http://ssi.sagepub.com/Social Science Information

http://ssi.sagepub.com/content/53/2/240The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0539018413517521

2014 53: 240 originally published online 4 March 2014Social Science InformationArash Heydari, Ali Teymoori, E.F. Haghish and Behrang Mohamadi

anomie, and authoritarianismInfluential factors on ethnocentrism: The effect of socioeconomic status,

  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  Maison des Sciences de l'Homme

can be found at:Social Science InformationAdditional services and information for    

  http://ssi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://ssi.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Mar 4, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record  

- May 13, 2014Version of Record >>

at UQ Library on May 13, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UQ Library on May 13, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Social Science Information2014, Vol. 53(2) 240 –254

© The Author(s) 2014Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0539018413517521

ssi.sagepub.com

Influential factors on ethnocentrism: The effect of socioeconomic status, anomie, and authoritarianism

Arash HeydariSchool of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Allame Tabatabaee University, Tehran, Iran

Ali TeymooriSchool of Psychology, University of Queensland, Australia

E.F. HaghishUniversity of Southern Denmark & Clinical Epidemiology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Germany

Behrang MohamadiSchool of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Allame Tabatabaee University, Tehran, Iran

AbstractThis study examines the relation of dimensions of ethnocentrism with socio-structural factors such as socioeconomic status (SES), feelings of anomie, and authoritarianism. Using clustered sampling, 500 students were selected from ten high schools in Ahvaz, Iran. Results of structural equation modeling showed that SES has a direct positive effect on ethnocentrism and an indirect effect through anomie and authoritarianism. Similarly, anomie mediates the effect of SES on authoritarianism. Anomie was found to have an indirect effect on dimensions of ethnocentrism via authoritarianism. Findings confirmed the proposed conceptual path model, which is consistent with findings from other countries. The influence of feelings of anomie in the model is highlighted since it has a very important effect on dimensions of ethnocentrism.

Keywordsanomie, authoritarianism, ethnocentrism, socioeconomic status (SES)

Corresponding author:Ali Teymoori, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Sir Fred Schonell Drive, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia. Email: ali.teymoori@uqconnect.edu.au

517521 SSI0010.1177/0539018413517521Social Science InformationHeydari et al.research-article2014

Trends and developments/Courants et tendances

at UQ Library on May 13, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Heydari et al. 241

RésuméL’étude examine la relation entre les dimensions de l’ethnocentrisme et des facteurs socio-structuraux tels que le statut socio-économique (SSE), le sentiment d’anomie et l’autoritarisme. En utilisant une méthode d’échantillonnage en grappes, 500 élèves ont été sélectionnés dans 10 établissements d’enseignement secondaire à Ahvaz en Iran. Les résultats de la modélisation par équation structurelle montrent que le SSE a un effet positif direct sur l’ethnocentrisme et un effet indirect au travers de l’anomie et de l’autoritarisme. Similairement, l’anomie sert de médiateur quant aux effets du SSE sur l’autoritarisme. L’anomie a un effet indirect sur les dimensions de l’ethnocentrisme via l’autoritarisme. Les résultats confirment le modèle d’analyse conceptuelle proposé, ce qui est en cohérence avec les résultats trouvés dans d’autres pays. L’influence de l’anomie dans le modèle est soulignée car elle a un effet extrêmement important sur les dimensions de l’ethnocentrisme.

Mots-clésanomie, autoritarisme, ethnocentrisme, statut socio-économique (SSE)

Ethnocentrism is a broad term introduced by Sumner (2002 [1907]) which pertains to having in-group attitudes of superiority as compared to out-groups. This concept is usu-ally addressed in the literature as consisting of favorable attitudes and preferences toward one’s own group or group members and having unfavorable evaluations, attitudes, and feelings regarding other ethnic groups (Andersen & Taylor, 2007; LeVine & Campbell, 1972; Segall, 1979). Alternatively, ethnocentrism may be viewed as a perceptual process which provides the individual with a frame of reference that oversees the existence of other reference frames (Porter & Samovar, 1976). In other words, ethnocentric attitudes are about the imposition of a personal understanding of the social world on others (Lustig & Koester, 2003). For example, ethnocentric individuals are more likely to have biased attitudes toward out-groups, evaluate them as dishonest, and treat them with injustice (Neuliep et al., 2005). This definition touches on the nature of ethnocentrism, which illuminates how this concept relates to authoritarian or dogmatic ideology (Mayer, 2012).

In the current article, we investigate how such reference frames may relate to societal-structural factors such as socioeconomic status (SES), feelings of anomie, and authori-tarianism within the Iranian context. Iran is home to several ethnic groups that live in geographically diverse provinces. For example, Kurds live in the western provinces, Baluchis in the east, Turks in the northwest, Arabs in the southwest, and Persians in the central provinces of Iran (Aghajanian, 1983).

