Right-wing authoritarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it.[1]

History

The concept of right-wing authoritarianism was introduced in 1981 by Canadian-American psychologist Bob Altemeyer,[2] as a refinement of the authoritarian personality theory originally pioneered by University of California at Berkeley researchers Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford.[3] After extensive questionnaire research and statistical analysis, Altemeyer found that only three of the original nine hypothesized components of the model correlated together: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. Researchers have traditionally assumed that there was just one kind of authoritarian personality, who could be either a follower or a leader. The discovery that followers and leaders are usually different types of authoritarians is based on research done by Sam McFarland.[4]

Assessment

Right-wing authoritarianism is measured by the RWA scale. The first scored item on the scale states, "Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us." People who strongly agree with this are showing a tendency toward authoritarian submission (Our country desperately needs a mighty leader), authoritarian aggression (who will do what has to be done to destroy), and conventionalism (the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us).[5]

Psychometrically, the RWA scale was a significant improvement over the F-scale, which was the original measure of the authoritarian personality. The F-scale was worded so that agreement always indicated an authoritarian response, thus leaving it susceptible to the acquiescence response bias. The RWA scale is balanced to have an equal number of pro and anti authoritarian statements. The RWA scale also has excellent internal reliability, with coefficient alpha typically measuring between 0.85 and 0.94.[6]

The RWA scale has been modified over the years, as many of the items lost their social significance as society changed. The current version is 22 items long, and can be found online.[this is a book chapter that needs a citation]

Although Altemeyer has continually updated the scale, researchers in different domains have tended to lock-in on particular versions. For example in the social psychology of religion, the 1992 version of the scale is still commonly used,.[7] In addition, the length of the earlier versions (30 items) led many researchers to develop shorter versions of the scale. Some of those are published [8] but many researchers simply select a subset of items to use in their research; a practice that Altemeyer strongly criticizes.[9]

The uni-dimensionality of the scale has also been challenged recently. Funke,[10] for example, showed that it is possible to extract the three underlying dimensions of RWA if the double- and triple-barreled nature of the items is removed. Given the possibility of underlying dimensions emerging from the scale, it is then the case that the scale is no longer balanced, since all the items primarily capturing authoritarian aggression are pro-trait worded (higher scores mean more authoritarianism) and all the items primarily measuring conventionalism are con-trait worded (higher scores mean less authoritarianism).[10] Work by Mavor, Louis and Sibley [11] recently demonstrated that the existence of 2 or 3 factors in the RWA scale reflects real differences in these dimensions rather than acquiescence response bias.[citation needed]

Attitudes

Right-wing authoritarians want society and social interactions structured in ways that increase uniformity and minimize diversity. In order to achieve that, they tend to be in favour of social control, coercion, and the use of group authority to place constraints on the behaviours of people such as gays and lesbians, political dissidents, ethnic minorities, immigrants, feminists and atheists. These constraints might include restrictions on immigration, limits on free speech and association and laws regulating moral behaviour. It is the willingness to support or take action that leads to increased social uniformity that makes right-wing authoritarianism more than just a personal distaste for difference. Right-wing authoritarianism is characterized by obedience to authority, moral absolutism, racial and ethnic prejudice, and intolerance and punitiveness towards dissidents and deviants. In parenting, right-wing authoritarians value children's obedience, neatness, and good manners.[1]

Right-wing authoritarianism is defined by three attitudinal and behavioral clusters which correlate together:[12][13]

  1. Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
  2. Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.
  3. Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities, and a belief that others in one's society should also be required to adhere to these norms.[14]

The terminology of authoritarianism, right-wing authoritarianism, and authoritarian personality tend to be used interchangeably by psychologists, though inclusion of the term "personality" may indicate a psychodynamic interpretation consistent with the original formulation of the theory.[citation needed]

Right and Left

The phrase right wing in right-wing authoritarianism does not necessarily refer to someone's politics, but to psychological preferences and personality. It means that the person tends to follow the established conventions and authorities in society. In theory, the authorities could have either right-wing or left-wing political views.[15]

Milton Rokeach's dogmatism scale was an early attempt to measure pure authoritarianism, whether left or right. The scale was carefully designed to measure closed-mindedness without regard to ideology. Nevertheless, researchers found that it correlated with British political conservativism.[16] In a similar line of research, Philip Tetlock found that right wing beliefs are associated with less integrative complexity than left wing beliefs. People with moderate liberal attitudes had the highest integrative complexity in their cognitions.[17]

