong Republican	282	7
Republican	166	24
Leaning Republican	58	7
Independent	17	16
Leaning Democrat	10	65
Democrat	27	129
Strong Democrat	4	323

Table 38

4.8 Likeability

Note. The y-axis shows residuals after regressing the outcome on demographics (Age, Income, Education, Gender). This illustrates how much the focal construct explains beyond demographic factors.

Note. The y-axis shows residuals after regressing the outcome on demographics (Age, Income, Education, Gender). This illustrates how much the focal construct explains beyond demographic factors.

Note. The y-axis shows residuals after regressing the outcome on demographics (Age, Income, Education, Gender). This illustrates how much the focal construct explains beyond demographic factors.