Alternatives to the F Scale in the Measurement of Authoritarianism: A Catalog

Ray, John J.

doi:10.1080/00224545.1984.9713464

Cited by 27 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most obvious are the questionable theoretical foundations of the authoritarian personality theory. It is true, as established previously, that Adorno et al (1950) suffers from some damaging methodological flaws (Hyman and Sheatsley, 1954;Ray, 1984;Samuelson, 1992;Martin, 2001). But one must be careful not throw out the baby with the bathwater.…”

Section: Implications and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…As Benzer (2011: 65) notes, The Authoritarian Personality has 'attracted severe methodological criticism', including Hyman and Sheatsley (1954), Ray (1984), andSamuelson (1992). These critiques mainly centre around the poverty of the psychometric methods that were used to design and validate the F-scale.…”

Section: The Authoritarian Personality Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recognising the limitations (methodological and otherwise) of the authoritarian personality theory (Martin, 2001), and of the corresponding F-scale (Ray, 1984), the paper nevertheless seeks to re-frame the current debate surrounding employee voice away from the dominant question of whether or not managements offer voice to workers, and towards a more comprehensive theoretical model which additionally questions whether or not workers want to be involved in decision-making.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Employee silence and the authoritarian personality

Timming

Johnstone

2015

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acknowledgements: We want to thank the editor and reviewers for helpful suggestions on the manuscript. We also want to thank Matthias Benzer for his advice on Adorno. AbstractPurpose: Drawing from Adorno et al 's (1950) The Authoritarian Personality, this paper seeks to explain why some workers reject participation in decision-making on principle, preferring instead to defer to managerial authority and remain silent. Approach: The paper reviews the literatures on employee voice and silence and then builds a conceptual framework that can be used to explain employee silence in relation to personality structures. Findings: It is argued that some employees have personality structures that make them more susceptible to anti-democratic thoughts. Potentially fascistic personalities, as measured by the Fscale, are expected to derive pleasure in submission to the will of management. Implications: The paper has implications for political and social psychologists, especially those seeking to understand how best to promote employee voice in the workplace. Originality: This study makes an original contribution to the employee voice and silence literatures by being among the first of its kind to examine the political psychology of fascism in the micro-context of the workplace.

show abstract

Section: Implications and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: The Authoritarian Personality Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Employee silence and the authoritarian personality

Timming

Johnstone

2015

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These elements are, of course, important from a cognitive-developmental perspective. The much criticized complexity of the concept of authoritarianism (Heaven, Rajab, & Ray, 1985;Meloen, 1983;Ray, 1983Ray, , 1984Wrightsman, 1977) is thereby considerably reduced. The Journal of Social Psychology pleted during an introductory course in education given in 1985.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The third cluster contained an adapted, 14-item version of Adorno's F scale that was validated for the Dutch population by Roe (1972). The original F scale has been strongly criticized by Ray (1984), who devoted too much attention to the so-called acquiescence response set provoked by the positively formulated items. Several different authors, however, showed the irrelevance of this criticism (Hagendoorn & Janssen, 1983;Meloen, 1983;Roe).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%