This article was downloaded by: [Universite De Paris 1]

On: 06 May 2013, At: 02:05

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal for the Psychology

of Religion
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpr20

Religiosity as a Moderator of the

Relationship Between Authoritarianism
and Social Dominance Orientation: A
Cross-Cultural Comparison
a
Sabrina de Regt
a
Research Centre for Longitudinal and Life Course Studies,
University of Antwerp, Belgium
Published online: 18 Jun 2012.

To cite this article: Sabrina de Regt (2012): Religiosity as a Moderator of the Relationship Between
Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation: A Cross-Cultural Comparison, International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 22:1, 31-41

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2012.635045

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 22:31–41, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1050-8619 print/1532-7582 online
DOI: 10.1080/10508619.2012.635045

Religiosity as a Moderator of the

Relationship Between Authoritarianism
and Social Dominance Orientation:
A Cross-Cultural Comparison
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 02:05 06 May 2013

Sabrina de Regt
Research Centre for Longitudinal and Life Course Studies
University of Antwerp, Belgium

In this study, the author examines the association between authoritarianism, social dominance
orientation (SDO), and religiosity. She tested these associations in three sociopolitical contexts
(i.e., Italy, Finland, and Estonia) based on representative samples. In all three countries, religious
people were found to be more authoritarian and less socially dominant. Dallago, Cima, Roccato,
Ricolfi, and Mirisola (2008) showed that religiosity decreases the correlation between SDO and
authoritarianism in Italy. Their results are replicated in this study, using a more advanced measure
of religiosity. The author also obtained cross-cultural confirmation in Finland. In both countries, she
found hardly any relation between authoritarianism and SDO at high levels of religiosity; moderate
relations were found at moderate levels of religiosity, and strong associations were found amongst
nonreligious respondents. The association between authoritarianism and SDO was not influenced
by religiosity in Estonia, a country with a history of communism and a high secularization rate.

Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1950) developed the concept of the Author-
itarian Personality in their attempt to explain the mass support of the Nazi regime in Germany.
For a long time, authoritarianism researchers focused exclusively on those who submitted
to authoritarian regimes. More recently, scholars have been showing increasing interest in
people who seek to dominate—the possible leaders of such regimes. This tendency can be
measured in terms of “social dominance orientation” (SDO), which is defined as the extent
to which an individual desires the domination of a particular ingroup, which is considered
superior to outgroups (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). Altemeyer (2004) argued
that people who score high on both authoritarianism and SDO can pose a serious threat
to society, and therefore it is essential to study the relationship between authoritarianism

Correspondence should be sent to Sabrina de Regt, Research Centre for Longitudinal and Life Course Studies,
University of Antwerp, Sint-Jacobstraat 2, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium. E-mail: Sabrina.DeRegt@ua.ac.be

31
 32 DE REGT

and SDO. As is often the case in marriages between individuals, religious differences can
jeopardize this marriage of complementary inclinations (Altemeyer, 2004). In a study of the
moderating effect of religiosity, Dallago, Cima, Roccato, Ricolfi, and Mirisola (2008) concluded
that the relative importance of religion decreased the correlation between authoritarianism and
SDO. Their study was conducted in Italy, with a call for cross-cultural replication research.
In this study, we examine the relationship between authoritarianism, SDO, and religiosity in
multiple sociopolitical contexts. We aimed to address diversity in terms of dominant religion
(Catholicism [Italy] and Protestantism [Finland]) and secularization rate (Estonia was included
because of its high secularization rate). The selection of these countries also provides variation
in the European region. Dallago et al. (2008) stated that their assessment of religiosity is not
entirely satisfactory. In this study, we use multiple indicators to assess religiosity. Following
an overview of 40 years of authoritarianism research, Meloen (1993) concluded that authori-
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 02:05 06 May 2013

tarianism research has derived its results largely from antiauthoritarian samples (i.e., student
samples). Our analyses are based on representative samples.