There have been a number of other attempts to identify "left-wing authoritarians" in the United States and Canada. These would be people who submit to leftist authorities, are highly conventional to liberal viewpoints, and are aggressive to people who oppose left-wing ideology. These attempts have failed because measures of authoritarianism always correlate at least slightly with the right. There are certainly extremists across the political spectrum, but most psychologists now believe that authoritarianism is a predominantly right-wing phenomenon.[18]

Although authoritarians in North America generally support conservative political parties, this finding must be considered in a historical and cultural context. For example, during the Cold War, authoritarians in the United States were usually anti-communist, whereas in the Soviet Union, authoritarians generally supported the Communist Party and were opposed to capitalism.[19] Thus, authoritarians generally favor the established ways and oppose social and political change. Hence, even politics usually labeled as right or left-wing is not descriptive. While Communism in the Soviet Union is seen as leftist, it still inspired the same responses. Furthermore, recent research indicates that political progressives can exhibit the qualities of authoritarianism when they are asked about conservative Christians.[20] This leaves questions over what makes various ideologies left or right open to interpretation.[citation needed]

According to Karen Stenner, an Australian professor who specializes in authoritarianism, racism and intolerance, authoritarianism is different from conservatism because authoritarianism reflects aversion to difference across space (i.e., diversity of people and beliefs at any given moment), while conservatism reflects aversion to difference over time (i.e., change). Conservatives, Stenner argues, will embrace racial diversity, civil liberties and moral freedom to the extent they are already institutionalized authoritatively-supported traditions, and are therefore supportive of social stability. Conservatives tend to be drawn to authoritarianism when public opinion is fractious and there is a loss of confidence in public institutions, but in general they value stability and certainty over increased uniformity. Authoritarians however, Stenner says, want difference restricted even when so doing would require significant social change and instability.[1]

Research

According to research by Altemeyer, right-wing authoritarians tend to exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning. Specifically, they are more likely to make incorrect inferences from evidence and to hold contradictory ideas that result from compartmentalized thinking. They are also more likely to uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs, and they are less likely to acknowledge their own limitations.[13] Whether right-wing authoritarians are less intelligent than average is disputed, with Stenner arguing that variables such as high verbal ability (indicative of high cognitive capacity) have a very substantial ameliorative effect in diminishing authoritarian tendencies.[1] Measured against other factors of personality, authoritarians generally score lower on openness to experience and slightly higher on conscientiousness.[21]

Altemeyer suggested that authoritarian politicians are more likely to be in the Conservative or Reform party in Canada, or the Republican Party in the United States. They generally have a conservative economic philosophy, are highly nationalistic, oppose abortion, support capital punishment, oppose gun control legislation, and do not value social equality.[13] The RWA scale reliably correlates with political party affiliation, reactions to Watergate, pro-capitalist attitudes, religious orthodoxy, and acceptance of covert governmental activities such as illegal wiretaps.[13] Although authoritarianism is correlated with conservative political ideology, not all authoritarians are conservative, and not all conservatives are authoritarian. It is also worth noting that many authoritarians have no interest in politics.[citation needed]

Authoritarians are generally more favorable to punishment and control than personal freedom and diversity. For example, they are more willing to suspend constitutional guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of Rights. They are more likely to advocate strict, punitive sentences for criminals,[22] and report that punishing such people is satisfying for them. They tend to be ethnocentric and prejudiced against racial and ethnic minorities[23] and homosexuals.[24] However, Stenner argues that authoritarians will support programs intended to increase opportunities for minority groups, such as affirmative action, if they believe such programs will lead to greater societal uniformity.[1]

In roleplaying situations, authoritarians tend to seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive instead of cooperative. In a study by Altemeyer, 68 authoritarians played a three-hour simulation of the Earth's future entitled the Global change game. Unlike a comparison game played by individuals with low RWA scores, which resulted in world peace and widespread international cooperation, the simulation by authoritarians became highly militarized and eventually entered the stage of nuclear war. By the end of the high RWA game, the entire population of the earth was declared dead.[13]

The vast majority of research on right-wing authoritarianism has been done in the United States and Canada. A recent (2003) cross-cultural study, however, examined the relation between authoritarianism and individualism-collectivism in samples from Bulgaria, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, and the U.S.A. (total N = 1,018). Both at the individual level and the societal level, authoritarianism was correlated with vertical individualism (or dominance seeking) and vertical or hierarchical collectivism, which is the tendency to submit to the demands of one's ingroup.[25] A study done on both Israeli and Palestinian students in Israel found that RWA scores of right-wing party supporters were significantly higher than those of left-wing party supporters, and scores of secular subjects were lowest.[26]

Right-wing authoritarianism has been found to correlate only slightly with Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). Together they are strong predictors of a variety of prejudices such as sexism, racism, and heterosexism. The two measures can be thought of as two sides of the same coin: RWA provides submissive followers, and SDO provides power-seeking leaders.[4]