Despite generating a regrettable number of problems and issues for Iranian society, the existence and prevalence of ethnocentrism have not been taken into consideration, and even when phenomena such as ethnocentrism are included, many researchers have overlooked its pathological aspect (Navah & Taghavinasab, 2007). In general, research has shown that Iranian ethnic groups are ethnocentric and pessimistic toward out-groups (Amirahmadi, 1987; Asgharzadeh, 2007; Fokoohi & Amoosi, 2009; Haghish et al., 2012;

at UQ Library on May 13, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

242 Social Science Information 53(2)

Koutlaki, 2010; Moghadas Jafari et al., 2008; Rabani et al., 2009; Shaffer, 2002). It would therefore be interesting to examine how structural factors could facilitate a change in individual attitudes.

Theoretical framework

Socioeconomic status is one of the most researched terms in social science; it pertains to one’s overall social, educational, and economic status (Adler et al., 1994). Since previous research findings have shown that SES relates to feelings of anomie, authoritarianism, and ethnocentrism, in this study we address these relations one by one, and propose a model to explain how these factors relate to each other.

Relationship of SES with authoritarianism

Pioneers of the psychodynamics school have mentioned socioeconomic status as a factor influencing authoritarian personality. For example, Fromm (1994 [1941]) indicates that development of an authoritarian personality should be considered within societal struc-tures, including socioeconomic status (Scheepers et al., 1990). Lipset (1959) proposed the theory of working-class authoritarianism, which has triggered a vast amount of research. He underlines that the working classes are more likely to be authoritarian because they have lower levels of education, reading and knowledge, and financial secu-rity, and they also have lower participation in social activities and political organizations. Further research has confirmed the relation of SES and authoritarianism, and has shown that authoritarian patterns are more common in lower SES families (Assadi et al., 2007; Floyd & Saitzyk, 1992; Hoff et al., 2002; Lipsitz, 1965; Napier & Jost, 2008). In addi-tion, SES also influences parental child-rearing practices (Brezina & McCarthy, 2004; Kohn & Schooler, 1969; Miller et al., 1981; Slomczynski et al., 1981; Wright & Wright, 1976; Xiao, 2000). For instance, parents with lower SES are more likely to have an authoritarian parenting style, which itself promotes authoritarianism among their chil-dren (Adorno et al., 1950; Brooks, 1996; Crockett & Meidinger, 1956; Duckitt, 2001; Duriez et al., 2007, 2008; Floyd & Saitzyk, 1992; Gecas, 1979; Hoff et al., 2002; Kohn, 1977; Kohn & Schooler, 1969; Lins-Dyer & Nucci, 2007; Scodel & Freedman, 1956; Scodel & Mussen, 1953). Similarly, insecure parent–child attachment is also more com-mon in lower SES families and promotes authoritarian traits in children (Oesterreich, 2005; Owens-Sabir, 2007; Weber & Federico, 2007). Research in Iran also suggests that both parenting style and authoritarian patterns are widespread in lower SES Iranian fami-lies (for a review see Heydari et al., 2013).

SES and feelings of anomie

Anomie derives its meaning from anomia, a Greek word for absence of law (Caruana et al., 2000). Anomie has been studied, at a micro level, by taking people’s perspective toward one another and their society into account and, at a macro level, discussing how anomie hurts society’s functionality and groups of people (Haghish et al., 2012). In fact, in an anomic society people lose their faith in their society’s norms, rules, and

at UQ Library on May 13, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Heydari et al. 243

boundaries, and develop feelings of distrust toward one another and their society (Durkheim, 1951 [1893], 1984 [1893]; Morrison, 1995), which can promote ethnocen-trism and distrust or bad attitudes toward out-groups.

Haghish et al. (2012) reported a significant and high-positive correlation between socioeconomic status and feelings of anomie. People of middle and lower SES experi-ence more dissatisfaction in anomic conditions since they have limited resources com-pared to the upper classes. Similar relationships between anomie and SES have been reported in other studies (Bell, 1957; Heydari, 2010; Heydari et al., 2012, 2013; Lee & Clyde, 1974; Menard, 1995; Mizruchi, 1960; Rushing, 1971; Teevan, 1975).

Relationship between SES, feelings of anomie, authoritarianism, and ethnocentrism

We have discussed and presented evidence that socioeconomic status relates to anomie and authoritarianism in such a way that people with lower SES are more vulnerable to both anomic dissatisfaction and authoritarian traits. Empirical research has shown that all of these societal factors significantly relate to ethnocentrism. For example, Scheepers, Felling and Peters (1992) reported a negative correlation between SES and ethnocen-trism. Navah and Taghavinasab (2007) also showed that SES and relative level of politi-cal and economic deprivation influence ethnocentrism and ethnic divergence in Iran.

