Right-wing authoritarianism 2616121 225107636 2008-07-11T22:29:09Z Jcbutler 915184 '''Right-wing authoritarianism''' ('''RWA''') is a [[personality]] and [[ideology|ideological]] variable that is defined by three [[Attitude (psychology)|attitudinal]] and [[behavioral|behavioral]] clusters which [[correlation|correlate]] together:<ref>Altemeyer, B. (1988). ''Enemies of freedom''. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press</ref> <ref>Altemeyer, B. (1996). ''The authoritarian specter''. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</ref> # ''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. # ''Authoritarian aggression'' — a general aggressiveness directed against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities. # ''Conventionalism'' — a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities. ==History== The concept of right-wing authoritarianism was introduced in 1981 by Canadian psychologist, [[Bob Altemeyer]],<ref>Altemeyer, Bob (1981). ''Right-wing authoritarianism''. University of Manitoba Press.</ref> as a refinement of the [[authoritarian personality]] theory originally pioneered by [[UC Berkeley]] researchers [[Theodor W. Adorno]], [[Else Frenkel-Brunswik]], [[Daniel Levinson]] and [[Nevitt Sanford]].<ref>Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). ''The authoritarian personality''. New York: Harper and Row.</ref> 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. At the time researchers assumed there was just one kind of authoritarian personality, who could be a follower or a leader. The discovery that followers and leaders were usually different kinds of authoritarians was based on research done by Sam McFarland.<ref>Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other ‘authoritarian personality.’ In M. Zanna (Ed.) ''Advances in Experimental Social Psychology'', ''30'' (pp. 47–92). San Diego: Academic Press.</ref> ==Assessment== Right-wing authoritarianism is measured by the RWA scale. The first 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). [[Psychometric]]ally, 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 measured over .90. 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 20 items long, and can be found at [http://www.theauthoritarians.com] This site contains a PDF version of an accessible, nonacademic book titled ''The Authoritarians'' published by Altemeyer in 2006. ==Left and right== The "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. [[Milton Rokeach|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 political conservatism.<ref>Smithers, A. G., & Lobley, D. M. (1978). Dogmatism, social attitudes and personality. ''British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology'', ''17'', 135-142.</ref> 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.<ref>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.</ref> 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.<ref>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.</ref> Although authoritarians in North America generally support conservative political parties, this finding must be considered in a cultural context. For example, in the United States authoritarians tend to be anti-communist, whereas in the Soviet Union, authoritarians tend to support the Communist Party and to be opposed to capitalism.<ref>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.</ref> <ref>Altemeyer, B. (1996). ''The authoritarian specter''. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</ref> Thus, authoritarians generally favor the established ways and oppose social and political change. ==Research== Research has discovered a wide range of RWA scale relationships over the years, which can be organized into four general categories.<ref>Altemeyer, B. (1996). ''The authoritarian specter''. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</ref> '''1: Faulty reasoning — RWAs are more likely to:''' * Make many incorrect inferences from evidence. * Hold [[doublethink|contradictory ideas]] that result from a cognitive attribute known as compartmentalized thinking. * Uncritically accept that many problems are ‘our most serious problem.’ * Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs. * Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear. * Use many double standards in their thinking and judgments. '''2: Hostility Toward Outgroups — RWAs are more likely to:''' * Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty such as a [[Bill of Rights]]. * Severely punish ‘common’ criminals in a role-playing situation. * Admit they obtain personal pleasure from punishing such people. * Be prejudiced against and hostile towards racial, ethnic, national, sexual, and linguistic minorities. * Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone. * Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered. '''3: Profound Character Attributes — RWAs are more likely to:''' * Be dogmatic. * Be zealots. * Be hypocrites. * Be absolutists * Be bullies when they have power over others. * Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict. * Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation. '''4: Blindness To One’s Own Failings And To The Failings Of Authority Figures Whom They Respect— RWAs are more likely to:''' * Believe they have no personal failings. * Avoid learning about their personal failings. * Be highly self-righteous. * Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness. RWA is also correlated with political conservatism — not so much at the level of ordinary voters, but with increasing strength as one moves from voters to activists to office holders, and then from lower- to higher-level officeholders.<ref>Altemeyer, B. (1996). ''The authoritarian specter''. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</ref> Scores on the RWA Scale predict many attitudes and behaviors related to conservatism as defined in the general culture at the time. For instance, the scale has correlated reliably with political party affiliation; reactions to Watergate; pro-capitalist attitudes; severity of jury sentencing decisions; punishment of deviants; racial prejudice; homophobia; religious orthodoxy; victim blaming; and acceptance of covert governmental activities such as illegal bugging, political harassment, denial of the right to assemble, and illegal drug raids.<ref>Altemeyer, B. (1996). ''The authoritarian specter''. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</ref> In one part of his summation, Altemeyer wrote that RWAs are more likely to be: "Conservative/Reform party (Canada) or Republican Party (United States) lawmakers who (1) have a conservative economic philosophy; (2) believe in social dominance; (3) are ethnocentric; (4) are highly nationalistic; (5) oppose abortion; (6) support capital punishment; (7) oppose gun-control legislation; (8) say they value freedom but actually want to undermine the Bill of Rights; (9) do not value equality very highly and oppose measures to increase it; (10) are not likely to rise in the Democratic party, but do so among Republicans." <ref>Altemeyer, B. (1996). ''The authoritarian specter''. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</ref> Altemeyer's own statement about this may be worth noting: "Right-wing authoritarians show little preference in general for any political party," and their prevalence in the Republican party reflects the long term effects of point (10) above.<ref>Altemeyer, B. (1988). ''Enemies of freedom''. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, p. 239</ref> RWA has been found to correlate only slightly with [[Social dominance orientation|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. <ref>Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other ‘authoritarian personality.’ In M. Zanna (Ed.) ''Advances in Experimental Social Psychology'', ''30'' (pp. 47–92). San Diego: Academic Press.</ref> ==See also== *[[Authoritarian personality]] *[[Social dominance orientation|Social Dominance Orientation]] ==References== <references/> ==Further reading== *{{cite book | last = Altemeyer | first = Bob | title = The Authoritarian Specter | publisher = [[Harvard University Press]] | date = 1996 | url = http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/ALTAUT.html | id = ISBN 0-674-05305-2}} *Altemeyer, Bob (1998). "The other ‘authoritarian personality.’" In M. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30 (pp. 47–92). San Diego: Academic Press. *{{cite book | last = Altemeyer | first = Bob | title = Right-Wing Authoritarianism | publisher = University of Manitoba Press | date = 1981}} *{{cite book | last = Altemeyer | first = Bob | title = The Authoritarians | publisher = Lulu | date = 2006 | url = | url= http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/}} *{{cite journal | author = [[John Levi Martin|Martin, John Levi]] | year = 2001 | title = The Authoritarian Personality, 50 Years Later: What Questions Are There for Political Psychology? | journal = Political Psychology | volume = 22 | issue = 1 | pages = 1–26 | doi = 10.1111/0162-895X.00223}} *{{cite book|author=[[John Dean|Dean, John W.]]|year=2006|title=[[Conservatives without Conscience]]|publisher=Viking Adult|id=ISBN 0-670-03774-5}} [[Category:Personality traits]] [[Category:Social psychology]] [[pl:Prawicowy autorytaryzm]]