Authoritarianism Social Threat

8/3/2019 Authoritarianism Social Threat

1/31


2/31

Political Psychology,Vol.18, No. 4, 1997

PerceivedThreatand AuthoritarianismStanley FeldmanState University of New York at Stony BrookKaren StennerDuke University

Therehas been a long historyof workon authoritarianismhat has looked at the role ofsocietal threat.Muchof theempiricalresearch in this traditionhasreliedonaggregatedatato examine the relationship between societal threat and authoritarianattitudes andbehaviors.Ouranalysisuses individual-leveldata anda range ofperceivedthreatmeasuresto betterunderstand hedynamicsof authoritarianismndthreat.Wealso movebeyondthehypothesis of a direct relationshipbetween threat and authoritarianism, nd hypothesizeinstead that the relationship involves interaction effects: societal threat activatesauthoritarian redispositions.Aspredicted,ouranalysis inds no evidenceofa directeffectof societal threat but significant evidence of an interaction between authoritarianpredispositionsandperceived threat. We consider the implicationsof these results or ourunderstandingof authoritarianism.KEY WORDS: authoritarianism;ocietal threat;prejudice;punitiveness

It has long been hypothesizedthat various forms of threatwill contribute oauthoritarianism. n one of the first detailed discussions of the subject,Fromm(1941) argued hat nsecurity s themajor actor n thedevelopmentof authoritari-anism.Faced with an uncertainworld and lack of direction,people will "escapefromfreedom."One mechanismof escapeis authoritarianism.nFromm'sanaly-sis, this insecurityresults from the rootlessness of the modem world and the

Earlierversions of this paperwere presentedat the 1994 AnnualMeetingof the International ocietyfor PoliticalPsychologyand the 1994 AnnualMeetingof the AmericanPoliticalScience Association.We would like to thankMarkFischle and LeonieHuddyfor theirinsightfulcomments.The datausedin this paperwere collected by the NationalElection Studies and made availablethrough he Inter-UniversityConsortium or Political and Social Research. Neither the NES nor the ICPSR bear anyresponsibility or the analysesor conclusionsreported n thispaper.

7410162-895X 0 1997 International ociety of PoliticalPsychologyPublishedby BlackwellPublishers,350 MainStreet, Malden,MA 02148, USA, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford,OX4 1JF,UK.


3/31

Feldman and Stennerconsequencesof capitalism. t is alsopossibleto interprethe work of Adornoet al.(1950) intermsof threatand nsecurity,although n this case the sourceof thethreatis inconsistentchild-rearing ractices,andtheconsequencesresult rompsychody-namic defense mechanisms. It is clear, however, that Adornoet al. were moreconcernedwithsocializationandpsychodynamicprocessesthanwith theinfluenceof social and economic threaton authoritarianism.A more direct connection is evident in the work of Rokeach (1960), whohypothesizedthatanxiety stemmingfromexternal threat s theunderlyingcauseof dogmatism and, therefore, intolerance. This theme reappears n the work ofWilson (1973) and his colleagues who arguedthat"conservatism"-defined inthis research in a mannervirtually indistinguishablefrom authoritarianism-isa response to generalized anxiety (fear of uncertainty) stemming from bothexternal and intrapsychiccauses. It is clear that there is a common tendencytoimplicatethreatandanxietyin thedevelopmentof authoritarian haracter raits,intolerance (Wilkinson, 1972), and even mass violence and genocide (Staub,1989).Althoughthe hypothesisis well-known,there is surprisingly ittle empiricalevidence on the connection between threat,authoritarianism, nd intolerance.Rokeach(1960) offered some indirectbutintriguingevidence on therelationshipbetweenperceivedthreatandtheapparentevel of dogmatism n religious groups.He alsopresentednonexperimental atashowinga correlationbetweenanxietyanddogmatism.Wilson andhiscolleagues(1973) offeredavarietyof correlational atathatsuggestarelationship etweenanxietyand(social)conservatism.Forexample,they found that increasingconservatismis associated with fear of death,lowerlevels of stimulus-seeking,and dislikeof complexity.Themost concertedattempt o test thishypothesishas beentheworkof Sales(1972; 1973; Sales & Friend, 1973). The most compelling of his analysesusedaggregate data to examine the relationshipbetween environmental hreat andauthoritarianism. n one study, Sales (1972) examined the effect of the GreatDepression on conversion rates among church denominations. He found thatconversionrates fromnonauthoritariano authoritarian enominations ncreasedduringperiodsof presumedsocietal threat.In a second study,Sales (1973) foundthat a variety of archival indicators of authoritarianismwere higher duringperiods of societal stress (the Depression Era 1930s and the late 1960s) thaninthe lower stress years immediately preceding. Although his results were notperfectly consistent with the researchhypothesis, Sales found thatmany of hisindicators of authoritarianism-size of police budgets, power themes in comicbooks, prison sentences for sex offenders, purchases of attack dogs-weresignificantly higherin the periods of societal threatthan in the precedinglowerthreatyears.A recentstudybyDoty, Peterson,andWinter 1991) replicated he Salesstudyusing 1978-1982 as thehigh-threat earsand1983-1987 as thelow-threatperiod.In a usefulvariationon the Sales study,Doty et al. examinedthe transition rom a