Other studies have also reported significant positive relationships between authori-tarianism and ethnocentrism (Adorno et al., 1950; Laythe et al., 2001; Lutterman & Middleton, 1970; McDill, 1961; Meloen et al., 1996; Mulford & Murphy, 1968; Roberts & Rokeach, 1956; Van Ijzendoorn, 1989, 1990). Oesterreich (2005), who considers authoritarian reaction to be the individual’s basic response to anxiety, stressful situations, uncertainty, and insecurity, calls it ‘flight into security’ (Oesterreich, 2005: 282). In addi-tion, Srole (1956) and Scheepers et al. (1990, 1992) believe that anomic situations leave the person feeling powerless and frustrated, which propels them toward excessive in-group identification. Hence, as a result of excessive identification, the anomic condition facilitates authoritarianism and increases ethnocentrism. The relationship between iden-tifying with in-group members and developing negative feelings toward out-groups has also been mentioned in other studies regarding ethnocentrism (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

In addition, according to mass-society theorists (Arendt, 1951; Fromm, 1994), recent theorization (Oesterreich, 2005), and some empirical studies (Blank, 2003; Lutterman & Middleton, 1970; McDill, 1961; Mulford & Murphy, 1968; Roberts & Rokeach, 1956; Scheepers et al., 1992; Srole, 1956), authoritarianism is related to anomie, and thus eth-nocentrism can be a result of anomic conditions since it requires an authoritarian attitude and delivers a sense of security through in-group identification.

As this study was carried out in Iran, we were interested to see how our results might differ from those of Western studies on authoritarianism, anomie, and ethnocentrism. Based on the theory of Merton (1938, 1968), who highlights SES as a source of anomie, as well as on subsequent speculations (Heydari et al., 2012; Napier & Jost, 2008; Scheepers et al., 1990; Srole, 1956), we expected to find a negative relationship between anomie and socioeconomic status. Similarly, we anticipated a negative relationship between SES and

at UQ Library on May 13, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

244 Social Science Information 53(2)

authoritarianism based on the working-class-authoritarianism theory of Lipset (1959). In view of previous studies (Arendt, 1951; Fromm, 1994; Heydari et al., 2012; Oesterreich, 2005), a positive relationship between feelings of anomie and authoritarianism was also posited. Finally, SES, authoritarianism, and anomie were assumed to be related to ethno-centrism as well (see our schematic presentation in Figure 1).

Method

Participants and procedure

Five hundred high-school students, chosen using the cluster method of sampling from ten high schools in Ahvaz, Iran, were asked to fill out questionnaires. Twelve participants were removed from the analysis due to the incompleteness of their answers. Participants were between 14 and 18 years old (M = 16.14, SD = 0.99), 283 of whom were male, and 194 female. The subjects were told that participation was voluntary and were assured of the anonymity of their questionnaires and the confidentiality of their answers.

Instruments

Socioeconomic status. SES was measured by Nabavi et al.’s (2009/1387) Subjective SES Scale, which comprises six items. The scale measures individuals’ perceptions of their socioeconomic status and social class (Nabavi et al., 2009/1387), and has been applied to other research in Iran (Haghish et al. 2012; Heydari et al., 2012, 2014) as well. The items were in Likert format, and the scoring ranged from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). The sum of the scores indicates the position of the individual in the social structure where a higher score implies a higher social class and better socioeconomic status. Nabavi et al. (2009/1387) reported an alpha coefficient of .71, and Heydari et al. (2012) reported inter-nal consistency of .75 for the scale. In the current study, an alpha coefficient of .70 was found.

Authoritarianism scale. The Authoritarianism Scale is a 12-item scale developed and vali-dated by Heydari et al. (2012). It is based on the F-Personality Scale (Adorno et al., 1950) and Right Wing Authoritarianism Scale (Altemeyer, 1998). Items were developed considering the socio-cultural context of Iran. These included items such as: ‘people

Anomie

Subjec�ve

Authoritarianism

Ethnocentrism

Figure 1. The relationship between SES, anomie, authoritarianism, and ethnocentrism.

at UQ Library on May 13, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Heydari et al. 245

should obey their superiors whether or not they think they are right’, and ‘Obedience and respect for authority are the most important values children should learn’. Participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scale has an alpha coefficient of .88. Research using this scale has shown its predictive validity through its association with socioeconomic status and parental control (Heydari et al., 2013). Similarly, a significant relationship was revealed between this scale and anomie (Heydari et al., 2012).

Ethnocentrism. Navah et al.’s (2010/1389) Ethnocentrism Scale was used, which measures ethnocentrism within the socio-cultural context of Iran (Navah et al., 2010/1389). Similarly to Scheepers et al. (1992), the scale includes two 5-item subscales, which measure in-group ethnocentrism (favorable attitude toward in-groups) and out-group ethnocentrism (unfavorable attitude toward out-groups). The scale requires the respondents to rate the items based on the Likert format, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and has a Cronbach’s alpha of .85 (Nabavi et al., 2009/1387). Similarly, the validity of the scale was obtained through its significant association with authoritarianism and socioeconomic status.

