On the correlation between right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation
Michele Roccato and Luca Ricolfi
University of Turin

Running head: RWA AND SDO

Authors Note

Michele Roccato, Department of Psychology, University of Turin
Luca Ricolfi, Department of Social Sciences, University of Turin
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michele Roccato, Department of Psychology, University of Turin, Via Verdi, 10, 10124 Turin, Italy. Phone: ++390116702015 
E-mail: roccato@psych.unito.it

Abstract
In four studies we analyzed the correlation between right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). In the first one, we meta-analyzed the research studies published on the correlation between RWA and SDO. In the other three – two with political militant samples and one with a student sample – we analyzed this relationship in Italy. The correlation between RWA and SDO was greater in countries characterized by strong, rather than weak, ideological contrasts and, only in countries with strong ideological contrast, greater in adult, rather than student, samples. In Italy, the correlation between RWA and SDO was strong, positive, and stable in the student sample. However, in our militant samples three different patterns of correlations were found: (a) positive, (b) nearly zero, (c) negative. The sub-samples in which the correlation was negative were made up of rightist militants with a relatively avoidant and not secure attachment style. Limits and future developments of this research are discussed.

KEYWORDS: Right-wing authoritarianism; Social dominance orientation; Attachment; Political psychology

On the correlation between right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation
One of the most interesting questions for those dealing with authoritarianism is whether two different tendencies can be present in the same person. The first, which may be defined as leaders authoritarianism, consists of a tendency to subject other people to one’s own anti-democratic authority. The second, which may be defined as followers authoritarianism, consists of the tendency to submit to an anti-democratic authority. Can leaders authoritarianism and followers authoritarianism coexist in the same persons? Or are there authoritarian persons who are characterized by one form of authoritarianism, but not by the other?
The first studies on authoritarianism conceptualized the existence of a stable organization of character (Reich, 1933; Fromm, 1941) or of personality (Ackerman & Jahoda, 1950; Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) characterized by the simultaneous presence of both forms of authoritarianism. This approach has recently been adopted by some researchers with a psychoanalytical orientation (de Zulueta, 1993; Hopf, 1993; Miller, 1980). Nonetheless, in the course of the years, researchers’ attention has become more and more limited to the study of followers authoritarianism alone. This is due to two reasons. On the one hand, authoritarian followers are much more numerous than aspiring anti-democratic leaders, and are accordingly easier to study empirically (Staub, 1989). On the other hand, they are considered as more serious threats to Western democracy than the would-be tyrants themselves (Altemeyer, 1998).
Altemeyer’s (1981, 1988, 1996) approach to followers authoritarianism—operationalized in terms of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA)—is currently the most widely accepted, from both the theoretical and the methodological point of view. A concept developed in recent years is that of social dominance orientation (SDO) (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). According to Altemeyer (1998), SDO may constitute an operationalization of leaders authoritarianism, which can be effectively used to study the general population. Starting in the 1990s, the relationship between followers authoritarianism and leaders authoritarianism has been studied from an empirical point of view, investigating the correlations between RWA and SDO.

Definition and Correlates of RWA
RWA is defined as the covariation of three attitudinal clusters: (a) Authoritarian submission (a strong tendency to submit to authorities which are perceived as established and legitimate in the society in which one lives); (b) Authoritarian aggression (a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities); (c) Conventionalism (a strong tendency to adhere to the social conventions which are perceived as endorsed by the society and its established authorities) (Altemeyer, 1996).
RWA positively correlates with prejudice, support of death penalty, punitive attitudes towards unconventional persons, religiousness, approval of the injustice perpetrated by governing authorities, and obedience in Milgram-style experiments (Altemeyer, 1981, 1988, 1996, Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992, 1997). According to Altemeyer (1988), RWA is derived from a lack of life experiences in adolescence. In view of the fact that, according to several authors, this is the less convincing part of Altemeyer’s approach (see Hopf, 1993; Meloen, 1993; Samelson, 1993; Smith, 1997; Stone, 1993),  Roccato (2003) recently attempted to develop a model for predicting the individual differences in RWA by using the style of attachment in adulthood as main independent variable. On the basis of the theory advanced by Marris (1991, 1996; see also Holmes, 1996), he postulated that right-wing authoritarians and insecure individuals share a strong feeling of insecurity and perceive the social world as dangerous, meaningless, and uncontrollable, and as dominated by events it is difficult to give meaning to and to control (Altemeyer, 1988; Marris, 1996). Thus, they share the feeling of loss (or absence) of meaning in the social world, and the conviction that it is highly important, for their own psychological survival, to restore (or to produce) order. This model have not been fully supported by the data (Roccato, in press). However, significant links between attachment (above all, the secure and the avoidant styles) and RWA have been detected.

Definition and Correlates of SDO
SDO is the psychological side of a broader social dominance theory, developed by Sidanius and Pratto (Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) to explain the oppression, discrimination, brutality and tyranny which characterize many human societies. Its principal precursors are the studies on conservatism conducted by Sidanius himself (1976; Sidanius & Ekehammar, 1982) and the value theory propounded by Rokeach (1973). Pratto et al. (1994) define SDO as “the extent to which one desires that one’s in-group dominate and be superior to out-groups” (p. 742). SDO is conceptualized as a general approach to the relationships between social groups (those defined by gender, race, social class, nationality, religion, skin color and the like) on which the various cultures base their social stratification. SDO is the psychosocial basis for the development of hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths—i.e. attitudes, values, beliefs and ideologies which provide moral and intellectual justification for the practices which result in an unequal allocation of social values among social groups.
Research has shown that SDO strongly correlates with a number of social attitudes, ideological beliefs and behavior patterns which promote inequality in the relationships between groups. These include prejudice, racism, sexism, nationalism, just world beliefs and              politico-economic conservatism (Pratto, 1999; Pratto et al., 1994; Pratto, Stallworth, Sidanius, & Siers, 1997; Sidanius, Devereux, & Pratto, 1992; Sidanius, Levin, Liu, & Pratto, 2000; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1996). According to Sidanius and Pratto (1999), there does not yet exist a theory on the development of individual differences in SDO. Thus, Roccato (2003) recently attempted to develop a model for prediction of SDO based on the theory of attachment, postulating, on the basis of Marris’ work (1991, 1996; see also Holmes, 1996), that social dominators and insecure individuals share the tendency to acquire one’s security at the expense of that of others, attempting to give meaning and predictability to one’s personal and social world. From this point of view, the security obtained by those who have more power at the expense of those who have less power may be considered a variant of the insecure attachments that inhibits the creative development of society. Roccato’s model have not been fully supported by the data (Roccato, in press). However, empirical analyses showed that significant links between attachment (above all, the avoidant style) and SDO do exist.