AUTHORITARIANISM AND RELIGIOSITY

Many studies have examined the relationship between authoritarianism and religiosity, drawing
upon a variety of authoritarianism measurements: the Fascism Scale, the Dogmatism Scale,
and the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (e.g., Altemeyer, 1988; Photiadis & Johnson, 1963;
Rokeach, 1960). Many different kinds of religiosity measurements have been used as well.
Examples include the Religious Fundamentalism Scale (e.g., Hunsberger, 1996; Hunsberger,
Owusu, & Duck, 1999), the Christian Orthodoxy Scale (e.g., Leak & Randall, 1995; Rowatt
& Franklin, 2004), the Post-Critical Belief Scale (e.g., Duriez, 2004; Duriez & Van Hiel,
2002), the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religious Orientation Scale and the Quest Scale (e.g., Duck
& Hunsberger, 1999; Tsang & Rowatt, 2007; Wilkinson, 2004). In addition to these well-
established scales, single-item measurements have been used to assess religiosity. Examples
include preference for the Christian Democrat party (Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2002), importance
placed on religion (Roccato, 2008), church attendance (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1993), and
scripture reading (Wylie & Forest, 1992). With few exceptions (e.g., Johnson, 1977), all of
these studies report moderate to strong associations between religiosity and authoritarianism.
How can this strong connection between authoritarianism and religiosity be explained? One
reason is that submission to established authorities (e.g., parents and religious officials) is
one of the three defining components of authoritarianism. Furthermore, the conviction that
nonbelievers will be punished by God is inherent in most major religions, and it can be linked
with authoritarian aggression. Finally, most religions involve elements relating to adherence
to and defence of conventional norms and values (authoritarian conventionalism; Altemeyer,
1988).

SDO AND RELIGIOSITY

Social dominance theory distinguishes two kinds of forces in human social systems: hierarchy-
enhancing forces and hierarchy-attenuating forces. Although hierarchy-enhancing forces serve
 RELIGIOSITY AS A MODERATOR 33

to exacerbate and maintain group-based social inequality, hierarchy-attenuating forces serve to

promote greater levels of group-based social egalitarianism (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Some
parts of the New Testament (e.g., “There are last which shall be first, and there are first
which shall be last”; as cited in Sidanius & Pratto, 1999, p. 315) can be seen as hierarchy
attenuating. Not only Christian beliefs but all major world religions preach concern for the
needy and helping the poor. It might therefore be expected that people who believe in these
religions would be likely to have lower SDO scores. This is in line with Roccato (2008),
who found that SDO is significantly negatively correlated with importance of religion. In
addition, Duriez and Van Hiel (2002) reported that SDO (corrected for authoritarianism) is
positively related to External Critique (literal disaffirmation; e.g., Faith is a safety net for
human fears) and negatively related to Second Naiveté (restorative interpretation; e.g., Despite
the injustices Christianity has caused people, the message of Christ is still valuable). Most
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 02:05 06 May 2013

studies (e.g., Altemeyer, 1998, 2004; Dallago et al., 2008) report nonsignificant associations
between religiosity and SDO. Religion can also enhance hierarchy when people think that
their religion is fundamentally better than any other in the world (Altemeyer & Hunsberger,
1997). The hierarchy-attenuating and hierarchy-enhancing forces in religion could balance
each other out, and this might explain the nonsignificant relationships between SDO and
religiosity.

AUTHORITARIANISM, SDO, AND THE MODERATING ROLE

OF RELIGIOSITY

The moderating role of religion on the association between authoritarianism and SDO has
been largely unstudied. Altemeyer (2004) indirectly investigated the relation between SDO,
authoritarianism, and religiosity while studying Double Highs (i.e., people who are in the
upper quartile of the distributions of both SDO and right-wing authoritarianism [RWA]).
Double Highs appeared significantly more religious than other High SDOs, although they
were significantly less religious than were ordinary High RWAs. Dallago et al. (2008) directly
studied the moderating role of religiosity on the correlation between SDO and authoritarianism.
They found that authoritarianism weakly predicted SDO at high levels of religion importance,
moderately at medium level of religious importance and strongly at low levels of religion
importance.

