⬇️ Prefer to listen instead? ⬇️
- Generalized prejudice got stronger from 2004 to 2020. Also, different kinds of prejudices became more connected.
- Political conservatism became more closely tied to general prejudice. The connection went from r = 0.40 to r = 0.70.
- Believing in authority predicts and makes general prejudice stronger. This connects political ideas with social views.
- Views against feminists and gay people got closer together over time. They started to form idea-based groups.
- When ideas and prejudice join together, it makes it harder to feel empathy, have good relationships, and help with mental health issues.
Politics and prejudice are more and more connected. And new research shows how bias against groups like racial minorities, immigrants, feminists, and LGBTQ+ people is not just related, but strongly connected to political conservatism. If you are a policymaker, practitioner, or activist, or if you just want to stop discrimination, understanding the connection between political ideology, general prejudice, and authoritarian beliefs is really important. It helps to deal with and lessen bias in today’s divided world.
What Is Generalized Prejudice?
General prejudice is when someone’s bias is not just for one group. It spreads to many groups that are not in the majority. Basically, if someone has bad feelings about one group, like racial minorities, they will likely have similar feelings about other groups. These can include LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, or women who want equal rights.
At first, these prejudices might seem like separate feelings coming from different social or money situations. But research shows this is not true. Psychologists Gordon Hodson and Kimberly Dhont have shown that these biases group together in ways we can expect. This suggests that steady, basic ideas or ways of thinking cause prejudice. Their work says that many prejudices come from the same basic psychology. This includes personality traits like not being open to new things, wanting to be dominant over others, and believing in authority (Hodson & Dhont, 2015).
This understanding changes how we see prejudice. We stop thinking of it as just single acts of hating foreigners or sexism. Instead, it points to a “prejudiced personality” or a general view of the world that is afraid of difference, variety, and things that are not certain.
Personality and Idea-Based Roots of Generalized Prejudice
Some personality traits have often been seen to predict general prejudice. These include
- Low Openness to Experience (a Big Five trait). This means being uneasy with new or complex things.
- Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA). This is when someone obeys authority, sticks to social rules, and is aggressive to those not in their group.
- Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). This is wanting groups to be in levels of power, with some groups above others.
Together, these traits create a view of the world where keeping old ways and group lines feels safer. Groups that are not in the main group are seen as dangers that can cause problems.
A Look at How Views Change Over Time
To follow how general prejudice changes, a research group looked at information from five times the American National Election Survey (ANES) was done, from 2004 to 2020. They gathered answers from almost 22,000 adults in the U.S. The survey asked people to rate how they felt about four groups that are often not in the majority
- Black people
- Undocumented immigrants
- Gay people
- Feminists
Each view was rated on a scale from 0 to 100. 0 was very bad feelings, and 100 was very good feelings. These scores were then turned around to measure prejudice. Higher scores then meant stronger bad feelings.
People also said where they stood politically on a 7-point scale. This went from “extremely liberal” to “extremely conservative.” This let researchers see how connected different types of prejudice were, and how much they matched with where people placed themselves politically over time.
The study found important patterns. Views toward groups not in the majority were more and more related to each other. This means general prejudice was getting stronger. Also, these biases were becoming much more tied to political conservatism.
Prejudice Is Becoming More Connected
In 2004, the average connection between different types of prejudice across groups not in the majority was 0.30. By 2020, that number had gone up to 0.43. These might look like small number changes, but the squared correlation (shared variance) almost doubled, going from about 9% to 18%. This means how people feel about one group not in the majority is now much more likely to show how they feel about others.
This change shows that ideas are becoming more consistent. Prejudices that were once more separate are now being put together. In other words, people are less likely to have a mix of accepting and prejudiced views. They are more likely to have steady bad feelings across different groups.
From Separate Views to Idea Groups
This growing consistency shows what researchers call idea “bundling.” It is like how political plans are bundled. Views on guns, taxes, or policies on the earth line up along party lines. Prejudices are also becoming synced. This trend suggests prejudice may be changing from scattered views into set idea-based worldviews.
This understanding has big effects on how we see modern discrimination and division. It’s not just that single biases are growing. It’s that prejudice is becoming a built-in and consistent system inside political identity.
Generalized Prejudice 2.0: When Ideas Become Key
The new statistical model in recent studies is called “Generalized Prejudice 2.0.” It includes ideology as a key part of prejudice itself, not just as something around it. In this model, political conservatism becomes part of prejudice itself, not just something that predicts it.
Between 2004 and 2008, how much conservatism was related to general prejudice was medium, around r = 0.40. By 2016 and 2020, especially after very divisive social and political events, this connection jumped to around r = 0.70.
The New Joining of Belief and Bias
This big change means that political ideology, mainly on the conservative side, now largely matches with prejudice. It may even define it. The difference between “being biased” and “being ideologically conservative” has become much smaller in the U.S. It is important to note, this was not seen in all groups of people. The connections between general prejudice and things like age, gender, or education stayed about the same. What got stronger was the idea-based link. This suggests that something especially political is happening.
This joining can change what it means to have conservative views today. It is not just about policy choices, but about a worldview that increasingly includes socially backward positions.
How Authoritarian Beliefs Play a Role
Authoritarian beliefs are strong psychological supports for general prejudice. Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) is very important. It shows a belief system marked by
- Obeying those in power
- Strongly sticking to old rules
- Wanting order and unity in society
- Being against people or groups seen as going against or breaking social rules
People high in RWA tend to see groups not in their own group as dangerous or bad. This means any group seen to question things as they are—immigrants, feminists, LGBTQ+ people—is seen not just as “different” but as a danger to personal and social safety.
