uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 34 of 34
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Akrami, Nazar
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Decomposing prejudice: Identifying the basis of personality-prejudice relations2010Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Abstract: In two studies, aimed to examine the concept of generalized prejudice and the relationship between personality and prejudice, we found that attitudes toward various national and ethnic groups including a fictitious, an unknown, and a well-known group were significantly correlated (Study 1, N = 113). In Study 2 (N = 861), we found significant intercorrelations between four types of prejudice. More important, we made a theoretical and a statistical distinction between an abstract and a group-specific component of prejudice and found that personality variables explained a substantial proportion of the variance of the abstract part but a very small share of the group-specific component. The findings support the existence of a generalized prejudice tendency and a substantial relationship between personality and prejudice, and show that personality is related to prejudice at an abstract rather than specific level. The outcome is discussed in the light of the personality and social psychological explanations of prejudice.

  • 2.
    Akrami, Nazar
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Category and Stereotype Activation Revisited: The Intimate Relation between Category and Stereotypes2004In: The 6th European Social Cognition Network Meeting, Lisboa, Portugal, 2004Conference paper (Other scientific)
    Abstract [en]

    In Study 1 (N = 230), we found that the participants’ explicit prejudice was not related to their knowledge of cultural stereotypes of immigrants in Sweden, and that they associated the social category immigrants with the same national/ethnic categories. In Study 2 (N = 88), employing the category and stereotype words obtained in Study 1 as primes, we examined whether participants with varying degrees of explicit prejudice differed in their automatic stereotyping and implicit prejudice when primed with category or stereotypical words. In accord with our hypothesis, and contrary to previous findings, the results showed that people’s explicit prejudice did not affect their automatic stereotyping and implicit prejudice, neither in the category nor stereotype activation condition. Study 3 (N = 62), employing category priming using facial photographs of Swedes and Immigrants as primes, showed that participants’ implicit prejudice was not moderated by their explicit prejudice. The outcome is discussed in relation to previous research, the distinction between category and stereotype activation, and in terms of the associative strength between a social category and its related stereotypes.

  • 3.
    Akrami, Nazar
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology. Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology. Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Ethnic Prejudice: A Matter of Personality or Social Psychology?2005In: 9th European Congress of Psychology, Granada, Spain., 2005Conference paper (Other (popular scientific, debate etc.))
  • 4.
    Akrami, Nazar
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Explaining Prejudice by Personality: Misleading and Inappropriate?2006In: 13th European Conference on Personality, Athens, Greece., 2006Conference paper (Other (popular scientific, debate etc.))
    Abstract [en]

    Previous research has, almost only, examined prejudice from either a personality or a social psychology perspective with results favoring the one or the other. In five correlational or experimental studies (N = 379, 182, 80, 139, and 148, respectively), the present paper integrates these perspectives. Specifically, we examine whether personality (Big-Five factors, social dominance orientation, and right-wing authoritarianism), or social psychology (group membership, group identification, and contextual factors), or an integration of both is the best way of explaining prejudice. Results from causal modeling and multiple regression analyses showed that a joint personality and social psychology model outperformed the personality-only and the social-psychology-only models. The findings emphasize the importance of integrating various approaches and disciplines to explain psychological phenomena in general and prejudice in particular.

  • 5.
    Akrami, Nazar
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Personality Scale Response Latencies as Self-Schema Indicators: A New Look2004In: The VII European Conference on Psychological Assessment: Malaga, Spain, April 1-4, 2004., 2004Conference paper (Other scientific)
    Abstract [en]

    In the present study (N = 156) we examined the relation between participants’ responses and response latencies to the Big Five personality inventory. Extending previous research, we examined whether the relation between participants’ response latencies (regarded as self-schema indicators) for items of a specific personality trait and their position on that trait is characterised by a linear or curvilinear (quadratic, cubic) trend. Polynomial regression analyses showed consistent support for a quadratic (curvilinear) relation between participants’ positions on the personality traits and their response latencies. Participants scoring high or low on a trait responded faster than those scoring around the mean. This pattern of results lends support to the notion that the relation between personality trait levels and response latencies is characterised by an inverted-U effect. The results are discussed in the light of previous research employing other approaches to examining the self-schema evidence. Further, the potential of using response latency (self-schema) data to improve precision in personality assessment and prediction is discussed.

