This lead to studies on prejudice and anti-semitism by Adorno, et. al at the University of California at Berkeley in the late 1940’s. The original goal of this research was to study social prejudice, and the researchers hypothesized that this prejudice was often caused by a fascist personality syndrome. They developed the Fascism Scale (or the F Scale) to test these antidemocratic tendencies (Adorno, et. al, 1950). “The Authoritarian Personality” was published as a result in 1950, and also explored authoritarianism from a psychoanalytic perspective, but this time with empirical data to back up the theory.
Adorno and his colleagues found three aspects of the authoritarian personality: conventionalism, authoritarian submission, and authoritarian aggression. Conventionalism included a tendency toward conformity and rigid adherence with middle class values as well as an exaggerated responsiveness to external social pressure. Authoritarian submission was the subject’s emotional and psychological need to submit to authority. Authoritarian aggression encompassed the subject’s hostility toward members outside of their group, such as minorities (Adorno, et. al, 1950). Adorno and his associates conceptualized these three attitudes as stemming from the authoritarian’s underlying hostility toward in-group authorities, originally directed at his parents and then carried over into adulthood. The authoritarian displaces his underlying hostility toward the in-group authorities onto members of an out-group in the same reaction formation defense mechanism that Fromm discussed.
Other tendencies of authoritarians were also discussed in “The Authoritarian Personality” including : anti-intraception, superstition, stereotypy, power complex, destructiveness, projectivity, and a concern with sex (Adorno, et. al, 1950). To elaborate, authoritarians tend to have impatience with subjective phenomena, have an external locus of control, tend to think in rigid and oversimplified categories, lean on power figures, project their destructive impulses onto minority groups, and have moral indignation over the sexual behavior of other people stemming from their own sexual inhibitions.
“The Authoritarian Personality” was very influential in the field of psychology, and has been referenced in countless research articles since its publication. It was not immune to harsh criticism, however, and continues to be examined for biases and methodological problems. Edward A. Shils criticized “The Authoritarian Personality” for having a psychoanalytic bias and being based on an asymmetric scale from “the complete democrat” at one end to the “fascist” at the other (Shils, 1954). Shils held that “the complete democrat” actually held the views of a non Stalinist Leninist, and although they may score low in anti-semitism, ethnocentrism, political-economic conservatism and fascism, they still may hold many mechanisms of the authoritarian personality type from a politically left perspective. Shils gave the example of the Bolsheviks as displaying the cognitive and emotional orientations that correspond very closely with the deeper tendencies of the authoritarian right.
Hyman and Sheatsley published their criticism of “The Authoritarian Personality” focusing primarily on the methodological problems of Adorno et. al. Since the research behind “The Authoritarian Personality” utilized both the quantitative and survey methodology of social psychology along with the qualitative case-study approach of psychodynamics, the problems in synthesizing this data created methodological irregularities. In addition, Hyman and Sheatsley criticized the fact that the subjects drawn for the study were from an unrepresentative sample, almost exclusively from the middle socio-economic class and heavily weighted with younger people (Hyman & Sheatsley, 1954).
Bob Altemeyer criticized “The Authoritarian Personality” in 1981 for the use of the F Scale. Altemeyer contended that the F Scale was designed to tap too many personality traits at once and that in order for it to be truly effective, it should isolate the traits that it was testing for more efficiently. As a response, Altemeyer formulated the Right Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA Scale) as an improvement on the F Scale for testing authoritarian tendencies. Altemeyer’s conception of authoritarianism was in the spirit of Adorno et. al, but has a basis in Albert Bandura’s social learning theory. He held to the three original attitudinal clusters proposed in “The Authoritarian Personality” (conventionalism, authoritarian submission and authoritarian aggression) but saw Right Wing Authoritarianism as more of a state of mind rather than a set of behaviors. The tendencies of RWA’s that Altemeyer set forth were: a belief that authorities should be trusted, obeyed, respected and immune from criticism, a feeling of safety when authorities are strong, aggression under the belief that the established authority approves it, a predisposition to control the behavior of others through punishment, a belief in the “traditional” family structure where wives are subservient to husbands, and a belief that their views are commonly held in society that they are the “Moral Majority” (Altemeyer, 1981).
