I found an interesting 1989 study by van Ijzendoorn [negatively] correlating the level of moral judgment, measured using Kohlberg dilemmas, with some measure of authoritarianism and another of ethnocentrism:
Although much has been written about the moral basis of authoritarianism, empirical research on the relationship between moral judgment level and authoritarian and ethnocentric attitudes has been sparse. In this study, I hypothesized that higher levels of moral judgment are related to anti-authoritarian and antiethnocentric attitudes, whereas lower moral levels predict the presence of authoritarian and ethnocentric opinions. Dutch university students (n = 126) and high school students (n = 88) completed the Sociomoral Reflection Objective Measure (SROM) and scales for authoritarianism and ethnocentrism. Results in the two samples converge: Moral judgment level indeed appears to be related to authoritarianism in the expected direction and—to a lesser extent—to ethnocentrism äs well.
Have these findings (either for authoritarianism or ethnocentrism) been confirmed in other studies?
(The ethnocentrism scale used by van Ijzendoorn seems pretty obscure; it was only published in Dutch. He used a Dutch version of Adorno's F scale for authoritarianism.)
There's also a World Values Survey nowadays:
Much of the variation in human values between societies boils down to two broad dimensions: a first dimension of “traditional vs. secular-rational values” and a second dimension of “survival vs. self-expression values.” On the first dimension, traditional values emphasize religiosity, national pride, respect for authority, obedience and marriage. Secular-rational values emphasize the opposite on each of these accounts. [...]
That seems to suggest that in such more "traditional" societies, people would "fail" the Kohlberg dilemmas more often. Is that actually the case? (This would be an indirect way to confirm van Ijzendoorn's findings.)