  • 6.
    Akrami, Nazar
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology. Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology. Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Prejudice: A question of personality or social psychology, or both?2005In: International Journal of Psychology, ISSN 0020-7594, Vol. 39, no 5-6, p. 380-Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The present paper focuses on the personality and the social psychology approaches to explaining prejudice. In Study 1, examining the relation between Big-Five basic personality and generalised prejudice (a factor based on ethnic prejudice, sexism, homophobia, and negative attitudes to mentally disabled people), we found Openness to experience and Agreeableness to be the only basic personality variables to be related to generalised prejudice. In Study 2, in addition to basic personality and generalised prejudice we included Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and examined various causal models of the relationships among these variables. The best-fitting causal model showed that basic personality had no direct effect on generalised prejudice but an indirect effect transmitted through RWA and SDO. Study 3 examined whether prejudice (sexism) is better explained by personality variables (Big-Five, SDO, and RWA) or social group membership (gender). Based on the outcome of Study 2, causal models were proposed and tested. The results showed that the best causal model to explain prejudice was the one that included the personality as well as social group membership variables. This outcome, also supported by multiple regression analyses, suggests that an integration of the personality and the social psychology approaches to explaining prejudicial beliefs would be the best option. The findings in the three studies are discussed against the background of recent research based on the personality and social psychology approaches to the study of prejudice.

  • 7.
    Akrami, Nazar
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Prejudice: Its Personality and Social Psychology Components2004In: The 28th International Congress of Psychology, Beijing, China, 2004Conference paper (Other scientific)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper focuses on the personality and social psychology approaches to explaining prejudice. We examined whether prejudice (sexism) is better explained by personality (Big-Five factors, Social dominance orientation, and Right-wing authoritarianism) or social group membership (gender). Based on our previous research, alternative causal models were compared. The results showed that the best-fitting causal model to explain prejudice was the one that included the personality as well as social group membership variables. This outcome, also supported by multiple regression analyses, suggests that an integration of the personality and the social psychology approaches to explaining prejudicial beliefs would be the best option.

  • 8.
    Akrami, Nazar
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation: Their roots in big five personality factors and facets2006In: Journal of Individual Differences, Vol. 27, p. 117-126Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Extending previous research on the relation of Big-Five personality with right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, we examined the relationships of Big Five facet scores rather than factor scores. The results (N = 332) of stepwise regression analyses showed that Openness to Experience was the only significant predictor of RWA on factor level, whereas Values and Ideas were significant predictors on facet level. A similar analysis of SDO showed that Agreeableness and Openness to Experience contributed significantly to the prediction on factor level, whereas Tender-Mindedness and Values were the best significant predictors on facet level. The prediction based on facet scores showed to be more accurate that the prediction based on factor scores. A random split of the sample confirmed the robustness of the findings. The results are discussed against the background of the personality and the social psychology approaches to explaining individual differences in prejudice.

  • 9.
    Akrami, Nazar
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology. Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology. Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    The association between implicit and explicit prejudice: The moderating role of motivation to control prejudiced reactions.2005In: Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, ISSN 0036-5564, Vol. 46, no 4, p. 361-366Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 10.
    Akrami, Nazar
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    Bergh, Robin
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Decomposing prejudice: Identifying the basis of personality-prejudice relations2010Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 11.
    Akrami, Nazar
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    Bergh, Robin
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Decomposing prejudice: Identifying the Basis of Personality-Prejudice Relations2010Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 12.
    Akrami, Nazar
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    Bergh, Robin
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Generalized prejudice: Common and specific components2011In: Psychological Science, ISSN 0956-7976, E-ISSN 1467-9280, Vol. 22, no 1, p. 57-59Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 13.
    Akrami, Nazar
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Claesson, Malin
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Neuroscience.
    Sonnander, Karin
    Classical and modern prejudice: attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities.2006In: Research in Developmental Disabilities, ISSN 0891-4222, E-ISSN 1873-3379, Vol. 27, no 6, p. 605-617Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In two studies, we examine whether attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities, like sexism and racism, consist of two forms – a classical and a modern, where the classical is overt and blatant and the modern is more subtle and covert. Self-report scales tapping these two forms were developed in Study 1. Based on confirmatory factor analyses, the results in Study 1 supported our hypothesis and revealed that the modern and classical forms are correlated but distinguishable. This outcome was replicated in Study 2. Construct and discriminatory validations of the scales provided further support for the distinction. The theoretical and practical importance of the results is discussed in relation to previous research on attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities and other social outgroups.

