Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Apr 5;13(4):e0195470.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195470. eCollection 2018.

Is empathy one of the Big Three? Identifying its role in a dual-process model of ideology and blatant and subtle prejudice

Affiliations

Is empathy one of the Big Three? Identifying its role in a dual-process model of ideology and blatant and subtle prejudice

José Luis Álvarez-Castillo et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

In the field of the social psychology of prejudice, John Duckitt's Dual-Process Cognitive-Motivational Model of Ideology and Prejudice has gained a firm grounding over the past decade and a half, while empathy has become one of the most powerful predictors of prejudice, alongside right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. This study integrates empathy into the dual-process model, exploring the effects of this variable, along with the impact of personality and ideological attitudes, on prejudice in both its blatant and subtle forms. A cross-sectional research design was used to collect data from 260 university students by self-report measures. Despite its cross-sectional nature, a pattern of causal relationships was hypothesized according to experimental and longitudinal findings from previous studies. The path analysis results show that in the model fitted to the data, empathy does not have any direct impact on prejudice, although it plays a significant role in the prediction of prejudice towards a particular immigrant group. On the other hand, the dual-process model is confirmed in the explanation of blatant prejudice and, in a weaker and indirect way, of subtle prejudice; sustaining the distinctive nature of these constructs on some differential predictors and paths. In the discussion, this study proposes that when ideological and personality-based variables are both included in the model, general empathy is not so robust in the explanation of prejudice, since some of the empathetic components might become diluted among other covariates. But even so, its indirect effectiveness through personality and ideological attitudes remains relevant.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Hypothetical model on the impact of personality, attitudes and empathy on blatant and subtle prejudice.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Path analysis of a dual-process model of blatant and subtle prejudice, including general empathy.
The standardized regression weights are represented on the arrows, and the squared multiple correlations on the endogenous variables. Dashed arrows indicate expected effects of empathy that did not reach statistical significance. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Path analysis of a dual-process model of blatant and subtle prejudice, including perspective taking.
The standardized regression weights are represented on the arrows, and the squared multiple correlations on the endogenous variables. Dashed arrows indicate expected effects associated to empathy that did not reach statistical significance. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Path analysis of a dual-process model of blatant and subtle prejudice, including empathic joy.
The standardized regression weights are represented on the arrows, and the squared multiple correlations on the endogenous variables. Dashed arrows indicate expected effects associated to empathy that did not reach statistical significance. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

References

    1. Allport GW. The nature of prejudice Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books; 1954.
    1. Cohrs JC, Kämpfe-Hargrave N, Riemann R. Individual differences in ideological attitudes and prejudice: Evidence from peer-report data. J Pers Soc Psychol 2012;103:343–61. doi: 10.1037/a0028706 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dinesen PT, Klemmensen R, Nørgaard AS. Attitudes Toward Immigration: The Role of Personal Predispositions. Polit Psychol 2016;37:55–72. doi: 10.1111/pops.12220 - DOI
    1. Ekehammar B, Akrami N. The relation between personality and prejudice: a variable- and a person-centred approach. Eur J Pers 2003;17:449–64. doi: 10.1002/per.494 - DOI
    1. Ekehammar B, Akrami N. Personality and prejudice: From big five personality factors to facets. J Pers 2007;75:899–926. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00460.x - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources