Dangerous & Competitive Worldview

A Politico-Psychological Analysis

Report generated

February 25, 2026

1 Study Characteristics

1.1 Items: Dangerous & Competitive Worldview

The construct Worldview has two facets: - Dangerous Worldview - Competitive Worldview

Item Item Description
Dangerous1 (reverse-coded)Every day, our society become more lawless and bestial, a person’s chances of being robbed, assaulted, and even murdered go up and up
Dangerous2 Although it may appear that things are constantly getting more dangerous and chaotic, it really isn’t so. Every era has its problems, and a person’s chances of living a safe, untroubled life are better today than ever before
Competitive1 (reverse-coded) It’s a dog-eat-dog world where you have to be ruthless at times
Competitive2 There is really no such thing as ‘’right’’ and ‘’wrong.’’ It all boils down to what you can get away with

Possible values in responses: Strongly agree (1) - Neither agree nor disagree (5) - Strongly disagree (9)


Source: Perry, R., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013). Dangerous and competitive worldviews: A meta-analysis of their associations with social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 116-127.

1.2 Samples 2016

N=1500

To conduct a exploratory and a confirmatory large surveys during the general election, we hired a professional survey firm (SSI, a US-based market research company that recruits participants from a panel of 7,139,027 American citizens; more information can be found at www.surveysampling.com (now https://www.dynata.com/) to recruit a nationally representative sample of 1,500 Americans (50.7% women) who completed study materials during the general election from August 16-September 9, 2016. (Information about sampling and exclusion criteria is included in the Supplement). The age distribution was as follows: 18-24 (12.9%), 25-34 (17.6%), 35-44 (17.5%), 45-54 (19.5%), 55-65 (15.6%) and older than 65 (16.9%). The ethnic breakdown was: White/European American (82.5%), Black/African American (7.7%), Latino (5.9%) and “Other” (4.0%). Concerning religion, 67.6% identified as Christian, 17.1% as religiously affiliated but not Christian, and 15.3% as Atheist/Agnostic. With respect to education 35.1% indicated “high school only or lower,” 31.4 % indicated “some college,” and 33.6% indicated having received a “Bachelor” or “Graduate” degree. 2424 participants were directed to the survey,1885 of which finished the survey (attrition rate 22%).

We followed recommendations to minimize the problem of careless responding in online studies. Specifically, we employed 10 random attention questions and time controls to check for data quality. There were 385 participants who failed more than one attention check or finished the survey in under ~22 minutes and were therefore excluded from the sample. For the 1500 participants who successfully finished the survey, completion time was 67 minutes on average (MD: 51min).

N=2119

Also through SSI we also recruited 2,119 American adults (21.5% women), who completed study materials from August 20-September 13, 2016. (Information about sampling and exclusion criteria is included in the Supplement). Age was distributed as follows: 18-24 (9.1%), 25-34 (13.8%), 35-44 (11.4%), 45-54 (2.7%), 55-65(3.6%), 65 and older (59.3%). The ethnic breakdown was: White/European American (85.9%), Black/African American (5.1%), Latino (4.1%), and “Other” (5.0%). In terms of religion, 70.7% identified as Christian, 15.7% as religiously affiliated but not Christian, and 13.7% as Atheist/Agnostic. With respect to educational status, 16.2% chose “high school or lower,” 40.4% reported “some college” and 43.4% had attained a “Bachelor” or “Graduate” degree. The median income category was $50,000-$74,999. 3425 participants were directed to the survey, 2,262 of which finished the survey (attrition rate 22 %).

We followed recommendations to minimize the problem of careless responding in online studies (Meade & Craig, 2012). Specifically, we employed 10 random attention questions and time controls to check for data quality. There were 543 participants who failed more than one attention check or finished the survey in under ~22 minutes and were therefore excluded from the sample. For the 2,119 participants who successfully finished the survey, completion time was 92 minutes on average (MD: 57min).

2 Descriptives

2.1 Means, SD, Range, & SE

Descriptives for Dangerous & Competitive Worldview, Construct and Facets
vars n mean sd median min max range se
Dangerous_mean 1 1500 4.46 1.21 4.5 1 9 8 0.03
Competitive_mean 2 1500 6.01 1.91 6.0 1 9 8 0.05
Descriptives for Dangerous & Competitive Worldview at Item Level
n mean sd median min max range se
Dangerous1 1500 4.00 2.36 4.00 1 9 8 0.06
Dangerous2 1500 4.91 2.24 5.00 1 9 8 0.06
Competitive1 1500 5.08 2.21 5.00 1 9 8 0.06
Competitive2 1500 6.93 2.43 8.00 1 9 8 0.06
WV 1500 5.23 1.22 5.25 1 9 8 0.03
Dangerous_mean 1500 4.46 1.21 4.50 1 9 8 0.03
Competitive_mean 1500 6.01 1.91 6.00 1 9 8 0.05

2.2 Likert scale distribution

2.3 Distributions

2.4 Correlations

2.4.1 Correlation Plots

2.4.2 PIDF

2.4.3 Correlation Matrix



3 Demographics

3.1 Social Class




Note on the Raincloud Plots

  • Statistical summary (top): Welch’s t-test (or ANOVA) results, effect size, confidence intervals, p-values, and sample sizes are shown above each plot.
  • Bayesian analysis (bottom): Log Bayes factor and credible intervals are reported below each plot.



Dangerous & Competitive Worldview as grouped by SES
SES N Mean SD
Poor 38 0.08 0.93
Lower Middle Class 298 -0.14 1.06
Middle Middle Class 679 -0.01 0.96
Upper Middle Class 395 0.06 1.03
Rich 90 0.19 0.94
Dangerous grouped by SES
SES N Mean SD
Poor 38 0.13 0.91
Lower Middle Class 298 -0.09 1.04
Middle Middle Class 679 -0.01 0.99
Upper Middle Class 395 0.03 0.99
Rich 90 0.21 0.98
Competitive grouped by SES
SES N Mean SD
Poor 38 0.02 0.95
Lower Middle Class 298 -0.12 1.05
Middle Middle Class 679 0.00 0.98
Upper Middle Class 395 0.06 1.01
Rich 90 0.11 0.91



3.2 Gender




Dangerous & Competitive Worldview as grouped by Gender
Gender N Mean SD
Male 740 -0.08 1.04
Female 760 0.08 0.96
Dangerous grouped by Sex
Sex N Mean SD
Male 740 -0.02 1.02
Female 760 0.02 0.98
Competitive grouped by Sex
Sex N Mean SD
Male 740 -0.09 1.04
Female 760 0.09 0.95



3.3 Age




Dangerous & Competitive Worldview as grouped by Age
Age N Mean SD
18-24 years 193 -0.33 1.10
25-34 years 264 -0.07 0.97
35-44 years 263 -0.03 1.06
45-54 years 292 0.02 0.98
55-64 years 234 0.19 0.89
65+ 254 0.15 0.94
Dangerous grouped by Age
Age N Mean SD
18-24 years 193 -0.20 1.16
25-34 years 264 0.10 0.93
35-44 years 263 -0.02 1.05
45-54 years 292 0.02 0.98
55-64 years 234 -0.02 0.91
65+ 254 0.05 0.97
Competitive grouped by Age
Age N Mean SD
18-24 years 193 -0.29 0.98
25-34 years 264 -0.16 1.02
35-44 years 263 -0.03 1.00
45-54 years 292 0.02 0.99
55-64 years 234 0.26 0.93
65+ 254 0.16 0.98



3.4 Education




Dangerous & Competitive Worldview as grouped by Education
Education N Mean SD
Bachelor 310 0.12 0.94
Graduate 193 0.18 0.96
High School 475 -0.15 1.06
Less than High School 51 -0.17 0.95
Some College 471 0.02 0.97
Dangerous grouped by Education
Edu N Mean SD
Less than High School 51 0.04 1.09
High School 475 -0.12 1.03
Some College 471 -0.04 1.00
Bachelor 310 0.08 0.92
Graduate 193 0.25 0.97
Competitive grouped by Education
Edu N Mean SD
Less than High School 51 -0.24 1.15
High School 475 -0.12 1.02
Some College 471 0.05 1.00
Bachelor 310 0.10 0.96
Graduate 193 0.08 0.96