Anomie. Srole’s (1956) 9-item revised and extended Anomie Scale was translated into Persian. This scale has been used since the 1960s in sociological studies for measuring anomie (McDill, 1961; Scheepers et al., 1992). To maximize the variance, the yes/no responses were replaced with a Likert scale. All the scale’s items were scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scoring was applied so that the higher the sum of the scale, the greater are the individuals’ feelings of anomie. To determine the validity of the translated questionnaire, 40 participants were surveyed and an alpha coef-ficient of .66 was obtained. The alpha coefficient of the scale in the current study was .78.

Results

Descriptive and inferential statistics were used in the data analysis. In analyzing the mediation effect and indirect effects, structural equation modeling (SEM) and bootstrap-ping methods using AMOS 16.0 were applied. Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the research variables, including means, standard deviations, and minimum and maxi-mum scores. As Table 1 shows, the mean score of feeling of anomie (M = 29.95, SD = 7.36; the maximum score of the scale is 45), authoritarianism (M = 34.27, SD = 9.29; the maximum score of the scale is 60), and in-group ethnocentrism (M = 18.36; and the maximum score of the scale is 25) is high. Table 1 also shows correlations between vari-ables: socioeconomic status has a negative significant correlation with anomie, authori-tarianism, and ethnocentrism. Anomie, authoritarianism, and ethnocentrism from both dimensions have positive correlations with each other.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to examine whether socioeconomic status is related to ethnocentrism through anomie and authoritarianism. To evaluate the fit of the conceptual model, the maximum likelihood method was chosen. The SEM was done in two stages, in which the measurement model was first confirmed separately and then the full structural model was entered into the analysis. Separate measurement

at UQ Library on May 13, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

246 Social Science Information 53(2)

models were used for each construct to examine the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and to determine the fit of the measurements. CFA illustrates the degree of model fit, the explained variances and standardized residual for the measured variables, and the ade-quacy of the factor loading (Byrne, 2010). Items with low factor loading were removed one at a time from the scale; the removed items are shown in Table 2. Cronbach’s alpha of the items is also given to show the internal consistency of the scales.

After confirming the modified scales in the measurement model section, the concep-tual model was examined using SEM. The model hypothesized that socioeconomic sta-tus was related to in-group and out-group ethnocentrism directly and indirectly, and was mediated by authoritarianism and anomie. The final model is presented in Figure 2, in which the non-significant paths were omitted. But as the path of authoritarianism to in-group ethnocentrism was close to but not significant (p = .07), it has been included in the model due to its theoretical importance.

A significant amount (33% and 26%) of in-group ethnocentrism and out-group ethno-centrism was explained by the research variables, namely: socioeconomic status, ano-mie, and authoritarianism (R2 = .33 for in-group ethnocentrism and R2 = .26 for out-group ethnocentrism). The model yields a poor goodness of fit, obtaining significant Chi-square (χ2 (391) = 972.70, relative Chi-square = 2.49, p < .001). However, satisfactory model fit was obtained by other fit indices, including the Comparative Fit Index (CFI = .918), the Incremental Fit Index (IFI = .919), and the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI = .909), for which a value of more than .90 shows acceptable model fit (Byrne, 2010). Another important indicator of model fit is the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The present study showed good model fit (RMSEA= .055), where a value less than .08 is

Table 2. The reliability and factor loading of items.

Variables Cronbach’s alpha Dropped items (no.) Range of items’ factor loadings

1 Socioeconomic status .88 0 .54–.992 Anomie .78 3 .48–.673 Authoritarianism .78 3 .49–.814 Ethnocentrism in-group .79 0 .62–.685 Ethnocentrism out-group .88 0 .63–.69

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the variables and their interrelations.

Variables M SD Min. Max. 1 2 3 4 5

1 Socioeconomic status 15.85 4.62 5.00 25.00 – – – – –2 Anomie 29.95 7.36 9.00 45.00 .50** – – – –3 Authoritarianism 34.27 9.29 15.00 60.00 .41** .42** – – –4 Ethnocentrism in-group 18.36 5.08 5.00 25.00 .35** .40** .31** – –5 Ethnocentrism out-group 14.59 5.30 5.00 25.00 .31** .38** .32** .58** –

**= p < .01 (2-tailed).

at UQ Library on May 13, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Heydari et al. 247

Fig

ure

2. S

igni

fican

t es

timat

ed p

ath

coef

ficie

nts

of t

he h

ypot

hesi

zed

mod

el.