METHODS

Data
We use data from the third wave of the European Values Study (EVS) to examine the moderating
role of religiosity on the association between SDO and authoritarianism. The EVS provides data
concerning the attitudes of citizens throughout Europe regarding such topics as religion, politics,
solidarity, family, work, and morality. The EVS data are based upon national representative
samples. Surveys are performed through face-to-face interviews (conducted by professional
 34 DE REGT

survey organizations) with adult citizens of 18 years of age and older. Mean age in Italy was
45.28 years (SD D 16.89), in Finland was 44.69 years (SD D 17.93), and in Estonia was
45.34 years (SD D 17.25). More information on the translation processes, sampling procedure,
fieldwork, and weighting is presented in Halman and Abela (2001) and on the website of the
European Values Study (http://www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu). The expectation-maximization
algorithm (Schafer, 1997) was used to impute missing values (the mean percentage missing
values was 2.51 in Italy, 2.88 in Finland, and 6.54 in Estonia; the greatest percentage of missing
values was 14.4 for the item “justify euthanasia” in Estonia). In this study, the relation between
authoritarianism, SDO, and religiosity is examined for Italy (n D 1,847), Finland (n D 898),
and Estonia (n D 810).
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 02:05 06 May 2013

Measurements
Authoritarianism. The EVS authoritarianism measurement is based upon the theoretical
model of Altemeyer’s (1981) RWA scale (three clusters: conventionalism, authoritarian sub-
mission, and authoritarian aggression), as this is considered the best current measure of that
which the Authoritarian Personality researchers attempt to measure (Christie, 1991, p. 552).
Whether people think that homosexuality, abortion, divorce, euthanasia, and having casual
sex are justified (on a scale of 1 meaning never to 10 meaning always) is used to measure
the conventionalism cluster of authoritarianism. The authoritarian submission and aggression
clusters are measured by items concerning whether individuals should always respect and
love their parents (with 1 meaning agree and 2 meaning disagree), whether obedience is an
important quality that children should learn at home (with 1 meaning mentioned and 0 meaning
not mentioned), whether greater respect for authority in the near future is a good thing (with
1 meaning good and 3 meaning bad), and whether people consider it good to have a strong
leader who need not bother with parliament and elections (on a scale from 1 meaning very
good to 4 meaning bad). All of these items are recoded, with high score indicating authoritarian
responses. De Regt, Smits, and Mortelmans (2010) showed that the EVS authoritarianism scale
correlated substantially with both the Fascism and the RWA scales. The three authoritarianism
scales were also comparable related to external variables, and they had comparable levels of
internal consistency. In this study, the alpha scores for authoritarianism are ˛ D .73 (Italy),
˛ D .71 (Finland), and ˛ D .66 (Estonia).

SDO. The following six EVS items are used to measure SDO, which expresses the value
that people place on nonegalitarian and hierarchically structured relationships among social
groups:

1. When jobs are scarce, employers should give priority to native people over immigrants
(responses of 1 for agree, 2 for disagree, and 3 for neither).
2. Eliminating major inequalities in income between citizens is important for a just society
(measured on a scale from 1 meaning very important to 5 meaning not at all important).
3. It is important for a just society to guarantee that basic needs are met for all, in terms of
food, housing, clothes, education, and health (on a scale from 1 meaning very important
to 5 meaning not at all important).
 RELIGIOSITY AS A MODERATOR 35

TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Authoritarianism, SDO, and Religiosity in Italy,
Finland, and Estonia

M (SD) 1 2

Italy 1. Authoritarianism 6.09 (1.75)

2. SDO 2.50 (0.62) .115**
3. Religiosity 6.93 (2.47) .489** .090**
Finland 1. Authoritarianism 5.53 (1.73)
2. SDO 2.73 (0.62) .079*
3. Religiosity 5.17 (2.50) .465** .206**
Estonia 1. Authoritarianism 6.02 (1.54)
2. SDO 2.76 (0.61) .086**
3. Religiosity 3.74 (2.32) .250** .210**
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 02:05 06 May 2013

Note. Authoritarianism (1–10), social dominance orientation (SDO; 1–5), religiosity (1–10).
*p < .05 and **p < .01.

4. The extent to which people feel concerned about the living conditions of unemployed
people in their country.
5. The extent to which people feel concerned about the living conditions of immigrants in
their country (both on a scale from 1 meaning very much to 5 meaning not at all ).
6. Whether people would be willing to take concrete action to improve the conditions of
immigrants in their country (on a scale from 1 meaning absolutely yes to 5 meaning
absolutely no).

The EVS SDO scale has also proven to correlate substantially with the scales normally used
to measure SDO (see Pratto et al., 1994, for information on those scales). Furthermore, the
statistical correlation of the EVS SDO scale with criterion variables was equal to that of the
other SDO scales, and it is reasonably reliable (de Regt et al., 2010). The alpha scores for
SDO are ˛ D .61 (Italy), ˛ D .59 (Finland), and ˛ D .54 (Estonia). These alpha scores are
lower than those that are usually reported for SDO. This is due to the lower number of items
in this scale. Jugert and Duckitt (2009) also reported an alpha of .61 for six SDO items.

Religiosity. Religiosity is multidimensional, and its measurement is subject to controversy.

In this study, we focus on religious commitment, which is measured according to the importance
of religion in life, the importance of God in life, the frequency of attending religious services,
and the frequency of praying outside religious services.1 Other studies (e.g., Eisenstein, 2006;
Olson & Warber, 2008) also combine religious salience, frequency of attendance, and frequency
of personal prayer to measure religious commitment. These items form a reliable measure of
religiosity in Italy (˛ D .87), Finland (˛ D .86), and Estonia (˛ D .84). Means and standard
deviations of authoritarianism, SDO, and religiosity are displayed in Table 1.

1
Because religiosity scholars disagree regarding the measurement of this concept, we replicate all of the analyses
with different operationalizations. This did not alter the conclusions reported in this article. The results are available
from the author upon request.
 36 DE REGT

TABLE 2
Regression of SDO on Authoritarianism, Religiosity, and
Authoritarianism  Religiosity in Italy, Finland, and Estonia

Beta Part Correlation

Italy AUT .186** .162

Religiosity .218** .185
AUT  Religiosity .141** .134
Finland AUT .190** .168
Religiosity .283** .251
AUT  Religiosity .184** .184
Estonia AUT .033 .032
Religiosity .171** .159
AUT  Religiosity .053 .051
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 02:05 06 May 2013

Note. Predictors are mean-centered; AUT D authoritarianism;

*p < .05 and **p < .01.

RESULTS

Italy
Italy was chosen to replicate the findings of Dallago and colleagues (2008), using a more
advanced measure of religiosity. About 82% of the Italian respondents indicated that they
belonged to a religious denomination. Almost all of those 82% belonged to the Roman Catholic
Church. As expected, authoritarianism and religious commitment are positively correlated (see
Table 1), indicating that religious people are more authoritarian. Furthermore, we see that
religious persons are significantly less socially dominant.
We subsequently examined whether religious commitment moderates the positive significant
correlation between SDO and authoritarianism. We conducted hierarchical multiple regres-
sion, entering authoritarianism and religiosity in Step 1 and the interaction term between
authoritarianism and religiosity in Step 2. The interaction term between authoritarianism and
religiosity is significantly negative (see Table 2), indicating that the association between SDO
and authoritarianism is lower for religious people than it is for less religious people. Adding
the interaction term between authoritarianism and religiosity resulted in a significant increase
in the R2 (F D 35.4, p < .001). As shown in Figure 1, we plotted simple regression equations
(Aiken & West, 1991) in order to visualize the moderating effect of religion. Following Cohen
and Cohen (1983), Low Religiosity was assigned a value of 1 SD, Medium Religiosity was
valued at 0 SD, and High Religiosity was valued at C1 SD. The results show that the association
between SDO and authoritarianism is stronger for nonreligious people than it is for moderately
religious and highly religious people. These outcomes replicate the results of Dallago et al.
(2008).

