Values and prejudice: Predictors of attitudes towards Australian Aborigines

Figures & data

Figure 1. The circular structure of value systems

Table I. Means and standard deviations for study variables in relation to gender

Variable	Male		Female		t
	M	SD	M	SD
Value measures
Value types
Power	2.91	1.50	1.94	1.21	4.03***
Achievement	4.47	.93	4.50	.97	−.14
Hedonism	4.37	1.18	4.28	1.17	.43
Stimulation	3.86	1.20	3.75	1.39	.47
Self-direction	4.74	.85	4.70	.92	.26
Universalism	4.16	1.19	4.57	.94	−2.18*
Benevolence	4.73	1.13	5.00	.80	−1.61
Tradition	3.42	1.28	2.85	1.15	2.62**
Conformity	4.35	1.30	4.19	1.05	.78
Security	4.38	1.04	4.08	.95	1.67
Right-Wing Auth. (RWA)	142.63	30.41	127.45	32.79	2.50*
Social Dom. Orient. (SDO)	45.34	12.09	36.00	13.02	3.97***
Prejudice measure
Modern racism	24.33	7.73	20.56	8.99	2.58*
Note. Ns for male participants ranged from 40 to 42; Ns for female participants ranged from 93 to 105. Values were rated for importance on a −1 to 7 scale as described. Scale midpoints were 150 for RWA, 56 for SDO and 28 for Modern Racism.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001, all two-tailed.

Table II. Partial correlations between value and prejudice variables controlling for gender differences

Variable	RWA	SDO	Modern racism
Value measures
Value types
Power	.09	.39***	.38***
Achievement	−.15	.23*	−.00
Hedonism	−.20*	.39***	.11
Stimulation	−.12	.14	.11
Self-direction	−.42***	.09	−.15
Universalism	−.34***	−.50***	−.25**
Benevolence	−.10	−.36***	−.37***
Tradition	.39***	−.23*	−.07
Conformity	.43***	−.01	.05
Security	.25**	.29**	.23*
Right-Wing Authoritarianism	–	.18	.48***
Social Dominance Orientation		–	.50***
Note. N = 113 for partial correlations.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001, all two-tailed.

Figure 2. Final path diagram presenting significant paths that link value types, SDO, and RWA to Modern Racism. Path coefficients are standardised betas. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001