  • 14.
    Akrami, Nazar
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Shrestha, Amendra
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Mathematics and Computer Science, Department of Information Technology, Computer Systems.
    Berggren, Mathias
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Kaati, Lisa
    Swedish Defense Research Agency.
    Obaidi, Milan
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Cohen, Katie
    Swedish Defense Research Agency.
    Assessment of risk in written communication: Introducing the Profile Risk Assessment Tool (PRAT)2018Report (Other academic)
  • 15.
    Bayat, Jari Taghavi
    et al.
    Karolinska Inst, Dept Dent Med, Huddinge, Sweden.
    Huggare, Jan
    Karolinska Inst, Dept Dent Med, Huddinge, Sweden.
    Akrami, Nazar
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Distinguishing between global and dental self-esteem in evaluating malocclusions2019In: Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, ISSN 0001-6357, E-ISSN 1502-3850, Vol. 77, no 6, p. 452-456Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Objective: When dealing with the impact of malocclusion on self-esteem, the terms global and dental self-esteem are sometimes used. Although these terms are related to one another, they do not depict the same concept. The aims of this paper were to explore if the two forms of self-esteem are distinguishable, to find out if they represent different factors, and to investigate how they are related to malocclusion. Materials and methods: A sample consisting of 150 adolescents, aged 13 years, completed self-assessed measures of Dental and Global Self-Esteem. Orthodontic treatment need for each individual was assessed by the Dental Health Component of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN-DHC). Data were analysed by factor analyses and a 5 (IOTN-DHC grades) by 2 (global vs. dental self-esteem) ANOVA, with the IOTN-DHC grades as the independent and self-esteem (repeated measure) as the dependent variables. Results: The factor analyses showed that the two forms of self-esteem, based on the measures, are distinguishable. More importantly, the results of the ANOVA revealed that Dental and Global Self-Esteem are differentially related to IOTN-DHC. Specifically, Dental Self-Esteem varied across IOTN-DHC scale while Global Self-Esteem did not. There was no effect of gender. Conclusions: Dental self-esteem is related to malocclusion while global self-esteem is not. These findings have implications in areas where the predictive power of dental self-esteem needs to be considered.

  • 16.
    Bayat, Jari Taghavi
    et al.
    Karolinska Inst, Dept Dent Med, Div Orthodont, SE-14104 Huddinge, Sweden.
    Huggare, Jan
    Karolinska Inst, Dept Dent Med, Div Orthodont, SE-14104 Huddinge, Sweden.
    Mohlin, Bengt
    Univ Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska Acad, Inst Odontol, Dept Orthodont, Gothenburg, Sweden.
    Akrami, Nazar
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Determinants of orthodontic treatment need and demand: a cross-sectional path model study2017In: European Journal of Orthodontics, ISSN 0141-5387, E-ISSN 1460-2210, Vol. 39, no 1, p. 85-91Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Objectives: To put forward a model predicting orthodontic treatment need and demand. Furthermore, to explore how much of the variance in treatment demand could be explained by a set of self-assessed measures, and how these measures relate to professionally assessed treatment need. Subjects and methods: One hundred and fifty adolescents, aged 13 years, completed a questionnaire which included a set of self-assessed measures dealing with self-esteem, such as dental and global self-esteem, various aspects of malocclusion, such as perceived malocclusion and perceived functional limitation, and treatment demand. Treatment need was assessed by Dental Health Component of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need grading. Path analysis was used to examine the relations between the measures and if they could predict treatment need and demand. Results: The measures proved to be reliable and inter-correlated. Path analysis revealed that the proposed model had good fit to the data, providing a test of the unique effect of all included measures on treatment need and demand. The model explained 33% of the variance in treatment demand and 22% of the variance in treatment need. Limitations: The specific age group could affect the generalizability of the findings. Moreover, although showing good fit to data, the final model is based on a combination of theoretical reasoning and semi-explorative approach. Conclusions: The proposed model displays the unique effect of each included measure on treatment need and demand, explaining a large proportion of the variance in perceived treatment demand and professionally assessed treatment need. The model would hopefully lead to improved and more cost-efficient predictions of treatment need and demand.

