Upload
victoria-hart
View
305
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 MalanSA 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 EuropeFrancisco 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 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
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)
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)
Aug
usto
Pin
och
et(C
hile
)
Idi-A
min
Da
da(U
gand
a)
Mar
gare
t T
hat
che
r(U
nite
d K
ingd
om
)
Slo
bod
an M
ilose
vic
(Ser
bia)
Ron
ald
Rea
gan
(US
A)
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
Surface personality traitssocial beliefs; behaviour
(projection of conflict)
Intropsychic conflict(will to revolt versus
fear of reprisal/defeat)
Childhood experience(strict parents, rigid values,
emphasis on hierarchy)
Causes and effects
Intropsychicconflict
Resentment,Hostility towardsparental discipline
Repressed anddisplaced becauseof fear of and needto submit to parentalauthority
Weak ego andUnintegrated super-Ego
Surface traits
Conventionalism,AuthoritarianSubmission &Aggression
Anti-intraception,Projectivity,Superstition &Stereotypy
Power &Toughness,Cynycism. Concern with sex
Social belief orbehaviour
ImplictlyAnti-democraticBeliefs
Ethno-centrism,Prejudice
Politico-economicconservatism,Fascist ideology,Right wingPolitical activity
Family structure /Relationships
Values: Rigid,Conventional,Status oriented
Relationships:Role-determined,Emotionally distant,Subordinate
Socialization: Strict,Punitive, Discipline isarbitrary, IntoleranceOf non-conformity
Adorno et al’s (1950) psychodynamic theory of the development ofauthoritarianism
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…
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”
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?
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 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?
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
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
Dizygotic twins(fraternal twins)
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
Societies create hierarchies based on three features:
1. Age2. Gender [these two exist in all societies]3. “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?)
Basics of SDT
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
Temperament
Socialization
Sex/gender
Group status
SDO
Legi
timiz
ing
myt
h
Dis
crim
inat
ion
Gro
up-b
ased
Soc
ial h
iera
rchi
es
Individual Society