Authoritarianism Research Paper

This sample Authoritarianism Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. Free research papers are not written by our writers, they are contributed by users, so we are not responsible for the content of this free sample paper. If you want to buy a high quality research paper on any topic at affordable price please use custom research paper writing services.

Abstract

Authoritarianism is a psychological concept that assumes the existence of a more or less unconscious general orientation of individuals toward being antidemocratic, prejudiced, and fascist. The so-called ‘‘authoritarian personality’’ is characterized by two ambivalent tendencies: subordination to authorities and the desire to become an authority himself or herself. Authoritarianism as a personality syndrome is predominantly measured by using the so-called F-scale and later revisions of that instrument.

Outline

Authoritarianism: The Concept
Correlates of Authoritarianism
Treatment Approaches

1. Authoritarianism: The Concept

There is no concept in the social sciences that is more closely connected to the events in Germany and throughout the world in the 1930s and 1940s than the authoritarianism concept. For decades, this approach served as the main explanation of fascism and antidemocratic thoughts or action in psychology.

1.1. Historical Background

Precursors of the authoritarianism concept can be traced back to the early and mid-1930s. At that time Marxist psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich studied voting behavior of Germans between 1929 and 1933 to find reasons for the increase in the number of voters for the fascist NSDAP party from less than 1 million to approximately 17 million voters during that period. Within his framework of thinking, he concluded that ideologies of subordination to authority were internalized by subordinate individuals and eventually became a stable personality structure. Some years later, researchers of the so-called Frankfurt School, such as Erich Fromm, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Herbert Marcuse, carried out a study on ‘‘Authority and Family’’ and systematized the idea of an authoritarian personality structure that is strongly determined by the societal context. In the 1940s, members of the Frankfurt School, who had to leave Germany due to their Jewish and Marxist background, engaged in a much larger research project—partly supported by the American Jewish Committee—in their American exile. Influenced by their experience of racism and inhumanity in fascist Germany, the group around Adorno set out to uncover psychological forces that promote fascist and antidemocratic attitudes and to find possible ways to fight fascist tendencies in society. They used quantitative and qualitative research methods (e.g., questionnaire-based surveys and qualitative semistructured interviews). Individuals surveyed in the U.S.-based studies were mainly students and members of the American middle class.

1.2. Concept of the Authoritarian Personality

The main thesis of Adorno was that the political, economic, and social attitudes of an individual form a coherent structure of thought, which is an expression of an underlying, hidden personality structure. In accordance with Freudian psychodynamic theory, this personality structure is assumed to have developed during early childhood. Authoritarian relations within the family, an authoritarian parental style, and a general lack of love and warmth determine it. Antidemocratic individuals often experience feelings of hatred against authorities—namely their father as the family’s bread winner—during their childhood. Because they never could express this hatred in any way against their father or their parents, they direct such feelings of hatred toward convenient scapegoats – inferiors and social minorities (e.g., immigrants/foreign-collaborators developed the so-called F-scale (fascism scale) to measure such an antidemocratic personality structure (Fig. 1).

The scale is constructed to measure a syndrome that comprises nine dimensions or subscales not always present simultaneously:

Conventionalism: rigid adherence to the conventional values of the middle class
Authoritarian submission: an uncritical and submissive attitude toward idealized in-group authorities
Authoritarian aggression: a tendency to look out for and to condemn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional values
Anti-intraception: rejection of all inwardness, of the subjective, the imaginative, the tender-minded, and of self-criticism
Superstition and stereotypicality: the belief in mystical determinants of the individual’s fate, a disposition to think in rigid categories
Power and toughness: a preoccupation with the dimension of dominance–submission, strong–weak, leader–follower; identification with power figures; overemphasis on the conventionalized attributes of the ego; exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness
Destructiveness and cynicism: a generalized hostility and vilification of the human
Projectivity: to project unconscious emotional impulses onto the outside world and to believe that wild, evil, and dangerous things go on in the world
Sexuality: an exaggerated concern with sexual matters

Authoritarianism Research Paper f1 FIGURE 1 The authoritarianism construct.

