The Authoritarian Personality

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

2. Daniel Francis Malan SA Prime Minister (1948-1954) 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)

3. Francisco Franco Generalisimo of Spain, 1939 - 1975 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

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. Psychologically, what is the link between these? 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

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. Theodore Adorno 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

8. 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)

9. 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)

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

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

12. Family structure / Relationships Values: Rigid, Conventional, Status oriented Relationships: Role-determined, Emotionally distant, Subordinate Socialization: Strict, Punitive, Discipline is arbitrary, Intolerance Of non-conformity 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 Causes and effects Adorno et al’s (1950) psychodynamic theory of the development of authoritarianism

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. 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? 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”

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 = 0.0025) • Uncorrected average over 25 studies: r = 0.28 (R2 = 0.0784)

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. Dizygotic twins (fraternal twins) Monozygotic twins (identical twins) 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

26. Felicia Pratto 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

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