The Authoritarian
Personality
Perspectives from Adorno et al.
and Altemeyer
PSY203S
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
(1948-1954)
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,
1939 - 1975
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 antisemitic 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
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?
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
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
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)
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)

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)
Slobodan Milosevic
(Serbia)
The true American way of life is
disappearing so fast that force may be
necessary to preserve it. (P&T)
Idi-Amin Dada
(Uganda)

Margaret Thatcher
(United Kingdom)
Some day it will probably be shown that
astrology can explain a lot of things.
(S&S)
Augusto Pinochet
(Chile)

Ronald Reagan
(USA)
Example items from the F-scale &
(supposedly) high F-scorers
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
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)
Causes and effects
Adorno et al’s (1950) psychodynamic theory of the development of
authoritarianism
Family structure /
Relationships
Intropsychic
conflict
Surface traits
Social belief or
behaviour
Values: Rigid,
Conventional,
Status oriented
Resentment,
Hostility towards
parental discipline
Conventionalism,
Authoritarian
Submission &
Aggression
Implictly
Anti-democratic
Beliefs
Relationships:
Role-determined,
Emotionally distant,
Subordinate
Repressed and
displaced because
of fear of and need
to submit to parental
authority
Anti-intraception,
Projectivity,
Superstition &
Stereotypy
Ethno-centrism,
Prejudice
Socialization: Strict, Weak ego and
Punitive, Discipline is Unintegrated superarbitrary, Intolerance Ego
Of non-conformity
Power &
Toughness,
Cynycism.
Concern with sex
Politico-economic
conservatism,
Fascist ideology,
Right wing
Political activity
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
Here comes the error…




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”
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
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)
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
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)
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
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.
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
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 studentfinanced 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?
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]
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!
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
Dizygotic twins
(fraternal twins)
Katz & Barrett (1997)



As young as 6 months, can
distinguish ‘high-bias’ and ‘lowbias’ children
‘high-bias’ children paid more
attention to race of adults
entering the room
Too young for parental influence
to be a major factor
Monozygotic twins
(identical twins)
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
Basics of SDT
Societies create hierarchies based on three
features:

1.
2.
3.
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?)
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
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
Development of SDO &
Maintenance of hierarchies
Sex/gender
Group status
Individual
Society
Group-based
Social hierarchies
SDO
Discrimination
Temperament
Legitimizing
myth
Socialization