Criticism

Altemeyer's research on authoritarianism has been challenged by psychologist John J. Ray, who questions the sampling methods used and the ability of the RWA Scale to predict authoritarian behavior and provides evidence that the RWA scale measures conservatism rather than "directiveness", a construct that John J. Ray invented and that he relates to authoritarianism.[27][28] Ray's approach is, however, a minority position among researchers [29] and other psychologists have found that both the RWA Scale and the original F-Scale are good predictors of both attitudes and behavior.[30]

A recent refinement to this body of research was presented in Karen Stenner's 2005 book, The Authoritarian Dynamic.[31] Stenner argues that RWA is best understood as expressing a dynamic response to external threat, not a static disposition based only on the traits of submission, aggression, and conventionalism. Stenner is critical of Altemeyer's social learning interpretation and argues that it cannot account for how levels of authoritarianism fluctuate with social conditions. She argues that the RWA Scale can be viewed as a measure of expressed authoritarianism, but that other measures are needed to assess authoritarian predispositions which interact with threatening circumstances to produce the authoritarian response.

Recent criticism has also come as a result of treating RWA as uni-dimensional even in contexts where it makes no sense to do so. For example, RWA has been used in regression analyses with fundamentalism as another predictor, and attitudes to homosexuality and racism as the outcomes.[32] This research seemed to show that, for example, fundamentalism would be associated with reduced racism once the authoritarian component was removed, and this was summarized in a recent review of the field.[33] However, since the RWA scale has items that also measure fundamentalist religiosity, and attitudes to homosexuality, this undermines the interpretation of such analyses.[34] Even worse is the possibility that the unrecognised dimensionality in RWA can cause a statistical artifact to arise in such regressions, which can reduce or even reverse some of the relationships. Mavor and colleagues have argued that this artifact eliminates or even reverses any apparent tendency for fundamentalism to reduce racism once RWA is controlled. The implication is that in some domains such as the social psychology of religion it is not only preferable to think of RWA as consisting of at least two components, but essential in order to avoid statistical errors and incorrect conclusions.[35] Several options currently exist for scales that acknowledge at least the two main underlying components in the scale (aggression/submission and conventionalism).[36]