742


4/31


5/31

FeldmanndStennerconceptualizationof authoritarianismhat would allow us to make sense of theobservedrelationship.1

THREAT AND AUTHORITARIANISMThe hypothesisentertained n most of the literature s that threator anxietyproduceshigher evelsof authoritarianism. hisis a simplifiedversionof Fromm'soriginal argument. t is important,however, to make a distinctionbetweenlong-term societal threat and short-term hreateningevents. Fromm's argumentwasbased on the structural actors nherent n capitalismand modem society thatmayfoster authoritarianism. n a somewhat ess grandscale, Wilson (1973) hypothe-sized thatgeneralizedanxietyis the centraldeterminant f (authoritarian)onser-vatism. In these arguments t is long-term,deeply felt threat and anxiety thatcontribute o the developmentof authoritarianharacter tructures.On the other hand, the studies of Sales and of Doty, Peterson,and Winterexamine the effects of moretransitory hreaton authoritarianism. ut, what doesit mean if levels of authoritarianism-longpresumed o be a personalitycharac-teristic-increase underconditions of short-termhreatand thenrecede whenthatthreatis removed?Only Sales and Friend(1973) seem to deal with this issue,

concedingthatthe "notion hatcentralpersonality raits,such as authoritarianism,mightchange nresponse ochanges nthecontemporaneousnvironment s hardlya commonplace n currentpersonality heorizing" Sales & Friend, 1973,p. 163).Although hereare theoristswho argue hatpersonality raitsare not fixed andmayindeed exhibit significantshort-term hange, there is anotherpossibility to con-sider:one which we believeprovidesa moresatisfactoryaccountof therelationshipbetween transient hreatandmanifestationsof authoritarianism.erhaps t is notauthoritarianismtself that increases in the face of transientenvironmentalhreat,but rather he relationshipbetweenauthoritarianismnd its attitudinal nd behav-ioralmanifestationsor consequences,like intolerance.This implies that the typi-cally observed consequences of authoritarianism esult from an interactionbetween authoritarianredispositionsand threat.Thishypothesis s consistentwith theaggregate-levelstudiesby Sales andbyDoty, Peterson, and Winter. Since the researcherscould not directly measureauthoritarianersonality raits,the changesin behaviorsthatthey observedcouldwell be a productof the activation of existing authoritarianraitsby threat,ratherthanan increase n the traits hemselves. And while Sales andFriend 1973) foundsome effect of threat(failure)on a measure of authoritarian personality,"he

1A recent study by Marcus et al. (1995) examined the effects of threat on intolerance,with threatoperationalizedas both perceptionsof a specific threateninggroup,and of generalizedthreatfrommanygroups.While theirresults are interestingandimportantor ourunderstanding f intolerance,theirfocus is verydifferent rom the one pursuedhere.

