Which theory of personality suggests that one person differs from another because of different characteristics possessed such as dogmatism or ethnocentrism?

Abstract

The theory of an authoritarian personality was an influential though controversial mid-twentieth-century theory to explain the mass appeal of fascism and ethnocentrism. Methodological and conceptual criticisms of the original theory, however, lead to alternative theories and culminated in research suggesting two distinct dimensions of ideological attitudes, Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) or Social Conservatism and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) or Anti-Egalitarianism. RWA and SDO were initially thought to be direct expressions of two different authoritarian personalities, but have more recently been seen as describing social or ideological attitude dimensions with multiple social and personal determinants.

2 Criticisms

The Authoritarian Personality was subjected to close scrutiny and criticism almost immediately after it was published (see Christie and Jahoda 1954). Methodologically, problems with the F-scale measure of authoritarianism cast doubt on much of the empirical research. Since all of the questions in this scale were worded so that an agree response indicated authoritarian characteristics, a tendency to agree with questions like this regardless of content (agreement response set) could produce high authoritarianism scores independent of any individual differences in personality. And while the questions in the F-scale were developed to tap the various syndromes hypothesized to make up authoritarianism, it is not clear that the measure reflects the underlying conceptualization. Factor analyses of the F-scale always show the measure to be multidimensional but the factors are always difficult to interpret and never cleanly correspond to the hypothesized components (see Altemeyer 1981).

Critics also argued that the authoritarianism measure, and possibly the construct itself, was ideologically biased. Although Adorno et al. were clearly responding to the history of fascism in Europe, the growing threat of communism in the 1950s led to concerns about an authoritarianism of the left (Shills 1954). However, despite observations that communists appeared to possess traits characteristic of authoritarians, there is little empirical evidence to support these claims (Stone 1980).

Perhaps most importantly, the Freudian-based theory underlying The Authoritarian Personality proved far less useful than the authors thought and as a result research become increasingly divorced from the theory. In addition to the general loss of status of Freudian explanations in empirical social science research, Adorno et al.'s specific explanation of authoritarianism has not fared well. Although quantitative research established relationships between the F-scale, social background characteristics, and social attitudes, evidence on the dynamics and origins of authoritarianism consistent with the Adorno et al. theory proved elusive (see Altemeyer 1981, 1988, Duckitt 1989). The bulk of research based on The Authoritarian Personality thus consists of short empirical studies with only limited guidance from the original theory. Most of these studies report correlations between measures of authoritarianism and a small number of other individual level characteristics: social background, personality, values, and attitudes.

Criticisms

The Authoritarian Personality was subjected to close scrutiny and criticism almost immediately after it was published (see Christie and Jahoda, 1954). Methodologically, problems with the F-scale measure of authoritarianism cast doubt on much of the empirical research. Since all of the questions in this scale were worded so that an agree response indicated authoritarian characteristics, a tendency to agree with questions like this regardless of content (agreement response set) could produce high authoritarianism scores independent of any individual differences in personality. And while the questions in the F-scale were developed to tap the various syndromes hypothesized to make up authoritarianism, it is not clear that the measure reflects the underlying conceptualization. Factor analyses of the F-scale always show the measure to be multidimensional but the factors are always difficult to interpret and never cleanly correspond to the hypothesized components (see Altemeyer, 1981).

Critics also argued that the authoritarianism measure, and possibly the construct itself, was ideologically biased. Although Adorno et al. were clearly responding to the history of fascism in Europe, the growing threat of communism in the 1950s led to concerns about an authoritarianism of the left (Shills, 1954). However, despite observations that communists appeared to possess traits characteristic of authoritarians, there is little empirical evidence to support these claims (Stone, 1980).

Perhaps most importantly, the Freudian-based theory underlying The Authoritarian Personality proved far less useful than the authors thought and as a result research become increasingly divorced from the theory. In addition to the general loss of status of Freudian explanations in empirical social science research, Adorno et al.'s specific explanation of authoritarianism has not fared well. Although quantitative research established relationships between the F-scale, social background characteristics, and social attitudes, evidence on the dynamics and origins of authoritarianism consistent with the Adorno et al. theory proved elusive (see Altemeyer, 1981; 1988; Duckitt, 1989). The bulk of research based on The Authoritarian Personality thus consists of short empirical studies with only limited guidance from the original theory. Most of these studies report correlations between measures of authoritarianism and a small number of other individual level characteristics: social background, personality, values, and attitudes.

Early Criticism

Publication of The Authoritarian Personality was followed by an extensive debate on the merits of the work, with many of the themes of this debate persisting in authoritarianism research to the present day. One concern was that the construct of authoritarianism was ideologically, rather than scientifically motivated, as it focused exclusively on the political right, but ignored authoritarianism on the left (Eysenck, 1954; Shils, 1954). This critique was justified in that much research on authoritarianism was indeed sparked by the experiences of right-wing extremism in Germany and Austria, with two of the authors having fled Nazi tyranny by migrating to the United States.

