Dipl.-Soz. Elmar Schlüter Philipps-University Marburg

1. Authoritarianism and anomia reconsidered: applying cross-lagged autoregressive & latent growth curve models Dipl.-Soz. Elmar Schlüter Philipps-University Marburg DFG-Research Training School Group-focused enmity contact: e_schluet@gmx.de Dr. Eldad Davidov Prof. Dr. Peter Schmidt Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen Department of Social Sciences

2. 1. Background • aim: illustrating the complimentary use of autoregressive & latent growth models • both methodologies offer unique perspectives on substantive theoretical problems • latent growth models relatively seldom used within sociology and political sciences • anomia & authoritarianism as example

3. 2. Plan of the presentation • theoretical background: interrelationship of anomia & authoritarianism • cross-lagged autoregressive & latent growth models: review of basic assumptions • sample & indicators: Group-focused Enmity panel 2002-2004 • preliminary results • discussion: pros & cons of cross-lagged autoregressive and latent growth models

4. 3. 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

5. Anomia Authoritarianism Authoritarianism Anomia (1) Srole (1956, p. 716; see Scheepers et al. 1992): • anomic individuals choose authoritarian stances in order to recover orientation (2) Adorno et al. (1950), McClosky & Schaar (1965) • authoritarian individuals are hampered to interact effectively • less opportunities to escape from social isolation • resulting in anomia

6. Anomia Authoritarianism (3) reciprocal relationship: not necessarily implausible • 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?

7. res1 Xt1 Xt2 a c d res2 Yt1 Yt2 b 4.a Cross-lagged autoregressive models autoregressive model • each variable X at t2 function of its lagged measure at t1 and residual • stability coefficients indicate degree of stability of interindividual differences • cross-lagged autoregressive model (Finkel 1995) • cross-construct regression weights: X predicting Y, controlling for former values of Y

8. res1 res2 res3 Xt2 Xt1 Xt3 1 1 F 1 1 0 Intercept Slope 4.b 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 • individual change as function of intercept and slope factors for each time period

9. 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

10. 5.b Indicators Authoritarianism: Anomia:

11. 6. Results - descriptives Authoritarianism 2002-2004: Anomia 2002-2004:

12. 2 / df AGFI RMSEA pclose 1,127 ,982 ,012 1.0 6. Results • used software: Amos 5.0 • missings: pairwise • all factor loadings > .60 • measurement model showed good fit: • all factors loadings and stability coefficients intertemporal invariant (p = .49)

13. 80% 83% .91 ATHRT_2002 ATHRT _2003 .84 ATHRT _2004 .12 .39 .15 .15 56% 51% ANM_2003 ANM_2004 ANM_2002 .67 .64 6.a Cross-lagged autoregressive model: unconditional bivariate analysis anomia and authoritarianismstandardized coefficients only;not shown: observed indicators + measurement errors; residual correlations; insignificant paths 80% 83% .15 .12

14. 89% 89% 90% ATHRT_2002 ATHRT_2003 ATHRT_2004 .93 .95 .91 .09 .15 Intercept M =2.675 (.033) S = .459 (.070) 0 Slope M =.023 (.026) S = .035 (.082) 6.b Latent growth model I: unconditional univariate analysis authoritarianism . • sig. mean of intercept authoritarianism • sig. variance of intercept indicates individual differences • insignificant mean of slope indicates: no change in authoritarian attitudes over the three time points

15. 70% 72% 71% ANM_2002 ANM_2003 ANM_2004 .81 .79 .84 .37 .18 Intercept M = 2.581 (.030) S = .404 (.027) 0 Slope M = .166 (.015) S = .020 (.010) 6.c Latent growth model II: univariate analysis anomia • sig. mean of intercept indicates starting point of anomic attitudes at 2.58 points • sig. variance of intercept indicates individ. differences at starting point • sig. mean of slope indicates an increase of .16 over the period of study • sig. variance of slope indicates individ. differences concerning the growth process

16. 6.d Latent growth model III: bivariate analysis anomia and authoritarianism 88% 89% 89% ATHRT_2003 ATHRT_2002 ATHRT_2004 .95 .99 1 InterceptAthrt M = 2.69 (.28) S = .49 (.03) .54 SlopeAnm M = .206 (.031) S = .023 (.012) InterceptAnm M = 2.58 (.031) S = .41 (.027) 0 .14 .83 .81 .29 .82 ANM_2002 ANM_2003 ANM_2004 71% 71% 70%

17. 7. Conclusion/ Discussion • Cross-lagged autoregressive analysis: • - authoritarian attitudes more stable than anomic attitudes • - tendency to support the authoritarianism-causes-anomia model • 2. Latent growth curve analysis: • - linear increase for anomic attitudes • - no sig. growth for authoritarian attitudes • - pos. cov. between intercept of authoritarian and anomic attitudes