1.3. Criticism

The accomplishment of Adorno and collaborators was to create an insight into the phenomenon of an authoritarian personality. However, there are methodological and empirical limitations. One of the foremost points of criticism is that the theory attempts to explain societal processes (Germany’s turn to fascism) on the basis of knowledge about individual personality development. Another major criticism is that the authoritarianism concept and the F-scale questions appear highly ideological. This criticism is repudiated by a number of psychologists, including Gerda Lederer, who points out that F-scale items are related to moral and individual values, human relations, the self, family, and sexuality and are not at all ideological. At least the popular reception of the concept, however, is highly politicized. Particularly in the 1950s, it was used to characterize not only fascist but also communist movements. Yet other points of criticism are concerned with methodological problems of Adorno’s empirical work, indicating, for instance, a sampling problem. Adorno generalized from a nonprobability sample that consisted of white middle-class Americans. Also, several studies showed problems with the construct validity of the F-scale, i.e., they doubt that the F-scale measures exactly what it intends to measure. Furthermore, semistructured interviews conducted with individuals in order to gain information on their parents’ educational style were criticized as being more of a memory exercise than a pool of information about parental authoritarianism. Some studies replicating Adorno’s work found no evidence to support the central findings, particularly on the impact of authoritarian socialization. One study even reports evidence for a positive relationship between authoritarianism and xenophilia. However, taking into account the multitude of existing studies, one can see the existence of the phenomenon authoritarian personality as confirmed.

1.4. Contemporary Developments of the Authoritarianism Concept

The initiator of the new research stream on authoritarianism is Robert Altemeyer. His approach leaves the theoretical basis of the Freudian psychodynamic theory behind and focuses on learning processes highlighting agents of socialization, such as family and peer group, and the context of society. In his work the socalled right-wing authoritarianism is influenced by situation or environment rather than just personality development. Altemeyer reduces the dimensions of authoritarianism to three: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. In the 1980s, many social scientists attempted to develop new instruments to measure the authoritarian personality. Others tried to explore by qualitative research methods the conditions that lead to such a personality structure.

1.5. Similar Contemporary Concepts

There are two contemporary competitors to the authoritarianism concept. During the past decade, Sidanius and Pratto studied what they call the social dominance orientation (SDO). SDO refers to fundamental values to accept social hierarchies. These values form a personality structure in the Freudian sense and determine so-called legitimizing myths, which are moral and intellectual justifications of individual or institutional discrimination. Whereas SDO still recognizes psychodynamic assumptions, the concept of hierarchic self-interest (HSI) is based on a paradigm of lifelong socialization in a market-oriented economy. HSI is an expression of the individual effort to perform ‘‘better than others’’ in a hierarchically structured society, an internalized elbow mentality, and it appears as a syndrome of values that comprises three core dimensions (success orientation, competitiveness, and individualism), as Hagan and collaborators showed in their youth studies. Since HSI is a syndrome and second order construct (see Fig. 2 for an example from empirical research), it is not ultimately determined but can be modified by integrating other first-order factors (e.g., machiavellism and acceptance of social inequality). HSI turned out to be a stable predictor of xenophobia. This finding is in a way paradoxical because market-oriented HSI values apparently lead—under the condition of increasingly limited resources—to a tendency of ethnocentric market restriction. Roots of HSI are seen in modes of workforce participation of men and women and parental styles so that high HSI values may be interpreted as expressions of familial or socioeconomic disintegration.

Authoritarianism Research Paper f2 FIGURE 2 Hierarchic self-interest (structural model).

2. Correlates Of Authoritarianism

2.1. Antecedents

2.1.1. Class and Socioeconomic Status

Empirical evidence suggests that authoritarianism is found among the lower classes to a higher degree than among the middle classes. Lipset assumes in his working class authoritarianism thesis that lower classes tend to have an authoritarian view on politics; therefore, they are more likely to support extremist movements that promise fast and simple solutions to social problems and that blame inferior scapegoats for the problems. This authoritarian view results from low education, the degree of isolation of the class, economic and psychological uncertainty, and the particular family life in lower classes. Depending on the exact kind of authoritarianism scale that was used and how class was measured, results of empirical studies support this thesis, particularly the influence of education on authoritarianism. A higher level of education seems to be the decisive characteristic of nonauthoritarian people.

2.1.2. Family Socialization

Adorno et al. emphasize the role of the family for the development of the authoritarian personality. Other scientists studied the mechanisms that lie behind the relationship of socialization and authoritarianism in more detail. They suggested that the transmission of authoritarian attitudes from the parents onto the children depends heavily on the strength of social and emotional ties between parents and children. Central to an authoritarian socialization are parental styles that include violence and do not recognize the needs of the children. Authoritarian families usually are ruled by the father and do not allow children to participate in family decisions.

