Right-Wing Authoritarianism

Right-wing authoritarianism is a measure of ideology or psychological orientation with respect to how an individual perceives authorities in society, particularly as those authorities stand in relation to potential sources of dissent. The measure was developed by Robert Altemeyer as a refinement of existing metrics of authoritarianism that were originally developed to understand the motivations underlying support for the National Socialist movement in Germany. The measure is important in that it highlights the personality characteristics of individuals who are both predisposed to supporting the status quo and antagonistic toward contrary or dissenting points of view. Consequently, it is a measure targeted at understanding the social and psychological dynamics behind populist movements that have supported the most malevolent totalitarian regimes throughout history. This entry summarizes Altemeyer's (1981) conceptualization of right-wing authoritarianism and discusses some of the critiques of the measure.

Right-wing authoritarianism is a personality or ideological variable typically used in the scholarly fields of political science and psychology, and is often articulated synonymously with the terms authoritarianism and authoritarian personality. It is most often associated with individuals who are politically conservative, espouse fundamentalist religious beliefs (whatever their doctrine of choice), are oriented toward the maintenance of “law and order” (over embracing behavioral diversity), and supportive of nationalistic or ethnocentric sentiments (in defiance of cultural relativism). Altemeyer developed the measure after becoming dissatisfied with the predictive ability of the F-scale (Fascism scale, developed by Theodor Adorno and colleagues), which was informed by Freudian psychology and included nine attitudinal measures related to authoritarianism.

Right-wing authoritarianism involves the covariation of three attitudinal and behavioral variables that tend to cluster together. All three are necessary (and no less than three is sufficient) for an individual to be classified as having an authoritarian personality. First, the measure includes the construct of authoritarian submission. This is designed to identify individuals who are highly submissive to authorities they perceive as legitimate within society. Altemeyer defines legitimate authorities as those in society who are legally or morally authorized to preside over the behavior of others. A critical feature of his formulation involves the notion of perceived legitimacy, a construct whose importance was noted most prominently within Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments [Page 581]during the 1960s at Yale. Consequently, the submissive component of right-wing authoritarianism is not contingent upon an authority actually possessing or wielding power.

Also important is Altemeyer's consideration that submission is not tantamount to blind obedience, because authoritarians can sometimes disagree with the decisions and policies of those in authority despite their propensity toward the contrary. What is most important is that, all other things being equal, authoritarians are more likely to submit to authority than nonauthoritarians. Altemeyer cites empirical evidence that indicates authoritarians are more likely to submit to established authorities whether they agree or disagree with the political orientation of the leaders in question. Thus, there need not be a correspondence of right-wing authoritarianism with any particular ideological form of authority, be it conservative or liberal in orientation.

Second, right-wing authoritarianism includes a measure of authoritarian aggression, which is described as a general aggression directed at out-groups perceived to be targets that are sanctioned as such by established authorities. Altemeyer defined aggressiveness as a predisposition to cause harm to someone. Because prejudice is conjectured to be a conventional outlet for those predisposed to aggression, xenophobically motivated aggression is debatably higher in authoritarian individuals. Historically, the targets of such aggression have been relatively powerless groups in society: homosexuals, racial and ethnic minorities, and social or political noncomformists. In addition, authoritarian individuals are typically predisposed toward retributively controlling the behavior of others through punishment, and usually support capital punishment as a legitimate enterprise.

...