Chris Sibley: research interests

This line of research investigates the individual and societal factors that cause some people to be more prejudiced and others to be more tolerant. This work is grounded in the Dual Process Model of Ideology and Prejudice proposed by Prof John Duckitt .The Dual Process Model proposes that prejudice is caused by two motivational factors. The first motivational factor reflects to a competitive-driven orientation for group dominance and hierarchy. This motivation stems from the personality trait of low Agreeableness and schematized perceptions of the social world as a competitive dog-eat-dog place. The second motivational factor reflects a threat-driven orientation for collective security and social cohesion. This motivation stems from the personality trait of low Openness to Experience and schematized perceptions of the social world as dangerous. John Duckitt and I have various lines of ongoing research testing predictions from the Dual Process Model. For example, one project we are currently working on uses data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study  to model the effects of personality on intergroup attitudes over time. Another examines how structural aspects of communities (wealth, population diversity) predict tolerance toward local immigrant groups. In another line of research, PhD candidate Ryan Perry is working to develop a new measure of the social worldview component of the Dual Process Model by assessing systematic biases in the estimation of dangerous and competitive events in society.

Recent publications

• Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861-1894. dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x
• Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation differentially moderate intergroup effects on prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 24, 583-601. dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.772
• Perry, R., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Dangerous and competitive schemas: A new frequency estimation index of the dual process model’s social worldviews component. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 983-988. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.009

This line of research investigates the nature of different forms of discrimination that people experience in their daily lives. I have recently developed a new instrument assessing the experience of different forms of the harmful and facilitatory behaviors that people encounter in their day-to-day lives from multiple sources. This measure is called the Behaviors from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes—Treatment Scale (BIAS-TS). The BIAS-TS extends previous research on stereotyping and discrimination by Dr. Amy Cuddy and Profs Susan Fiske and Peter Glick to measure self-reported experiences of both Active Harm (overt harmful and discriminatory experiences) and also Passive Harm (more subtle, covert and patronizing forms of discrimination). The measure integrates research on the ways in which people express prejudice and discrimination with research from clinical psychology on perceived discrimination and resilience. My research in this area shows that Passive Harm has far stronger effects on health-related indicators and wellbeing than many people might anticipate, and that this may be because Passive Harm often goes unidentified by the recipient. My recent research in this area also highlights the importance of Passive Harm in understanding the multiple different ways in which different groups are discriminated against in New Zealand depending upon how they are stereotyped by others.

Recent publications

• Sibley, C. G. (2011). The BIAS Treatment Scale (BIAS-TS): A measure of the subjective experience of active and passive harm and facilitation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 300-315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.559389.
• Asbrock, F., Nieuwoudt, C., Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (in press). Societal stereotypes and the legitimation of intergroup behaviour in Germany and New Zealand. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy.

This line of research investigates the interplay of two forms of sexism identified by Profs Peter Glick and Susan Fiske in their theory of Ambivalent Sexism. The theory states that overtly hostile forms of sexism go hand in hand with more subtle, and seemingly positive but patronizing forms of sexism to legitimize and justify gender inequality. My work in this area focuses on the seemingly counterintuitive negative and troubling consequences of benevolent sexism. Dr Nickola Overall  and I have an active research program exploring how benevolent and hostile forms of sexism shape how people interact and communicate with their romantic partners. Our findings in this area have provided a number of insights into how both men’s and women’s levels of sexism predict inequality in intimate relationships in both the short and longer-term. I am also conducting research in this area exploring how benevolent and hostile forms of sexism may shape one another over time, and cause both women and men to become more accepting of gender inequality in both the home and workplace more generally.

Recent publications

• Overall, N. C., Sibley, C. G., & Tan, R. (in press). The costs and benefits of sexism: resistance to influence during relationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
• Sibley, C. G., & Overall, N. C. (2011). A dual-process motivational model of ambivalent sexism and gender differences in romantic partner preferences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 303-317.
• Sibley, C. G., & Perry, R. (2010). An Opposing Process Model of Benevolent Sexism. Sex Roles, 62, 438-452. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9705-6

This line of research aims to develop an integrated model of intergroup relations in the unique New Zealand context. My research in this area highlights how the psychology of intergroup relations in New Zealand differs in important ways from models developed in overseas contexts (primarily the United States). Because of these key differences, there is a very real need to develop New Zealand-specific models of prejudice and discrimination that explain these phenomena in our country. Much of my early work in this area has focused on measuring implicit or automatic representations of the national category and what people think it means to be a ‘New Zealander.’ This has important implications for increasing tolerance and understanding the different ways in which people from different ethnic groups are discriminated against in our country. My more recent work in this area has focused on developing a unified model of post-colonial ideology. This model maps out the mechanisms through which two ideologies, symbolic exclusion and historical negation, operate together to justify social inequality. I am also conducting research examining subtle indicators of racism in the New Zealand context, and exploring how the labels people use to describe different ethnic groups in New Zealand provide insight into their underlying intergroup attitudes. The overarching goal of this research is to develop a comprehensive model of the causes and consequences of prejudice in the New Zealand context, with the long-term aim of offering specific and applied cost-effective interventions that will aid in prejudice reduction.