Finland
In Italy, most respondents belonged to the Roman Catholic Church. It is interesting to examine
the role of religiosity in a country with another dominant religion. In Finland, the majority
 RELIGIOSITY AS A MODERATOR 37
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 02:05 06 May 2013

FIGURE 1 Moderating effect of religiosity on the association between authoritarianism (AUT) and social
dominance orientation (SDO) in Italy.

of people (83%) belong to a Protestant denomination. Research indicates the existence of

differences between Catholics and Protestants regarding authoritarianism. Studies by Rokeach
(1960) and by Knöpfelmacher and Armstrong (1963) reported higher levels of authoritarian-
ism among Catholics than among Protestants. This could reflect the hierarchically organized
character of Roman Catholic institutions. Table 1 displays comparable results for Finland and
Italy. Religious people in Finland are also significantly more authoritarian and significantly
less socially dominant.
As in Italy, being religious also moderates the correlation between authoritarianism and SDO
in Finland (see Table 2). The relationship between authoritarianism and SDO is significantly
lower for religious people than it is for less religious people. The R2 value increased significantly
after adding the interaction term between authoritarianism and religiosity in Step 2 (F D
33.63, p < .001). Figure 2 also shows that there is hardly any correlation between SDO and
authoritarianism for highly religious persons, with moderate correlations at medium levels
of religiosity. At low levels of religiosity, authoritarianism is a strong predictor of SDO.
These results provide cross-cultural confirmation of the proposition advanced by Dallago and
colleagues (2008) regarding the moderating role of religiosity.

Estonia
Estonia was chosen because of its high rate of secularization (i.e., the large number of people
who do not belong to any religious denomination). In this country, 75% of the respondents
indicated that they did not belong to any religious denomination. As shown in Table 1,
religiosity is accompanied by authoritarianism in Estonia. The table also shows a significant
negative correlation between SDO and religiosity. It is interesting to note that, although we
found positive correlations between authoritarianism and SDO in the other countries, the
correlation in Estonia is negative. Authoritarian people in Estonia dislike structural inequality
between groups. This is in line with other authors (e.g., Krauss, 2002; McFarland, Ageyev,
 38 DE REGT
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 02:05 06 May 2013

FIGURE 2 Moderating effect of religiosity on the association between authoritarianism (AUT) and social
dominance orientation (SDO) in Finland.

& Djintcharadze, 1996), who reported positive associations between authoritarianism and
support of communist principles. This can be explained with Altemeyer’s (1996) argument that
authoritarian people adhere to the conventional norms in society, independent of the specific
content of those norms.
Although the current bivariate relationships of religiosity with SDO and authoritarianism are
consistent with earlier results, this is not true for the moderating role of religiosity. As shown in
Table 2, the relationship between SDO and authoritarianism is not weaker for religious people
than it is for less religious people in Estonia. The change in the R2 value was not significant
when entering the interaction term between authoritarianism and religiosity (F D 2.17, p >
.05). (See Figure 3.)

