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

2. 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

3. (1) Srole (1956, p. 716; see Scheepers et al. 1992): anomic individuals choose authoritarian stances in order to recover orientation AuthoritarianismAnomia (2) McClosky & Schaar (1965) authoritarian individuals are hampered to interact effectively less opportunities to escape from social isolation resulting in anomia Anomia Authoritarianism

4. Anomia Authoritarianism reciprocal relationship: not necessarily unplausible 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?

5. Cross-lagged autoregressive models autoregressive model each variable X at t 2 function of its lagged measure at t 1 and residual stability coefficients indicate degree of stability of interindividual differences X t1 Y t1 X t2 Y t2 res 2 res 1 a b c d cross-lagged autoregressive model (Finkel 1995) cross-construct regression weights: X predicting Y, controlling for former values of Y

6. 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 X t3 X t1 X t2 res 1 res 2 res 3 1 1 1 Intercept 1 F Slope 0 individual change as function of intercept and slope factors for each time period

7. 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 2002GFE-Survey 2003GFE-Survey 2004 N max 23641175824

8. 5.b Indicators VarItem AU03W1R „ One of the most important characteristics one should have is obedience toward the authorities ” AU04W1R „ 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: VariableItem an01w1r “ Everything has become so much in disarray that one does not know where one actually stands “ an02w1r „ Matters have become so difficult these days that one does not know what is going on “ 1 „ exactly true “ ; 2 „ moderately true “ ; 3 „ barely true “ ; 4 „ not at all true “ ; recoded: higher values indicate higher degrees of anomia Anomia:

9. Anomia 2002-2004: TimeVariableNMSDMin.Max. 2002 AU03W1R 27062.68.93914 AU04W1R 26982.13.85614 2003 AU03W2R 11662.70.91414 AU04W2R 11682.20.83514 2004 AU03W3R 8172.69.91814 AU04W3R 8212.20.84514 Authoritarianism 2002-2004: 6. Results - descriptives TimeVariableNMSDMin.Max. 2002 an01w1r27052.57.90514 an02w1r27052.53.89814 2003 an01w2r11662.78.90014 an02w2r11732.73.90014 2004 an01w3r8252.90.88214 an02w3r8242.87.87414