Authoritarianism and PoliticalSocialization in the Context of the Arab‐Israeli Conflict

Tibon, Shira; Blumberg, Herbert H.

doi:10.1111/0162-895x.00157

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Researchers have shown authoritarianism to be correlated with a long list of variables consistent with the theoretical framework presented here: trust in authority figures; social conservatism; social punitiveness; support for military force; nationalism, ethnocentrism, prejudice, and anti‐immigrant attitudes; and, finally, opposition to democratic values, civil rights and liberties, and human rights (Adorno et al 1950; Altemeyer 1981, 1988, 1996; Eckhardt and Newcombe 1969; Lipset 1959; McFarland and Mathews 2005; Meloen 1993; Stellmacher and Petzel 2005; Tibon and Blumberg 1999). Many of these variables directly reflect various aspects of the war on terror, including its curtailment of civil liberties, its focus on military strength over diplomacy, and its privileging of executive prerogative.…”

Section: Understanding Authoritarianismsupporting

confidence: 68%

Authoritarianism, Threat, and Americans’ Support for the War on Terror

Hetherington

Suhay

2011

American Journal of Political Science

355

313

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the years following 9/11, surveys have revealed high levels of public support for policies related to the war on terror that, many argue, contravene long‐standing American ideals. Extant research would suggest that such preferences result from the activation of authoritarianism. That is, the terrorist attacks caused those predisposed toward intolerance and aggression to become even more intolerant and aggressive. However, using data from two national surveys, we find that those who score high in authoritarianism do not become more hawkish or less supportive of civil liberties in response to perceived threat from terrorism; they tend to have such preferences even in the absence of threat. Instead, those who are less authoritarian adopt more restrictive and aggressive policy stands when they perceive threat from terrorism. In other words, many average Americans become susceptible to “authoritarian thinking” when they perceive a grave threat to their safety.

show abstract

Section: Understanding Authoritarianismsupporting

confidence: 68%

Authoritarianism, Threat, and Americans’ Support for the War on Terror

Hetherington

Suhay

2011

American Journal of Political Science

355

313

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…RWA is correlated with opposition to civil rights and liberties and support for governmental abuses of power (Duckitt et al, 2010; Stellmacher and Petzel, 2005). Both authoritarian parenting attitudes and RWA are associated with support for populists and rightists (Billiet and de Witte, 1995; Duckitt et al, 2010; Mayer and Perrineau, 1992; McCann, 2009; Tibon and Blumberg, 1999). However, scholars have not linked authoritarian parenting attitudes to support for candidates promoting authoritarian policies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do authoritarians vote for authoritarians? Evidence from Latin America

Cohen

Smith

2016

Research & Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the 2016 presidential election campaign in the United States, scholars argued that authoritarian visions of the family are associated with support for Donald Trump, a candidate also noted to exhibit authoritarian or illiberal tendencies. Though it is plausible that “authoritarian” citizens (defined by parenting attitudes) vote for “authoritarian” candidates (defined by disrespect for democratic institutions), past research provides relatively little guide regarding this relationship. One reason is that few US candidates announce overtly authoritarian views. Latin America, by contrast, has had many such candidates. We take advantage of this variation using the 2012 AmericasBarometer, which applied a battery of authoritarian parenting attitudes. We first describe mass authoritarianism across Latin America, showing it is associated with many social attitudes. We then examine authoritarians’ voting behavior, distinguishing between support for “ mano dura” (“strong arm”) candidates, who are usually rightists, and for candidates threatening violations of general civil liberties, who are often leftists in Latin America. We find that authoritarians tend to vote for right-wing authoritarian candidates, while authoritarianism boosts support for candidates threatening civil liberty violations only among citizens identifying on the ideological right. Education is the most consistent determinant reducing support for both leftist and rightist authoritarian candidates.

show abstract

“…Because of this well-established pattern, one might also expect RWA and SDO both to be positively associated with support for intergroup violence for a Middle East sample as well. For example, because authoritarianism so robustly predicts prejudice against outgroups (see e.g., Tibon & Blumberg, 1999), one could also expect authoritarianism to be positively associated with support for anti-Western violence, including the attacks on the World Trade Center. However, despite the fact that social dominance orientation has typically shown similar positive associations with prejudice and intergroup antipathy as authoritarianism within the context of Western research, there is theoretical reason to doubt that a positive association between SDO and support for "terrorist" violence would hold in the context of the Middle East.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Dominance Orientation, Authoritarianism, and Support for Intergroup Violence Between the Middle East and America

Henry

Sidanius

Levin

et al. 2005

Political Psychology

143

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social dominance theory has generally posited that terror and intergroup violence can be explained in terms of social dominance struggles. Social dominance theorists have described terror mostly as a tool for maintaining intergroup hierarchies in society (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Although implications of the theory suggest that terror may also be used by lower status groups as a tool for the resistance of domination by higher status groups, this prediction heretofore has not been empirically demonstrated. Data from two samples, one in the United States and one in Lebanon, were collected regarding attitudes toward terrorism and intergroup violence. The results show that the American sample demonstrates the typical patterns of social dominance such that those who are higher in social dominance orientation tend to support greater violence toward the Middle East. However, the Lebanese sample shows the opposite pattern, such that those who are lower in social dominance orientation tend to support violence toward the West. These results suggest that (1) support for terrorism among Middle East citizens is a project of counterdominance, and, more broadly, that (2) the relationship between social dominance orientation and support for violence depends on the dynamics of the conflict and the status of the perpetrators.

show abstract

Authoritarianism and PoliticalSocialization in the Context of the Arab‐Israeli Conflict

Cited by 13 publications

References 20 publications

Authoritarianism, Threat, and Americans’ Support for the War on Terror

Authoritarianism, Threat, and Americans’ Support for the War on Terror

Do authoritarians vote for authoritarians? Evidence from Latin America

Social Dominance Orientation, Authoritarianism, and Support for Intergroup Violence Between the Middle East and America

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About