In psychology, the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) is a personality type that describes somebody who is naturally submissive to their authority figures, acts aggressively in the name of said authorities, and is conformist in thought and behavior.[1] The prevalence of this personality type in a population varies from culture to culture, as a person's upbringing and education play a strong role in determining whether somebody develops this sort of personality.[2]

The right-wing authoritarian personality was defined by Bob Altemeyer as a refinement of the research of Theodor Adorno.


Bob Altemeyer, the Canadian-American social psychologist who first coined the term and its meaning in 1981, defined the right-wing authoritarian personality as someone who exhibits:[3]

  1. a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
  2. a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities.
  3. a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities.

In his writings, Altemeyer sometimes refers to right-wing authoritarians as "authoritarian followers". This is to emphasize that he is not speaking of authoritarian leaders, which is the more commonly understood meaning of "authoritarian".[4] Altemeyer refers to authoritarian leaders by the term "social dominator", and he has written extensively on the relationship between authoritarian followers and social dominators.


Right-wing authoritarians are characterized by being extremely submissive even to authority figures who are dishonest, corrupt, and inept. They will insist that their leaders are honest, caring, and competent, dismissing any evidence to the contrary as either false or inconsequential.

Right-wing authoritarians are highly submissive to authority figures whom they consider legitimate, and conversely can be very rebellious towards authority figures they consider illegitimate. An example of the latter is American conservatives' attitude towards President Obama. Although Obama was legally their president, many conservatives considered him to be illegitimate. An aspect of this attitude was the "birther" movement, advocating the conspiracy theory that Obama was actually born in Kenya and had used a forged birth certificate to qualify himself for office (in the United States, only natural-born citizens may serve as president).[5]


Anyone can become the target of authoritarian aggression, but it is more frequently outsiders or socially unconventional people who are targeted. Examples include communists and Jews in Nazi Germany, and feminists and homosexuals in the United States. But an authoritarian is more likely than a non-authoritarian to attack even conventional people if his authority figures sanction such an attack.[6]

The factor that best instigates authoritarian aggression is fear, particularly fear of people. This can include violent people such as bullies, terrorists, and foreign invaders, but it can also include people they perceive as morally degenerate, such as homosexuals and atheists.[7]

Authoritarians are generally harsher when it comes to punishing criminals than non-authoritarians. All things being equal, they tend to recommend harsher punishments than non-authoritarian judges would. But they tend to be forgiving or even approving if the crime was committed by a high-status individual against an unconventional or lower-status victim. In this regard, authoritarian aggression is about enforcing social hierarchies and norms. Examples cited by Altemeyer include a policeman beating up an "uppity" protester, an accountant assaulting a beggar, or an anti-gay protester assaulting a gay rights activist.[8]


Authoritarians have a strong commitment to the traditional norms of society. They don't want to be unusual, they want to be just like everyone else in their group, and likewise they want everyone else to conventional and conformist too. Cultural diversity irritates them. Conforming to these norms is not just a social imperative but a moral one. Authoritarians reject the notion that social norms are arbitrary and that foreign norms are just as valid as theirs.[9] Diversity is discomforting to the authoritarian.

The conventionalism of authoritarians reflects a traditional belief in how people ought to behave that is not necessarily reflective of how most people actually behave.[10]

With regards to religion, authoritarians tend to be fundamentalists.

Another aspect of conventionalism is sexual norms. Extra-marital sex, homosexuality, nudity, and even certain sexual acts between married partners, are perversions.


Right-wing authoritarianism is measured by the RWA scale, which uses a Likert scale response. Subjects are given a questionnaire, and for each statement on the questionnaire, they must express how far they agree with the statement with one of these responses: "very strongly disagree", "strongly disagree", "moderately disagree", "slightly disagree", "completely neutral", "slightly agree", "moderately agree", "strongly agree", and "very strongly agree". The examiner will then score each response according to how authoritarian it is, ranging from 1 to 9.