Chi

-squ

are

(df)

= 9

72.6

97; p

val

ue =

.000

; Rel

ativ

e ch

i-squ

are

= 2

.488

; TLI

= .9

09; C

FI =

.918

; IFI

= .9

19; R

MSE

A =

.055

(st

anda

rdiz

ed e

stim

ates

).

at UQ Library on May 13, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

248 Social Science Information 53(2)

Table 3. The coefficients of each causal path in the model.

Estimate SE Beta CR p

Anomie ← SES −.322 .042 −.46 −7.610 ***Authoritarianism ← SES −.115 .030 −.21 −3.796 ***Authoritarianism ← Anomie .184 .052 .24 3.525 ***Out-group ethno ← Authoritarianism .351 .092 .22 3.808 ***In-group ethno ← Authoritarianism .142 .080 .10 1.764 .078Out-group ethno ← Anomie .493 .087 .39 5.648 ***In-group ethno ← Anomie .530 .089 .46 5.964 ***In-group ethno ← SES −.106 .039 −.13 −2.722 .006

Table 4. Bootstrapping: the indirect effect of socioeconomic status and anomie on in-group ethnocentrism.

Independent variable Standardized Indirect effect(point estimate)

Standardized Indirect error

Bootstrapping:

BC percentile 95% CI

Lower Upper

DV: In-group ethnocentrism SES −.20*** .043 −.295 −.123Anomie .03* .015 .002 .065 DV: Out-group ethnocentrism SES −.22*** .038 −.297 −.149Anomie .07*** .025 .027 .128 DV: Authoritarianism SES −.06*** .019 −.103 −.027

BC = bias corrected; *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

considered good (Ho, 2006). The significance and other coefficients of the structural model are presented in Table 3.

There are some indirect effects of socioeconomic status on ethnocentrism via anomie and authoritarianism, another indirect effect of socioeconomic status on authoritarianism via anomie, and lastly the indirect effect of anomie on ethnocentrism via authoritarian-ism, all of which require further examination. The results of significance of the indirect effects were examined using the bootstrap procedure, based on 5000 samples to derive a 95% confidence bias-corrected (BC) confidence interval as shown in Table 4.

The bootstrapped estimate of the mediated effect is significant for the relation of socioeconomic status with in-group and out-group ethnocentrism via authoritarianism and anomie (BC = .20, ER = .043, p < .001; BC = −.22, ER = .038, p < .001, for in-group and out-group ethnocentrism respectively) and similarly, for the indirect effect of socio-economic status on anomie via authoritarianism (BC = –.06, ER = .019, p < .001). Anomie has a significant indirect effect on in-group and out-group ethnocentrism via authoritari-anism as well (BC = .03, ER = .015, p < .036; BC = .07, ER = .025, p < .001, for in-group and out-group ethnocentrism respectively).

at UQ Library on May 13, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Heydari et al. 249

Thus, socioeconomic status has a significant indirect effect on in-group and out-group ethnocentrism via authoritarianism and anomie, and a significant indirect effect on authoritarianism via anomie. Anomie also has a significant indirect effect on in-group and out-group ethnocentrism via authoritarianism. The total effect size of the exoge-nous variables on endogenous variables is reported in Table 5. As can be seen in this table, the most effective construct in this model was anomie, which had a very large effect size of .56 on both in-group and out-group ethnocentrism. Interestingly, anomie and socioeconomic status have the same very large effect size on in-group and out-group ethnocentrism.

Discussion

It was found that socioeconomic status, anomie, and authoritarianism are effective fac-tors in in-group and out-group ethnocentrism. They had a significant positive association with each other. Most specifically, socioeconomic status had an indirect effect on in-group and out-group authoritarianism via the mediation effect of anomie and authoritari-anism. In addition, feelings of anomie had an indirect effect on in-group and out-group ethnocentrism via the mediation effect of authoritarianism.

Consistently, the significant association of ethnocentrism with anomie, authoritarian-ism, and socioeconomic status had been found previously (Adorno et al., 1950; Haghish et al., 2012; Heydari et al., 2012; Laythe et al., 2001; Lutterman & Middleton, 1970; McDill, 1961; Scheepers et al., 1990, 1992; Srole, 1956), however, we bring all these factors together within the Iranian context in a single path model using structural equation modeling. A large proportion of ethnocentrism variance was explained by the research variable, showing how such intergroup feelings are rooted in the social structure and distort intergroup relations both directly and indirectly through feelings of anomie and authoritarian personality. More importantly, feelings of anomie played a very crucial role here as shown by its very large effect size, meaning on average the participants held high levels of anomic feelings. As found by Heydari et al. (2012), Iranian society is very anomic due to dramatic social changes over the most recent decades, and the members of Iranian society need to adapt to the anomic condition.

Table 5. Direct, indirect and total effects of latent exogenous variables on in-group and out-group ethnocentrism and authoritarianism.

