The Authoritarian Personality

Perspectives from Adorno et al. and Altemeyer

PSY203S

Setting the scene

Late 1940s and early 1950s Europe – recovering from WWII.

First details of the holocaust are made public (1946)

SA – National Party comes to power; installs apartheid policy (1948)

USA – Anti-communist sentiments peak in the McCarthy hearings (1953)

Daniel Francis MalanSA Prime Minister

(1948-1954)

Right about that time…

A problem in psychology theory Had theories to explain prejudice (eg.

Freud’s stuff) BUT: all individual based How do these explain an entire

political party showing this behaviour?

Triggers a concerted effort to look at this phenomenon Especially from Jewish psychologists

in EuropeFrancisco Franco

Generalisimo of Spain,1939 - 1975

Interesting evidence

Research from the time shows a link between prejudice for different groups Fink (1947): Correlations between prejudice for

various groups Adorno at al. (1950): Correlation between anti-

semitic and anti-Negro prejudice And, uh-oh… Hadley (1947): Correlations between prejudice for

imaginary groups One possible conclusion: some people are

more prone to the process of prejudice than others

How do we explain this? Prothro (1952): Not that

some people are more negative; rather, they are more receptive to prejudiced beliefs.

Other explanations: frustration poor psychological adjustment political conservatism religious fundamentalism

Psychologically,what is the link between these?

The Authoritarian Personality

Proposed by Theodore Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson and Nevitt Sanford (1950) Very detailed, based on empirical research

A syndrome - determines susceptibility to prejudice and patterns of belief and ideology display behaviour which follows a coherent

pattern defines a ‘type of person’ who is more likely to

show prejudiced behaviour

Authoritarian traits Authoritarians display most of:

Conventionalism Submission to authority figures Authoritarian Aggression Anti-intraception Superstition and stereotypy Concern with power and

toughness Destructiveness and cynicism Projectivity Concern with sexual goings-on

Theodore Adorno

Examples from Adorno et al.

High scorers M352 (pg. 760-761) (“Authoritarian” syndrome) 5057 (pg. 757) (“Conventional” syndrome)

As opposed to low scorers M711 (pg. 779-781) (“Easy-going” syndrome) F515 (pg. 782-783) (Genuine liberal)

How much authoritarianism could a fascist chuck…

The F-scale measures authoritarianism Agreement based Likert-type scale http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm

A person who has bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly expect to get along with decent people. (CON)

Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but as they grow up they ought to get over them and settle down. (SUB)

There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel a great love, gratitude, and respect for his parents. (AGR)

Nowadays more and more people are prying into matters that should remain personal and private. (INTR)

Example items from the F-scale & (supposedly) high F-scorers Some day it will probably be shown that

astrology can explain a lot of things. (S&S)

The true American way of life is disappearing so fast that force may be necessary to preserve it. (P&T)

Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict. (CYN)

Most people don't realize how much our lives are controlled by plots hatched in secret places. (PROJ)

Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped, or worse. (SEX)

Aug

usto

Pin

och

et(C

hile

)

Idi-A

min

Da

da(U

gand

a)

Mar

gare

t T

hat

che

r(U

nite

d K

ingd

om

)

Slo

bod

an M

ilose

vic

(Ser

bia)

Ron

ald

Rea

gan

(US

A)

How to become an authoritarian personality

Adorno et al. explain the development of the personality in childhood Freudian style – their

theoretical basis Psychodynamic analysis

of early family life Mostly come from strict

household / authoritarian parents

Tension: hate v. fear of reprisal

Surface personality traitssocial beliefs; behaviour

(projection of conflict)

Intropsychic conflict(will to revolt versus

fear of reprisal/defeat)

Childhood experience(strict parents, rigid values,

emphasis on hierarchy)

Causes and effects

Intropsychicconflict

Resentment,Hostility towardsparental discipline

Repressed anddisplaced becauseof fear of and needto submit to parentalauthority

Weak ego andUnintegrated super-Ego

Surface traits

Conventionalism,AuthoritarianSubmission &Aggression

Anti-intraception,Projectivity,Superstition &Stereotypy

Power &Toughness,Cynycism. Concern with sex

Social belief orbehaviour

ImplictlyAnti-democraticBeliefs

Ethno-centrism,Prejudice

Politico-economicconservatism,Fascist ideology,Right wingPolitical activity

Family structure /Relationships

Values: Rigid,Conventional,Status oriented

Relationships:Role-determined,Emotionally distant,Subordinate

Socialization: Strict,Punitive, Discipline isarbitrary, IntoleranceOf non-conformity

Adorno et al’s (1950) psychodynamic theory of the development ofauthoritarianism

Discussion of the theory

How was the theory built (what methodology was adopted)? Straightforward social science project Interviewed people, looked for common patterns in

both histories and attitudes/behaviours Once this was done, built scales (F-scale, etc). Found

the psychometric properties of the scales. Validated and refined the F-scale by various means

(discriminant validation, confirmatory methods, etc.) The F-scale was then used to further the theory and

select people for further interviews

Here comes the error…

Serious error in the F-scale: Acquiescence bias All items worded in the same direction

(agreement = authoritarianism) What about people who naturally tend

to agree (acquiescent subjects) ?

Does a high F-score mean high authoritarianism or high acquiescence? No way to know Acquiescence is a “third variable”

A person who has bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly expect to get along with decent people.

Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but as they grow up they ought to get over them and settle down.

There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel a great love, gratitude, and respect for his parents.

Nowadays more and more people are prying into matters that should remain personal and private.

Notice the directional bias?

Other criticisms

Freudian basis is highly suspect (shaky foundations)

Extensive use of projective tests (e.g. TAT) – known to be of low reliability and suspect validity

Was it research or a criticism of a particular political system?