Altemeyer concluded that although his RWA Scale was based on categorizing subjects as high or low, that even low to moderate RWA Scale scorers can still to authoritarian deeds if given the right situation. He conducted a series of experiments mimicking Stanley Milgram’s 1974 obedience research and found that although high RWA Scale scorers tended to use stronger shocks to teach lessons, that nearly everyone was willing to hurt when commanded to do so by an authority figure to some degree. Milgram’s original experiments on obedience are often looked at by social psychologists when studying authoritarianism because they show the power of the situation to overshadow individual differences and personality traits which brings into question the predictive ability of finding out that someone has authoritarian tendencies (Milgram, 1983).
Another study that was conducted by Philip Zimbardo and Craig Haney in 1973 that pointed to the strength of situational factors on authoritarian tendencies is the “Stanford Prison Study.” In this study, “guards” and “prisoners” were selected from a group of seventy-five college students who responded to a newspaper ad which had been placed in a local paper asking for volunteers to participate in a “psychological study of prison life” (Haney & Zimbardo, 1973). This group was narrowed to twenty-one men after a series of psychological testing to select for the most psychologically healthy individuals out of the group of applicants. This final group was then divided into prisoners and guards and placed in a simulated prison environment. The prisoners were told nothing about what was expected of them by the researchers and the guards were told that they were responsible for maintaining order. In a short time, the guards in the experiment became very aggressive and authoritarian in their behavior and the prisoners became submissive and dependent upon their relationship with the guards. Despite the personality types of the individuals before the study, they all submitted to their symbiotic power roles of guards and prisoners in a matter of days. In fact, the researchers had to call the study off after only six days (they were planning on going for two weeks) because the conditions had become too psychologically stressful and possibly damaging to the participants.
In writing about this study, Zimbardo asserted that “it is no longer meaningful […] to talk in terms of personality ‘types’ [such as] authoritarians […] Rather, we must look to the situation in which the behavior was elicited and is maintained if we hope ever to find satisfactory explanations for it” (Haney & Zimbardo, 1973). This view of authoritarianism holds that anyone put into a situation where they are dominated by an authoritarian figure could submit to their power and that anyone put in the position of becoming an authority over an individual of a group could seize the power and abuse it in an authoritarian manner.
Duckitt in 1989 agreed with this situational view of authoritarianism and argued that the reason that the various scales used to identify the traits of authoritarians have been flawed is because authoritarianism is better understood as an aspect of group cohesion. Duckitt proposed that future studies of this subject consider the social world and situation of the individuals, such as the work environment (Duckitt, 1983).
Another view of authoritarianism is the cognitive psychological view first written about by Rokeach in 1960. Cognitive theory looks at the structure of the mind rather than at the content, at the information processing methods rather than the information. Rokeach asserted that authoritarianism is best understood and studied in terms of cognitive style, specifically the “open and closed mind” (Rokeach, 1960). This concept is much more general than psychodynamic or social theories, but also less bounded by time and historical events. In theory, if a certain cognitive style could be correlated with authoritarian characteristics, then it “would be predictive of political extremism in all times as well as in various places” (Rokeach, 1960). As a way to test this cognitive style, Rokeach developed the Dogmatism Scale (the D Scale) in 1960 to identify the belief systems of an individual that were closed to modification irrespective of the individual’s political ideology.
The cognitive view of authoritarianism was also held by Sidanius when he related the ethnic prejudice aspect of authoritarianism to various cognitive operations (Sidanius, 1988). Racism was shown to be linked to cognitive rigidity, intolerance of ambiguity, a tendency toward premature cognitive closure, a preference for perceptual simplicity over complexity, abstract reasoning ability, and inaccuracy in the perception of others. Peter Suedfelt took this a step further when he compared the common cognitive characteristics of people to the extreme right with people to the extreme left of the political spectrum (Suedfelt, 2002). Adherents to both right and left wing extremes tended to show similar cognitive patterns of close-mindedness, as Rokeach first proposed.