744


6/31

PerceivedThreatandAuthoritarianismobserved changes in authoritarianismwere fairly small. Moreover, since evenpaperand pencil measures of authoritarianism re still indirectindicatorsof anunobservedconstruct, t is possible thatthe observed increases n the scale scoresreflect an increased salience of authoritarian redispositions-and thereby in-creasedmanifestationof authoritarianism-intheface of threat,rather hanactualchanges n theunderlying rait.Thisargument athersmomentumas oneconsidersthat the most common measures of authoritarianism ften tap ratherspecificmanifestationsof the trait, ike prejudiceandintolerance,which seem to us moreakinto dependentvariables, han o indicatorsof theindependent ariable:authori-tarianpredisposition.We could findonlyone individual-level tudy hat-although the authorswerenot concerned with our particular opic-provided evidence of an interactionbetweenauthoritarianismnd threat.Thestudy s one in a series thatwas designedto test a frameworkknown as terrormanagement heory(Rosenblattet al., 1989;Greenberget al., 1990). This theoryposits that awareness of humanmortalityproducesa "potential oroverwhelming error"Rosenblatt t al., 1989,p. 681). Inorder to deal with this, societies develop culturalworldviews to provide theirmembers with a sense of meaningin life. Threats o this culturalworldview-inthe formof deviance romsocietalnorms-must thereforebeeliminated, speciallyif the threatof mortalitybecomes salient.To test terrormanagement theory the investigatorsused a fairly simplemanipulationto increase the salience of the subjects' mortality. Specifically,subjects in the experimentalcondition were asked to answer two open-endedquestions:one questionrequiring hem to say whattheythinkwill happen o themwhenthey die, andthe secondaskingthem to report he emotionsthat the thoughtof their death arouses in them. In a series of studies, Rosenblatt et al. (1989;Greenberget al., 1990) foundthat the mortalitysalience manipulationncreasedsubjects'rejectionto outgroupmembers andthe former'slevels of punitivenesstowardsocial deviants:reactions hat arehighlycharacteristic f authoritarians.In one particular tudy,of greatest nterest or ourpurposes,Greenberg t al.(1990) measured heirsubjects' evels of authoritarianismefore theexperimentalmanipulation.The dependentvariable was attitudetoward a person who wasconstructed o be eithersimilar or dissimilarto the subject.The analysisfound apronounced nteractionamongmortalitysalience,authoritarianism,ndreactionsto a dissimilar arget.Highand low authoritariansiffered n theirreactions o thedissimilartarget only underconditions of mortalitysalience. And the mortalitysaliencemanipulationnfluencedattitudesoward hetargetonlyamongthosehighin authoritarianism. hus,subjects n this studyexhibitedthe greatestrejectionofa dissimilar argetpersonwhenthey were bothhigh in authoritarianismndfacedwith the realityof theirmortality: learly,a threatening ituation.Although these authorswere not attempting o investigatethe relationshipbetween threat and authoritarianism,heir results can be interpretedas clearevidence for an associationbetween the two, anda particularkind of association

745


7/31

Feldman and Stennerat that.In their latterstudy,we observe the effects of the interactionof threatandauthoritarianism n the manifestationof authoritarian ehaviors, rather than adirect effect of threat on levels of authoritarianism. his is consistent with theperspective we have adopted in this paper and suggests that the interactionhypothesisin worthyof further nvestigation.Moreover,since a wide varietyofpotential hreatshave been discussed n theliterature-from threats o self-esteem,identity and meaning, to threatsto economic security and the stability of thepoliticalworld-we still need to understand etterthe specific typesof threat hatlead individualshigh in authoritarianismo become more intolerantandpunitive.Indeed,a major imitationof the aggregate-levelstudiesis thattheyare unabletodistinguishamong differenttypes of threats,which become confounded in thesimple comparisonof variousyearsorperiodsof time.Shouldtherebe strongempiricalsupport or an interactionbetween threatandauthoritarianism, e would have more thanjust evidence for an interesting ittlehypothesis.Whatwouldit indicate or ourbasicunderstandingf authoritarianismitself if its manifestationsdependheavily on thepresenceof environmental hreatand insecurity? Althoughit might be possible to interpret his result within theAdornoet al.conceptualization,hepsychodynamicmodel does not seem topredicta central role for threat n theactivation of authoritarianism.Altemeyer's (1988,1996) social learningaccount can even less comfortablyaccommodate such aninteraction effect. In fact, we suggest thatempirical evidence of a centralrolefor threat in the activation of authoritarianismwould provide the basis for awholly different interpretationof the origins anddynamicsof authoritarianismitself.