  • 17.
    Bergh, Robin
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Akrami, Nazar
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Ethnocentric Personality: A 60-Year Old Myth?Article in journal (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    After World War II, researchers began searching for a prejudiced personality. This inquiry relied, and still relies, on interrelations between prejudice toward different targets (generalized prejudice) and correlations with ideology and personality variables. The conventional wisdom here became that some people are systematically more biased toward all outgroups (ethnocentrism). However, it is not conclusive that generalized prejudice reflect outgroup biases. For example, Gays and overweight people could be targeted by prejudice alike because they are minorities, not because they are outgroups. Based on three experiments employing the minimal group paradigm, this paper provides the first direct test of the ethnocentric personality assumption. We found that personality (Agreeableness & Openness to Experience) only accounted for a small share of the variance in ethnocentrism but, in line with previous research, a large share in generalized prejudice. We propose a re-evaluating the ethnocentric personality notion and a distinction between ethnocentrism and generalized prejudice.

  • 18.
    Bergh, Robin
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Akrami, Nazar
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Social identity and prejudiced personality2010Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 19.
    Bergh, Robin
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Akrami, Nazar
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    The Compatibility of Personality and Social Identity Processes: The Effect of Gender Identity on Neuroticism2012In: European Journal of Personality, ISSN 0890-2070, E-ISSN 1099-0984, Vol. 26, no 3, p. 175-181Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In an experimental study (N?=?186), we examined the effect of identity (gender versus personal) on participants' self-rated neuroticism and estimates of mean neuroticism for men and women. Self-rated neuroticism was measured before and after the identity salience manipulation. Following self-categorization theory, we predicted that identity salience would affect levels of self-rated neuroticism and the estimates (perceptions) of mean neuroticism for each sex. From a personality perspective, we expected substantial correlations between pre-manipulation and post-manipulation neuroticism scores in both identity conditions. The relation between participants' self-rated neuroticism and their estimates of mean neuroticism for their own sex was also examined. The effect of identity salience was unclear with regard to self-rated neuroticism levels, whereas the manipulation had apparent effects on estimated mean neuroticism levels for men and women. Also, self-rated neuroticism was found to predict estimates of mean neuroticism for men and women in the gender, but not personal, identity condition. Finally, in line with a personality perspective, the relative positions in self-rated neuroticism were highly stable in both conditions. The findings indicate a compatibility of self-categorization theory and personality perspectives and suggest that both are valuable to understand the changeability and stability of the self.

  • 20.
    Bergh, Robin
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Akrami, Nazar
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    Stockholm Univ, Dept Psychol, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden.
    The Personality Underpinnings of Explicit and Implicit Generalized Prejudice2012In: Social Psychology and Personality Science, ISSN 1948-5506, E-ISSN 1948-5514, Vol. 3, no 5, p. 614-621Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The idea of prejudice as a tendency that can be generalized from one target to another and the personality–prejudice relationship have been widely examined using explicit measures. However, less is known about this tendency and its relation to personality for implicit prejudice measures, like the implicit association test (IAT). Three studies including explicit and corresponding implicit prejudice measures toward various target groups confirmed a generalized factor for both types of measures with a stronger common component for the explicit factor. Personality was significantly related to the explicit measures only. Also, the personality and prejudice measures were unrelated to explicit and implicit attitudes toward an irrelevant target which rules out potential method confound. These results indicate that explicit and implicit prejudice measures tap different psychological constructs relating differently to the individual’s self-reported personality. The findings have implications for the debate on whether IAT scores reflect personally endorsed attitudes.