3.5 Income Levels




Dangerous & Competitive Worldview as grouped by Income Levels
Income Levels N Mean SD
Less than $15,000 178 -0.08 1.05
$15,000-$24,999 180 -0.11 1.02
$25,000-$34,999 176 0.04 0.97
$35,000-$49,999 227 0.02 0.87
$50,000-$74,999 292 0.09 0.97
$75,000-$99,999 192 -0.04 0.97
$100,000-$149,999 160 0.06 1.10
$150,000 + 95 -0.06 1.15
Dangerous grouped by Income Levels
Income N Mean SD
Less than $15,000 178 -0.09 1.05
$15,000-$24,999 180 0.01 1.02
$25,000-$34,999 176 -0.10 1.00
$35,000-$49,999 227 0.05 0.95
$50,000-$74,999 292 0.11 0.95
$75,000-$99,999 192 -0.04 0.92
$100,000-$149,999 160 0.04 1.04
$150,000 + 95 -0.10 1.18
Competitive grouped by Income Levels
Income N Mean SD
Less than $15,000 178 -0.04 1.03
$15,000-$24,999 180 -0.15 1.04
$25,000-$34,999 176 0.12 0.96
$35,000-$49,999 227 0.00 0.91
$50,000-$74,999 292 0.04 0.99
$75,000-$99,999 192 -0.02 1.01
$100,000-$149,999 160 0.05 1.08
$150,000 + 95 -0.01 1.02



3.6 Ethnicity




Dangerous & Competitive Worldview as grouped by Ethnicity
Ethnicity N Mean SD
Caucasian/European origin 1237 0.03 0.99
Black/African American 115 -0.20 1.08
Latino 88 -0.16 0.89
Asian/Pacific Islander 29 -0.11 1.22
Native American 13 -0.05 0.82
Other 18 0.27 0.95
Dangerous grouped by Ethnicity
Ethnicity N Mean SD
Caucasian/European origin 1237 0.01 0.98
Black/African American 115 -0.15 1.14
Latino 88 0.01 1.08
Asian/Pacific Islander 29 0.06 1.28
Native American 13 0.42 0.92
Other 18 0.08 0.80
Competitive grouped by Ethnicity
Ethnicity N Mean SD
Caucasian/European origin 1237 0.03 1.00
Black/African American 115 -0.16 1.02
Latino 88 -0.22 0.87
Asian/Pacific Islander 29 -0.18 1.03
Native American 13 -0.33 0.82
Other 18 0.29 0.97



3.7 Occupation




Dangerous & Competitive Worldview as grouped by Occupation
Occupation N Mean SD
Employed 768 -0.04 1.00
Retired 268 0.24 0.94
Unemployed 146 -0.04 1.02
Parent 104 -0.01 0.99
Disabled 98 0.04 1.02
Student 85 -0.29 1.00
Full-time caregiver 31 -0.15 1.02
Dangerous grouped by Occupation
Occupation N Mean SD
Employed 768 -0.01 1.04
Retired 268 0.08 0.86
Unemployed 146 -0.01 1.04
Parent 104 -0.12 1.02
Disabled 98 0.04 0.91
Student 85 -0.01 1.02
Full-time caregiver 31 -0.10 1.15
Competitive grouped by Occupation
Occupation N Mean SD
Employed 768 -0.04 1.00
Retired 268 0.24 0.94
Unemployed 146 -0.04 1.02
Parent 104 -0.01 0.99
Disabled 98 0.04 1.02
Student 85 -0.29 1.00
Full-time caregiver 31 -0.15 1.02



3.8 Area




Dangerous & Competitive Worldview as grouped by Area
Area N Mean SD
Urban 955 -0.01 1.00
Rural 545 0.02 0.99
Dangerous grouped by Area
Area N Mean SD
Urban 955 0.02 1
Rural 545 -0.04 1
Competitive grouped by Area
Area N Mean SD
Urban 955 -0.01 1.00
Rural 545 0.02 0.99