Here are some sample questions that Altemeyer has used in his questionnaires:[11]

  1. The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just "loud mouths" showing off their ignorance. (measures submission)
  2. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action. (measures aggression)
  3. Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people. (measures conventionalism)
  4. Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the "rotten apples" who are ruining everything. (measures submission, aggression, and conventionalism)
  5. Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married. (measures submission)
  6. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else. (measures conventionalism)

Some of these statements are authoritarian in nature while others are liberal, so the examiner scores them differently. If the subject "very strongly agrees" with question #3, the examiner will give him 1 point, and if he "very strongly agrees" with #2, the examiner will give him 9 points. This mixture of authoritarian and liberal statements is designed to prevent the people taking the test from succumbing to acquiescence bias.

Psychometrically, the RWA scale was a significant improvement over the F-scale which was the original measure of the authoritarian personality. The F-scale was worded so that agreement always indicated an authoritarian response, thus leaving it susceptible to the acquiescence response bias. The RWA scale is balanced to have an equal number of pro and anti authoritarian statements. The RWA scale also has excellent internal reliability, with coefficient alpha typically measuring between 0.85 and 0.94.[12] The RWA scale has been modified over the years as many of the items lost their social significance as society changed. The current version is 22 items long.[13]

Although Altemeyer has continually updated the scale, researchers in different domains have tended to lock-in on particular versions. In the social psychology of religion, the 1992 version of the scale is still commonly used.[14] In addition, the length of the earlier versions (30 items) led many researchers to develop shorter versions of the scale. Some of those are published,[15][16] but many researchers simply select a subset of items to use in their research, a practice that Altemeyer strongly criticizes.[17]

The uni-dimensionality of the scale has also been challenged recently. Florian Funke showed that it is possible to extract the three underlying dimensions of RWA if the double- and triple-barreled nature of the items is removed. Given the possibility of underlying dimensions emerging from the scale, it is then the case that the scale is no longer balanced since all the items primarily capturing authoritarian aggression are pro-trait worded (higher scores mean more authoritarianism) and all the items primarily measuring conventionalism are con-trait worded (higher scores mean less authoritarianism).[18] Work by Winnifred R. Louis, Kenneth I. Mavor and Chris G. Sibley recently demonstrated that the existence of two or three factors in the RWA scale reflects real differences in these dimensions rather than acquiescence response bias.[19]


Western countries

A 2021 study by Morning Consult (an American data intelligence company) found that 25.6% of American adults qualify as "high RWA" (scoring between 111 and 180 points on scale of 180), while 13.4% of adults qualify as "low RWA" (scoring 20 to 63 points).[20] The study used Bob Altemeyer's right-wing authoritarianism scale, which asks a subject 20 questions whose answers range from "Very Strongly Disagree" to "Very Strongly Agree", for a score of 1 to 9 points on each question. Morning Consult conducted the survey in seven other Western countries for comparison.

Prevalence among adults in Western countries
2021 Morning Consult survey
Low RWA High RWA
US 13.4% 25.6%
UK 13.6% 10.4%
Germany 17.4% 6.7%
France 10.2% 10.7%
Spain 17.9% 9.2%
Italy 17.9% 12.9%
Australia 17.1% 12.9%
Canada 21.3% 13.4%


In 2021, three researchers from Kyoto University published a paper containing a Japanese translation of Altemeyer's RWA scale. The researchers wrote that prior to this, there were no standardized translations of the RWA scale into Japanese.[21] This suggests that research into right-wing authoritarianism's prevalence among the Japanese people is scant.

Psychological comorbidities

Illogical thinking

Right-wing authoritarians have trouble thinking straight in general, it is not restricted to sensitive topics. Consider the following syllogism:

All fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea.
Therefore, sharks are fish.

Although the conclusion of the syllogism happens to be correct, the reasoning before it is incorrect. Sharks are indeed fish, but not because they happen to live in the sea. Whales also live in the sea, and some fish live in rivers and lakes. Right-wing authoritarians are far more likely to incorrectly judge the above syllogism to be correct. Because they liked the conclusion, they assume that the reasoning that led it was correct.[22]


Authoritarians tend to hold stubbornly to their beliefs even when presented with evidence that suggests their beliefs are wrong. This is particularly true concerning beliefs that underpin the identity of the group.

Compartmentalized thinking

The ideas in authoritarians' minds are poorly integrated. They tend to hold contradictory beliefs to a degree far greater than normal.

In one of his experiments, Bob Altemeyer presented his students a booklet which contained the following statements on different pages:

His students with authoritarian personalities were more likely to agree with both statements even though they are completely contradictory.[23]

Since authoritarians prefer to absorb their beliefs from the group rather than think for themselves, they must be prepared to ignore contradictory beliefs that the group tells them.


