The Status of Authoritarianism

Stone, William F.; Lederer, Gerda; Christie, Richard

doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-9180-7_11

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A fourth implication is that a multidimensional ACT approach concerns understanding left‐wing authoritarianism. Social scientists have never managed to satisfactorily clarify the differences and similarities between left‐wing and right‐wing authoritarianism (see the review by Stone et al., 1993), though there have been interesting attempts (Rokeach, 1954), but these may have been impeded by the idea that authoritarian attitudes should be unidimensionally organized and derive from a single personality structure (but see Van Hiel et al., 2006). When these social attitudes are construed along three distinct A‐C‐T dimensions, it seems easier to plausibly outline their possible similarities and differences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, critics have noted a number of reasons why RWA seems better conceptualized in terms of social attitudes and values rather than in terms of personality. First, the item content of the RWA (e.g., “Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn”) and its predecessors such as the F, D, and C scales have always consisted entirely of statements of social attitudes and beliefs of a broadly ideological nature (e.g., also Feldman & Stenner, 1997; Stone, Lederer, & Christie, 1993; Van Hiel, Cornelis, Roets, & DeClercq, 2007). Second, measures of socially conservative social attitudes, when reliably measured, have correlated powerfully with the RWA scale and scaled with it as a single general factor or dimension (Saucier, 2000; Van Hiel et al., 2007; Van Hiel, Pandelaere, & Duriez, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Tripartite Approach to Right-Wing Authoritarianism: The Authoritarianism-Conservatism-Traditionalism Model

Duckitt

Bizumić

Krauss

et al. 2010

Political Psychology

419

487

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) has been conceptualized and measured as a unidimensional personality construct comprising the covariation of the three traits of authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. However, new approaches have criticized this conceptualization and instead viewed these three "traits" as three distinct, though related, social attitude dimensions. Here we extend this approach providing clear definitions of these three dimensions as ideological attitude constructs of Authoritarianism, Conservatism, and Traditionalism. These dimensions are seen as attitudinal expressions of basic social values or motivational goals that represent different, though related, strategies for attaining collective security at the expense of individual autonomy. We report data from five samples and three different countries showing that these three dimensions could be reliably measured and were factorially distinct. The three dimensions also differentially predicted interpersonal behaviour, social policy support, and political party support. It is argued that conceptualizing and measuring RWA as a set of three related ideological attitude dimensions may better explain complex sociopolitical phenomena than the currently dominant unidimensional personality based model.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Tripartite Approach to Right-Wing Authoritarianism: The Authoritarianism-Conservatism-Traditionalism Model

Duckitt

Bizumić

Krauss

et al. 2010

Political Psychology

419

487

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been shown that idealists avoid guilty feelings by convincing themselves that they are fighting against evil (Baumeister, 1997). Among other examples are Right‐Wing Authoritarianism (RWA; Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992), which combines anxious submission to authorities considered as legitimate and well‐established (authoritarian submission), aggressiveness against deviants (authoritarian aggression), and conventionalism (Altemeyer, 1998; Stone, Lederer, & Christie, 1993), and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), which is a set of general attitudes and beliefs toward the preference for hierarchical intergroup relations (Pratto et al., 1994). The latter is driven by a conception of the world as a competitive jungle in which only the most adaptive individuals survive (e.g., Duckit, Wagner, du Plessis, & Birum, 2002).…”

Section: Guiltlessnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guilt and Guiltlessness: An Integrative Review

Bègue

Shankland

2011

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the relationship between guilt and prosocial behaviors, and integrates multiple antisocial phenomena with the construct of guiltlessness both at the interpersonal and intergroup level. Interpersonal guilt is basically prosocial and introspective. Collective guilt is the vicarious acceptance of misdeeds of the ingroup. Yet it is sometimes so painful and detrimental for the individual and the society to tolerate guilt that people do not feel guilty, especially when the possibility of reparation is low. We argue that guilt is the acceptance of the mildly undesirable self whereas guiltlessness is the rejection of unbearable mental distress of anticipatory guilt. Guiltlessness requires great efforts for defense and justification. Multiple strategies and justifications are sought to relieve guilt. Furthermore, guiltlessness is related to various personality and ideology variables and entails moral disengagement. Guiltlessness can be destructive because, for example, during times of large-scale conflicts ordinary people who feel guiltless are inclined to become ruthless. Reciprocity morality, ostracism, deservingness, empathy, and self-control are proposed as means of explaining the origins of guilt and their implications for guiltlessness.

show abstract

“…While originally conceived as dimensions of personality, recent work suggests that RWA and SDO do not assess cross‐situational consistencies in behavior as typical trait terms do; instead the items capture “social attitudes and beliefs of a broadly ideological nature” (Duckitt, 2001, p. 42; see also, Stone, Lederer, & Christie, 1993) with direct implications for mass politics. Indeed, RWA and SDO parallel a longstanding empirical distinction between different dimensions of citizens’ political attitudes and values.…”

Section: Interpersonal Attachment and The Development Of Political Idmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpersonal Attachment and Patterns of Ideological Belief

Weber

Federico

2007

Political Psychology

104

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine whether two general dimensions of sociopolitical belief-right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO)-are rooted in insecure psychological attachment. Based on an undergraduate sample (N = 255), we model the relations among attachment styles, general worldviews, RWA, and SDO. A structural equation model indicated that anxious attachment led to RWA but not SDO and that this effect was mediated by the belief that the world is a dangerous place. In contrast, avoidant attachment led to SDO but not RWA, and this effect was mediated by the belief that the world is an uncaring, competitive jungle in which people are motivated to maximize personal utility. We discuss the implications of these findings for the nature and origins of political conservatism.

show abstract

The Status of Authoritarianism

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

A Tripartite Approach to Right-Wing Authoritarianism: The Authoritarianism-Conservatism-Traditionalism Model

A Tripartite Approach to Right-Wing Authoritarianism: The Authoritarianism-Conservatism-Traditionalism Model

Guilt and Guiltlessness: An Integrative Review

Interpersonal Attachment and Patterns of Ideological Belief

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About