3.9 Religious Affiliation




Dangerous & Competitive Worldview as grouped by Religious Affiliation
Religious Affiliation N Mean SD
Christian 1014 0.00 1.00
Muslim 9 -0.49 1.34
Jewish 52 0.16 0.90
Atheist/Agnostic 230 0.10 0.95
No religion 195 -0.12 1.05
Dangerous grouped by Religious Affiliation
Religious Affiliation N Mean SD
Christian 1014 -0.04 1.00
Muslim 9 -0.29 1.18
Jewish 52 0.27 1.03
Atheist/Agnostic 230 0.13 0.88
No religion 195 -0.02 1.10
Competitive grouped by Religious Affiliation
Religious Affiliation N Mean SD
Christian 1014 0.02 1.01
Muslim 9 -0.44 1.08
Jewish 52 0.04 0.99
Atheist/Agnostic 230 0.05 0.99
No religion 195 -0.14 0.96



4 Political Behavior

4.1 Political Orientation

Correlation with General Conservatism, Economic Conservatism, Social Conservatism





  Political Orientation Social Political Orientation Economic Political Orientation Composite Political Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.31 5.18 – 5.43 <0.001 4.93 4.79 – 5.07 <0.001 5.48 5.35 – 5.61 <0.001 5.24 5.12 – 5.36 <0.001
Dangerous & Competitive Worldview -0.11 -0.23 – 0.02 0.092 -0.07 -0.21 – 0.07 0.322 -0.10 -0.23 – 0.04 0.157 -0.09 -0.21 – 0.03 0.145
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.002 / 0.001 0.001 / -0.000 0.001 / 0.001 0.001 / 0.001



  Political Orientation Social Political Orientation Economic Political Orientation Composite Political Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 3.30 2.72 – 3.89 <0.001 2.69 2.06 – 3.32 <0.001 3.16 2.50 – 3.81 <0.001 3.05 2.48 – 3.62 <0.001
WV -0.17 -0.26 – -0.08 <0.001 -0.14 -0.24 – -0.04 0.005 -0.17 -0.27 – -0.07 0.001 -0.16 -0.25 – -0.07 <0.001
Age 0.25 0.18 – 0.32 <0.001 0.25 0.18 – 0.33 <0.001 0.26 0.19 – 0.34 <0.001 0.26 0.19 – 0.32 <0.001
Income 0.09 0.03 – 0.15 0.004 0.00 -0.06 – 0.07 0.959 0.13 0.07 – 0.20 <0.001 0.07 0.02 – 0.13 0.013
Religiosity 0.38 0.34 – 0.42 <0.001 0.50 0.46 – 0.54 <0.001 0.31 0.26 – 0.35 <0.001 0.40 0.36 – 0.43 <0.001
Education -0.12 -0.24 – -0.00 0.042 -0.17 -0.29 – -0.04 0.010 0.04 -0.09 – 0.17 0.556 -0.08 -0.19 – 0.03 0.152
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.250 / 0.247 0.304 / 0.302 0.173 / 0.170 0.271 / 0.268

4.2 Religiosity



4.3 Religiosity & Political Orientation


4.4 Candidate Preferences

4.4.1 Dangerous & Competitive Worldview and Candidate Preferences [centered]

Candidate Preferences and Dangerous & Competitive Worldview [centered]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 -0.10 0.99
Hillary Clinton 371 0.05 1.02
Bernie Sanders 362 0.03 1.01
Ted Cruz 122 0.18 1.00
Jeb Bush 83 0.11 0.84
Gary Johnson 68 -0.08 1.07
Rand Paul 44 -0.15 0.98
Candidate Preferences and Dangerous [centered]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 -0.07 0.99
Hillary Clinton 371 0.04 1.07
Bernie Sanders 362 0.08 0.95
Ted Cruz 122 -0.05 0.94
Jeb Bush 83 -0.02 0.90
Gary Johnson 68 0.04 1.00
Rand Paul 44 -0.19 1.25
Candidate Preferences and Competitive [centered]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 -0.09 0.99
Hillary Clinton 371 0.04 0.98
Bernie Sanders 362 -0.02 1.02
Ted Cruz 122 0.26 1.02
Jeb Bush 83 0.15 0.89
Gary Johnson 68 -0.13 1.09
Rand Paul 44 -0.07 0.96



