Authoritarianism and anomia reconsidered: applying cross-lagged autoregressive & latent growth curve models

Dipl.-Soz. Elmar SchlüterPhilipps-University MarburgDFG-Research Training School Group-focused enmitycontact: e_schluet@gmx.de

Dr. Eldad DavidovProf. Dr. Peter SchmidtJustus-Liebig-Universität GiessenDepartment of Social Sciences

1. Background

• aim: illustrating the complimentary use of autoregressive & latent growth models

• both methodologies offer unique perspectives on substantive theoretical problems

• latent growth models relatively seldom used within sociology and political sciences

• anomia & authoritarianism as example

2. Plan of the presentation

• theoretical background: interrelationship of anomia & authoritarianism

• cross-lagged autoregressive & latent growth models: review of basic assumptions

• sample & indicators: Group-focused Enmity panel 2002-2004

• preliminary results

• discussion: pros & cons of cross-lagged autoregressive and latent growth models

3. The interrelationship of anomia and authoritarianism

• Anomia (Srole 1956) - perceived breakdown of the social order - feeling of being helpless, alone and powerless

• Authoritarianism (Adorno et al. 1950) - deep-rooted intraindividual characteristic- reflects conformity with the ingroup, submission to

ingroup leaders & aggressive stances towards outgroups

(1) Srole (1956, p. 716; see Scheepers et al. 1992):• anomic individuals choose authoritarian stances in order to

recover orientation

(2) Adorno et al. (1950), McClosky & Schaar (1965)• authoritarian individuals are hampered to interact effectively• less opportunities to escape from social isolation• resulting in anomia

AuthoritarianismAnomia

Anomia Authoritarianism

Anomia Authoritarianism

(3) reciprocal relationship: not necessarily implausible

Research questions for longitudinal analysis: a)• are authoritarian attitudes stable over time?• are anomic attitudes stable over time?• does anomia cause authoritarianism, does authoritarianism cause anomia or do we get evidence for both processes?

b) • if we get evidence for individual change of authoritarian and/ or anomic attitudes: is there an increase or a decrease?• do we get evidence for individual differences concerning such a development?• is there a relationship between the initial level of authoritarianism/ anomia and its dynamic?

4.a Cross-lagged autoregressive modelsautoregressive model • each variable X at t2 function of its lagged measure at t1 and residual• stability coefficients indicate degree of stability of interindividual

differences

cross-lagged autoregressive model (Finkel 1995)• cross-construct regression weights: X predicting Y, controlling for former values of Y

Xt1

Yt1

Xt2

Yt2

res2

res1

a

b

c

d

11

1

Intercept

Xt3Xt1Xt2

res1 res

2res3

4.b latent growth curve models• for analysing individual change processes using single/ multiple indicators

• assumption: a latent trajectory characterizing the sample (or subgroups) can be found • individual change as function of intercept and slope factors for each time period

• individual change as function of intercept and slope factors for each time period

1 F

Slope

0

5.a Data

Sample:• Group-focused enmity panel 2002-2004 (Heitmeyer et al. 2002,

2003; 2004 forthcomig)

• CATI-survey

• german-speaking persons aged 16 and over in households with telephone

• current analyses: respondents with german citizenship only

GFE-Survey 2002 GFE-Survey 2003 GFE-Survey 2004Nmax 2364 1175 824

5.b Indicators

Var Item

ATHRT_1 „One of the most important characteristics one should have is obedience toward the authorities”

ATHRT_2 „We should be grateful for the leading figures who tell us what to do“

4-point-scale: 1 „exactly true“; 2 „ moderately true“; 3 „ barely true“; 4 „ not at all true“; recoded: higher values indicate higher degrees of authoritarianism

Authoritarianism:

Variable Item

ANM_1 “Everything has become so much in disarray that one does not know whereone actually stands“

ANM_2 „Matters have become so difficult these days that one does not know what isgoing on“

1 „exactly true“; 2 „ moderately true“; 3 „ barely true“; 4 „ not at all true“; recoded: higher values indicate higher degrees of anomia

Anomia:

Anomia 2002-2004:

Time Variable N M SD Min. Min.