Correlation between RWA and SDO
If it is true, as Altemeyer (1998) claims, that RWA and SDO assess two different forms of authoritarianism, empirical study of the relationships between them is interesting for two reasons: (a) from the theoretical viewpoint, in order to understand whether there exists a single personality characterized by the simultaneous presence of followers authoritarianism and leaders authoritarianism or whether two separate personalities exist, that of the followers and that of the leaders; and (b) from the methodological viewpoint, because if the empirical data were to show that there exists one single authoritarian personality, this would mean that it would be futile to perform an empirical assessment of both RWA and SDO. This would enable the use of questionnaires that are shorter and less monotonous to fill in, which, in turn, might be able to reduce the response sets (Paulhus, 1991).
Duckitt (2001) reviewed many of the studies published to date on the relationships between RWA and SDO. Two patterns were found: (a) independence between RWA and SDO; (b) positive correlation between RWA and SDO. The latter pattern may be labeled as “classic”, since it was the one postulated to exist between followers authoritarianism and leaders authoritarianism in the first studies on authoritarianism (Ackerman & Jahoda, 1950; Adorno et al.,1950; Fromm, 1941; Reich, 1933). Duckitt (2001), in an attempt to interpret these contradictory results, maintained that, in countries characterized by strong ideological contrast (such as Belgium, Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand), ideology tends to be organized along a left-right dimension. In such countries persons with a leftist orientation are characterized by low scores for both RWA and SDO, and those with a rightist orientation by high scores for both RWA and SDO. In countries characterized by minor ideological contrast (such as the USA, Canada, South Africa and Poland1) political behaviors are less structured and, accordingly, people’s scores for RWA and SDO are often independent of each other. Moreover, according to Duckitt, ideology, and accordingly the relationship between RWA and SDO as well, do not crystallize until the end of adolescence—when, in order to meet a strong need for coherence, they begin to influence each other. Thus, according to Duckitt, two variables exert an influence on the correlation between RWA and SDO. The first is the degree of ideological contrast of the country in which the analysis is performed: the more pronounced the ideological contrast, the stronger the correlation. The second is the age of the interviewees: the older the participants, the stronger the correlation.

Research Goals and Hypotheses
This research aimed to study the correlation between RWA and SDO. In Study 1, we wanted to perform a formal test of Duckitt’s theory by subjecting to meta-analysis the research studies which analyzed the correlation between RWA and SDO. Our expectation was that, if Duckitt’s theory is correct, the correlation between RWA and SDO would be higher in countries characterized by strong vs. weak ideological contrast and in adult vs. student samples. 
In Studies 2, 3, and 4 we performed an in-depth study of the correlation between RWA and SDO in Italy. Our expectation was that, if Duckitt’s theory is correct, the correlation between RWA and SDO in Italy would be: (a) generally strong and positive, because in Italy ideology tends to be organized along a very prominent left-right dimension (Ricolfi, 1999, 2004), and thus Italy is a country with a high level of ideological contrast; (b) higher among adult samples than among student samples, because the reciprocal relationship between RWA and SDO in adults tends to be structured more coherently than among students.

Study 1
Database
We subjected to meta-analysis the 29 studies that, to the best of our knowledge, have analyzed the correlation between RWA and SDO, for a total of 51 samples (one of them interviewed twice in a longitudinal study)—total N = 12,593. Table 1 shows the type of participants, the degree of ideological contrast of the countries in which they live and the correlations between RWA and SDO.

Data analysis
In order to test Duckitt’s theory (2001), we compared the mean correlations between RWA and SDO which arose in the student vs. adult samples and in the samples studied in countries characterized by strong vs. weak ideological contrast. In view of the fact that the studies subjected to meta-analysis had different Ns, the mean correlations that we compared were weighted by number of cases, using the formula suggested by Di Nuovo (1995):

In this formula, ni is the number of cases in the i-th study and ri is the correlation between RWA and SDO reported in the i-th study. The significance of the differences between these correlations was calculated by means of the software Meta 5.3, developed by Ralf Schwarzer, available for downloading at his website (http://www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/gesu_engl/meta_e.htm). 

Results
Table 2 shows that, in the studies performed in countries characterized by strong ideological contrast, the weighted mean correlation between RWA and SDO was much higher than in the studies performed in countries characterized by weak ideological contrast. This difference was statistically significant, Z of normal distribution = 13.63, p < .001. Table 3 shows that, in the studies performed on adults, the weighted mean correlation between RWA and SDO was slightly greater than that found in the studies performed on students. However, this difference was not statistically significant, Z of normal distribution = 1.15, ns. These results seem to show that Duckitt’s theory received only partial support.
Nonetheless, Duckitt’s theory may be expressed in an alternative way, taking into consideration the degree of ideological conflict of the country as a superordinate variable relative to age. In fact, if, at the end of adolescence, the process of internalization of the degree of ideological contrast of one’s own country reaches a situation of relative stability, it is realistic to assume that only in countries characterized by strong ideological contrast will there be striking differences between young people and adults concerning the crystallization of ideology, and therefore, concerning the strength of the correlation between RWA and SDO.2
Table 4 shows that this hypothesis received support. In the countries characterized by minor ideological contrast the correlation between RWA and SDO was actually the same in the student and adult samples. In the countries characterized by a high degree of ideological contrast, the correlation between RWA and SDO was statistically greater in the adult samples than in the student samples, Z of normal distribution = 1.87, p < .05.

Discussion
The results of Study 1 fully supported the first part of Duckitt’s theory: The weighted mean correlation found in the countries with strong ideological contrast was more than twice that found in the countries with minor ideological contrast. The second part of Duckitt’s theory, on the other hand, did not receive support: The weighted mean correlation found in the studies performed on adults was statistically equal to that found in the studies performed on students. Nonetheless, Duckitt’s theory was supported, if one considers the degree of ideological contrast of the country in which the study is conducted as a superordinate variable relative to the variable of age. In fact, in the countries with strong ideological contrast the correlation between RWA and SDO was greater among the adults than among the students.
Too few studies have been conducted in Italy to provide an adequate test of Duckitt’s theory in that country. Nonetheless, analysis of Table 1 shows that the correlations between RWA and SDO in Italy were particularly unstable. The next three studies were performed in order to provide a more in-depth test of Duckitt’s theory in Italy.

Study 2
Participants and Procedure
A group of 200 political militants from Turin (Northwestern Italy) participated in this study, 40 from each of five Italian political parties. From the left to the right wing, these were: Partito della Rifondazione Comunista (Communist Refoundation Party; hereinafter: “Prc”), Democratici di Sinistra (Left-Wing Democrats; hereinafter: “Ds”), Lega Nord (Northern League; hereinafter: “Ln”), Alleanza Nazionale (National Alliance; hereinafter: “An”), and Forza Nuova (New Force; hereinafter: Fn). Of these, 156 were men and 44 were women. Their mean age was 33.54 years (SD = 10.64).
Prc is the largest and most radical Italian communist party; however, its militant can be labeled as “sincerely democratic”, since Prc is traditionally committed to democracy. At the present time, Prc is part of the opposition. Ds is a post-communist party. It is the largest party of the Italian left, promotes a socialistic-democratic policy and is presently part of the opposition. Ln is an ethnocentric party, rooted in the rich and affluent North of Italy and belonging to the Casa delle Libertà (House of Freedoms), the right-wing coalition which has governed Italy since 2001. Until 1994, An had been a neo-fascist party. In the last years it has become democratic, and currently helps govern Italy as a member of the Casa delle Libertà coalition. However, a big share of its militants still have nostalgic longings for fascism (Ignazi, 2000). Forza Nuova is a tiny extreme right-wing movement. Its ideology is explicitly fascist, and it has no representation in the Italian Parliament.
Participants were recruited in their party offices. They were given a structured 43-item questionnaire, presented as part of “a research study performed by the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Turin, to find out what people think of some personal and social issues”, and were then debriefed. The questionnaire took about 20 minutes to fill in. The participation was voluntary and anonymous.