4.4.2 Dangerous & Competitive Worldview and Candidate Preferences [raw means]


4.5 Party Preferences

4.5.1 Party Preferences [centered]

Party Preferences and Dangerous & Competitive Worldview [centered]
Party Preference N Value SD
Republican Party 508 -0.02 0.96
Democratic Party 560 0.05 1.06
Libertarian Party 100 -0.04 0.98
Green Party 40 0.20 0.80
Constitution Party 14 -0.07 0.95
Tea Party 68 0.12 1.01
None 120 -0.10 0.91
Don't know 90 -0.17 1.02
Party Preferences and Dangerous [centered]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Republican Party 508 -0.06 0.99
Democratic Party 560 0.07 1.05
Libertarian Party 100 -0.04 0.90
Green Party 40 0.09 0.63
Constitution Party 14 -0.08 0.89
Tea Party 68 -0.13 0.98
None 120 0.00 0.96
Don't know 90 0.01 1.04
Party Preferences and Competitive [centered]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Republican Party 508 0.01 0.99
Democratic Party 560 0.02 1.04
Libertarian Party 100 -0.02 1.00
Green Party 40 0.20 1.00
Constitution Party 14 -0.04 1.06
Tea Party 68 0.24 0.92
None 120 -0.13 0.91
Don't know 90 -0.22 0.93


4.5.2 Party Preferences [raw means]

Party Preferences and Dangerous & Competitive Worldview [raw means]
Party Preferences N Mean SD
Republican Party 508 -0.02 0.96
Democratic Party 560 0.05 1.06
Libertarian Party 100 -0.04 0.98
Green Party 40 0.20 0.80
Constitution Party 14 -0.07 0.95
Tea Party 68 0.12 1.01
None 120 -0.10 0.91
Don't know 90 -0.17 1.02
$kable
Party Preferences and Dangerous [raw means]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Republican Party 508 4.39 1.20
Democratic Party 560 4.54 1.27
Libertarian Party 100 4.41 1.09
Green Party 40 4.56 0.76
Constitution Party 14 4.36 1.08
Tea Party 68 4.30 1.19
None 120 4.45 1.17
Don’t know 90 4.47 1.26
$kable
Party Preferences and Competitive [raw means]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Republican Party 508 6.03 1.89
Democratic Party 560 6.04 1.98
Libertarian Party 100 5.96 1.91
Green Party 40 6.39 1.90
Constitution Party 14 5.93 2.03
Tea Party 68 6.46 1.76
None 120 5.76 1.74
Don’t know 90 5.58 1.78


4.6 Voting

Dangerous & Competitive Worldview Candidate Preferences
  2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] 2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] + Supporters 2012 [Romney vs. Obama] 2008 [McCain vs. Obama]
Predictors Log-Odds CI p Log-Odds CI p Log-Odds CI p Log-Odds CI p
(Intercept) 0.017 -Inf – Inf 0.776 0.001 -Inf – Inf 0.986 0.139 -Inf – Inf 0.015 0.161 -Inf – Inf 0.005
Dangerous & Competitive Worldview 0.069 -Inf – Inf 0.251 0.073 -Inf – Inf 0.215 -0.088 -Inf – Inf 0.120 -0.038 -Inf – Inf 0.506
Observations 1103 1148 1236 1206
R2 Tjur 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.000


4.7 Party Identity

Dangerous & Competitive Worldview and Party Identity & Voting
Donald Trump Hilary Clinton
Strong Republican 282 7
Republican 166 24
Leaning Republican 58 7
Independent 17 16
Leaning Democrat 10 65
Democrat 27 129
Strong Democrat 4 323
Dangerous and Party Identity
Donald Trump Hilary Clinton
Strong Republican 282 7
Republican 166 24
Leaning Republican 58 7
Independent 17 16
Leaning Democrat 10 65
Democrat 27 129
Strong Democrat 4 323
Competitive and Party Identity
Donald Trump Hilary Clinton
Strong Republican 282 7
Republican 166 24
Leaning Republican 58 7
Independent 17 16
Leaning Democrat 10 65
Democrat 27 129
Strong Democrat 4 323