Psychologists have considered the developmental side of authoritarianism since the first psychoanalysts traced authoritarianism back to parental attitudes in their theories. Adorno et. al observed in “The Authoritarian Personality” that fathers of high authoritarian men were usually distant and stern, whereas their mothers were kind, self-sacrificing, and submissive. Persons high in authoritarianism came from homes where the father dominated and the discipline was harsh (Adorno, et.al, 1950). Baumrind took this theory a step further when she distinguished three patterns of parental behavior toward children: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive. She observed nursery school children and their parents for their interactions and attitudes. Baumrind noticed that “the authoritarian pattern tends to give rise to distrust, withdrawal, and discontent – traits that may be thought of as forerunners of authoritarianism” (Baumrind, 1968). Although Baumrind did not consider authoritarian parenting the best style, she did not link it with the serious personality problems identified by Adorno et. al. Further study on this subject found that authoritarian parenting did not affect the development of cognitive competence in children, but did discourage the development of independence in girls and social responsibility in boys (Baumrind, 1971). The fact that the findings of this study hinge upon the sex of the subject may imply that rigid gender roles are a factor in an authoritarian upbringing, a trait of the authoritarian personality mentioned by Adorno et. al and Altemeyer.
A more recent theory of authoritarianism comes from evolutionary personality theory, reviewed by Robert Smither. This perspective in psychology focuses on “psychological mechanisms and behavioral strategies [that] evolved as solutions to the adaptive problems our species has faced over millions of years” (Smither, 1993). The evolutionary personality psychologist seeks to identify dimensions of human psychology that have behavioral consequences that led to reproductive success, the primary goal of evolution. This theory holds that complex social behavior is an elaboration of basic motivations, such as the need to be accepted as a member of a group and to gain status within the group. Dominance is a critical aspect of group relations, to the need to dominate others in one’s group is an innate human motive (Smither, 1993). This is where evolutionary personality theory relates to authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is related to the quality of dominance, social status, managerial effectiveness and the motivation to establish hierarchies and these are all basic human motives to survive according to evolutionary personality theorists. This motivation to dominate is found in all groups of social animals, although sometimes status is enhanced by dominating others and other situations become status enhancing if one is submissive.
Smither uses the evolutionary personality perspective to explain several aspects of authoritarianism. First, an evolutionary explanation accounts for previous studies that have found that the affects of authoritarian parenting vary between ethnic groups. In some groups, submission enhances status while in other groups, dominance is more rank-enhancing. Secondly, the ethnocentrism and racism aspect of authoritarianism can be explained as a defense mechanism used by people who believe that their status within their group is in jeopardy. Since status within a group is related to reproductive success and personal survival on an evolutionary level, ethnocentric attitudes can be said to be mechanisms of self preservation. Overall, the evolutionary approach sees nothing pathological in seeking a comfortable level of domination or submission within the context of ones own group – in fact the practice of dominating and submitting is necessary for effective group functioning (Smither, 1993). This is a rather controversial stance on authoritarianism, since many psychologists hold the view that authoritarian attitudes are negative or unhealthy and need to be changed.
A final perspective that attempts to explain authoritarianism is Thomas Bouchard’s genetic explanation. Bouchard looked at identical and fraternal twins raised apart and observed their authoritarian attitudes and tendencies. He found a positive correlation of +.62 for identical twins and +.18 for fraternal twins, suggesting an inherited element of authoritarianism (Bouchard, 1997). Psychodynamic, developmental and social learning explanations had thus far pointed to external factors (nurture) influencing the development of authoritarian attitudes. Bouchard’s work supports the more cognitive or evolutionary perspective which both look to internal mechanisms in the brain and basic instincts (nature) to explain authoritarianism. Perhaps both internal and external factors work together in the formation of authoritarian attitudes. Some people may be predisposed to authoritarian tendencies because of their genetic makeup, their cognitive structures or the strength of their internal drives. However, the environment that they are raised in and the situations that they experience could work to bring out these authoritarian tendencies or to suppress them.
The study of authoritarianism continues in contemporary psychology. Interpretations of the data still remain quite diverse on the subject, but the empirical data itself has become more reliable as more detailed tests have been developed (from the Fascism Scale to the Ethnocentrism Scale to the Dogmatism Scale to the Right Wing Authoritarianism Scale). I believe that there is some element of truth to each position on the subject, and what is needed is a more integrated theory that takes into consideration the biological and the psychological, the objective and the subjective. To study the subject of authoritarianism from a purely scientific standpoint would be reductionistic without taking into account the subjective experience of the situation, the social pressures, and the personality traits and attitudes that a person has. Conversely, it would be a limited view to leave out the cognitive, behavioral, evolutionary and genetic explanations for the phenomenon of authoritarianism, especially since this is the basis for much of the empirical research that one can conduct.