See also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Stenner, Karen (2009). "Three Kinds of "Conservatism". Psychological Inquiry: 142–159. doi:10.1080/10478400903028615. Retrieved 2 June 2012. 
  2. ↑ Altemeyer, B. (1981) Right-wing authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press.
  3. ↑ Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper and Row.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other ‘authoritarian personality.’ In M. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30 (pp. 47–92). San Diego: Academic Press.
  5. ↑ Altemeyer (2007). The Authoritarians: University of Manitoba, page 15. http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
  6. ↑ Fodor, Eugene M.; Wick, David P.; Hartsen, Kim M.; Preve, Rebecca M. (20 December 2007). "Right-Wing Authoritarianism in Relation to Proposed Judicial Action, Electromyographic Response, and Affective Attitudes Toward a Schizophrenic Mother". Journal of Applied Social Psychology 38 (1): 215–233. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00303.x. "Internal consistency of scale items for the RWA Scale (Altemeyer, 1996), as measured by alpha coefficients, consistently has been high, ranging from .85 to .94." 
  7. ↑ see for example, LaBouff, J. P., W. C. Rowatt, M. K. Johnson, M. Thedford, and J. A. Tsang. 2010. Development and initial validation of an implicit measure of religiousness-spirituality. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 49 (3):439-455. and
  8. ↑ see for example Smith, Allison, G., and David G. Winter. 2002. Right-wing authoritarianism, party identification, and attitudes toward feminism in student evaluations of the Clinton-Lewinsky story. Political Psychology 23 (2):355-383; Manganelli Rattazzi, A. M., Bobbio, A., & Canova, L. (2007). A short version of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 1223-1234.
  9. ↑ Altemeyer (2007). The Authoritarians: University of Manitoba. http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Funke, F. (2005). The Dimensionality of Right-Wing Authoritarianism: Lessons from the Dilemma between Theory and Measurement. Political Psychology, 26(2), 195-218.
  11. ↑ Mavor, K. I., Louis, W. R., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). A bias-corrected exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of right-wing authoritarianism: Support for a three-factor structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(1), 28-33.
  12. ↑ Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  14. ↑ Altemeyer, B. (2006). The Authoritarians, p.27 http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
  15. ↑ Altemeyer, Bob (2006). The Authoritarians. pp. 9–10. 
  16. ↑ Smithers, A. G., & Lobley, D. M. (1978). Dogmatism, social attitudes and personality. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 17, 135-142.
  17. ↑ Tetlock, P. E. (1984). Cognitive style and political belief systems in the British House of Commons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 365-375.
  18. ↑ Stone, W. F., & Smith, L. D. (1993). Authoritarianism: Left and right. In W. F. Stone, G. Lederer, & R. Christie (Eds.). Strengths and weaknesses: The authoritarian personality today. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  19. ↑ McFarland, S., Ageyev, V., & Abalakina, M. (1993). The authoritarian personality in the United States and the former Soviet Union: Comparative studies. In W. F. Stone, G. Lederer, & R. Christie (Eds.). Strengths and weaknesses: The authoritarian personality today. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  20. ↑ http://www.transactionpub.com/title/Dehumanizing-Christians-978-1-4128-5267-8.html?srchprod=1
  21. ↑ Sibley, C. G., Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 248-279.
  22. ↑ Narby, D. J., Cutler, B. L. & Moran, G. (1993). A meta-analysis of the association between authoritarianism and jurors' perceptions of defendant culpability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 34-42.
  23. ↑ Duckitt, J. & Farre, B. (1994). Right-wing authoritarianism and political intolerance among Whites in the future majority-rule South Africa. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 735-741.
  24. ↑ Goodman, M. B. & Moradi, B. (2008). Attitudes and behaviors toward lesbian and gay persons: Critical correlates and mediated relations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 371-384.
  25. ↑ Kemmelmeier, M., Burnstein, E., Krumov, K., Genkova, P., Kanagawa, C., Hirshberg, M. S., Erb, H., Wieczorkowska, G., & Noels, K. (2003). Individualism, collectivism, and authoritarianism in seven societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 304-322.
  26. ↑ Rubinstein, G. (1996). Two peoples in one land: A validation study of Altemeyer's Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale in the Palestinian and Jewish societies in Israel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 216-230.
  27. ↑ Ray, J.J. (1985) Defective validity in the Altemeyer authoritarianism scale. Journal of Social Psychology 125, 271-272
  28. ↑ Ray, J.J. (1987) Special review of "Right-wing authoritarianism" by R.A. Altemeyer. Personality & Individual Differences, 8, 771-772
  29. ↑ Stone, W. F., Lederer, G., & Christie, R. (1993). Strengths and weaknesses: The authoritarian personality today. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  30. ↑ Meloen, J. D., 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.
  31. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press.
  32. ↑ for example, Laythe, Brian, Deborah G. Finkel, and Lee A. Kirkpatrick. 2001. Predicting prejudice from religious fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism: A multiple regression approach. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40:1-10.
  33. ↑ Hall, D. L., D. C. Matz, and W. Wood. 2010. Why don't we practice what we preach? A meta-analytic review of religious racism. Personality and Social Psychology Review 14 (1):126-139.
  34. ↑ see Mavor, K. I., Macleod, C. J., Boal, M. J., & Louis, W. R. (2009). Right-wing authoritarianism, fundamentalism and prejudice revisited: Removing suppression and statistical artefact. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(5-6), 592-597, and Mavor, K. I., Louis, W. R., & Laythe, B. (2011). Religion, Prejudice, and Authoritarianism: Is RWA a Boon or Bane to the Psychology of Religion? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(1), 22-43.
  35. ↑ Mavor, K. I., Louis, W. R., & Laythe, B. (2011). Religion, Prejudice, and Authoritarianism: Is RWA a Boon or Bane to the Psychology of Religion? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(1), 22-43.
  36. ↑ Funke, F. (2005). The Dimensionality of Right-Wing Authoritarianism: Lessons from the Dilemma between Theory and Measurement. Political Psychology, 26(2), 195-218. Duckitt, J., & Fisher, K. (2003). The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24, 199-222. Manganelli Rattazzi, A. M., Bobbio, A., & Canova, L. (2007). A short version of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 1223-1234. Mavor, K. I., Louis, W. R., & Laythe, B. (2011). Religion, Prejudice, and Authoritarianism: Is RWA a Boon or Bane to the Psychology of Religion? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(1), 22-43. Mavor, K. I., Louis, W. R., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). A bias-corrected exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of right-wing authoritarianism: Support for a three-factor structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(1), 28-33. Duckitt, J., Bizumic, B., Krauss, S. W., & Heled, E. (2010). A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31(5), 685-715. Smith, Allison, G., and David G. Winter. 2002. Right-wing authoritarianism, party identification, and attitudes toward feminism in student evaluations of the Clinton-Lewinsky story. Political Psychology 23 (2):355-383.

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike; additional terms may apply for the media files.