Another concern was the fact that the F-scale only included items where a higher level of agreement indicated a higher level of authoritarianism (Shils, 1954). Even when the original authors made various attempts to control for this type of bias (Adorno et al., 1950), there was the possibility that individuals with a greater tendency to acquiesce might have been falsely identified as authoritarian. Commentators pointed out that the item content was often ambiguous, with double-barreled questions making it hard to interpret the meaning of responses. And, although the F-scale claimed to measure one coherent construct, factor analyses routinely demonstrated that it was in fact multidimensional with factors being difficult to interpret. As Altemeyer (1981) noted, factors did not map onto components of authoritarianism as hypothesized by Adorno et al. (1950).

The Authoritarian Personality

The most famous work on authoritarianism was The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al., 1950). The faculty research group at the University of California, Berkeley, believed that a number of “traits” clustered in the authoritarian person. These were encapsulated in questions that formed the following scales: the F-scale (fascistic tendency), the A-S scale (anti-Semitism), the E-scale (ethnocentrism), and the PEC scale (political–economic conservatism). The data supported the original hypothesis that a person who is high on one will tend to be high on the others. The work was strongly criticized on methodological grounds, particularly because questions (except those on the PEC scale) were worded in the same direction. Later research established that there were individuals who tended to either agree with an item independent of its content (yea-sayers) or disagree consistently (naysayers). Nevertheless, a large number of subsequent studies have incorporated the original measures and the F-scale in particular appears to provide some valid measure of deference to authority. (Altemeyer (1988) reinvestigated authoritarianism and developed a measure of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA).)

5.1 Self-enhancing, Within Individuals

The clearest influence of psychoanalytic theory, the authoritarian personality theory (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford) proposed that rigid, punitive, status-conscious child-rearing practices reinforce unquestioning, duty-bound, hierarchical-oriented obedience. To maintain safety, the child idealizes the parents, leaving no outlet for the unacceptable primitive impulses of sex and aggression. According to the theory, these are displaced onto those of lower status, notably outgroups, leading to lifelong prejudice. Altemeyer's recent right-wing authoritarianism has revived interest in prejudice as a self-enhancing motivational construct, absent the Freudian backdrop.

More broadly, several Western theories pick up the theme that people think, interpret, and judge in ways that elevate the self. Taylor and Brown suggest that positive illusions about the self, possibly inaccurate, benefit mental and physical health. Kunda describes motivated reasoning that protects self-esteem. Even people with stigmas buffer self-esteem by taking advantage of attributional ambiguity (Crocker and Major), attributing negative outcomes to prejudice instead of personal failings.

More generally, Steele's self-affirmation theory posits that people need to feel worthy, so a threat to one aspect of self can be counteracted by affirming another self-aspect. Terror management theory (Greenberg, Pyszczynski, and Solomon) holds that people specifically feel threatened by their own mortality, so to allay their anxiety, they subscribe to meaningful world-views that allow them to feel enduring self-worth. Similarly, the ego-defensive function (Katz, Smith, Bruner, and White) of attitudes protects the self from threat, whereas the value-expressive function of attitudes (Katz) more broadly affirms the self-concept.

The self-discrepancy theory of Higgins argues self regulation aims to attain positive self-feelings and avoid negative self-feelings. Discrepancies between the actual self and the desired ideal self cause depression, at the lack of the positive outcome. Discrepancies between the actual self and the ought self cause anxiety, at the failure of not living up to standards.

Productive Orientation

Arising from a symbiotic relationship with authority, the authoritarian personality fosters a masochistic lifestyle of feeling inferior and sinful and also a sadistic lifestyle of power over other people. Most people of a dependent authoritarian personality tend to lean toward masochistic or sadistic relationships, even though there is always a blending of the two. Whereas arising from independence from authority, the humanistic personality fosters a productive orientation that consists of loving relationships. “In contrast to symbiotic union, mature love is union under the condition of preserving one’s integrity, one’s individuality” (Fromm, 1956, p. 20). It is only when two people have become independent and appreciate their differences that love can evolve. Otherwise, the relationship is one of dependency, and sado-masochistic tendencies emerge.

Fromm’s use of the term “productive” is not the same as being active. All orientations are active. For example, it is amazing how in the last 20 years our society has created a bunch of anxious people. When I ask people how they are doing, I frequently get the response, “Busy.” Everyone is so busy. But are they productive? “Productiveness is man’s ability to use his powers and to realize the potentialities inherent in him” (Fromm, 1947, p. 84). Fromm believed that for people to be productive in their work, relationships, and thought, they must feel comfortable with themselves and to have the quiet and lone times. He considered, “to be at home with oneself is the necessary condition for relating oneself to others” (Fromm, 1947, p. 107).