The topic of authoritarianism is of contemporary concern in our society. As Altemeyer wrote in his conclusion of Enemies of Freedom, “All our freedoms are guaranteed in our democracy, but democracy is not guaranteed in our society” (Altemeyer, 1988). Altemeyer wrote in the 1980’s about his observation that American and Canadian people held highly authoritarian attitudes and his fear of a lack of action on the part of the public in the face of immoral decisions made by authorities in our country. With recent events in American history in mind, I wonder at the predictive nature of Altemeyer’s statements. Currently in America “outsiders” such as immigrants and those who voice dissent at current political decisions are being looked at negatively, as if it is unpatriotic to disagree with the current authorities. It is my contention that this is a symptom of the Right Wing Authoritarian attitudes that many Americans hold. The tendency for Americans to condemn political criticism coupled with an affinity for blind patriotism are indicative of a “close minded” cognitive style and of an aggressive authoritarian attitude toward group members outside of the majority.
On a more positive note, Nevitt Sanford found in his research that low education is a major factor in authoritarianism. This indicates that education is the essential counter to authoritarianism. Sanford observed that “Freedom from authoritarianism increases with education – not only because of exposure to enlightened culture, not only because of intellectual development, but because personality itself changes under the impact of well-directed education” (Sanford, 1973). Although more studies need to be conducted on the way that education reduces authoritarian tendencies, at least it gives one hope that there is a way to counteract the phenomenon of authoritarianism.
References:
Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D.J., & Sanford, R.N. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row, 1950.
Altemeyer, B. Enemies of freedom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc, 1988.
Altemeyer, B. Right-wing authoritarianism. Canada: University of Manitoba Press, 1981.
Baumrind, D. Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 1971, 4, 1-103.
Baumrind, D. Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental control. Adolescence, 1968, 3, 255-272.
Bouchard, T. The genetics of personality. In Blum, K. & Noble, E.P., (Eds.) Handbook of psychiatric genetics. Boca Raton, Fl., CRC Press, 1997.
Christie, R., & Jahoda, M. Studies in “The Authoritarian Personality.” Glencoe: Free Press, 1954.
Duckitt, J. Authoritarianism and group identification: A new view of an old construct. Political Psychology, 1989, 10, 63-84.
Eysenck, H.J. & Wilson, G.D. (Eds.). The psychological basis of ideology. Lancaster: MTP Press, 1978.
Fromm, E. Escape from freedom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1941.
Haney, C. & Zimbardo, P. G., Social roles and role playing: observations from the Stanford prison study. Behavioral and social science teacher, 1973, 1, 25-45.
Horkheimer, M., et. al. Studien uber Autoritat und Familie. Frankfurt, 1936.
Hyman, H.H., & Sheatsley, P.B. “The Authoritarian Personality” – A methodological critique. In R. Christie and M. Jahoda (Eds.), Studies in the scope and method of “The Authoritarian Personality.” Glencoe: Free Press, 1954.
Maslow, A.H. The authoritarian character structure. Journal of Social Psychology, 1943, 18, 410-411.
Milgram, S. Obedience to authority: an experimental view. New York: Harper/Collins. 1983.
Reich, W. The mass psychology of fascism. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1970.
Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960.
Sanford, N. Authoritarian personality in contemporary perspective. Handbook of political psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1973.
Shils, E. A. Authoritarianism: “Right” and “left.” In R. Christie and M. Jahoda (Eds.), Studies in the scope and method of “The Authoritarian Personality.” Glencoe: Free Press, 1954.
Sidanius, J. Intolerance of ambiguity, conservatism, and racism – whose fantasy, shoes reality?: A reply to Ray. Political Psychology, 1988, 8, 309-315.
Smither, R. D. Authoritarianism, dominance, and social behavior: a perspective from evolutionary personality psychology. Human Relations, 1993, 46, 23-43.
Suedfeld, P. Postmodernism, identity politics, and other political influences in political psychology. In K. R. Monroe, Political Psychology. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.