According to Altemeyer, the above-mentioned reasoning flaws prevalent among authoritarians are all connected to their instinct to not think for themselves but to absorb their beliefs from their group, with particular deference to what the leader tells them to believe. If they are to absorb whatever they're taught, they must not think critically about the logic of what they're taught. A person who can think critically can achieve sustainable beliefs as he comes closer to the truth, but an unthinking authoritarian can only achieve sustainable beliefs if he stubbornly sticks to what he was taught no matter what outsiders tell him.


Altemeyer has observed that authoritarians are often very ignorant when it comes to both general knowledge and current events.[24]

Lack of self-awareness

Authoritarians tend to be lacking in general knowledge, particularly on issues which with they disagree with.

Authoritarians also are often unaware of just how different they are from most people. They tend to believe they are very average. Altemeyer has found that authoritarians in America underestimate how prejudiced and conformist they compared to the majority of Americans. Altemeyer has also observed that when he lectures about the psychology of right-wing authoritarians to his students, the RWA students in his class fail to recognize themselves in his description.[25] Altemeyer believes the tendency of authoritarians to avoid anyone who isn't like them reinforces their belief that they are normal. They have relatively little contact with normal people.

Left-wing authoritarians

In political philosophy, the classic definition of left-wing describes somebody who advocates social equality and right-wing describes somebody who advocates social hierarchy.

The existence of the Soviet Union and communist China raised the question of whether there is such a thing as "left-wing authoritarians", since these countries were highly authoritarian yet also left-wing. This article concerns itself with the concept of authoritarianism as a personality type rather than a political ideology. The question that psychologists therefore asked was whether authoritarian individuals in communist countries are psychologically the same as right-wing authoritarians in America, or whether they are different enough to warrant a distinct category of their own.

John T. Jost concluded that the evidence gathered by scientists over the years more or less shows that the left-wing authoritarian personality does not exist. In the studies he reviewed, the evidence strongly favored the hypothesis that the people on the political right are more rigid in their thinking than people on the political left, even counting those on the far-left.[26]

In some of his writings, Bob Altemeyer's distinction between right-wing authoritarians and left-wing authoritarians is that an RWA submits to the established authorities in society whereas a left-wing authoritarian submits to authorities who want to overthrow the establishment. This distinction is one of circumstance, not mentality. From a psychological standpoint, there is no difference.[27]


United States

Research has shown that, since the 1960s, voters who prefer authoritarian leadership styles are more likely to support Republican candidates. Supporters of former U.S. president Donald Trump were more likely than non-Trump-supporting Republicans to score highly on authoritarian aggression and group-based dominance. Furthermore, many left-leaning authoritarians have become less engaged with politics and voting.[28]

According to Karen Stenner, an Australian professor who specializes in authoritarianism, authoritarianism is different from conservatism because authoritarianism reflects aversion to difference across space (i.e. diversity of people and beliefs at a given moment) while conservatism reflects aversion to difference over time (i.e. change). Stenner argues that conservatives will embrace racial diversity, civil liberties and moral freedom to the extent they are already institutionalized authoritatively-supported traditions and are therefore supportive of social stability. Conservatives tend to be drawn to authoritarianism when public opinion is fractious and there is a loss of confidence in public institutions, but in general they value stability and certainty over increased uniformity. However, Stenner says that authoritarians also want difference restricted even when so doing would require significant social change and instability.[29]


According to research by Altemeyer, right-wing authoritarians tend to exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning. Specifically, they are more likely to make incorrect inferences from evidence and to hold contradictory ideas that result from compartmentalized thinking. They are also more likely to uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs and they are less likely to acknowledge their own limitations.[30] Whether right-wing authoritarians are less intelligent than average is disputed, with Stenner arguing that variables such as high verbal ability (indicative of high cognitive capacity) have a very substantial ameliorative effect in diminishing authoritarian tendencies.[29] However, one study suggested the apparent negative relationship between cognition and RWA could be partially explained by methodological issues.[31] Measured against other factors of personality, authoritarians generally score lower on openness to experience and slightly higher on conscientiousness.[32][33][34]

