Right‐Wing Authoritarianism: Protective Factor Against or Risk Factor for Depression?

Because the authoritarian personality was introduced to explain the rise of fascism during World War II, research focused on its ability to predict prejudice, leaving its associations with well‐being largely unexplored. Studies that did examine these associations yielded inconsistent results, and some authors even argued that authoritarianism buffers against the negative effects of psychological vulnerability factors (i.e. D‐type personality) and negative life events on well‐being, especially among people in an authoritarian environment. Using a cross‐sectional community sample (N = 1010), Study 1 failed to support the idea that authoritarianism relates to depressive symptoms and buffers against the negative effects of D‐type personality on depressive symptoms. Using a longitudinal college student sample (N = 499), Study 2 showed that authoritarianism did not moderate the effects of life events either and even predicted over‐time increases in depressive symptoms. Using a longitudinal high school sample (N = 590), Study 3 showed that this effect emerged regardless of degree of fit with the social environment (i.e. with family and friends). Taken together, results suggest that authoritarianism constitutes a risk factor for rather than a protective factor against depressive symptoms. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Effectiveness of a moral and benevolent leader: Probing the interactions of the dimensions of paternalistic leadership

Paternalistic leadership has three dimensions: authoritarianism, benevolence and morality. Although it is important to understand how these dimensions interact to impact leadership effectiveness, previous studies have failed to identify consistent interaction effects of these dimensions, probably because of the high intercorrelations among the three dimensions. By manipulating the three dimensions independently in an experimental study ( N  = 265 Taiwanese employees), we found that: (i) benevolence and morality increased subordinates' deference to supervisor and work motivation, although authoritarianism was unrelated to these outcomes; and (ii) benevolence and morality interacted to affect the same employee outcomes. Specifically, benevolent and moral leaders elicited more favourable employee outcomes than leaders exhibiting other leadership styles.     

Book Reviews

Books reviewed: Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar, Going Negative. How PoliticalAdvertisements Shrink & Polarize the Electorate Ann M. Crigler (ed.), The Psychology of Political Communication Thomas M. Holbrook, Do Campaigns Matter? Robert Huckfeldt and John Sprague, Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication. Information and Influence in an Election Campaign Warren Christopher, In the Stream of History: Shaping Foreign Policy for a New Era Roberta S. Sigel, Ambition and Accommodation: How Women View Gender Relations Daniel Archibugi, David Held, and Martin Köhler (eds), Re-imaging Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy     

Beliefs in Conspiracies

This study used canonical correlation to examine the relationship of 11 individual difference variables to two measures of beliefs in conspiracies. Undergraduates were administered a questionnaire that included these two measures (beliefs in specific conspiracies and attitudes toward the existence of conspiracies) and scales assessing the 11 variables. High levels of anomie, authoritarianism, and powerlessness, along with a low level of self-esteem, were related to beliefs in specific conspiracies, whereas high levels of external locus of control and hostility, along with a low level of trust, were related to attitudes toward the existence of conspiracies in general. These findings support the idea that beliefs in conspiracies are related to feelings of alienation, powerlessness, hostility, and being disadvantaged. There was no support for the idea that people believe in conspiracies because they provide simplified explanations of complex events.     

主管威权领导与下属前瞻行为：一个被中介的调节模型构建与检验

采用214份主管-下属配对调查数据, 考察了威权领导这一华人企业组织中特有的领导方式对下属前瞻行为的影响, 尤其是检验了下属对领导者信任的中介作用与权威主义和集体主义这两种传统价值取向的调节作用。层次回归分析结果表明：(1)威权领导与下属的前瞻行为呈显著负相关; (2)对领导者的信任在威权领导与下属前瞻行为之间起完全中介作用; (3)下属权威主义取向对威权领导与下属对领导者信任和前瞻行为之间的负向关系均具有显著的弱化效应, 并且下属对领导者的信任完全中介了威权领导与下属权威主义取向之间的交互作用对前瞻行为的影响; (4)下属集体主义取向对威权领导与下属对领导者的信任之间的负向关系具有显著的增强效应。     

Religiosity, psychological resources, and physical health

Various explanations have been given for the positive association between religiosity and physical health. Using data from two waves of the National Survey of Midlife in the United States (1995, 2005) and retrospective data on the importance of religion in the home in which respondents were raised we find that psychological resources, operationalized by measures of emotional and psychological well-being, mediate the effect of this early exposure to religion but only on self-rated health and physical symptomatology; chronic illnesses and health limitations on activities of daily living are unaffected.     

Mapping the Connections between Politics and Morality: The Multiple Sociopolitical Orientations Involved in Moral Intuition

According to moral foundations theory (Haidt & Joseph, 2004), five foundations are central to moral intuition. The two individualizing foundations—harm/care and fairness/reciprocity—hinge on the rights of the individual, whereas the three binding foundations—in‐group/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity—focus on communal bonds. Recent work suggests that reliance on the various foundations varies as a function of sociopolitical orientation: liberals consistently rely on the individualizing foundations, whereas conservatives rely on both the individualizing and binding foundations. In an effort to further explore the relationship between sociopolitical orientation and morality, we argue that only certain types of sociopolitical attitudes and beliefs should relate to each cluster of foundations. Drawing on dual‐process models of social and political attitudes, we demonstrate that the individualizing foundations are aligned with attitudes and beliefs relevant to preferences for equality versus inequality (i.e., SDO and competitive‐jungle beliefs), whereas the binding foundations are aligned with attitudes and beliefs relevant to preferences for openness versus social conformity (i.e., RWA and dangerous‐world beliefs). We conclude by discussing the consequences of these findings for our understanding of the relationship between sociopolitical and moral orientations.