Measures
RWA was assessed by a reduced version (12 items, 5 response categories) of Giampaglia and Roccato’s (2002) Italian adaptation of the Altemeyer’s (1998) RWA scale. For each item, the participants declared the degree of their agreement with statements such as “Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral fiber and traditional beliefs” (pro-trait) and “There is no ‘ONE right way’ to live life: everybody has to create their own way” (con-trait). RWA total scores were obtained by summing the scores of each item of the scale, after reversing the anti-authoritarian items.
SDO was assessed by means of a reduced version (12 items, 5 response categories) of Di Stefano and Roccato’s (in press) Italian adaptation of the SDO6 scale (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), a Likert scale composed of 16 items such as “To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups” (pro-trait) and “All groups should be given an equal chance in life” (con-trait). SDO total scores were computed by summing the scores of each item, after reversing the anti-dominance scores.
As we have seen, it is possible to hypothesize that there are links between the attachment style, on the one hand, and RWA and SDO on the other (Roccato, 2003). Accordingly, we also inserted into the questionnaire Roccato and Tartaglia’s (2003) Italian adaptation of the Carver’s (1997) Measure of Attachment Qualities (MAQ), in order to explore the possibility that the style of attachment can also affect the relationship between RWA and SDO. In its Italian adaptation, MAQ is composed of 9 self-descriptive five-category items such as “I get uncomfortable when someone wants to be very close” and “I find others often are reluctant to get as close as I would like”. Factor analyses have shown that MAQ items measure four attachment styles: avoidant and secure (negatively correlated), ambivalent-worry and ambivalent-merger (positively correlated). The scores for avoidance, security, ambivalence-worry and ambivalence-merger were calculated as factorial scores.
Finally, we used a sociodemographic standard form, further including a series of psychosocial and political questions: interest in politics, political placement, vote intention, and religion importance.

Results
Psychometric Characteristics of the Scales
1. The RWA scale showed an  value of .91, whereas in its original version and in other Italian studies its alphas ranged between .86 and .90 (Altemeyer, 1996, 1998; Converso & Roccato, 1996; Giampaglia & Roccato, 2002; Roccato, 1997, in press; Roccato, Re, & Sclauzero, 2002). Factor analysis yielded one factor, explaining 50.21% of the overall variance.
2. The SDO scale showed an  value of .94, whereas in its original version its  typically reaches the .80s. Factor analysis yielded one factor that explained 62.93% of the overall variance.
3. MAQ was structured in four factors, which respectively measured the secure (explained variance = 36.86%), ambivalent-worry (explained variance = 25.91%), ambivalent-merger (explained variance = 9.70%), and avoidant (explained variance = 9.23%) styles. The secure and avoidant styles negatively correlated, r = - .51, p < .001, whereas the ambivalent-worry and ambivalent-merger styles positively correlated, r = .41, p < .001.

Correlation between RWA and SDO
The correlation between RWA and SDO was r = .60, p < .001. This value was higher than that found in an adult sample by Mirisola, Di Stefano, and Falgares (2004), r = .37, Z of normal distribution = 3.04, p < .01. Relative to that found in student samples, it was far higher than those found by Roccato (in press), r = .21, Z of normal distribution = 5.39, p < .001, but statistically equal to the rs found by Chirumbolo, Leone, Areni, and Aiello (2004), r = .52, Z of normal distribution = 1.15, ns, by Aiello, Chirumbolo, Leone, and Pratto (in press), r = .56, Z of normal distribution = .69, ns, and by Roccato and Senestro (2005), r = .63, Z of normal distribution = .56, ns. Moreover, this correlation was highly unstable. As shown in Table 5, in the democratic parties it had values in line with those found in the literature—between 0 (Prc) and almost .80 (Ln). Surprisingly, however, it was strong and negative in Forza Nuova. The differences between the correlations were statistically significant, 2(4) = 79.94, p < .001, and no outliers were present in any group of militants3.
These data did not support Duckitt’s theory, in view of the fact that his theory does not provide for the existence of negative correlations between RWA and SDO. Moreover, even if only the groups with correlations ≥ 0 were considered, the instabilities found could not be traced back to what was postulated by Duckitt. In fact, all of our participants lived in the same country, and accordingly the degree of contrast of the country in which the study was performed was the same for all. It might be possible to interpret in an individual sense that part of Duckitt’s theory, and to postulate that the correlation between RWA and SDO increases as a function of the participants’ involvement in politics. Nonetheless, the data show that the militants of our four parties characterized by correlations ≥ 0 did not differ with regard to interest in politics, F(3, 156) = .10, ns. 
Moreover, even the part of Duckitt’s theory concerning age could not be used to completely explain the instabilities found. In fact, all in all, the militants from those parties with a non-negative correlation showed significant differences in age,  F(3, 156) = 34.5, p < .001, with the younger parties showing correlations lower than those of the less young parties. Nonetheless, the age of the Ln militants, M = 41.68, SD = 11.25, and that of the An militants, M = 39.30, SD = 10.36, were statistically equal, even though the correlation between RWA and SDO in those groups was statistically different, Z of normal distribution = 3.08, p < .001. Moreover, the Prc militants, M = 25.48, SD = 4.59, and the Ds militants, M = 27.30, SD = 7.70, showed the same age, but a tendency to show different correlations, Z of normal distribution = 3.08, p < .08.4
In view of the fact that the degree of ideological contrast of the participants’ country and their age did not seem effectively capable of explaining the instabilities we found in Study 2, and given that the most unexpected result was that concerning the Fn militants, we compared the Fn militants with the other participants on the basis of the psychosocial and political variables which were available to us.

Comparisons between the Forza Nuova Militants and the Other Participants
From the political point of view, the Forza Nuova activists were the only explicitly           anti-democratic persons who participated in our study. Moreover, the Fn militants, along with those of Prc, were the most religious participants, F(4, 195) = 18.01, p < .001. In addition, they were the most right-wing participants, F(4, 195) = 809.88, p < .001, and constituted the most extremist group5, F(4, 195) = 57.02, p < .001. With regard to attachment, they were the group with the highest score on the avoidant style, F(4, 195) = 3.983, p < .01, and the lowest score on the merger style, F(4, 195) = 11.57, p < .001, and, together with the Prc militants, on the secure style, F(4, 195) = 5.45, p < .001. However, the Forza Nuova militants did not show any systematic peculiarity with regard to gender, age, cultural level, and interest in politics.

Discussion
The results of Study 2 were, to a great degree, surprising. The correlation calculated on all of the participants was basically in line with those found in the literature and in line with Duckitt’s theory (2001). On the other hand, in our analysis of the correlation within the individual parties, we found: (a) data which supported Duckitt’s theory: This applied to Ln, An and Ds, in which the correlation between RWA and SDO followed the “classic” pattern (in Ds the correlation was not statistically significant, p = .079, probably only because of the low N); (b) data which disagreed with Duckitt’s theory, but which were compatible with some of the data found in the literature: This applied to Prc, in which the correlation between RWA and SDO followed the independent pattern (correlation practically = 0); (c) data incompatible with Duckitt’s theory and conflicting with all of the data found in the literature: This applied to Forza Nuova, where, to the best of our knowledge, we found the only strong negative correlation in the history of studies of the relationships between RWA and SDO.
What caused the instability of the correlation between RWA and SDO within the “sincerely democratic” parties which we studied? First of all, it is possible that the instability of this correlation is a phenomenon typical of Italy. In addition, it is also possible that this is a phenomenon typical of political militants. Finally, it could be a phenomenon typical of all of the samples analyzed, including those of studies conducted in other countries, which had not yet been discovered because such a correlation had never been analyzed within the sub-groups of participants. Moreover: What caused the strong and negative correlation found among the Forza Nuova militants? Is this correlation a phenomenon typical of genuinely anti-democratic groups?
To try to answer these questions, we conducted two further studies. In Study 3, we repeated the research performed in Study 2, but on university students, in order to obtain data which could immediately be compared with the majority of the literature. In Study 4, we analyzed the correlation between RWA and SDO in a new sample of political militants, all “sincerely democratic”.