Altemeyer suggested that authoritarian politicians are more likely to be in the Conservative or Reform party in Canada, or the Republican Party in the United States. They generally have a conservative economic philosophy, are highly nationalistic, oppose abortion, support capital punishment, oppose gun control legislation and do not value social equality.[30] The RWA scale reliably correlates with political party affiliation, reactions to Watergate, pro-capitalist attitudes, religious orthodoxy and acceptance of covert governmental activities such as illegal wiretaps.[30]

Authoritarians are generally more favorable to punishment and control than personal freedom and diversity. They are more willing to suspend constitutional guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of Rights. They are more likely to advocate strict, punitive sentences for criminals[35] and report that punishing such people is satisfying for them. They tend to be ethnocentric and prejudiced against racial and ethnic minorities[36] and homosexuals.[37][38] However, Stenner argues that authoritarians will support programs intended to increase opportunities for minority groups, such as affirmative action, if they believe such programs will lead to greater societal uniformity.[29]

In roleplaying situations, authoritarians tend to seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive instead of cooperative. In a study by Altemeyer, 68 authoritarians played a three-hour simulation of the Earth's future entitled the Global Change Game. Unlike a comparison game played by individuals with low RWA scores which resulted in world peace and widespread international cooperation, the simulation by authoritarians became highly militarized and eventually entered the stage of nuclear war. By the end of the high RWA game, the entire population of the earth was declared dead.[30]

The vast majority of research on right-wing authoritarianism has been done in the United States and Canada. However, a 2003 cross-cultural study examined the relation between authoritarianism and individualism–collectivism in samples (1,080) from Bulgaria, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Poland and the United States. Both at the individual level and the societal level, authoritarianism was correlated with vertical individualism or dominance seeking and vertical or hierarchical collectivism which is the tendency to submit to the demands of one's ingroup.[39] A study done on both Israeli and Palestinian students in Israel found that RWA scores of right-wing party supporters were significantly higher than those of left-wing party supporters and scores of secular subjects were lowest.[40]

Right-wing authoritarianism has been found to correlate only slightly with social dominance orientation (SDO). The two measures can be thought of as two sides of the same coin as RWA provides submissive followers and SDO provides power-seeking leaders.[41]

Some recent research has argued that the association with RWA and prejudice has dominated research into RWA, with recent developments discovering a more complicated relationship.[42]

Relationship to personality traits

Research comparing RWA with the Big Five personality traits has found that RWA is positively correlated with conscientiousness (r = 0.15) and negatively correlated with openness to experience (r = −0.36). SDO has a somewhat different pattern of correlations with the Big Five, as it is also associated with low openness to experience (r = −0.16), but is not significantly correlated with conscientiousness (r = −0.05) and instead has a negative correlation with agreeableness (r = −0.29). Low openness to experience and high conscientiousness have been found to be predictive of social conformity. People low in openness to experience tend to prefer clear, unambiguous moral rules and are more likely to support the existing social order insofar as it provides clear guidance about social norms for behavior and how the world should be. People low in openness to experience are also more sensitive to threats (both real and symbolic) to the social order and hence tend to view outgroups who deviate from traditional social norms and values as a threat to ingroup norms and values. Conscientiousness is associated with a preference for order, structure and security, hence this might explain the connection with RWA.[32]

Causes of RWA personality

The roots of the right-wing authoritarian personality are mostly down to genetics, a conclusion that comes from twin studies.[43]

Criticism and development

A recent refinement to this body of research was presented in Karen Stenner's 2005 book, The Authoritarian Dynamic. Stenner argues that RWA is best understood as expressing a dynamic response to external threat, not a static disposition based only on the traits of submission, aggression and conventionalism. Stenner is critical of Altemeyer's social learning interpretation and argues that it cannot account for how levels of authoritarianism fluctuate with social conditions. She argues that the RWA Scale can be viewed as a measure of expressed authoritarianism, but that other measures are needed to assess authoritarian predispositions which interact with threatening circumstances to produce the authoritarian response.[44]