RWA’s Effect in Modern Politics
As conservatism more and more lines up with RWA traits, authoritarian beliefs help make prejudice solid within idea-based rules. They guide stories that make discriminatory views seem okay. They do this by saying they are protecting tradition, morals, or social order. This connection is very well supported in Hodson and Dhont’s work on bad feelings between groups. They show that fixed ideas and prejudice go together.
In very divided political times, these authoritarian ideas create good conditions for prejudice to grow and be praised as being loyal to an ideology.
Political Polarization as a Cause
Division plays a big part in how prejudices change and line up. Current U.S. political situations have strong divides between left and right ideas. There is little middle ground. Experts say this has made idea bundling possible. Holding one view, like being unsure about immigration, often comes with other prejudices. These can be not trusting feminists or being against LGBTQ+ rights.
This trend is especially clear after 2016 in political talk. Ideas against progress gained acceptance in conservative media and social media. Showing prejudice, often hidden as “free speech” or fighting back against being too politically correct, was remade as part of being patriotic or morally right.
Social Identity Theory in Action
Social identity theory helps explain this change. This idea says people get self-respect and meaning from the groups they belong to. In divided times, where parties clearly say who is “in” and who is “out,” people are more likely to take on all the views that go with their group.
This makes the idea gaps deeper, encourages not feeling morally responsible, and makes bridging gaps and lessening prejudice much harder.
Views Against Gay People and Feminists Are Grouping Together
By 2012, researchers saw something unexpected. Some kinds of prejudice started grouping together more closely than others. Specifically, bad feelings toward gay people and feminists became very linked. They made a special part of general prejudice not fully explained by the wider model.
Statistical findings showed that these views made each other stronger. This was more than just their shared roots in conservatism or believing in authority. This grouping points to a possible change in prejudice. Instead of just reacting to groups not in their own generally, some people are taking on specific idea stories. These target seen dangers to old ideas about gender and sex.
Gender Rules as a Common Danger
Experts suggest that views against feminists and gay people may share a basic worry. This is about what is called the “gender order”—old roles for men and women in society. When these roles are seen as at risk, people with conservative or authoritarian leanings may strongly react to both queer rights and feminist movements.
The grouping then shows not just general bad feelings to those not in their group. It also shows fighting back against changing social rules about gender, identity, and power.
More Detailed, Yet More Consistent
In earlier information times (2004–2008), general prejudice could be seen as one basic thing. It was like a psychological shorthand for bad feelings to those not in your group. But by 2012 and after, this model no longer showed how complex views were. Prejudices started making different smaller groups:
- Race and Immigration Group: Based in wanting one race or nation to be top and fear of groups changing.
- Gender and Sexuality Group: Tied to old family values and sex morals.
This detailed grouping shows ideas are more consistent and specific. It’s not just that people dislike “others.” It’s that who they are socially angry at is becoming clear and lined up with bigger story paths in their political ideology.
Effect on Mental Health and Social Harmony
When prejudice gets tied to political conservatism and becomes part of someone’s idea identity, it gets harder to face, question, or stop. This joining makes it possible to stop feeling empathy. People may turn off their caring because showing it might go against their political or group loyalties.
Such things can wear away caring talk across social and political divides. For doctors, teachers, and community leaders, this joining brings special problems
- Prejudice is not just personal but idea-based.
- People may be less open to change.
- Talks about including people need to deal with political danger zones.
Work toward fairness, justice, and emotional health must then deal with the fact that deep authoritarian beliefs and political groups greatly add to modern ways prejudice is shown.
Is It Just the U.S.? The Global Question
Even though this study used American information, the patterns it shows raise worries around the world. Many countries that are democracies in Europe, Asia, and Latin America are also dealing with growing political division and rising authoritarian populism. Are similar links forming between political conservatism and prejudice in those areas?
Research across cultures may help answer this. If other countries with smoother idea changes or systems with many parties show weaker or no connection between conservative ideology and prejudice, it would highlight how U.S.-specific things—like two-party systems, split media, and cultural division—make the joining of bias and belief stronger.
Moving Forward: Steps for Change
Even as general prejudice grows more related to political conservatism and authoritarian beliefs, research gives ways to help
- Promote Contact Between Groups: Good, lasting experiences with different groups can lessen prejudice across different areas. Puffer & Hodson (2024) show how being around different groups lessens general bias, not just single biases.
- Help People Be Flexible About Identity: Making space to think about political and social identities helps people separate belief systems from personal values.
- Show Caring Talk: Safe, organized talks can break up idea division and help people be curious instead of judging.
- Teach About Idea Effects: Helping people see how their political groups may shape their biases can open ways for important self-understanding.
These plans, while step-by-step, are important tools to fight against the growing idea consistency of bias.
Why Understanding This Trend Matters
We are living in a culture more and more shaped by connected prejudices tied to idea identity. To help make a healthier, more open society, it is not enough to deal with single times of bias. We must understand and question the systems and beliefs that keep them going. Knowing the growing role of political conservatism and authoritarian beliefs in making general prejudice stronger lets practitioners, teachers, and people in general deal more strongly with this reality.
In the end, lessening prejudice starts with asking hard questions. Not just of others, but of ourselves. What are the idea promises we care about, and are they bringing us closer to others, or further apart?
Citations
- Hodson, G., & Dhont, K. (2015). The person-based nature of prejudice: Individual difference predictors of intergroup negativity. European Review of Social Psychology, 26(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.1070018
- Puffer, H., & Hodson, G. (2024). Intergroup contact and generalized prejudice: Evidence from diverse exposure studies. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.70009
- Hodson, G., & Puffer, H. (2024). The changing nature of generalized prejudice toward marginalized groups in the United States, 2004–2020. Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241305698