2.1.3. Cross-Cultural Differences

In dealing with the concept of authoritarianism, it must be discussed whether this concept applies only to the Western world or whether it is universal. Based on data from more than 100 countries, Meloen shows that there is a strong relationship between culture, attitudes, and politics. State authoritarianism is highly related to authoritarian attitudes among the citizens. These attitudes seem to result from a culture that is based on hierarchies and a traditional family structure. Comparisons of authoritarianism among adolescents in East and West Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall show very clearly that different socialization cultures lead to different degrees of authoritarianism: East German adolescents agreed with authoritarian statements more than West Germans did. However, scales to measure authoritarianism cannot be used throughout the world in the same way and the same composition. Words and contexts are interpreted differently in different cultures. Studies in Japan, for example, showed that authoritarian structures and authoritarian attitudes do exist but cannot be measured in terms of American authoritarianism instruments.

2.2. Consequences

The best studied and most powerful relation is the one obtained for authoritarianism and ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is an attitude characterized by the glorification of one’s own group (in-group) and the defamation and discrimination of other groups (out-group). Xenophobia, racism, and nationalism are other orientations similar to ethnocentrism. An authoritarian personality tends to be more ethnocentric. In certain circumstances (situational factors), the just mentioned attitudes can lead to discrimination, violence, and hate crimes.

Authoritarianism is also connected to other attitudes, namely sexism, anti-Semitism, cognitive rigidity (dogmatism), and political and economic conservatism. Authoritarian personalities tend to devalue women, homosexuals, and Jews. They strongly support the market economic system and back conservative political movements. Authoritarianism also may explain oppression, chauvinism, and negative put-downs on the individual level and the level of society. Many of the empirical findings on consequences of authoritarianism may, however, rightly be accused of bearing an element of tautology because almost all consequences addressed could also be seen as elements of the authoritarian syndrome per se.

3. Treatment Approaches

From knowledge about explanatory factors of authoritarianism, particularly socialization, a list of treatment measures can be derived. The founders of the Frankfurt School suggested enlightenment and an education fostering responsibility. That means making the mechanisms of society transparent to a broad audience. The psychologist Kurt Lewin, who conducted several experiments on group conflicts in small groups, pointed out that democratically acting group leaders are necessary to prevent authoritarianism. Group leaders as well as all other group members must be enabled to play their role in the democratic process. Authoritarian leadership styles must be replaced by consultative and participative leadership styles. To support this process of democratization, the democratic leader has to leave space for self-determination with clearly defined and reasoned borders to the group members rather than predetermining a more or less restricted space with rigid borders. Democratic skills cannot be passed on in a simple way; they must be learned and interactively developed in every generation, in all institutions of society, including the family, the school, and the workplace. Whereas a Freudian approach to authoritarianism would suggest that there is no treatment for authoritarian personalities in adulthood, from the perspective of lifelong socialization a cure seems possible. To push back authoritarian tendencies in daily life settings, people’s integration into groups (working groups, peer groups, and families) must be supported. People must be given participation opportunities in group decisions; rules, actions, and decisions shall be explained to them in a detailed and reasoned way; they shall be encouraged to look at themselves and others from different perspectives; and every kind of rigid discipline and physical or mental violence must be absent in dealing with people who tend to be authoritarian.

References:

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brown, R. (1995). Prejudice. Its social psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Christie, R., & Jahoda, M. (1954). Studies in the scope and method of the authoritarian personality. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Hadjar, A. (2004). Ellenbogenmentalita¨t und Fremdenfei-ndlichkeit bei Jugendlichen. Die Rolle des Hierarchischen Selbstinteresses [Elbow mentality and xenophobia among adolescents. The role of hierarchic self-interest]. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag fu¨ r Sozialwissenschaften.
Hagan, J., Hefler, G., Classen, G., Boehnke, K., & Merkens, H. (1998). Subterranean sources of subcultural delinquency beyond the American Dream. Criminology, 36.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Martin, J. L. (2000). The authoritarian personality, 50 years later: What lessons are there for political psychology. Political Psychology, 22.
Meleon, J. D., Hagendoorn, L., Raaijmakers, Q., & Visser, L. (1988). Authoritarianism and the revival of political racism: Reassessments in The Netherlands of the reliability and validity of the concept of authoritarianism by Adorno et al. Political Psychology, 9.
Rippl, S., Seipel, C., & Kindervater, A. (2000). Autoritarismus. Kontroversen und Ansa¨ tze der aktuellen Autoritarismusforschung [Authoritarianism: Controversies and approaches of contemporary research on authoritarianism]. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.