Answering Unresolved Questions About the Relationship Between Cognitive Ability and Prejudice
Abstract
Previous research finds that lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice. We test two unresolved questions about this association using a heterogeneous set of target groups and data from a representative sample of the United States (N = 5,914). First, we test “who are the targets of prejudice?” We replicate prior negative associations between cognitive ability and prejudice for groups who are perceived as liberal, unconventional, and having lower levels of choice over group membership. We find the opposite (i.e., positive associations), however, for groups perceived as conservative, conventional, and having higher levels of choice over group membership. Second, we test “who shows intergroup bias?” and find that people with both relatively higher and lower levels of cognitive ability show approximately equal levels of intergroup bias but toward different sets of groups.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Adorno T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik E., Levinson D. J., Sanford R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: Harper-Row.
Akrami N., Ekehammar B., Bergh R. (2011). Generalized prejudice: Common and specific components. Psychological Science, 22, 57–59.
Allport G. W. (1929). The composition of political attitudes. American Journal of Sociology, 35, 220–238.
Allport G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bartels L. M. (2006). What’s the matter with what’s the matter with Kansas? Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1, 201–226.
Bastian B., Haslam N. (2006). Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 228–235.
Bobo L., Licari F. C. (1989). Education and political tolerance testing the effects of cognitive sophistication and target group affect. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 285–308.
Brandt M. J., Chambers J. R., Crawford J. T., Wetherell G., Reyna C. (2015). Bounded openness: The effect of openness to experience on intolerance is moderated by target group conventionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 549–568.
Brandt M. J., Proulx T. (2016). Conceptual creep as a human (and scientific) goal. Psychological Inquiry, 27, 18–23.
Brandt M. J., Reyna C. (2014). To love or hate thy neighbor: The role of authoritarianism and traditionalism in explaining the link between fundamentalism and racial prejudice. Political Psychology, 35, 207–223.
Brandt M. J., van Tongeren D. R. (in press). People both high and low on religious fundamentalism are prejudiced towards dissimilar groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Brown R. (2010). Prejudice: Its social psychology (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Byrne D. (1969). Attitudes and attraction. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 35–89.
Caplan B., Miller S. C. (2010). Intelligence makes people think like economists: Evidence from the general social survey. Intelligence, 38, 636–647.
Carl N. (2014). Verbal intelligence is correlated with socially and economically liberal beliefs. Intelligence, 44, 142–148.
Chambers J. R., Schlenker B. R., Collisson B. (2013). Ideology and prejudice: The role of value conflicts. Psychological Science, 24, 140–149.
Crandall C. S., Eshleman A., O’Brien L. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359–378.
Crandall C. S., Ferguson M. A., Bahns A. J. (2013). When we see prejudice: The normative window and social change. In Stangor C., Crandall C. S. (Eds.), Frontiers in stereotyping and prejudice (pp. 53–70). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Crawford J. T. (2014). Ideological symmetries and asymmetries in political intolerance and prejudice toward political activist groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 284–298.
Deary I. J., Batty G. D., Gale C. R. (2008). Bright children become enlightened adults. Psychological Science, 19, 1–6.
Dhont K., Hodson G. (2014). Does lower cognitive ability predict greater prejudice? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 454–459.
DiStefano C., Zhu M., Mindrila D. (2009). Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14, 1–11.
Ekehammar B., Akrami N. (2007). Personality and prejudice: From big five personality factors to facets. Journal of Personality, 75, 899–926.
Fiske S. T., Cuddy A. J., Glick P., Xu J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
Gelman A. (2009). Red state, blue state, rich state, poor state: Why Americans vote the way they do. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gervais W. M. (2013). In godlessness we distrust: Using social psychology to solve the puzzle of anti-atheist prejudice. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 366–377.
Gooch A. (2015). Measurements of cognitive skill by survey mode: Marginal differences and scaling similarities. Research & Politics, 2. doi:10.1177/2053168015590681
Haslam N., Bastian B., Bain P., Kashima Y. (2006). Psychological essentialism, implicit theories, and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 63–76.
Haslam N., Levy S. R. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality: Structure and implications for prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 471–485.
Hello E., Scheepers P., Sleegers P. (2006). Why the more educated are less inclined to keep ethnic distance: An empirical test of four explanations. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29, 959–985.
Herek G. M., Norton A. T., Allen T. J., Sims C. L. (2010). Demographic, psychological, and social characteristics of self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in a US probability sample. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 7, 176–200.
Hewstone M., Rubin M., Willis H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604.
Hodson G., Busseri M. A. (2012). Bright minds and dark attitudes: Lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact. Psychological Science, 23, 187–195.
