Perceived Threat and Authoritarianism

There has been a long history of work on authoritarianism that has looked at the role of societal threat. Much of the empirical research in this tradition has relied on aggregate data to examine the relationship between societal threat and authoritarian attitudes and behaviors. Our analysis uses individual-level data and a range of perceived threat measures to better understand the dynamics of authoritarianism and threat. We also move beyond the hypothesis of a direct relationship between threat and authoritarianism, and hypothesize instead that the relationship involves interaction effects: societal threat activates authoritarian predispositions. As predicted, our analysis finds no evidence of a direct effect of societal threat but significant evidence of an interaction between authoritarian predispositions and perceived threat. We consider the implications of these results for our understanding of authoritarianism.     

Authoritarianism and the EPQ

Investigated the personality correlates of authoritarian attitudes (Ray, 1979) and anti-submissive behaviour (Rigby, 1986), among an Australian college sample (N = 198). Authoritarianism (in the attitudinal sense) was found not to correlate with the major dimensions of the EPQ for the whole sample although female authoritarians scored high on the N subscale (r = 0.40; P < 0.01). By contrast, anti-submissive behaviour was found to be associated with extraversion for females and tough-mindedness for males. Further factor analysis revealed the P subscale of the EPQ not to load on a factor identified as ‘authoritarianism’. This does not support the research of Kline and Cooper (1984).     

Authoritarianism and job preference

The hypothesis tested was that authoritarian personalities prefer the natural sciences (specifically biology and chemistry) and nonauthoritarian personalities choose the social sciences and humanities (specifically, psychology and philosophy). The results strongly supported the hypothesis. Since the study was conducted on freshmen students in Israel who select their department at the time they apply for admission to the university, the results were interpreted as indicating that authoritarians choose professions different from nonauthoritarians.     

Authoritarianism and interpersonal spacing behavior

When the relationship between interpersonal distance and authoritarianism was examined by Frankel and Barrett (1971), they failed to mention that their main effect for authoritarianism was not significant. Adorno et al. (1950), however, claim that authoritarians like greater interpersonal space. As the measure of authoritarianism concerned (the F scale) has been shown to be largely a measure of conservatism, any relationship observed could have wide applicability. Methodological weaknesses in the Frankel and Barrett paper are noted and a further experiment with 25 student Ss is reported. Correlations of 0.41 and 0.43 between F-scale score and distance adopted from two target persons (confederates) were found. Extensive controls for possibly confounding variables did not alter this result by any more than a minor amount.     

Authoritarianism, dominance and assertiveness

It is shown that there are definitions of the three constructs of authoritarianism, dominance and assertiveness which read very similarly; so much so that no distinction is immediately evident. It is proposed that authoritarianism might be conceived as aggressive dominance and at least some types of assertiveness as nonaggressive dominance. A new scale of Dominance suitable for general population use was produced, and compared with the existing Ray (1976) behavior inventory of authoritarianism. Both scales showed highly significant correlations with peer rated dominance and submission (the latter being negative in sign) but only the authoritarianism scale showed significant correlations with rated aggressiveness and rigidity. It was concluded that the new definitions could be operationalized into valid scales.     

Perceptions of informal sanctioning and the stigma of involuntary childlessness

This study systematically examines the role of informal social response in the emergence of involuntary childlessness or infertility as a stigmatizing attribute. Seventy‐one involuntarily childless women provide detailed instances of perceived informal social sanctions related to their infertility. Subjects perceive that normals consider infertility to be caused by psychological or sexual malfunctioning, or by the woman in the dyad. Infertility is also seen by some to act as a master status. Subjects categorize other infertile individuals in terms of stigma and consider male infertility to be more stigmatizing than female infertility. Social sanctions and social control are shown to be relevant to an understanding of the experience of involuntary childlessness.     

Undermining trust and cooperation: The paradox of sanctioning systems in social dilemmas

Sanctioning systems in social dilemmas are often meant to increase trust in others and to increase cooperation. We argue, however, that sanctioning systems may also give people the idea that others act in their own self-interest and undermine the belief that others are internally motivated to cooperate. We developed the “Removing The Sanction” paradigm and a new trust manipulation, and showed in three experiments that when there is a sanction on defection, trust in others being internally motivated to cooperate is undermined: Participants who had experienced the presence of a sanctioning system trusted fellow group members less than participants who had not. In a similar vein, the sanction undermined cooperation when trust was initially high. The implications of these paradoxical findings are discussed.     

Authoritarianism as a Group Phenomenon

A model of authoritarianism on a group level of analysis based on Duckitt's concept of authoritarianism is presented. This conceptualization is called group authoritarianism (GA), which is defined as the belief about the appropriate relationship that should exist between groups and their individual members. The process model of group authoritarianism connects traditional authoritarianism theories with the Social Identity Approach. According to this model group-authoritarianism reflects the situation-specific activation of an authoritarian disposition in group contexts. Thus, group authoritarianism provides a perspective according to which personality characteristics and general psychological mechanisms described by Social-Identity Theory (SIT) and Self-Categorization Theory (SCT) interact in predicting intergroup hostility and intergroup discrimination. This article describes the development of a group authoritarianism scale as well as an experimental study that tests the main assumption of the group authoritarianism process model. The results confirm the reliability and validity of the group authoritarianism scales and the main hypothesis of the group authoritarianism model.