Study 3
Participants and Procedure
A group of 119 students (8 men and 111 women) from the University of Turin voluntarily and anonymously participated in Study 3. Their mean age was 23.82 years (SD = 1.84). From the political point of view, the participants expressed a vote intention for Prc (N = 17), Ds (N = 18), Forza Italia (hereinafter: Fi)6 (N = 10), An (N = 8) and minority parties (N = 4). The remaining 62 participants declared that they would not vote or would cast a blank or void ballot. The participants completed, in a classroom framework, a 43-item questionnaire presented as part of “a research study performed by the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Turin, to find out what people think of some personal and social issues”. After filling in the questionnaire, which took about 20 minutes, they were debriefed.

Measures
The participants filled in the same questionnaire as that used in Study 1: (a) 12-item,             5-category RWA scale; (b) 12-item, 5-category SDO scale; (c) 9-item, 5-category MAQ; (d) sociodemographic and psychosocial form.

Results
Psychometric Characteristics of the Scales
1. The RWA scale showed an  value of .70, i.e. at the lower limit of acceptability. As often occurs (cf. Altemeyer, 1996; Duckitt & Fisher, 2003; Krauss, 2002; Tarr & Lorr, 1991), factor analysis yielded two factors. The first (explained variance = 25.37%) consisted of all the pro-trait items, and the second (explained variance = 13.17%) of all the con-trait items.
2. The SDO scale showed an  value of .83. Factor analysis yielded one factor that explained 37.55% of the overall variance.
3. Factorial analysis of the MAQ showed four factors, which respectively measured the avoidant (explained variance = 33.30%), ambivalent-merger (explained variance = 19.03%), secure (explained variance = 9.65%), and ambivalent-worry (explained variance = 7.56%) styles. The secure and avoidant styles negatively correlated, r = - .54, p < .001, whereas the ambivalent-worry and ambivalent-merger styles positively correlated, r = .35, p < .001.

Correlation between RWA and SDO
The correlation between RWA and SDO was r = .51 (p < .001). This value was: (a) much higher than that found by Roccato (in press) in a student sample, r = .21, Z of normal distribution = 3.26, p < .001; (b) basically higher than that found by Mirisola et al. in an adult sample, r = .37, Z of normal distribution = 1.49, p < .07; (c) statistically equal to those found in student samples by Chirumbolo et al. (2004), r = .52, Z of normal distribution = .11, ns, and by Aiello et al. (in press), r = .56, Z of normal distribution = .67, ns; and (d) lower than that found by Roccato and Senestro (2005), r = .63, Z of normal distribution = 3.26, p < .05. Moreover, this correlation was statistically equal to that found in the militant sample of Study 2, Z of normal distribution = 1.11, ns. Table 6 shows that, in all our political sub-samples, all the correlations between RWA and SDO always followed the “classic” pattern. The differences between the correlations in the various groups were not statistically significant, 2(5) = 2.87, ns. No outliers were present in any political group. One outlier was present in the group of non-voters. Nonetheless, the degree of the correlation changed only slightly when the outlier was eliminated, from r = .35 to r = .39. The fact that the participants voting for An and for minority parties did not attain statistically significant correlations (ps = .379 and .251 respectively) is quite probably due to the very low number of participants who declared that they would be voting for An (N = 8) and for the minority parties (N = 4). 

Comparisons between the Participants
As stated above, in Study 2 the Forza Nuova militants, showing a negative correlation between RWA and SDO, showed six peculiar characteristics that differentiated them from the supporters of the other parties: (a) along with those of Prc, they were the most religious; (b) they were the most rightist; (c) they were the most extremist; (d) along with those of Prc, they had the lowest scores on the secure attachment style; (e) they had the lowest scores on the merger style; (f) they had the highest scores on the avoidant attachment style.
Significant differences, limited to political position and political extremism, arose among the participants in Study 3 as well. In fact, the An voters were positioned farther to the right than the other participants, F(5, 113) = 18.27, p < .001, and the Prc voters were shown to be more extremist than the rest, F(5, 113) = 7.38, p < .001. Nonetheless, in both these groups of voters—placed to the extremes of the right-left continuum—the correlation between RWA and SDO was positive. With regard to attachment styles and religion importance, no significant party-linked differences emerged among the participants in Study 3, nor were there significant differences with regard to gender, age, cultural level, and interest in politics.

Discussion
The results of Study 3 were much less puzzling than those of Study 2. In addition, they basically did not disagree with Duckitt’s theory (2001) with regard to the mechanisms governing the correlation between RWA and SDO. In fact, this correlation was: (a) strong and positive when analyzed for the entire sample; however, it was statistically equal to that found in the group of political militants who participated in Study 2; (b) strong, positive and basically stable, even when analyzed in the groups of participants defined by their vote intention (although it was not significant in two groups, quite probably due to the low number of participants which composed them).This suggested that the instability of the correlation between RWA and SDO is not typical of all studies conducted in Italy.
After that found between the Forza Nuova militants in Study 2, in this Study 3 we did not find any negative correlations between RWA and SDO. Two out of the six variables which distinguished the Forza Nuova militants from the other participants in Study 2 distinguished some of the participants in Study 3 as well. In fact, the An voters were positioned farther to the right, and the Prc voters were shown to be more extremist than all of the other participants. On the basis of our data, it therefore appears possible that political position and political extremism are not the crucial variables which make the correlation between RWA and SDO negative.
Based on the combination of results which emerged in Study 2 and in Study 3, it was thus possible to formulate four different hypotheses concerning the mechanisms governing the correlation between RWA and SDO, at least in Italy.
1. Given that in Study 2 (militant sample), but not in Study 3 (student sample), we found unstable correlations between RWA and SDO, the instability of the correlations between RWA and SDO is a phenomenon typical of political militants and not of students.
2. Given that we found a negative correlation between RWA and SDO in Fn, it is possible to find a negative correlation between RWA and SDO only among genuinely anti-democratic political militants.
3. Given that the Forza Nuova militants were distinguished from the militants of other parties in Study 2 and from the students in Study 3 with regard to their attachment style, a negative correlation between RWA and SDO can be found only among persons who have high scores on the avoidant style and low scores on the merger and secure styles.
4. Given that in Study 2 the Forza Nuova militants (r < 0) and that the Prc militants (r = 0) were much more religious than the other militants, and that in Study 3 no differences emerged among the participants with regard to importance of religion, a negative (or at least  0) correlation between RWA and SDO can be found only among very religious persons.
We tested these hypotheses in Study 4.

Study 4
Participants and Procedure
A group of 183 political militants (162 men, 21 women) from Palermo (Southern Italy) participated in this study. Their mean age was 39.46 (SD = 13.42). Of these participants, 61 belonged to Prc, 54 to Ds, 20 to Forza Italia and 17 to An. In addition, 31 belonged to La Margherita (“The Daisy”; hereinafter: Marg), a centrist-leftist Catholic party, which is presently part of the opposition. The participants filled in the questionnaire, which was presented as part of “a research study performed by the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Palermo, to find out what people think of some personal and social issues”, in their party headquarters, and were subsequently debriefed. The questionnaire took about 30 minutes to fill in. The participation was voluntary and anonymous.

Measures
The participants filled in a questionnaire consisting of 65 items: (a) RWA scale (30 items, 5 categories), (b) SDO6 scale (16 items, 5 categories), (c) MAQ (9 items, 5 categories), (d) the same sociodemographic and psychosocial form as that used in Studies 2 and 3.