Exogenous Direct effect(DE)

Indirect effect(IE)

Total effect(TE)

DV: In-group ethnocentrism SES −.11 −.20 −.11 + −.20 = −.31Anomie .53 .03 .53 + .03 = .56 DV: Out-group ethnocentrism SES −.09 −.22 −.09 + −.22 = −.31Anomie .49 .07 .49 + .07 = .56 DV: Authoritarianism SES −.12 −.06 −.12 + −.06 = −.18

at UQ Library on May 13, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

250 Social Science Information 53(2)

The significant association of socioeconomic status with authoritarianism was con-sistent with the working-class authoritarianism theory (Lipset, 1959, 1963) and subse-quent empirical research (Heydari et al., 2012, 2013; Napier & Jost, 2008). Merton’s (1938, 1968) theory of anomie also predicted the significant association of social struc-ture–socioeconomic status–feelings of anomie. Previous studies reported the significant association of socioeconomic status with anomie (Carr & Hauser, 1976; Heydari et al., 2012, 2014; Lee & Clyde, 1974; Menard, 1995; Rushing, 1971; Teevan, 1975), which is completely in line with the results of the current study. In line with what has been called a ‘flight into security’ (Oesterreich, 2005), anomie significantly relates to authoritarian-ism. In addition, the mediation effect of anomie for the relation of socioeconomic status to authoritarianism is consistent with previous findings (Heydari et al., 2012). Authoritarianism seems to reproduce itself, on the one hand, in the context of social class, and, on the other hand, through feelings of anomie, the latter also being influenced by social class. Theoretically, authoritarianism is considered to be a mode of adaptation to an anomic situation and an insecure position in the social structure, all of which lead society members toward ethnocentrism.

References

Adler NE, Boyce T, Chesney MA, et al. (1994) Socioeconomic status and health: The challenge of the gradient. American Psychologist 49: 15–24.

Adorno TW, Frenkel-Brunswik E, Levinson DJ, et al. (1950) The Authoritarian Personality. New York, NY: Harpers.

Aghajanian A (1983) Ethnic inequality in Iran: An overview. International Journal of Middle East Studies 15: 211–224.

Altemeyer B (1998) The other ‘authoritarian personality’. In: Zanna MP (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30. New York: Academic Press, 47–91.

Amirahmadi H (1987) A theory of ethnic collective movements and its application to Iran. Ethnic and Racial Studies 10: 363–391.

Andersen ML, Taylor HF (2007) Sociology: Understanding a diverse society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Arendt H (1951) The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York, NY: Harcourt Inc.Asgharzadeh A (2007) Iran and the Challenge of Diversity: Islamic fundamentalism, Aryanist rac-

ism, and democratic struggles. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Assadi SM, Zokaei N, Kaviani H, et al. (2007) Effect of sociocultural context and parenting style

on scholastic achievement among Iranian adolescents. Social Development 16: 169–180.Bell W (1957) Anomie, social isolation, and the class structure. Sociometry 20: 105–116.Blank T (2003) Determinants of national identity in East and West Germany: An empirical com-

parison of theories on the significance of authoritarianism, anomie, and general self-esteem. Political Psychology 24: 259–288.

Brezina C, McCarthy R (2004) Dictatorship: A primary source analysis. New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Brooks JB (1996) The Process of Parenting. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.Byrne BM (2010) Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and

programming. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Carr LG, Hauser WJ (1976) Anomie and religiosity: An empirical examination. Journal for the

Scientific Study of Religion 151: 69–74.

at UQ Library on May 13, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Heydari et al. 251

Caruana A, Ramaseshan B, Ewing MT (2000) The effect of anomie on academic dishonesty among university students. International Journal of Educational Management 14: 23–30.

Crockett WH, Meidinger T (1956) Authoritarianism and interpersonal perception. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 53: 378–380.

Duckitt J (2001) A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 33: 41–113.

Duriez B, Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M (2007) In search of the antecedents of adolescent authori-tarianism: The relative contribution of parental goal promotion and parenting style dimen-sions. European Journal of Personality 21: 507–527.

Duriez B, Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M (2008) The intergenerational transmission of authoritarian-ism: The mediating role of parental goal promotion. Journal of Research in Personality 42: 622–642.