Productive-oriented people have mustered the courage to face their aloneness of life, to accept that they are ultimately responsible for their lives, and they can then fully develop their powers of reasoning and love and experience life to its fullest.

See also:

Allport, Gordon W (1897–1967); Authoritarian Personality: History of the Concept; Behaviorism; Behaviorism, History of; Binet, Alfred (1857–1911); Broadbent, Donald Eric (1926–93); Campbell, Donald Thomas (1916–96); Cattell, Raymond Bernard (1905–98); Cognitive Psychology: History; Cognitive Science: History; Disciplines, History of, in the Social Sciences; Erikson, Erik Homburger (1902–94); Freud, Sigmund (1856–1939); Galton, Sir Francis (1822–1911); Hall, Granville Stanley (1844–1924); Heider, Fritz (1896–1988); Helmholtz, Hermann Ludwig Ferdinand von (1821–94); James, William (1842–1910); Janet, Pierre (1859–1947); Jung, Carl Gustav (1875–1961); Kant, Immanuel (1724–1804); Kohlberg, Lawrence (1927–87); Khler, Wolfgang (1887–1967); Lewin, Kurt (1890–1947); Lorenz, Konrad (1903–89); Luria, Aleksander Romanovich (1902–77); Pavlov, Ivan Petrovich (1849–1936); Piaget, Jean (1896–1980); Psychology: Overview; Rogers, Carl Ransom (1902–87); Savage, Leonard J (1917–71); Skinner, Burrhus Frederick (1904–90); Stevens, Stanley Smith (1906–73); Thorndike, Edward Lee (1874–1949); Tversky, Amos (1937–96); Vygotskij, Lev Semenovic (1896–1934); Watson, John Broadus (1878–1958); Wundt, Wilhelm Maximilian (1832–1920)

Authoritarianism

It is usually recognized in psychology (and elsewhere) that there are some traits for which there are consistent individual differences. The question of whether some people are more prone to conform and especially to obey authority arose in a series of studies that began with Stagner’s research in the 1930s. Through examination of writings by those who were fascists or who sympathized with fascism, a questionnaire was developed and, based on data analyses from a number of samples, Stagner concluded that intense nationalism and support of big business and antilabor sentiments were among the primary characteristics of those whose views were similar to those of the fascists.

The Case of the F Scale

The problems resulting from Anastasi's demand for objectivity may be exemplified by the authoritarian personality theory and the various scales to measure authoritarianism and related variables. The study of authoritarianism, an example of an inductive empirical personality research, has grown out of the deductive psychoanalytic theory. It began with an attempt to find the personality variables related to anti-Semitism, continued with defining anti-Semitism as a part of ethnocentricity (prejudices against ethnic minorities in general), and ended up with considering ethnocentricity as a general fascistic tendency, the origin of which is a personality structure called the “authoritarian personality.” Authoritarian individuals were perceived as having a strong primitive id, a weak ego, and a rigid superego, which is based on a fear of punishment rather than on a true internalization of morality. This personality structure is behaviorally expressed by authoritarian aggression, obedience, projectivity, and other traits, according to which the F(ascism) scale was developed. As was the case with the IQ tests, the F scale was politically, methodologically, and theoretically criticized. It was argued that it represents an ideological bias of politically leftist researchers, hence focusing only on authoritarianism of the political right, associated with fascism, and ignoring the existence of left-wing authoritarianism, associated with communism. An immediate attempt to develop a measure unrelated to political attitudes resulted in the development of the Dogmatism scale. Here it can be seen how the effects of believed flaws in a measurement instrument result in an attempt to correct it and create new knowledge. Methodologically, it was argued that the F scale is not valid, because all its items are phrased in the same direction; hence it cannot be known whether an agreement with a certain statement is a valid evidence of authoritarianism or rather expresses a general tendency to agree with every statement in general (a response-set bias). Intensive research efforts were invested in the attempts to test this claim and in the development of an alternative biased scale. Theoretically, it was argued that the whole research method of authoritarianism is wrong. First, a relation between authoritarian attitudes and behavior does not necessarily exist, and second, each one of the different personality characteristics has to be measured separately to prove the alleged relations among them, rather than starting with a scale that presupposes that such relations do exist. The effect of this alleged flaw of the F scale resulted in the development of separate measures of the different variables that are supposedly characteristic of the authoritarian personality, thus promoting the creation of new knowledge. A series of studies investigating authoritarianism in court, authoritarianism and repression, and authoritarianism and obedience to instructions enlightened the issue of validity, which becomes complicated given the complexity of the concept of authoritarianism. The sources of authoritarianism among children, as well as the interaction between authoritarianism and various situations and its effect on intragroup preferences, are two additional fields that exemplify how developing the F scale and its related variables contributed to the creation of new knowledge. Finally, it is important not to ignore the possibility that the study of authoritarianism has been influenced by different sociopolitical climates; from the 1930s till nowadays, both researchers and the groups they study have been affected by sociopolitical realities.