1. The Authoritarian Personality
Perspectives from Adorno et al. and Altemeyer
PSY203S

2. 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 Malan
SA Prime Minister
( )

3. 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 Europe
Francisco Franco
Generalisimo of Spain,

4. 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

5. 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?

6. 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

7. 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

8. Examples from Adorno et al.
High scorers
M352 (pg ) (“Authoritarian” syndrome)
5057 (pg. 757) (“Conventional” syndrome)
As opposed to low scorers
M711 (pg ) (“Easy-going” syndrome)
F515 (pg ) (Genuine liberal)

9. How much authoritarianism could a fascist chuck…
The F-scale measures authoritarianism
Agreement based Likert-type scale
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)

10. 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)
Ronald Reagan
(USA)
Margaret Thatcher
(United Kingdom)
Slobodan Milosevic
(Serbia)
Augusto Pinochet
(Chile)
Idi-Amin Dada
(Uganda)

11. 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 traits
social beliefs; behaviour
(projection of conflict)
Intropsychic conflict
(will to revolt versus
fear of reprisal/defeat)
Childhood experience
(strict parents, rigid values,
emphasis on hierarchy)

12. Causes and effects
Adorno et al’s (1950) psychodynamic theory of the development of
authoritarianism
Intropsychic
conflict
Resentment,
Hostility towards
parental discipline
Repressed and
displaced because
of fear of and need
to submit to parental
authority
Weak ego and
Unintegrated super-
Ego
Surface traits
Conventionalism,
Authoritarian
Submission &
Aggression
Anti-intraception,
Projectivity,
Superstition &
Stereotypy
Power &
Toughness,
Cynycism.
Concern with sex
Social belief or
behaviour
Implictly
Anti-democratic
Beliefs
Ethno-centrism,
Prejudice
Politico-economic
conservatism,
Fascist ideology,
Right wing
Political activity
Family structure /
Relationships
Values: Rigid,
Conventional,
Status oriented
Relationships:
Role-determined,
Emotionally distant,
Subordinate
Socialization: Strict,
Punitive, Discipline is
arbitrary, Intolerance
Of non-conformity

13. 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

14. Here comes the error… Serious error in the F-scale: Acquiescence bias
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?
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”

15. 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

16. 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 = )
Uncorrected average over 25 studies: r = (R2 = )

17. 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

18. 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)

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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?

23. 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]

24. 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!

25. 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)

26. 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

27. Basics of SDT Societies create hierarchies based on three features:
Age
Gender [these two exist in all societies]
“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?)

28. 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

29. 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

30. Development of SDO & Maintenance of hierarchies
Temperament
Socialization
Sex/gender
Group status
SDO
Legitimizing
myth
Discrimination
Social hierarchies
Group-based
Individual
Society