  • 21.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Akrami, Nazar
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Personality and Prejudice: From Big-Five Personality Factors to Facets2006In: 13th European Conference on Personality, Athens, Greece, 2006Conference paper (Other (popular scientific, debate etc.))
    Abstract [en]

    Extending our previous research on the relation between personality and prejudice, we examined, in two studies, the predictive power of Big Five facet scores instead of factor scores using the NEO-PI-R. In Study 1, our results showed that 18 facets were significantly correlated with generalized prejudice – a composite of ethnic prejudice, sexism, homophobia, and prejudice toward people with intellectual disabilities. Stepwise regression analyses showed that the prediction based on facet scores was significantly stronger than that based on factor scores with Agreeableness (A) and Openness (O) as the strongest factor predictors and with Tender-Mindedness (A) and Values (O) as the strongest facet predictors. In Study 2, we tested the robustness of the findings in Study 1 and examined one specific type of prejudice – sexism. The results were quite in line with those of Study 1 and showed that the prediction of sexism based on facet scores was stronger than that based on factor scores. The results are discussed against the background of previous research on the relationship between personality and prejudice, and in the context of the two major approaches to explaining individual differences in prejudice – the personality and the social psychology approach.

  • 22.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Akrami, Nazar
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Prejudice: A Question of Personality or Social Psychology, or Both?2004Conference paper (Other scientific)
    Abstract [en]

    The present paper focuses on the personality and the social psychology approaches to explaining prejudice. In Study 1, examining the relation between Big-Five basic personality and generalised prejudice (a factor based on ethnic prejudice, sexism, homophobia, and negative attitudes to mentally disabled people), we found Openness to experience and Agreeableness to be the only basic personality variables to be related to generalised prejudice. In Study 2, in addition to basic personality and generalised prejudice we included Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and examined various causal models of the relationships among these variables. The best-fitting causal model showed that basic personality had no direct effect on generalised prejudice but an indirect effect transmitted through RWA and SDO. Study 3 examined whether prejudice (sexism) is better explained by personality variables (Big-Five, SDO, and RWA) or social group membership (gender). Based on the outcome of Study 2, causal models were proposed and tested. The results showed that the best causal model to explain prejudice was the one that included the personality as well as social group membership variables. This outcome, also supported by multiple regression analyses, suggests that an integration of the personality and the social psychology approaches to explaining prejudicial beliefs would be the best option. The findings in the three studies are discussed against the background of recent research based on the personality and social psychology approaches to the study of prejudice.

  • 23.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Akrami, Nazar
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Prejudice: Its Personality and Social Psychology Components2004In: The 4th Nordic Conference on Group and Social Psychology, 2004Conference paper (Other scientific)
    Abstract [en]

    The present paper focuses on the personality and the social psychology approaches to explaining prejudice. In Study 1, examining the relation between Big-Five basic personality and generalised prejudice (a factor based on ethnic prejudice, sexism, homophobia, and negative attitudes to mentally disabled people), we found Openness to Experience and Agreeableness to be related to generalised prejudice. In Study 2, in addition to basic personality and generalised prejudice, we included Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and examined various causal models of the relationships among these variables. The best-fitting causal model showed that generalised prejudice was effected indirectly by Extraversion, Openness to Experience, and Conscientiousness through RWA, and by Agreeableness through SDO, whereas Neuroticism had no effect at all. Thus, basic personality had no direct effect on generalised prejudice but an indirect effect transmitted through RWA and SDO, which both had strong direct effects on generalised prejudice, with RWA capturing basic personality aspects to a greater extent than SDO. Study 3 examined whether prejudice (sexism) is better explained by personality variables (Big-Five, SDO, and RWA) or social group membership (gender). Based on the outcome of Study 2, causal models were proposed and tested. The results showed that the best causal model to explain prejudice was the one that included the personality as well as the social group membership constructs. This outcome, also supported by multiple regression analyses, suggests that an integration of the personality and the social psychology approaches to explaining prejudicial beliefs would be the best option. The findings in the three studies are discussed against the background of recent research based on the personality and social psychology approaches to the study of prejudice.