Results
Psychometric characteristics of the scales

1. The RWA scale showed an  value of .92. Factor analysis yielded one factor, explaining 32.09% of the overall variance.
2. The SDO scale showed an  value of .86. Factor analysis yielded one factor that explained 36.50% of the overall variance.
3. MAQ was structured in four dimensions: ambivalent-worry (explained variance = 37.34%), avoidant (explained variance = 16.29%), secure (explained variance = 13.58%), and        ambivalent-merger (explained variance = 12.16%). The secure and avoidant styles negatively correlated, r = - .26, p < .001, whereas the ambivalent-worry and ambivalent-merger styles positively correlated, r = .45, p < .001.

Correlation between RWA and SDO
The correlation between RWA and SDO was r = .66 (p < .001). This value was: (a) higher than that found in a student sample by Roccato (in press), r = .21, Z of normal distribution = 6.32, p < .001; (b) higher than that found by Mirisola et al. (2004) in an adult sample, r = .37, Z of normal distribution = 3.94, p < .001; (c) higher than those found in student samples by Chirumbolo et al. (2004), r = .52, Z of normal distribution = 2.08, p < .05 and by Aiello et al. (in press), r = .56, Z of normal distribution = 1.79, p < .05, and (d) statistically equal to that fonud by Roccato and Senestro (2005), r = .63, Z of normal distribution = .58, ns. Moreover, this correlation was statistically equal to that found in the militant sample of Study 2, Z of normal distribution = 1.00, ns, and higher than that found in the student sample of Study 3, Z of normal distribution = 1.93, p < .05.
Table 7 shows that, as in Study 2, this correlation was rather unstable: (a) in Marg and Prc, it was very strong and positive; (b) in An, it was positive but not particularly strong, even though it was not statistically significant (p = .387), probably due to the low number of An militants who participated in our study (N = 17); (c) in Forza Italia, as in Forza Nuova in Study 2, it was negative. In this case as well, it is quite possible that the correlation was not statistically significant (p = .067) only because of the small number of Forza Italia participants (N = 20). As in Study 2, also conducted on political militants, the differences between the correlations were significant, 2(4) = 26.25, p < .001. Two outliers were present in the group of Ds. Nonetheless, eliminating them from the analysis did not dramaticly change the correlation in that group, from r = .46 to r =.58.
Like those of Study 2, these data as well did not support Duckitt’s theory, in view of the fact that the negative correlation between RWA and SDO could not have been foreseen by using that theory. Even if the Fi militants were excluded from that analysis, Duckitt’s theory was not supported by our data. In fact, the instability of the correlation could not be attributed to differences of ideological contrast on the national level between our participants, all of whom were Italians. Moreover, even if we interpret his theory in an individual sense, no differences with regard to interest in politics were found between the various groups analyzed, F(4,178) = 1.64, ns. From the standpoint of age, significant differences were found between the groups analyzed, F(4,174) = 8.39, p < .001.7 The youngest militants were those of An, M = 25.88, SD = 6.74, who were actually those with the lowest correlation. They were followed by those of Prc, M = 36.90, SD = 14.13 who, although relatively young, showed a rather high correlation (which was not different, from the statistical viewpoint, from the highest of all, that found in Marg, Z of normal distribution = 1.11, ns). The oldest militants were those of Marg, M = 44.74, SD = 13.11, and those of Ds, M = 41.64, SD = 12.01. The difference between their ages was not statistically significant. Nonetheless, the difference between the correlations was significant, Z of normal distribution = 2.12, p < .05.

Comparison between the Forza Italia militants and the other participants
As in Study 2, the most puzzling datum of Study 4 was the negative correlation between RWA and SDO, found in this case among the militants of Forza Italia. What were the specific characteristics of the Fi militants? From the political standpoint, relative to the other participants, they were less extremist, F(4, 178) = 51.961, p < .001. From the standpoint of personality, they showed the lowest scores on the secure attachment style, F(4, 178) = 3.395, p < .05, and the highest scores on the avoidant, F(4, 178) = 2.455, p < .05, and merger, F(4, 178) = 2.491, p < .05, styles. On the other hand, they did not show any particular characteristics with regard to gender, age, cultural level, importance of religion, political position, interest in politics and the other attachment styles.

Discussion
Like those of Study 2, the results of Study 4 also seemed, at first glance, to support Duckitt’s theory. When analyzed throughout the entire sample, the correlation between RWA and SDO was actually strong and positive, statistically equal to that found by analyzing the militants of Study 2, and higher than that found in the student sample of Study 3. Nonetheless, in this case as well, when we analyzed the correlation between RWA and SDO within the groups of militants, we found, in addition to several results which agreed with this theory, one result which dramatically disagreed with it. In fact, in the group of the Forza Italia militants, like in the group of the Forza Nuova militants in Study 2, this correlation was negative, and was almost statistically significant (p = .067), despite the fact that the number of participants was decidedly low (N = 20).
Accordingly, the data of Study 4 showed that, in order to obtain a negative correlation between RWA and SDO, it is not necessary to apply the RWA scale and the SDO scale to a group of anti-democratic persons. It is enough to use right-wing militants which are members of a party characterized by participants with a relatively high avoidant and low secure attachment style. Moreover, the data of Study 4 suggested that religiousness, in itself, is not indispensable in order to significantly lower the correlation between RWA and SDO, in view of the fact that the Fi militants did not show to be significantly more religious than the other participants and that the militants of Marg, an explicitly Catholic party, showed a positive correlation.