Recent publications

• Sibley, C. G. (2010). The dark duo of post-colonial ideology: A model of symbolic exclusion and historical negation. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4, 106-123. http://www.ijcv.org/index.php/ijcv/article/view/55
• Sibley, C. G., Houkamau, C. A., & Hoverd, W. J. (in press). Ethnic group labels and intergroup attitudes in New Zealand: Naming preferences predict distinct ingroup and outgroup biases. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy.
• Sibley, C. G., Liu, J. H., & Khan, S. S. (2010). Implicit representations of ethnicity and nationhood in New Zealand: A function of symbolic or resource-specific policy attitudes? Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 10, 23-46. dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2009.01197.x

This line of research focuses on understanding the trait of Social Dominance Orientation. This trait was identified by Profs. James Sidanius and Felicia Pratto in the early 1990s, and reflects the extent to which people are motivated to support social hierarchy and inequality, where some groups of people are advantaged over others within society. My work in this area focuses on understanding what causes some people but not others to become high in Social Dominance Orientation. This is an important line of research because this trait explains a large proportion of the variance in prejudice across numerous contexts. My recent work in this area has focused on applying techniques from Multilevel Random Coefficient Modelling to try and get to the heart of whether there is such a thing as a prejudiced, or socially dominant, personality type. My research in this area suggests that there is a global social dominance trait, and that some people are reliably higher in this trait than others across contexts. Other research I have conducted in this area shows that this trait predicts conservative voting behaviour and support for social policies that increase social inequality over prolonged periods of time. This suggests that Social Dominance Orientation is a reliable individual difference variable or trait that leads to a variety of negative outcomes in our society.

Recent publications

• Fischer, R., Hanke, K., & Sibley, C. G. (in press). Cultural and institutional determinants of Social Dominance Orientation: A cross-cultural meta-analysis of 27 societies. Political Psychology.
• Sibley, C. G., & Liu, J. H. (2010). Social Dominance Orientation: Testing a global individual difference perspective. Political Psychology, 31, 175-207. dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00748.x
• Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The ideological legitimation of the status quo: Longitudinal tests of a social dominance model. Political Psychology, 31, 109-137. dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00747.x

This line of research examines the relationship between how people identify with their social group and general indicators of psychological health and subjective wellbeing. My work in this area is multifaceted, and focuses both on the development of culturally-appropriate models explaining how people psychologically identify with social groups, and how different aspects of identity and social position affect subjective wellbeing. For example, I have worked closely with Dr Carla Houkamau  to develop a multidimensional model of Māori identity and cultural efficacy for Māori peoples. Carla Houkamau and I have recently extended our work in this area to present a psychological model and research agenda discussing how increases in cultural efficacy may have strong positive, but also unexpected and potentially quite subtle, effects on health and wellbeing for Māori peoples. To give another example, Sam Manuela has recently completed a master’s thesis with me developing a culturally-appropriate self-report instrument to assess identity and subjective wellbeing for Pacific peoples. I am currently working on research modelling change in wellbeing and identity over time for different social groups and for people living in different regions of the country. More recently I have also become interested in developing models that predict psychological resilience in communities after setbacks. This research draws heavily on data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study , which contains a number of measures of health, non-specific psychological distress, and subjective wellbeing for people all across New Zealand.

Recent publications

• Houkamau, C. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). The Multi-Dimensional Model of Māori Identity and Cultural Engagement. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 39, 8-28. http://www.psychology.org.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=524
• Houkamau, C. A., & Sibley, C. G. (in press). Māori cultural efficacy and subjective well-being: a psychological model and research agenda. Social Indicators Research. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9705-5
• Sibley, C. G., Harré, N., Hoverd, W. J., & Houkamau, C. (in press). The gap in the subjective wellbeing of Māori and New Zealand Europeans widened between 2005 and 2009. Social Indicators Research. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9729-x