  • 24.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology. Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Akrami, NazarUppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology. Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Proceedings of the Conference on Personality, Group and Social Psychology2005Conference proceedings (editor) (Refereed)
  • 25.
    Ekehammar, Bo
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Akrami, Nazar
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Gylje, Magnus
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Zakrisson, Ingrid
    Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    What matters most to prejudice: Big Five personality, social dominance orientation or right-wing authoritarianism?2004In: European Journal of Personality, Vol. 18, no 6, p. 463-482Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Whereas previous research has studied the relation of either 1) personality with prejudice, 2) personality with social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), or 3) SDO and RWA with prejudice, the present research integrates all approaches within the same model. In our study (N = 183), various causal models of the relationships among the Big Five, SDO, RWA, and generalized prejudice are proposed and tested. Generalized Prejudice scores were obtained from a factor analysis of the scores on various prejudice instruments (racism, sexism, prejudice toward homosexuals, and mentally disabled people) which yielded a one-factor solution. The best-fitting causal model, which was our suggested hypothetical model, showed that Big Five personality had no direct effect on Generalized Prejudice but an indirect effect transmitted through RWA and SDO, where RWA seems to capture personality aspects to a greater extent than SDO. Specifically, Generalized Prejudice was effected indirectly by Extraversion, Openness to Experience, and Conscientiousness through RWA, and by Agreeableness through SDO, whereas Neuroticism had no effect at all. The results are discussed against the background of previous research and the personality and social psychology approaches to the study of prejudice.

  • 26.
    Grina, Jana
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Bergh, Robin
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology. Harvard Univ, Dept Psychol, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA..
    Akrami, Nazar
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Sidanius, Jim
    Harvard Univ, Dept Psychol, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA..
    Political orientation and dominance: Are people on the political right more dominant?2016In: Personality and Individual Differences, ISSN 0191-8869, E-ISSN 1873-3549, Vol. 94, p. 113-117Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Social dominance orientation and political orientations are strongly correlated, leading to the notion that right-wing individuals possess a dominant personality disposition. Expressing some caveats toward such an assumption, in four studies we tested the link between political orientation and dominant personality. We assessed dominant personality partly by the use of a newly developed measure of domineering, without reference to intergroup relations or political ideals, and partly by the use of an existing clinical measure of domineering (CAT-PD). The results revealed that all measures of dominance including social dominance were significantly intercorrelated and, in line with previous research, related to both personality (agreeableness) and prejudice. Also, the correlation of political orientation with domineering was significantly lower than that with social dominance. More importantly, in all studies, social dominance fully mediated (or confounded) the relations between domineering and political orientation. Together these findings suggest that a dominant personality is reflected in political orientation only if social dominance (support for group based hierarchies) is also adopted by the individual.

  • 27.
    Häkkinen, Kirsti
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Akrami, Nazar
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Ideology and climate change denial2014In: Personality and Individual Differences, ISSN 0191-8869, E-ISSN 1873-3549, Vol. 70, p. 62-65Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Examining the relation between ideological variables and climate change denial, we found social dominance orientation (SDO) to outperform right-wing authoritarianism and left-right political orientation in predicting denial (Study 1 and 2). In Study 2, where we experimentally altered the level of denial by a newscast communicating supporting evidence for climate change, we demonstrated that the relation between the ideology variables and denial remains stable across conditions (newscast vs. control). Thus, the results showed that denial can be altered by communicating climate change evidence regardless of peoples' position on ideology variables, in particular social dominance. We discuss the outcome in terms of core elements of SDO - dominance and system-justification motives - and encourage researchers on climate change denial to focus on these elements. 

  • 28.
    Jylhä, Kirsti
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.