General Discussion
In recent years, an increasing number of empirical studies have examined the correlation between RWA and SDO. The data found in the literature show that the two constructs can be independent, but can also be positively correlated. The most solid theory which may explain these discrepancies is that of Duckitt (2001), which postulates that the correlation between RWA and SDO increases as a function of the degree of ideological contrast of the country of the participants and of their age. In this study, we performed an empirical test of Duckitt’s theory. Did our analyses support it? It is not easy to give an unequivocal answer to this question, also because three of our four studies were performed on rather small samples, and accordingly enable only cautious conclusions. In any case, if one views the results on the aggregate level, taking into account the entire corpus of studies on RWA and SDO which we meta-analyzed, it is possible to claim that the data provided a strong support of that part of Duckitt’s theory which refers to the effect exerted on the correlation between RWA and SDO by the degree of ideological contrast in the country in which the participants live. Nonetheless, they supported Duckitt’s theory regarding to the effect exerted on that correlation by the participants’ age only within those countries characterized by strong ideological contrast.
The Italian data gave even less unequivocal results. If one calculates the correlations between RWA and SDO for all the participants, our Studies 2, 3, and 4 would seem, at least in part, to have supported Duckitt’s theory. Indeed, in all three of the studies, we found a strong and positive correlation between RWA and SDO. This result was to be expected, given that Italy is characterized by strong ideological contrast. However, we found a lower correlation in our student sample than in our second, but not in our first, political militant sample. In Duckitt’s terms, this result was surprising, because the student sample was younger and more homogeneous than both the first sample of militants, t(118) = - 57.624, p < .001, and the second sample of militants, t(118) = - 92.703, p < .001. Moreover, if one also considers the other studies performed in Italy, the correlations between RWA and SDO appeared too unstable to fully support Duckitt’s theory.
Furthermore, the analyses conducted on the sub-samples of militants showed results which were absolutely unexpected on the basis of that theory. In fact, disaggregate data analyses showed that, in both samples of political militants, we found rather unstable correlations. It does not seem possible to attribute this instability to the degree of ideological contrast in the country in which the research studies were performed, nor to the age of the participants. The participants’ involvement in politics also does not seem to have been relevant. Most strikingly, in two groups of militants we found a strong and negative correlation between RWA and SDO.
What were the characteristics of the groups which showed a negative correlation? First of all, they were made up of political militants of two specific right-wing parties, Forza Nuova and Forza Italia. At first glance, the similarities between these two parties were far less relevant than the differences between them. In fact, Forza Italia is presently the party with a relative majority in the Italian Parliament and is part of the governing coalition. Forza Nuova, on the other hand, is a tiny party, not represented in the Italian Parliament, and explicitly anti-democratic. Neither of these two parties showed any specific characteristics on the sociodemographic or the psychosocial level (gender, age, cultural level, interest in politics, political extremism) relative to the other parties. Moreover, only the Fn militants, but not those of Fi, were particularly religious. Nevertheless, we found a variable which was shared by these two parties and distinguishes them from the others. This was the attachment style of their militants, which was oriented toward a relatively more avoidant and less secure direction than that of the militants in other parties. Our previous work (Roccato, 2003) postulated significant relationships between attachment, on one hand, and RWA and SDO on the other, detecting significant links between the secure and, above all, the avoidant attachment styles on the one hand and RWA and SDO on the other hand (Roccato, in press). This study has shown that the secure and the avoidant attachment styles appear to affect the relationship between RWA and SDO. Our data do not enable us to understand the reasons for this effect. Nonetheless, it could be hypothesyzed that this relation is spurious. On the one hand, the effect exerted by attachment on the relation between RWA and SDO could be mediated by socio-economic status, since research showed that belonging to the most undeprivileged social strata fosters both the insecurity of the attachment style (Mickelson, Kessler, & Shaver’s 1997) and SDO (Sidanius & Levin, 1996), but not RWA (Dunbar & Simonova, 2003). On the other hand, this effect could be mediated by group attachment, since research showed that both group attachment avoidance and SDO, but not RWA, are empirically linked to negative emotions about group relations (Duckitt, 1989; Smith, Murphy, & Coats, 1999). It will be interesting to conduct empirical testing of these hypotheses in subsequent studies.
This study has some limits. The most serious is that Studies 2, 3, and 4 were performed on small samples. This means that our data must be read with a certain degree of caution. Moreover, it would have been interesting to perform an empirical assessment of at least one other variable relative to those which we assessed: the role held by militants in their political party. It is, in fact, plausible that such a variable might exert an effect on the correlation between RWA and SDO, as one might assume that having a managerial role would be positively linked to SDO and negatively linked ro RWA, and that having the role of a simple militant would be positively linked to RWA and negatively linked to SDO. Other developments could address, on the one hand, the search for other negative correlations in sub-samples which are larger and more diversified than those used in this study, and, on the other hand, the attempt to construct a model which, over and above the purely descriptive data presented in this study, would enable formal individuation of the variables which affect the relationship between RWA and SDO. Finally, it could be interesting to devote specific in-depth study to the Prc militants, in view of the fact that, in that party, the correlation between RWA and SDO in the first study was significantly lower than that of the second study, Z of normal distribution = 3.76, p < .001.
We shall conclude our discussion with a general note. In our opinion, the considerable differences found between students and militants clearly showed that the student sample bias (Meloen, 1993) is a decidedly serious bias in research studies on authoritarianism. In fact, the study of two non-student groups was enough to jeopardize a result which had appeared rather solid, concerning the relationships between RWA and SDO. We accordingly believe that, in order to obtain valid data on authoritarianism, it is essential to study the general population or, at least, to accompany the study of student samples with a study of samples chosen ad hoc for their possible peculiarities (Hopf, 1993).

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Silvia Senestro, who collected and coded the data of Study 2 and Study 3 and Giovanni Di Stefano, who collected and coded the data of Study 4. Moreover, we would like to thank Alberto Mirisola, Silvia Testa and two anonymous reviewers for the insightful suggestions they gave us after reading the first version of this paper.