Recent criticism has also come as a result of treating RWA as uni-dimensional even in contexts where it makes no sense to do so. This include RWA being used in regression analyses with fundamentalism as another predictor and attitudes to homosexuality and racism as the outcomes.[45] This research seemed to show that fundamentalism would be associated with reduced racism once the authoritarian component was removed and this was summarized in a recent review of the field.[46] However, since the RWA scale has items that also measure fundamentalist religiosity and attitudes to homosexuality, this undermines the interpretation of such analyses.[47][48] Even worse is the possibility that the unrecognised dimensionality in RWA can cause a statistical artifact to arise in such regressions which can reduce or even reverse some of the relationships. Mavor and colleagues have argued that this artifact eliminates or even reverses any apparent tendency for fundamentalism to reduce racism once RWA is controlled. The implication is that in some domains such as the social psychology of religion it is not only preferable to think of RWA as consisting of at least two components, but it is essential in order to avoid statistical errors and incorrect conclusions.[48] Several options currently exist for scales that acknowledge at least the two main underlying components in the scale (aggression/submission and conventionalism).[16][18][19][48][49][50][51]

Altemeyer's research on authoritarianism has been challenged by psychologist John J. Ray, who questions the sampling methods used and the ability of the RWA Scale to predict authoritarian behavior and provides evidence that the RWA Scale measures conservatism rather than "directiveness", a construct that John J. Ray invented and that he relates to authoritarianism.[52][53] However, Ray's approach is a minority position among researchers[54] and other psychologists have found that both the RWA scale and the original F-scale are good predictors of both attitudes and behavior.[55]

In 2012, the American Journal of Political Science[56] published an article discussing the correlation between conservatism and psychoticism which they associated with authoritarianism, among other traits. In 2015, they released an erratum showing mixed correlations.[57]

In 2017, the new Regality Theory suggested a reinterpretation of RWA in the light of evolutionary psychology. Regality theory agrees that authoritarianism is a dynamic response to external threats, but rather than seeing it as a psychological aberration, regality theory posits that authoritarianism is an evolved response to perceived collective danger. The tendency to support a strong leader when faced with common existential threats has contributed to Darwinian fitness in human prehistory because it helped solve the collective action problem in war and suppress free riders. It is argued that regality theory adds a deeper level of analysis to our understanding of authoritarianism and avoids the political bias that the research in the authoritarian personality and RWA is often criticized for.[58]

In 2019, Ronald Inglehart combined RWA with his theory of postmaterialism, arguing that both reflected the tendency of insecure environments to produce individuals whose worldview values conformism over self-expression.[59]

Although some earlier scholars had claimed that a comparable construct of left-wing authoritarinism (LWA) on the political left does not exist and compared the search for LWA to trying to find the Loch Ness monster, more recent work suggests the possibility that LWA does exist and that it predicts similar outcomes as RWA.[60] This has spurred debate about whether liberals might be similarly authoritarian as conservatives.[61]

Honeycutt et al argue that RWA scores may be misrepresented by distribution as high-scorers on the scale may actually have moderate scores and are only "high" relative to lower scorers, rather than scoring high on the scale in any absolute sense. Thus differences between "high" and "low" scorers may be exaggerated.[62]


The theoretical concept of right-wing authoritarianism was introduced in 1981 by the Canadian-American social psychologist Bob Altemeyer[1] as a refinement of the authoritarian personality theory originally pioneered by University of California, Berkeley, researchers Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford.[63]

After extensive questionnaire research and statistical analysis, Altemeyer found that only three of the original nine hypothesized components of the model correlated together: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression and conventionalism. Researchers have traditionally assumed that there was just one kind of authoritarian personality, who could be either a follower or a leader. The discovery that followers and leaders are usually different types of authoritarians is based on research done by Sam McFarland.[41] Altemeyer describes another scale called "Social Dominance" which measures how domineering a person is. Altemeyer calls people who score highly on both his "Right-Wing Authoritarian" and "Social Dominance" scales as "Double Highs".[41]