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In this study, we have examined the relationship between authoritarianism, SDO, and religiosity
in three countries, based upon representative samples with a satisfying operationalization of
religiosity. The results concerning the association between religiosity and authoritarianism
are consistent with previous studies: Being more religious is associated with higher levels of
authoritarian attitudes. The results regarding SDO and religiosity were not completely consistent
with existing evidence. We found that, in all three countries, religious people were significantly
less socially dominant. Although some studies (e.g., Duriez & Van Hiel, 2002; Roccato, 2008)
have also reported negative associations between SDO and religiosity, most find no correlation
between SDO and religiosity. As suggested previously, this could be an artifact of the student
samples upon which most studies are based; in many cases, these samples are too homogenous
(and often too small) to detect real associations. If we recalculate the correlation between
SDO and religiosity based solely upon the students in our sample (who had completed at
 RELIGIOSITY AS A MODERATOR 39
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 02:05 06 May 2013

FIGURE 3 Moderating effect of religiosity on the association between authoritarianism (AUT) and social
dominance orientation (SDO) in Estonia.

least university-preparatory secondary school) we also find nonsignificant correlations (Italy,

n D 125, r D .02, p > .05; Finland, n D 81, r D .07, p > .05; and Estonia, n D 36,
r D .27, p > .05). Our results replicate the findings of Dallago et al. (2008) with regard to
the moderating role of religiosity in Italy. Cross-cultural confirmation of this hypothesis was
also obtained in Finland, which is predominantly Protestant, in contrast to the predominantly
Catholic population of Italy. Despite these supportive results, the moderating role of religiosity
on the correlation between SDO and authoritarianism is apparently not a universal truth. In
Estonia, with its high secularization rate and history of communism, the relationship between
SDO and authoritarianism is not influenced by religious commitment.
This study is based on representative samples of multiple sociopolitical contexts and an
accurate measure of religiosity. It nevertheless has several disadvantages. Because our anal-
yses are based upon secondary data, we did not employ the commonly used measurements.
Furthermore, the internal consistency coefficients for the SDO scales were low. Based upon
previous research (de Regt et al., 2010), which showed that the EVS authoritarianism and SDO
are substantially correlated with the classic scales for measuring these constructs and that the
EVS scales have a comparable predictive validity and internal consistency, we believe that the
results reported in this study can be generalized with confidence.
Most measures of authoritarianism contain items that directly refer to religion (e.g., the
con-trait RWA item: Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions
are certainly just as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly). Although
some authors (e.g., Canetti-Nisim, 2004; Canetti-Nisim & Beit-Hallahmi, 2007) exclude items
referring to religion, most estimated the correlation between religiosity and authoritarianism by
including these religion items in their measurement of authoritarianism. This logically results
in spuriously high correlations. Items with special reference to religion were not included in
the authoritarianism measure used in this study. Without this overlap between items, this study
offers more convincing evidence of a positive relation between authoritarianism and religiosity
(and its moderating role).
 40 DE REGT

This article reveals cross-cultural variation in the moderating role of religiosity on the
relationship between authoritarianism and SDO. Although religiosity reduced the association
between SDO and authoritarianism in both a Catholic and a Protestant country, religiosity did
not moderate the relationship in a country with a high rate of secularization. Future research
should include an explicit assessment of whether the high secularization rate can explain the
distinct results observed in Estonia. Other possible explanations (e.g., history of communism,
current economic situation) should be considered as well in order to advance the understanding
of the relationship between authoritarianism, SDO, and religiosity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 02:05 06 May 2013

I thank the reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments on an earlier version of this
article.