2002 ATHRT_1 2706 2.68 .939 1 4

ATHRT_2 2698 2.13 .856 1 4

2003 ATHRT_1 1166 2.70 .914 1 4

ATHRT_2 1168 2.20 .835 1 4

2004ATHRT_1 817 2.69 .918 1 4

ATHRT_2 821 2.20 .845 1 4

Authoritarianism 2002-2004:

6. Results - descriptives

Time Variable N M SD Min. Max.

2002ANM_1 2705 2.57 .905 1 4

ANM_2 2705 2.53 .898 1 4

2003ANM_1 1166 2.78 .900 1 4

ANM_2 1173 2.73 .900 1 4

2004ANM_1 825 2.90 .882 1 4

ANM_2 824 2.87 .874 1 4

6. Results• used software: Amos 5.0• missings: pairwise• all factor loadings > .60• measurement model showed good fit:

1.0,012,9821,127

pcloseRMSEAAGFI2 / df

• all factors loadings and stability coefficients intertemporal invariant (p = .49)

6.a Cross-lagged autoregressive model: unconditional bivariate analysis anomia and authoritarianismstandardized coefficients only; not shown: observed indicators + measurement errors; residual correlations; insignificant paths

80%83%

.15.12

.64

51%

.39

.91.84

.12

ATHRT_2002 ATHRT _2003 ATHRT _2004

56%

.67

.15

83%

ANM_2002 ANM_2003 ANM_2004

.15

80%

2 / df AGFI RMSEA pclose

2,664 .958 .045 .754

6.b Latent growth model I: unconditional univariate analysis authoritarianism

.

2 / df CFI RMSEA pclose

3.312 .996 .045 .373

.91

ATHRT_2002 ATHRT_2003 ATHRT_2004

.93

InterceptM =2.675 (.033)S = .459 (.070)

.95

0

89%

.09

SlopeM =.023 (.026)S = .035 (.082)

89% 90%

.15

• sig. mean of intercept authoritarianism

• sig. variance of intercept indicates individual differences

• insignificant mean of slope indicates: no change in authoritarian attitudes over the three time points

6.c Latent growth model II: univariate analysis anomia

2 / df CFI RMSEA pclose

.808 .999 .000 .992

.79.84

ANM_2002 ANM_2003 ANM_2004

.81

InterceptM = 2.581 (.030)S = .404 (.027)

0

70%

.37.18

72% 71%

SlopeM = .166 (.015)S = .020 (.010)

• sig. mean of intercept indicates starting point of anomic attitudes at 2.58 points

• sig. variance of intercept indicates individ. differences at starting point

• sig. mean of slope indicates an increase of .16 over the period of study

• sig. variance of slope indicates individ. differences concerning the growth process

.95

.29.82

.81.83

70%

6.d Latent growth model III: bivariate analysis anomia and authoritarianism

1.99

.54

89%88% 89%

71%71%

ATHRT_2002 ATHRT_2004

ANM_2002 ANM_2003 ANM_2004

SlopeAnmM = .206 (.031)S = .023 (.012)

InterceptAnmM = 2.58 (.031)S = .41 (.027)

InterceptAthrtM = 2.69 (.28)S = .49 (.03)

ATHRT_2003

2 / df CFI RMSEA pclose

1.497 .99 .025 1.0

0

.14

7. Conclusion/ Discussion

1. Cross-lagged autoregressive analysis:

- authoritarian attitudes more stable than anomic attitudes

- tendency to support the authoritarianism-causes-anomia model

2. Latent growth curve analysis:

- linear increase for anomic attitudes

- no sig. growth for authoritarian attitudes

- pos. cov. between intercept of authoritarian and anomic attitudes