See also


  1. ^ a b "Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA)". Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. 2021. Retrieved 18 October 2021. A theoretical refinement of the theory of the authoritarian personality that identifies political conservatism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism as key predictors of prejudice, racism, and right-wing extremism. [first proposed in 1981 by Canadian social psychologist Robert A. Altemeyer]
  2. ^ Manson, Joseph H. (December 2020). Saklofske, Donald H. (ed.). "Right-wing Authoritarianism, Left-wing Authoritarianism, and pandemic-mitigation authoritarianism". Personality and Individual Differences. Elsevier. 167: 110251. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110251. ISSN 0191-8869. PMC 7365073. PMID 32834284. S2CID 220548278.
  3. ^ Altemeyer (1996). The Authoritarian Specter, p. 6
  4. ^ Altemeyer (2010). The Authoritarians, chpt. 1
  5. ^ Altemeyer (2010). The Authoritarians
  6. ^ Altemeyer (1996). The Authoritarian Specter, pp. 10-11
  7. ^ Altemeyer (2010). The Authoritarians, chpt. 2
  8. ^ Altemeyer 1996. The Authoritarian Specter, p. 23: "It appears, then, that believing in punishment as they do and enjoying dishing it out as they do, High RWAs are more likely in general to sentence wrongdoers to long prison terms. But this is not true if the wrongdoers are officials whom the authoritarian admires, or if the crime involved attacking someone Highs believe should be attacked (the child molester, the hippie, the uppity demonstrator, Vietnamese peasants, and gay activists). In these cases the usual positive RWA Scale correlation drops and may even become negative."
  9. ^ Altemeyer (1996). The Authoritarian Specter, p. 11
  10. ^ Altemeyer (1996). The Authoritarian Specter, p. 12
  11. ^ Altemeyer (2010). The Authoritarians, chpt. 1
  12. ^ Fodor, Eugene M.; Wick, David P.; Hartsen, Kim M.; Preve, Rebecca M. (20 December 2007). "Right-Wing Authoritarianism in Relation to Proposed Judicial Action, Electromyographic Response, and Affective Attitudes Toward a Schizophrenic Mother". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 38 (1): 215–233. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00303.x. Internal consistency of scale items for the RWA Scale (Altemeyer, 1996), as measured by alpha coefficients, consistently has been high, ranging from .85 to .94.
  13. ^ Altemeyer (2007). The Authoritarians. University of Manitoba. pp. 11–12 in Chapter 1 "Who Are the Authoritarian Followers?"
  14. ^ LaBouff, J. P.; Rowatt, W. C.; Johnson, M. K.; Thedford, M.; Tsang, J. A. (2010). "Development and initial validation of an implicit measure of religiousness-spirituality". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 49 (3): 439–455. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01521.x.
  15. ^ See; Smith, Allison; Winter, David G. (2002). "Right-wing authoritarianism, party identification, and attitudes toward feminism in student evaluations of the Clinton-Lewinsky story". Political Psychology. 23 (2): 355–383. doi:10.1111/0162-895x.00285.
  16. ^ a b Manganelli Rattazzi, A. M.; Bobbio, A.; Canova, L. (2007). "A short version of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) Scale". Personality and Individual Differences. 43 (5): 1223–1234. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.013.
  17. ^ Altemeyer, Bob (2007). The Authoritarians. University of Manitoba.
  18. ^ a b Funke, F (2005). "The Dimensionality of Right-Wing Authoritarianism: Lessons from the Dilemma between Theory and Measurement". Political Psychology. 26 (2): 195–218. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00415.x.
  19. ^ a b Mavor, K. I.; Louis, W. R.; Sibley, C. G. (2010). "A bias-corrected exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of right-wing authoritarianism: Support for a three-factor structure". Personality and Individual Differences. 48 (1): 28–33. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.006. hdl:10023/3991.
  20. ^ Rachel Vengalia; Laura Maxwell (28 June 2021). "How We Conducted Our International Study on Right-Wing Authoritarianism". Morning Consult. Retrieved 3 Jan 2022.
  21. ^ Ryota Takano; Fumiaki Taka; Michio Nomura (2021). "日本語版右翼権威主義尺度の作成" [Development of Japanese versions of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale]. The Japanese Journal of Psychology (in Japanese). 91 (6): 398–408. doi:10.4992/jjpsy.91.19225. Retrieved 18 Jan 2022.
  22. ^ Altemeyer (2010). The Authoritarians, chpt. 1
  23. ^ Altemeyer (2010). The Authoritarians, chpt. 3