Durkheim E (1951 [1893]) Suicide: A study in sociology. New York, NY: The Free Press.Durkheim E. (1984 [1893]) The Division of Labor in Society. New York, NY: The Free Press.Floyd FJ, Saitzyk AR (1992) Social class and parenting children with mild and moderate mental

retardation. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 17: 607–631.Fokoohi N, Amoosi M (2009) برانهويت ملى و هويت قو مى در آر دستان ا [National identity and ethnic

identity in Kurdestan, Iran]. Youth, Culture, and Society Research 2: 49–75.Fromm E (1994 [1941]) Escape from Freedom. New York: Holt Paperbacks.Gecas V (1979) The influence of social class on socialization. Contemporary Theories about the

Family 1: 365–404.Haghish EF, Heydari A, Biegler R, et al. (2012) Sociological indicators of ethical attitude toward

ethnic humor: An empirical study on Persian jokes. Asian Social Science 8(13): 9–20.Heydari A (2010) The Role of Socioeconomic and Cultural Factors on Feeling of Anomie. Masters

thesis in Sociology, Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz.Heydari A, Teymoori A, Haghish EF (2013) Socioeconomic status, perceived parental control,

and authoritarianism: Development of authoritarianism in Iranian Society. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 16: 228–237.

Heydari A, Teymoori A, Nasiri H (2014) Development of suicidality within socioeconomic con-text: Mediation effect of parental control and anomie. Omega: Journal of death and dying 68(1): 63–76.

Heydari A, Teymoori A, Nasiri H, et al. (2012) Relationship between socioeconomic status, anomie, and authoritarianism. e-BANGI: Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 7(1): 176–188.

Ho R (2006) Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group.

Hoff E, Laursen B, Tardif T (2002) Socioeconomic status and parenting. Handbook of Parenting, vol. 2: Biology and Ecology of Parenting. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 231–252. (2nd ed.)

Kohn ML (1977) Class and Conformity: A study in values, with a reassessment. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

Kohn ML, Schooler C (1969) Class, occupation, and orientation. American Sociological Review 34: 659–678.

Koutlaki SA (2010) Among the Iranians: A guide to Iran’s culture and customs. London: Intercultural Press.

Laythe B, Finkel D, Kirkpatrick LA (2001) Predicting prejudice from religious fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism: A multiple regression approach. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40: 1–10.

at UQ Library on May 13, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

252 Social Science Information 53(2)

Lee GR, Clyde RW (1974) Religion, socioeconomic status, and anomie. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13: 35–47.

LeVine RA, Campbell DT (1972) Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York, NY: Wiley.

Lins-Dyer MT, Nucci L (2007) The impact of social class and social cognitive domain on north-eastern Brazilian mothers’ and daughters’ conceptions of parental control. International Journal of Behavioral Development 31: 105–114.

Lipset SM (1959) Democracy and working-class authoritarianism. American Sociological Review 24: 482–501.

Lipset SM (1963) Political Man. London: Mercury Books.Lipsitz L (1965) Working-class authoritarianism: A re-evaluation. American Sociological Review

30: 103–109.Lustig MW, Koester J (2003) Intercultural Competence. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. (4th ed.)Lutterman KG, Middleton R (1970) Authoritarianism, anomia, and prejudice. Social Forces 48:

485–492.Mayer JC (2012) Toward an explanation of ethnocentrism versus ethnorelativism based upon

reference group orientation. In: Verma GK, Bagley C (eds) Race Relations and Cultural Differences: Educational and interpersonal perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge, 29–39.

McDill EL (1961) Anomie, authoritarianism, prejudice, and socioeconomic status: An attempt at clarification. Social Forces 39: 239–245.

Meloen JD, Van der Linden G, De Witte H (1996) A test of the approaches of Adorno et al., Lederer and Altemeyer of authoritarianism in Belgian Flanders: A research note. Political Psychology 17: 643–656.

Menard S (1995) A developmental test of Mertonian anomie theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 322: 136–174.

Merton R (1938) Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review 3: 672–682.Merton R (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.Miller J, Slomczynski KM, Schoenberg RJ (1981) Assessing comparability of measurement in

cross-national research: Authoritarian-conservatism in different sociocultural settings. Social Psychology Quarterly 44: 178–191.

Mizruchi EH (1960) Social structure and anomia in a small city. American Sociological Review 25: 645–654.

Moghadas Jafari M, Sheikhavandi D, Sharifpour H (2008) بن جواذاان آردبت قومى درببت ملى و هوراب طه هو [The relation between national and ethnic identities among Kurd youth]. National Studies 9: 97–126.

Morrison W (1995) Theoretical Criminology: From modernity to post-modernism. London: Cavendish Publishing.

Mulford CL, Murphy JB (1968) Selected correlates of the stigma associated with mental illness. Journal of Social Psychology 74: 103–110.

Nabavi SA, Hosseinzade HA, Hosseini SH (2009/1387) The effect of socioeconomic status, pow-erlessness, and ethnic identity on social security. Daneshe Entezami 10: 9–36.

Napier JL, Jost JT (2008) The ‘antidemocratic personality’ revisited: A cross-national investiga-tion of working-class authoritarianism. Journal of Social Issues 64: 596–617.

Navah AAR, Heydari A, Froutan Kia S (2010/1389) Investigating the effect of socio-economic status and authoritarianism on ethnocentrism. Human Development Quarterly 4: 85–106.