Cannot predict prejudice in societies were prejudice is the norm (e.g. South Africa)

Recommended

Show me the money – empirical evidence Several relational studies

How strongly is prejudice related to authoritarianism?

Look at normatively prejudiced societies AND normatively non-prejudiced ones

Not very impressive correlations: Strongest: Ray (1980) r = 0.59 (R2 = 0.34) Weakest: Orpen & van der Schyff (1972) r = 0.05

(R2 = 0.0025) Uncorrected average over 25 studies: r = 0.28

(R2 = 0.0784)

Is Authoritarianism useless?

Should we drop the notion of a personality trait which predicts prejudice? Criticisms mostly aimed at specifics of Adorno et

al’s theory, rather than the concept Still useful in societies where prejudice is not

normative Rephrase: Personality variables affect

prejudice in certain social climates

The concept overhauled: RWA

1980’s: Authoritarianism re-done by Bob Altemeyer (Uni. Winnipeg)

Looked at all the research on Authoritarian personality, re-analyzed it Replaces Freudian notions with more modern

ideas such as attitudes and cognition Comes up with a simplified version of

Authoritarianism: RWA (right-wing authoritarianism)

Features of RWAs

Altemeyer reduces authoritarianism to three dimensions only (Adorno et al had 9) Submit to established authorities

[Authoritarian submission] Tend to be punitive, harsh

[Authoritarian aggression] Conform to conventional standards

[Conventionalism] Makes a shift from personality to personality

dimension

Typical RWA attitudes

Attitudes found in RWAs include: High in prejudice (gay, minorities,

environmentalists, feminists) Politically conservative High in religiosity (exaggerated piety/zeal;

emphasis on sentiment rather than behaviour) and fundamentalism

Perceive the world as being very dangerous.

Typical RWA cognitive styles

High RWAs have a cognitive style which leads to: Trouble at spotting false inferences (“yea-saying”). Prone to self-contradiction Difficulty disengaging critical thought from

religious beliefs More prone to fundamental attribution error

(overestimate individual factors and underestimate group factors)

Difficulty in dealing with ambiguities

Implication of RWA cognitive style (don’t copy down!!)

“The amount of money universities have to carry out their leftwing mission is mind-boggling. Whereas conservative and pro-American intellectual sources (such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute) and conservative journals may have budgets of a few million dollars, universities have billions of dollars. A great portion is taxpayers' money (through research grants and student- financed tuition), and in addition the leftists control most student activity assessments.”

(Eagle Forum Collegiate)

Can RWA theory helps us gain an insight into why this statement would be convincing?

Measuring RWA & examples Also uses a Likert-type agreement scale, but with half of the

items reversed Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not end the

perversions eating away at out moral fibre and moral beliefs [A] Our prisons are a shocking disgrace. Criminals are unfortunate

people who deserve much better care, instead of so much punishment. [A - reversed item]

What our country needs is more discipline, with everyone following our leaders in unity [S]

There is no “One Right Way” to live life; everybody has to create their own way [C - reversed item]

One good way to teach certain people right from wrong is to give them a good stiff punishment when they get out of line. [C]

A "woman's place" should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are submissive to their husbands and social convention belong strictly in the past. [C – reversed item]

Development of RWA

Altemeyer: Cognitive style is learnt at home Early socialization is important Parents/guardians play a large role No displaced aggression – plain old learned behaviour

The child learns about hierarchy, submission, etc. by observation, punishment & reward Cognitive style follows as a consequence Conservatism is passed down from parents (no

unconscious stuff at work) So, choose your parents carefully!

The Authoritarian gene? McCourt et al (1999)

Study of monozygotic / dizygotic twins raised apart/together

Found 50% variance due to genetic factors; 35% only for unshared environment

Conclusion – genes more important than upbringing in RWA

Katz & Barrett (1997) As young as 6 months, can

distinguish ‘high-bias’ and ‘low-bias’ children

‘high-bias’ children paid more attention to race of adults entering the room

Too young for parental influence to be a major factor

Dizygotic twins(fraternal twins)

Monozygotic twins(identical twins)

Another perspective: SDT

Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) Another explanation of the role of

personality in prejudice Extremely simple, elegant view One single personality dimension:

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)

Takes into account not only the individual (as Adorno et al & Altemyer do), but also the divisions which exist in society

Felicia Pratto

Societies create hierarchies based on three features:

1. Age2. Gender [these two exist in all societies]3. “empty set” (arbitrary stuff - race, wealth, political party,

religion) [only in societies producing economic surplus] Hierarchies according to these groups are kept at

particular levels by legitimizing myths

The interesting question: What importance does a particular person give to these hierarchies? (what is their level of social dominance orientation - SDO?)

Basics of SDT

Legitimizing myths

The degree to which societies emphasize hierarchies is controlled by legitimizing myths Hierarchy Emphasizing myths (HE) – racism,

sexism, nationalism Hierarchy Attenuating myths (HA) – socialism,

multiculturalism, universal rights

The degree to which HE and HA myths prevail in a society sets how important hierarchies are for that society

Measuring the myths – SDO scale

Likert-type questionnaire; HA and HE items (emphasis on measuring the focus on hierarchies)

HA items examples: Some groups of people are simply inferior to others If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer

problems Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place

HE items examples: It would be good if all groups could be equal Group equality should be our ideal All groups should be given an equal chance in life

Development of SDO & Maintenance of hierarchies

Temperament

Socialization

Sex/gender

Group status

SDO

Legi

timiz

ing

myt

h

Dis

crim

inat

ion

Gro

up-b

ased

Soc

ial h

iera

rchi

es

Individual Society