Hodson G., Dhont K. (2015). The person-based nature of prejudice: Individual difference predictors of intergroup negativity. European Review of Social Psychology, 26, 1–42.
Kahan D. M. (2012). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection: An experimental study. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407–424.
Kan K.-J., Wicherts J. M., Dolan C. V., van der Maas H. L. (2013). On the nature and nurture of intelligence and specific cognitive abilities: The more heritable, the more culture dependent. Psychological Science, 24, 2420–2428.
Keiller S. W. (2010). Abstract reasoning as a predictor of attitudes toward gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 914–927.
Keller J. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 686–702.
Levy S. R., Stroessner S. J., Dweck C. S. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1421–1436.
Malhotra N., Krosnick J. A., Haertel E. (2007). The psychometric properties of the GSS Wordsum vocabulary test. GSS Methodological Report, 11. Retrieved from http://publicdata.norc.org:41000/gss/documents/MTRT/MR111%20The%20Psychometric%20Properties%20of%20the%20GSS%20Wordsum%20Vocabulary%20Test.pdf
Meeusen C., de Vroome T., Hooghe M. (2013). How does education have an impact on ethnocentrism? A structural equation analysis of cognitive, occupational status and network mechanisms. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 507–522.
of Menie M. A. W., Fernandes H. B., Figueredo A. J., Meisenberg G. (2015). By their words ye shall know them: Evidence of genetic selection against general intelligence and concurrent environmental enrichment in vocabulary usage since the mid-19th century. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00361
Onraet E., Van Hiel A., Dhont K., Hodson G., Schittekatte M., De Pauw S. (2015). The association of cognitive ability with right-wing ideological attitudes and prejudice: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Personality, 29, 599–621.
Roets A., Van Hiel A. (2011). Allport’s prejudiced personality today: Need for closure as the motivated cognitive basis of prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 349–354.
Roivainen E. (2013). Changes in word usage frequency may hamper intergenerational comparisons of vocabulary skills: An Ngram analysis of wordsum, WAIS, and WISC test items. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32, 83–87.
Sampson E. E. (1999). Dealing with differences: An introduction to the social psychology of prejudice. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt.
Schoon I., Cheng H., Gale C. R., Batty G. D., Deary I. J. (2010). Social status, cognitive ability, and educational attainment as predictors of liberal social attitudes and political trust. Intelligence, 38, 144–150.
Sibley C. G., Duckitt J. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 248–279.
Stangor C. (2009). The study of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination within social psychology: A quick history of theory and research. In Nelson T. D. (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 1–22). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Stülpnagel R. V., Steffens M. C. (2010). Prejudiced or just smart? Journal of Psychology, 218, 51–53.
Thorndike R. L. (1942). Two screening tests of verbal intelligence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 26, 128–135.
Wolfle L. M. (1980). The enduring effects of education on verbal skills. Sociology of Education, 53, 104–114.
Wynn K. (2016). Origins of value conflict: Babies do not agree to disagree. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 3–5.
Biographies
Mark J. Brandt is an assistant professor in the Department of Social Psychology at Tilburg University. He tries to understand ideological and moral beliefs—such as political ideology, religious fundamentalism, and moral conviction—and how they structure attitudes and behaviors, how they provide people with meaning, and why people adopt them in the first place.
Jarret T. Crawford is an associate professor of psychology at The College of New Jersey. He studies intergroup attitudes and beliefs and political psychology. His recent work examines people’s attitudes and behaviors toward ideologically dissimilar others.
Handling Editor: Jesse Graham
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
- suppl-material.pdf
- 1.03 MB
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: July 29, 2016
Issue published: November 2016
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Social Psychological and Personality Science.
View All Journal MetricsArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 5872
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 33 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 38
- Flexible confronters, informative confronters, and low stakes prodders: A person-centered approach to prejudice confrontation styles
- Pathways from incidental news exposure to political knowledge: Examining paradoxical effects of political discussion on social media with strong and weak ties
- Registered report protocol: Stress testing predictive models of ideological prejudice
- Fake News and the Individual. Personal Characteristics Which Influence What We Choose to Believe
- Social media and anti-immigrant prejudice: a multi-method analysis of the role of social media use, threat perceptions, and cognitive ability
- Political knowledge of youth and their proneness to prejudice: Empirical test of direct and indirect effect via right-wing authoritarianism
- Polarization, Shifting Borders and Liquid Governance
- Perception and deception: Exploring individual responses to deepfakes across different modalities
- Online political engagement, cognitive skills and engagement with misinformation: evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa and the United States
- Personality and perspicacity: Role of personality traits and cognitive ability in political misinformation discernment and sharing behavior
- View More
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
ARP and EASP members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.
ARP and EASP members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