References
*References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
Ackerman, N. W., & Jahoda, M. (1950). Anti-semitism and emotional disorder: A psychoanalytic interpretation. New York: Harper.
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.
*Aiello, A., Chirumbolo, A., Leone, L., & Pratto, F. (in press). Uno studio di adattamento e validazione della scala di orientamento/tendenza alla dominanza sociale (Pratto et al., 1994) An Italian adaptation and validation of Pratto et al.’s (1994) social dominance orientation scale. Rassegna di psicologia.
*Allen, M. W., Wilson, M., Ng, S. H., & Dunne, M. (2000). Values and beliefs of vegetarians and omnivores. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 405-422.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
*Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47-92). San Diego: Academic Press.
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. E. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113-133.
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. E. (1997). Amazing conversions. Why some turn to faith & others abandon religion. Amherts: Prometheus Books.
Carver, C. S. (1997). Adult attachment and personality: Converging evidence and a new measure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 865-884.
*Chirumbolo, A., Leone, L., Areni, A., & Aiello, A. (2004). Atteggiamenti politici e cognizione sociale motivata [Political attitudes and motivated social cognition]. Paper presented at the 6th annual meeting of the Italian Psychological Association, Sciacca.
Converso, D., & Roccato, M. (1996). L’altra faccia della solidarietà: uno studio psicosociale dell’autoritarismo The other side of solidarity: A psychosocial study of authoritarianism. In P. Amerio (Ed.), Forme di solidarietà e linguaggi della politica (pp. 163-209). Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
De Zulueta, F. (1993). From pain to violence. London: Whurr Publishers.
Di Nuovo, S. (1995). La meta-analisi [Meta-analysis]. Roma: Borla.
Di Stefano, G., & Roccato, M. (in press). Una banca di item per misurare l’orientamento alla dominanza sociale in Italia [An item bank for measuring social dominance orientation in Italy]. Testing, psicometria e metodologia, 12.
Duckitt, J. (1989). Authoritarianism and group identification: A new view of an old construct. Political Psychology, 10, 63-84.
*Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41-113). San Diego: Academic Press.
Duckitt, J., & Fisher, K. (2003). The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24, 199-222.
*Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 75-93.
Dunbar, E., & Simonova, L. (2003). Individual differences and social status predictors of           anti-semitism and racism US and Czech findings with the prejudice/tolerance and right wing authoritarianism scales. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 507-523.
*Duriez, B., & Van Hiel, A. (2002). The march of modern fascism. A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1199-1213.
*Duriez, B., Van Hiel, A., & Kossowska, M. (in press). Authoritarianism and social dominance in Western and Eastern Europe: The importance of the socio-political context and of political interest and involvement. Political Psychology.
*Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson, I. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big five personality, social dominance orientation, or right-wing authoritarianism? European Journal of Personality, 18, 463-482.
Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from freedom. New York: Avon Books.
Giampaglia, G., & Roccato, M. (2002). La scala di autoritarismo di destra di Altemeyer: Un’analisi con il modello di Rasch per la costruzione di una versione italiana Altemeyer’s right-wing authoritarianism scale: An analysis using Rasch model for the construction of an Italian version. Testing, psicometria e metodologia, 9, 93-111.
*Heaven, P. C. L., & Bucci, S. (2001). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and personality: An analysis using the IPIP measure. European Journal of Personality, 15, 49-56.
*Heaven, P. C. L., & Connors, J. R. (2001). A note on the value correlates of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 925-930.
*Heaven, P. C. L., & St. Quintin, D. (2003). Personality factors predict racial prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 625-634.
Holmes, J. (1996). Attchment theory: A secure base for policy? In S. Kraemer, & J. Roberts (Eds.), The politics of attachment. Towards a secure society (pp. 27-42). London: Free Associatiuon Books.
Hopf, C. (1993). Authoritarians and their families: Qualitative studies on the origins of authoritarian dispositions. In W. F. Stone, G. Lederer, & R. Christie (Eds.), Strength and weakness. The authoritarian personality today (pp. 119-143). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ignazi, P. (2000). L’estrema destra in Europa Extreme right in Europe. Bologna: Il Mulino.
*Kilianski, S. E. (2003). Explaining heterosexual men’s attitudes toward women and gay men: The theory of exclusively masculine identity. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4, 37-56.
Krauss, S. W. (2002). Romanian authoritarianism 10 years after communism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 1255-1264.
*Lippa, R., & Arad, S. (1999). Gender, personality, and prejudice: The display of authoritarianism and social dominance orientation in interviews with college men and women. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 463-493.
Marris, P. (1991). The social construction of uncertainty. In C. M. Parkes, J.  Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life-cycle (pp. 77-90). London: Tavistok/Routledge.
Marris, P. (1996). The politics of uncertainty: Attachment in private and public life. London: Routledge.
*McFarland, S. G., & Adelson, S. (1996). An omnibus study of personality, values, and prejudice. Paper presented at the 19th annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Montreal, Canada.
Meloen, J. (1993). The F scale as a predictor of fascism: An overview of 40 years of authoritarianism research. In W. F. Stone, G. Lederer, & R. Christie (Eds.), Strength and weakness. The authoritarian personality today (pp. 47-69). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Mickelson, K. D., Kessler, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1092-1106.
Miller, A. (1980). Am Anfang war Erziehung. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.
*Mirisola, A., Di Stefano, G., & Falgares, G. (2004). I processi duali ideologici e pregiudiziali: Replica ed estensione del modello di Duckitt nel contesto italiano [Ideology and prejudice dual processes: A replication and extension of Duckitt’s model in Italy]. Paper presented at the 6th annual meeting of the Italian Psychological Association, Sciacca.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17‑59). San Diego: Academic Press.
Pearson, E. W., & Wilks, S. S. (1933). Methods of statistical analysis appropriate for samples of two variables. Biometrika, 25, 353-378.
Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 191-263). San Diego: Academic Press.
*Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763.
Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., Sidanius, J., & Siers, B. (1997). The gender gap in occupational role attainment: A social dominance approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 37-53.
Reich, W. (1933). Die Massenpsychologie des Faschismus. Zur Sexualoekonomie der politischen Reaktion und zur proletarischen Sexualpolitik. Copenhagen: Verlag für Sexualpolitik.
Ricolfi, L. (1999). Destra e sinistra? Studi sulla geometria dello spazio elettorale [Right and left? Studies on the geometry of the electoral space]. Torino: Omega.
Ricolfi, L. (2004). Ancora destra e sinistra? [Still right and left?] Polena, 1, 9-39.
Roccato, M. (1997). Autoritarismo de derechas y adolescencia Right-wing authoritarianism and adolescence. Psicología política, 14, 61-76.
Roccato, M. (2003). Le tendenze antidemocratiche. Psicologia sociale dell’autoritarismo Antidemocratic trends. The social psychology of authoritarianism. Torino: Einaudi.
*Roccato, M. (in press). Attachment, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation. Swiss Journal of Social Psychology.
Roccato, M., Re, M., & Sclauzero, S. (2002). Autoritarismo, nacionalismo y patriotismo. Un estudio de militantes italianos Authoritarianism, nationalism, and patriotism. A study of Italian political militants. Psicología política, 25, 21-35.
*Roccato, M. & Senestro, S. (2005). A personality and social psychology model predicting        right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Paper under review.
Roccato, M., & Tartaglia, S. (2003). Un adattamento italiano della Measure of attachment qualities di Carver The Italian adaptation of the Carver’s Measure of attachment qualities. Testing, psicometria e metodologia, 10, 65-78.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Samelson, F. (1993). The authoritarian character from Berlin to Berkeley and beyond: The odyssey of a problem. In W. F. Stone, G. Lederer, & R. Christie (Eds.), Strength and weakness. The authoritarian personality today (pp. 22-46). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Sidanius, J. (1976). Further Tests of a Swedish Scale of Conservatism. Reports from the Department of Psychology of the Stockholm University, 467, whole.
Sidanius, J., Devereux, E., & Pratto, F. (1992). A comparison of symbolic racism theory and social dominance theory as explanations for racial policy attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 377-395.
Sidanius, J., & Ekehammar, B. (1982). Sex differences in sociopolitical attitudes: A replication and extension. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 249-257.
Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (1996). Consensual social dominance orientation and its correlates within the hierarchical structure of American society. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 385-408.
Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Liu, J. H., & Pratto, F. (2000). Social dominance orientation, anti-egalitarianism and the political psychology of gender: An extension and cross-cultural replication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 41-67.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 476-490.
Smith, M. B. (1997).	“The Authoritarian Personality”: A re-review 46 years later. Political Psychology, 18, 159-163.
Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stone, W. F. (1993). Psychodynamics, cognitive functioning, or group orientation: Research and theory in the 1980s. In W. F. Stone, G. Lederer, & R. Christie (Eds.), Strength and weakness. The authoritarian personality today (pp. 159-181). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tarr, H., & Lorr, M. (1991). A comparison of right-wing authoritarianism, conformity and conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 307-311.
*Thomas, C. A., & Esses, V. M. (2004). Individual differences in reactions to sexist humor. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1, 89-100.
*Van Hiel. A., & Mervielde, I. (2002). Explaining conservative beliefs and political preferences: A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 965-976.
*Van Hiel, A., Pandelaere, M., & Duriez, B. (2004). The impact of need for closure on conservative beliefs and racism: Differential mediation by authoritarian submission and authoritarian dominance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 824-837.
*Walter, M. I., Thorpe, G. L., & Kingery, L. R. (2001). The common beliefs survey-III, the situational self-statement, and affective state inventory and their relationship to authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 19, 105-118.
*Wang. A. Y. (1999). Gender and nature: A psychological analysis of ecofeminist theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 409-423.
*Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126-134.
*Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Ægisdottir, S. (2000). The gender beliefs system, authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Sex roles, 42, 947-967.
*Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Lee, S. E. (2000). The relationship of authoritarianism and related constructs to attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 144-170.
*Zakrisson, I., & Löfstrand, P. (2002). Ethnocentrism, sdo, rwa, and perceived upbringing in Sweden. Paper presented at the 25th annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Berlin, Germany.
*Zick, A., & Petzel, P. (2002). Authoritarianism, racism and ideologies about acculturation. Groups, Politics and the Individual, 8, 41-64.