  24. ^ Altemeyer (2010). The Authoritarians, chpt. 4: "They can be woefully uninformed about things they oppose, but they prefer ignorance and want to make others become as ignorant as they. They are also surprisingly uninformed about the things they say they believe in, and deep, deep, deep down inside many of them have secret doubts about their core belief."
  25. ^ Altemeyer (2010). The Authoritarians, chpt. 3: "And when I give feedback lectures to classes about my studies and describe right-wing authoritarians, it turns out the high RWAs in the room almost always think I am talking about someone else."
  26. ^ Jost (2021). Left and Right, chpt. 2: "The available data, which we summarize in Chapter 4, provide consistent support for the rigidity-of-the-right hypothesis, no support for the extremity hypothesis in isolation, and some support for the notion that both effects are present in combination (e.g., Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003b)."
  27. ^ Altemeyer (2010). The Authoritarians, chpt. 1: "An authoritarian follower submits excessively to some authorities, aggresses in their name, and insists on everyone following their rules. If these authorities are the established authorities in society, that’s right-wing authoritarianism. If one submits to authorities who want to overthrow the establishment, that’s left-wing authoritarianism, as I define things."
  28. ^ Weir, Kirsten. "Politics is personal". American Psychological Association. American Psychological Association. Retrieved March 3, 2021.
  29. ^ a b c Stenner, Karen (2009). "Three Kinds of "Conservatism" (PDF). Psychological Inquiry. 20 (2–3): 142–159. doi:10.1080/10478400903028615. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-05-12. Retrieved 2 June 2012.
  30. ^ a b c d Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  31. ^ Burger, Axel M., Stefan Pfattheicher, and Melissa Jauch. "The role of motivation in the association of political ideology with cognitive performance." Cognition 195 (2020): 104124.
  32. ^ a b Sibley, Chris; Duckitt, John (2008). "Personality and Prejudice: A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical Review". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 12 (3): 248–79. doi:10.1177/1088868308319226. PMID 18641385.
  33. ^ Palmer, Carl (2014). The Prejudiced Personality? Using the Big Five to Predict Susceptibility to Stereotyping Behavior. APSA. Illinois State University – Department of Politics and Government. SSRN 2455759.
  34. ^ Sibley, C. G.; Duckitt, J. (2008). "Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 12 (3): 248–279. doi:10.1177/1088868308319226. PMID 18641385.
  35. ^ Narby, D. J.; Cutler, B. L.; Moran, G. (1993). "A meta-analysis of the association between authoritarianism and jurors' perceptions of defendant culpability". Journal of Applied Psychology. 78: 34–42. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.34.
  36. ^ Duckitt, J.; Farre, B. (1994). "Right-wing authoritarianism and political intolerance among Whites in the future majority-rule South Africa". Journal of Social Psychology. 134 (6): 735–741. doi:10.1080/00224545.1994.9923008.
  37. ^ Goodman, M. B.; Moradi, B. (2008). "Attitudes and behaviors toward lesbian and gay persons: Critical correlates and mediated relations". Journal of Counseling Psychology. 55 (3): 371–384. CiteSeerX doi:10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.371.
  38. ^ Rios, Kimberly. "Right-wing authoritarianism predicts prejudice against 'homosexuals' but not 'gay men and lesbians'." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49, no. 6 (2013): 1177-1183.
  39. ^ Kemmelmeier, M.; Burnstein, E.; Krumov, K.; Genkova, P.; Kanagawa, C.; Hirshberg, M. S.; Erb, H.; Wieczorkowska, G.; Noels, K. (2003). "Individualism, collectivism, and authoritarianism in seven societies". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 34 (3): 304–322. doi:10.1177/0022022103034003005.
  40. ^ Rubinstein, G (1996). "Two peoples in one land: A validation study of Altemeyer's Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale in the Palestinian and Jewish societies in Israel". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 27 (2): 216–230. doi:10.1177/0022022196272005.
  41. ^ a b c Altemeyer, Bob (1998). "The other 'authoritarian personality'". In M. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 30 (pp. 47–92). San Diego: Academic Press.
  42. ^ Soral, Wiktor, and Michał Bilewicz. "The Politics of Vaccine Hesitancy: An Ideological Dual-Process Approach." (2021).