REFERENCES

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New
York, NY: Harper.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Altemeyer, B. (Ed.). (1996). The authoritarian spectre. Cambridge, MA: 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, CA: Academic Press.
Altemeyer, B. (2004). Highly dominating, highly authoritarian personalities. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144,
421–447.
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1993). Reply to Gorsuch. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion,
3(1), 33–37.
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1997). Amazing conversions. Why some turn to faith and others abandon religion.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
Canetti-Nisim, D. (2004). The effect of religiosity on endorsement of democratic values: The mediating influence of
authoritarianism. Political Behavior, 26, 377–398.
Canetti-Nisim, D., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2007). Effects of authoritarianism, religiosity, and “New Age” beliefs on
support for democracy: Unraveling the strands. Review of Religious Research, 48, 369–384.
Christie, R. (1991). Authoritarianism and related constructs. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman
(Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 501–571). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analyses for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Dallago, F., Cima, R., Roccato, M., Ricolfi, L., & Mirisola, A. (2008). The correlation between right-wing author-
itarianism and social dominance orientation: The moderating effects of political and religious identity. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 30, 362–368.
de Regt, S., Smits, T., & Mortelmans, D. (2010). On cross-national variation in the correlation between authoritarianism
and social dominance orientation. Politics, Culture and Socialization, 1, 311–322.
Duck, R. J., & Hunsberger, B. (1999). Religious orientation and prejudice: the role of religious proscription, right-wing
authoritarianism, and social desirability. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9, 157–179.
Duriez, B. (2004). A research note on the relation between religiosity and racism: The importance of the way in which
religious contents are being processed. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14, 177–191.
 RELIGIOSITY AS A MODERATOR 41

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.
Eisenstein, M. A. (2006). Rethinking the relationship between religion and political tolerance in the US. Political
Behavior, 28, 327–348.
Halman, L., & Abela, A. M. (2001). The European Values Study: A third wave. Source book of the 1999/2000 European
Values Study surveys. Tilburg, the Netherlands: EVS, WORC, Tilburg University.
Hunsberger, B. (1996). Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and hostility toward homosexuals in
non-Christian religious groups. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 6(1), 39–49.
Hunsberger, B., Owusu, V., & Duck, R. (1999). Religion and prejudice in Ghana and Canada: religious fundamentalism,
right-wing authoritarianism, and attitudes toward homosexuals and women. The International Journal for the
Psychology of Religion, 9, 181–194.
Johnson, D. P. (1977). Religious commitment, social distance, and authoritarianism. Review of Religious Research, 18,
99–113.
Jugert, P., & Duckitt, J. (2009). A motivational model of authoritarianism: Integrating personal and situational
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 02:05 06 May 2013

determinants. Political Psychology, 30, 693–719.

Knöpfelmacher, F., & Armstrong, D. B. (1963). Authoritarianism, ethnocentrism and religious denomination. American
Catholic Sociological Review, 24, 99–114.
Krauss, W. (2002). Romanian authoritarianism 10 years after communism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
28, 1255–1264.
Leak, G. K., & Randall, B. A. (1995). Clarification of the link between right-wing authoritarianism and religiousness:
The role of religious maturity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34, 245–252.
McFarland, S. G., Ageyev, V. S., & Djintcharadze, N. (1996). Russian authoritarianism two years after communism.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 210–217.
Meloen, J. (1993). The F scale as 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, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Olson, L. R., & Warber, A. L. (2008). Belonging, behaving, and believing - Assessing the role of religion on presidential
approval. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 192–204.
Photiadis, J. D., & Johnson, A. L. (1963). Orthodoxy, church participation, and authoritarianism. American Journal of
Sociology, 69, 244–248.
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.
Roccato, M. (2008). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and attachment: An Italian study. Swiss
Journal of Psychology, 67, 219–229.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind: investigations into the source of beliefs systems and personality
systems. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Rowatt, W. C., & Franklin, L. M. (2004). Christian orthodoxy, religious fundamentalism, and right-wing authori-
tarianism as predictors of implicit racial prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14,
125–138.
Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tsang, J.-A., & Rowatt, W. C. (2007). The relationship between religious orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and
implicit sexual prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17, 99–120.
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.
Wilkinson, W. W. (2004). Religiosity, authoritarianism, and homophobia: A multidimensional approach. The Interna-
tional Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14(1), 55–67.
Wylie, L., & Forest, J. (1992). Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism and prejudice. Psychological
Reports, 71, 1291–1298.