Footnotes
1 According to Duckitt (2001), South Africa should be considered as a nation with a low level of ideological contrast, because the conflict is organized as a function of ethnic groups and not of ideology. According to Duriez, Van Hiel, and Kossowska (in press), Poland is also a nation with a low level of ideological contrast, because it is not characterized by a history of democratic confrontation between parties.
2 We would like to thank Alberto Mirisola for suggesting this idea.
3 In the whole article, we calculated the 2 by means of the Pearson and Wilks (1933) homogeneity test on correlations and considered outliers participants characterized by a standard error ≥ 3.
4 In the whole article, for convenience of presentation, whenever we compared the means of more than two groups, we reported only the F tests and not the result of the post-hoc tests (Bonferroni) which we performed. The interpretation and presentation of the data, however, are based on the analysis of both the F test and the Bonferroni test.
5 In this and the following studies, given that the political position of the participants was assessed by means of an item with 10 response categories (1 = extreme left, 10 = extreme right), political extremism was calculated by means of the following formula: political extremism = 
|political position - 5.5|.
6 Forza Italia is the leading party in the Casa delle Libertà coalition. Its leader, Mr. Silvio Berlusconi, is the current Prime Minister of Italy. The word Forza! is something normally heard on the terraces of Italian football grounds. Literally translated it means ‘Come On!’, an invitation to action.
7 This analysis was performed on only 179 cases, because four of the participants did not indicate their age.

Tables
Table 1.
Correlations between RWA and SDO found in literature
Authors	Participants	Type of participants	Degree of ideological contrast of the country	r(RWA, SDO)	
Aiello, Chirumbolo, Leone, & Pratto (in press)	412 Italians	Students	Strong	.56***	
Allen, Wilson, Ng, & Dunne (2000)	138 New Zealanders	Students	Strong	.33***	
Altemeyer (1998)	354 Canadians	Students	Weak	.22 (p not reported)	
	116 Canadians 	Students	Weak	.08 (p not reported)	
	501 Canadians	Adults	Weak	.28 (p not reported)	
	482 Canadians	Adults	Weak	.18 (p not reported)	
	185 Canadians	Students	Weak	.11 (p not reported)	
	331 Canadians	Adults	Weak	.24 (p not reported)	
Chirumbolo, Leone, Areni, & Aiello (2004)	191 Italians	Students	Strong	.52***	
Duckitt (2001)	56 Canadians	Students	Weak	.19	
	53 English people 	Students	Strong	.43*	
	51 New Zealanders	Students	Strong	.54*	
	484 New Zealanders	Students	Strong	.37***	
	369 New Zealanders	Students	Strong	.40***	
	225 South Africans	White students	Weak	.21***	
Duckitt, Wagner, du Plessis, & Birum (2002)	146 US people	Students	Weak	.21*	
	233 South Africans	White students	Weak	.21**	
Duriez & Van Hiel (2002)	303 Belgians	Adults	Strong	.37***	
Duriez, Van Hiel, & Kossowska (in press)	321 Belgians 	Students	Strong	.33***	
	363 Belgians	Students	Strong	.32***	
	293 Belgians	Adults	Strong	.36***	
	175 Belgians	Adults	Strong	.24***	
	85 Belgians	Adults	Strong	.54***	
	232 Belgians	Adults	Strong	.63***	
	232 Poles	Adults	Weak	-.03	
Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje, & Zakrisson (2004)	183 Swedes	Students	Strong	.52***	
Heaven & Bucci (2001)	212 Australians	Students	Strong	.38***	
Heaven & Connors (2001)	153 Australians	Students	Strong	.29***	
Heaven & St. Quintin (2003)	174 Australians	Students	Strong	.34***	
Kilianski (2003)	121 US people	Students	Weak	.20*	
Lippa & Arad (1999)	380 US people	Students	Weak	.23***	
McFarland & Adelson (1996)	478 US people	Students	Weak	.07	
	297 US people	Adults	Weak	.21***	
Mirisola, Di Stefano, & Falgares (2004)	203 Italians	Adults	Strong	.37***	
Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle  (1994)	97 US people	Students	Weak	.14	
Roccato (in press)	353 Italians	Students	Strong	.21***	
Roccato & Senestro (2005)	427 Italians	Students	Strong	.63***	
Thomas & Esses (2004)	81 Canadians	Male students	Weak	.33**	
Van Hiel & Mervielde (2002)	381 Belgians	Adults	Strong	.48***	
Van Hiel, Pandelaere, & Duriez (2004)	399 Belgians
330 Belgians
379 Belgians	Students
Students
Adults	Strong
Strong
Strong	.44***
.37***
.56***	
Walter, Thorpe, & Kingery (2001)	109 US people	Students	Weak	.07 (test)
.19* (retest)	
Wang, A. Y. (1999)	60 US males
97 US females	Students
Students	Weak
Weak	.07
.46**	
Whitley (1999)	181 US people	Students	Weak	.14	
	182 US people	Students	Weak	.20**	
Whitley & Ægisdottir (2000)	253 Us people	Students	Weak	.32***	
Whitley & Lee (2000)	316 US people	Students	Weak	.28***	
Zakrisson & Löfstrand (2002)	226 Swedes	Students	Strong	.26***	
Zick & Petzel (1999)	190 Germans	Students	Strong	.66***	
* p <.05
** p <.01
*** p <.001

Table 2.
Comparison between the studies performed in countries characterized by strong ideological contrast and the studies performed in countries characterized by weak ideological contrast: Weighted mean correlation between RWA and SDO

	N	Weighted mean r between RWA and SDO	
Countries characterized by strong ideological contrast	7080	.42	
Countries characterized by weak ideological contrast	5513	.20	

Table 3.
Comparison between the studies performed on adults and the studies performed on students: Weighted mean correlation between RWA and SDO
	N	Weighted mean r between RWA and SDO	
Adults	3894	.33	
Students	8699	.32	

Table 4. 
Comparison between age as a function of the degree of ideological contrast in the countries in which the study was performed: Weighted mean correlation between RWA and SDO
 
	Students	Adults	
High ideological contrast	r = .41
(N = 5029)	r = .45
(N = 2051)	
Low ideological contrast	r = .20
(N = 3670)	r = .20
(N = 1843)	

Table 5.
Correlation between RWA and SDO in the political sub-samples
Party	N	Correlation	RWA: Mean	RWA: SD	SDO: Mean	SDO: SD	
Prc	40	-.05	23.12	4.84	18.50	3.20	
Ds	40	.28	23.45	6.64	30.75	6.90	
Ln	40	.79***	40.47	8.14	37.57	10.29	
An	40	.34*	41.07	4.25	38.80	6.07	
Fn	40	-.74***	44.17	10.10	44.32	11.37	
Total	200	.60***	35.06	11.08	18.50	3.20	
* p < .05
*** p < .001

Table 6. 
Correlation Between Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) in the Political Subsamples: Study 3
			RWA	SDO	
Party	N	r	M	SD	M	SD	
PRC	17	.62***	24.71	6.10	30.41	8.05	
DS	18	.58*	23.67	5.96	31.67	8.82	
FI	10	.63*	30.40	4.72	38.00	12.60	
AN	8	.36	28.12	6.06	40.37	8.91	
Minority parties	4	.75	28.00	7.79	37.75	13.65	
Not vote, blank or void ballot	62	.35*	23.77	6.24	30.33	8.90	
Total	119	.51***	24.88	6.31	32.11	9.66	
Note. PRC = Partito della Rifondazione Comunista; DS = Democratici di Sinistra; LN = Lega Nord; AN = Alleanza Nazionale
* p < .05. *** p < .001.

Table 7.
Correlation between RWA and SDO in the political sub-samples
Party	N	Correlation	RWA: Mean	RWA: SD	SDO: Mean	SDO: SD	
Prc	61	.63***	48.52	13.79	25.82	6.21	
Ds	54	.46***	48.50	14.36	26.26	5.11	
Marg	31	.76***	66.52	17.60	30.84	11.08	
Fi	20	-.42	72.80	15.92	47.20	8.61	
An	17	.22	81.94	10.86	44.82	7.85	
Total	183	.66***	57.32	18.89	30.90	10.77	
*** p < .001