  43. ^ Christian Kandler; Edward Bell; Rainer Riemann (2016). "The Structure and Sources of Right-wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation". European Journal of Personality. 30: 406–420. doi:10.1002/per.2061.
    "When controlling for error variance and taking assortative mating into account, individual differences in RWA were primarily due to genetic contributions including genotype–environment correlation, whereas variance in SDO was largely attributable to environmental sources shared and not shared by twins."
  44. ^ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press.
  45. ^ Laythe, Brian; Finkel, Deborah G.; Kirkpatrick, Lee A. (2001). "Predicting prejudice from religious fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism: A multiple regression approach". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 40: 1–10. doi:10.1111/0021-8294.00033.
  46. ^ Hall, D. L.; Matz, D. C.; Wood, W. (2010). "Why don't we practice what we preach? A meta-analytic review of religious racism". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 14 (1): 126–139. doi:10.1177/1088868309352179. PMID 20018983.
  47. ^ See Mavor, K. I.; Macleod, C. J.; Boal, M. J.; Louis, W. R. (2009). "Right-wing authoritarianism, fundamentalism and prejudice revisited: Removing suppression and statistical artefact". Personality and Individual Differences. 46 (5–6): 592–597. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.016. hdl:10023/3990.
  48. ^ a b c Mavor, K. I.; Louis, W. R.; Laythe, B. (2011). "Religion, Prejudice, and Authoritarianism: Is RWA a Boon or Bane to the Psychology of Religion?". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 50 (1): 22–43. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01550.x. hdl:10023/4025.
  49. ^ Duckitt, J.; Fisher, K. (2003). "The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes". Political Psychology. 24: 199–222. doi:10.1111/0162-895x.00322.
  50. ^ Duckitt, J.; Bizumic, B.; Krauss, S. W.; Heled, E. (2010). "A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model". Political Psychology. 31 (5): 685–715. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00781.x.
  51. ^ Smith, Allison; Winter, David G. (2002). "Right-wing authoritarianism, party identification, and attitudes toward feminism in student evaluations of the Clinton-Lewinsky story". Political Psychology. 23 (2): 355–383. doi:10.1111/0162-895x.00285.
  52. ^ Ray, J.J. (1985). "Defective validity in the Altemeyer authoritarianism scale". Journal of Social Psychology. 125 (2): 271–272. doi:10.1080/00224545.1985.9922883.
  53. ^ Ray, J.J. (1987). "Special review of "Right-wing authoritarianism" by R.A. Altemeyer". Personality and Individual Differences. 8 (5): 771–772. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(87)90084-5.
  54. ^ Stone, W. F., Lederer, G., & Christie, R. (1993). Strength and Weakness: The Authoritarian Personality Today. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  55. ^ Meloen, J. D.; Van der Linden, G.; De Witte, H.; et al. (1996). "A test of the approaches of Adorno et al., Lederer and Altemeyer of authoritarianism in Belgian Flanders: A research note". Political Psychology. 17 (4): 643–656. doi:10.2307/3792131. JSTOR 3792131.
  56. ^ Verhulst, B.; Eaves, L. J.; Hatemi, P. K. (2012). "Correlation not causation: the relationship between personality traits and political ideologies". American Journal of Political Science. 56 (1): 34–51. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00568.x. PMC 3809096. PMID 22400142.
  57. ^ Verhulst, B.; Eaves, L. J.; Hatemi, P. K. (2015). "Erratum to "Correlation not causation: the relationship between personality traits and political ideologies."". American Journal of Political Science. 60 (1): E3–E4. doi:10.1111/ajps.12216.
  58. ^ Fog, Agner (2017). Warlike and Peaceful Societies: The Interaction of Genes and Culture. Open Book Publishers. doi:10.11647/OBP.0128. ISBN 978-1-78374-403-9.
  59. ^ Inglehart, Ronald. Cultural Evolution. Cambridge University Press.
  60. ^ Conway, Lucian; Houck, Shannon; Gornick, Laura; Repke, Meredith (December 2017). "Finding the Loch Ness Monster: Left-Wing Authoritarianism in the United States". Political Psychology. 39 (5): 1049–1067. doi:10.1111/pops.12470.
  61. ^ Clark, Cory; Liu, Brittany; Winegard, Bo; Ditto, Peter (June 2019). "Tribalism Is Human Nature". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 28 (6): 587–592. doi:10.1177/0963721419862289.
  62. ^ Honeycutt, Nathan, and Lee Jussim. "A model of political bias in social science research." Psychological Inquiry 31, no. 1 (2020): 73-85.
  63. ^ Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Row.

Further reading