Navah AAR, Taghavinasab SM (2007) The effects of the feeling of relative deprivation on ethnic and national identities: A study on Arab population of Khuzestan in Iran. Iranian Journal of Sociology 8: 142–163.

at UQ Library on May 13, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Heydari et al. 253

Neuliep JW, Hintz SM, McCroskey JC (2005) The influence of ethnocentrism in organizational contexts: Perceptions of interviewee and managerial attractiveness, credibility, and effective-ness. Communication Quarterly 53: 41–56.

Oesterreich D (2005) Flight into security: A new approach and measure of the authoritarian per-sonality. Political Psychology 26: 275–298.

Owens-Sabir MC (2007) The Effects of Race and Family Attachment on Self-Esteem, Self-Control, and Delinquency. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

Porter RE, Samovar LA (1976) Communicating interculturally. In: Samovar LA, Porter RE, McDaniel ER (eds) Intercultural Communication: A reader. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Rabani A, Yazdkhasti B, Hajiani E, et al. (2009) The relationship between national and ethnic identity with a focus on perceived relative deprivation and ethnic socialization: A case study on Arabic, Kurdish, and Azari students. Social Problems of Iran 16: 33–69.

Roberts AH, Rokeach M (1956) Anomie, authoritarianism, and prejudice: A replication. American Journal of Sociology 61: 355–358.

Rushing WA (1971) Class, culture and ‘social structure and anomie’. American Journal of Sociology 765: 857–872.

Scheepers P, Felling A, Peters J (1990) Social conditions, authoritarianism and ethnocentrism: A theoretical model of the early Frankfurt School updated and tested. European Sociological Review 6: 15–29.

Scheepers P, Felling A, Peters J (1992) Anomie, authoritarianism and ethnocentrism: Update of a classic theme and an empirical test. Politics & the Individual 2: 43–59.

Scodel A, Freedman ML (1956) Additional observations on the social perceptions of authoritar-ians and nonauthoritarians. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 52: 92–95.

Scodel A, Mussen P (1953) Social perceptions of authoritarians and nonauthoritarians. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 48: 181–184.

Segall MH (1979) Cross-Cultural Psychology: Human behavior in global perspective. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Shaffer B (2002) Borders and Brethren: Iran and the challenge of Azerbaijani identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Slomczynski KM, Miller J, Kohn ML (1981) Stratification, work, and values: A Polish–United States comparison. American Sociological Review 46: 720–744.

Srole L (1956) Social integration and certain corollaries: An exploratory study. American Sociological Review 21: 709–716.

Sumner WG (2002 [1907]) Folkways: A study of mores, manners, customs and morals. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.

Tajfel H, Turner JC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin W, Worchel S (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, 33–47.

Teevan JJ (1975) On measuring anomia: Suggested modification of the Srole Scale. Pacific Sociological Review 18: 159–170.

Van Ijzendoorn MH (1989) Moral judgment, authoritarianism, and ethnocentrism. Journal of Social Psychology 129: 37–45.

Van Ijzendoorn MH (1990) The relation of moral judgement to authoritarianism, sexism, ethno-centrism, and concern about nuclear war. Journal of Moral Education 19: 38–47.

Weber C, Federico CM (2007) Interpersonal attachment and patterns of ideological belief. Political Psychology 28: 389–416.

Wright JD, Wright SR (1976) Social class and parental values for children: A partial replication and extension of the Kohn Thesis. American Sociological Review 41: 527–537.

Xiao H (2000) Class, gender, and parental values in the 1990s. Gender & Society 14: 785–803.

at UQ Library on May 13, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

254 Social Science Information 53(2)

Author biographies

Arash Heydari is a PhD student in Sociology at the Allame Tabatabaei University and a lecturer in Science and Technology at the University of Behzisti at Khoramabad and Allame Tabatabaei University at Tehran. He recently wrote a book in Farsi, Criminology: Theory and Application (Tehran: Narenjestan Press, 1392/2013). His research interests are social problems, subjectivity, and the genealogy of Iranian culture. He has investigated the social problems in Iranian society in recent years, focusing mainly on authoritarianism as a cultural and attitudinal construct.

Ali Teymoori is a PhD student in Social Psychology at the University of Queensland. He has been focusing on authoritarianism, morality, and anomie. His current research focuses on developing a social psychological analysis of anomie and its outcomes.

E.F. Haghish is a researcher in the Department of Medical Bioinformatics at the University of Freiburg, Germany and the Center for Child Language, University of Southern Denmark. His research principally concerns socio-cognitive psychology.

Behrang Mohamadi is a postgraduate student at Allame Tabatabaee University. His research inter-ests are: regional development planning, social assessment, sustainable development, crisis and disaster, and homelessness.

at UQ Library on May 13, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from