4.8 Voting & Party Identity

  2016 [Clinton vs. Trump] 2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] + Supporters
Predictors Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p
(Intercept) 3.97 1.48 – 11.17 0.007 4.40 1.72 – 11.69 0.002
Party Identity (dichotomous) 0.01 0.00 – 0.01 <0.001
Party Identity (dichotomous) 1.28 1.06 – 1.55 0.012 1.21 1.01 – 1.45 0.037
Dangerous & Competitive Worldview 0.01 0.00 – 0.01 <0.001
Observations 1103 1148
R2 Tjur 0.748 0.721

Table 1



4.9 Likeability

4.10 Trump’s likeability




4.11 Clinton’s likeability





4.12 Johnson’s Likeability



5 Politico-Psychological correlates of Dangerous & Competitive Worldview

5.1 Ideologies and Partisanship



5.2 Populism, Nationalism, Nativism, and Patriotism



5.3 Political Psychology

5.4 Social Justice Concerns, Empathy, and Prejudice



5.5 Values



5.6 Pot-Pourri



5.7 Positive and Negative correlates of Dangerous & Competitive Worldview

5.7.1 Positive Correlates

5.7.2 Negative Correlates

5.8 Section Summary


5.8.1 Interaction with Social Dominance and System Justification

  Dangerous & Competitive Worldview Dangerous & Competitive Worldview Dangerous & Competitive Worldview Dangerous & Competitive Worldview Dangerous & Competitive Worldview
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 6.12 5.95 – 6.28 <0.001 5.71 5.49 – 5.94 <0.001 5.06 4.82 – 5.31 <0.001 6.06 5.77 – 6.35 <0.001 5.55 5.29 – 5.80 <0.001
Social Dominance Orientation -0.24 -0.28 – -0.19 <0.001
Right-Wing Authoritarianism -0.09 -0.13 – -0.05 <0.001
System Justification 0.03 -0.01 – 0.08 0.165
Economic System Justification -0.17 -0.23 – -0.11 <0.001
Gender-specific System Justification -0.06 -0.10 – -0.01 0.012
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.077 / 0.077 0.013 / 0.012 0.001 / 0.001 0.021 / 0.021 0.004 / 0.003



  Dangerous & Competitive Worldview Dangerous & Competitive Worldview Dangerous & Competitive Worldview Dangerous & Competitive Worldview Dangerous & Competitive Worldview
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 6.06 5.76 – 6.35 <0.001 7.58 6.62 – 8.55 <0.001 5.06 4.82 – 5.31 <0.001 6.06 5.77 – 6.35 <0.001 5.55 5.29 – 5.80 <0.001
SDO7_Dominance -0.24 -0.34 – -0.14 <0.001
SDO7_AntiEgal 0.04 -0.04 – 0.12 0.297
SDO7_Dominance:SDO7_AntiEgal -0.01 -0.03 – 0.01 0.397
RWA_Aggression -0.31 -0.53 – -0.09 0.006
RWA_Conventionalism -0.33 -0.59 – -0.07 0.011
RWA_Submission -0.39 -0.68 – -0.11 0.007
RWA_Aggression:RWA_Conventionalism 0.04 -0.00 – 0.09 0.058
RWA_Aggression:RWA_Submission 0.03 -0.03 – 0.08 0.302
RWA_Conventionalism:RWA_Submission 0.07 0.01 – 0.12 0.019
RWA_Aggression:RWA_Conventionalism:RWA_Submission -0.01 -0.01 – 0.00 0.206
SJ_Gen 0.03 -0.01 – 0.08 0.165
SJ_Eco -0.17 -0.23 – -0.11 <0.001
SJ_Gender -0.06 -0.10 – -0.01 0.012
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.110 / 0.108 0.050 / 0.046 0.001 / 0.001 0.021 / 0.021 0.004 / 0.003


5.8.2 Interaction between Social Dominance Orientation and Dangerous & Competitive Worldview


5.8.3 Summary of Regression Models

Observations 1500
Dependent variable facet
Type OLS linear regression
F(1,1498) 125.83
R² 0.08
Adj. R² 0.08
Est. S.E. t val. p
(Intercept) 6.12 0.08 72.48 0.00
SDO -0.24 0.02 -11.22 0.00
Standard errors: OLS