STUDY DESIGN

For thisinvestigation,we utilize datafrom the 1992 NationalElectionStudiespre-postelection survey.As with most secondarydataanalyses,this studyis notideal for the purposeat hand. The NES data allow us to construct a range oftheoretically nterestingmeasuresof threat,but are less satisfactoryn termsof theavailabilityof good dependentvariables. Unfortunately, he NES data do notdirectly measure intolerance or punitiveness:two presumedimportantconse-quences of authoritarianism.However, we can make up for the lack of idealdependentvariablesby consideringa set of variablesthat include measures ofminority group attitudes,attitudes toward the use of force, and general socialandpolitical attitudes.Having multiple dependentvariables across these cate-gories enables us to determineif the phenomenon we are observing is in factthe syndrometypically identified as authoritarianism. f our results turnout tobe consistentacross thisrangeof dependentvariables,it will providesubstantialevidence that the phenomenonwe are studyingaccords with previous descrip-tions of authoritarianism.

746


8/31

Perceived Threat and AuthoritarianismThe interactionhypothesis requiresus to distinguish(more clearly than istypically the case) between authoritarianredispositionsand the observed mani-festationsof authoritarianismn attitudesandopinions.One of themajorproblemswithF-scale-typemeasures s thattheyinclude itemsthat are oftenuncomfortablyclose to theconsequencesof authoritarianismhat we are interested n explaining.The measure of authoritarianpredispositionswe use in our analysis taps therespondents'subscription o alternativechild-rearingvalues. The measurearraysrespondentson a dimensionthatruns from a belief at one end thatchildrenshouldbe well-behaved,obedient,andrespectfulof elders,to a view at the otherend thatchildren should be independent,responsible,and curious(see Kohn, 1977, for adiscussionof the developmentof measuresof child-rearing alues).Althoughthis is nota traditionalmeasureof authoritarianism,t haslongbeennoted that this dimension of child-rearingvalues is strongly related to otherauthoritarianism easuresandtopresumed onsequencesof authoritarianism. neof theoriginalF-scale items,and one thathas survived hrough heyearsto appearin Altemeyer's Right-WingAuthoritarianismcale, is "Obedienceandrespectforauthorityare the most importantvirtues children shouldlearn."From a lengthyempiricalstudyof intolerance,Martin 1964, p. 86) concludes: "Theres probablyno otherquestionon which tolerantsdiffer from intolerantsmore sharply hanonchild-rearingpractices.Attitudes on this subject directly and efficiently reflectgeneral ethnocentrism.How to 'bring up' or socialize children is a matterofprofound onsequences, nvolvingbasic humanvalues andobjectives."And,basedon many years of studyingchild-rearingvalues, Kohn(1977, p. 201) arguesthat"a conformistorientationncludesan unwillingnessto permitothers o stepout ofnarrowlydefined limits of what is properand acceptable.Thus, a conformistorientationmpliesnotonly intoleranceof deviantpoliticalbelief,but also intoler-ance of anybeliefs thought o be threateningo the social order-religious beliefs,ethnic and racial dentifications,even beliefs aboutproperdress anddeportment."

We believe that this dimension of child-rearingvalues provides an excellent,nonobtrusivemeasureof authoritarianredispositions. t is particularlyusefulforourpurposessince it does not includequestions tappingpresumedconsequencesof authoritarianism-like prejudice and intolerance-that make up our set ofdependentvariables.

ANALYSISGiven the natureof some of ourdependentvariables,we excluded allminorityrespondentsfrom the NES sample. Further,given that the variables of interestspannedboth thepre-andpostelectionsections of the survey,andwere addressedin theirentiretyonly by those respondentswho answeredthe "long-form" f thequestionnaire,we further ubsetted he datato includeonly thoserespondentswhoanswered the long-formquestionnaire or both sections of the survey.From an

747


9/31

originalsamplesize of 2487, 2004 respondentsmeet these criteria,and of those,1564 arewhitenon-Hispanics.Whatfollows below is an outline of the dependentvariablesfor the analysis,and of the independentvariables we anticipatedwould be implicated in thetendencyto hold stereotypical,punitive,and ethnocentricattitudes.We indicatehowconceptswereoperationalizedorinclusion n themodel,andourexpectationsfor theirimpacton the dependentvariables.Dependent Variables

As we havenoted,a limitationof the NESdata s that heydo not includedirectmeasuresof constructs ike intoleranceorpunitiveness hataretypicallyexaminedasmanifestations f authoritarianism.We have therefore hosen arangeof depend-ent variablesfor our analysis. The variablesfall into three general categories:attitudes owardminoritygroups,social andpoliticalattitudes,andattitudesowardthe use of force.The vast literature n authoritarianismas shownstrongconnec-tions between these categoriesof attitudesand authoritarianredispositions.Weexpectincreasingauthoritarianismo be associatedwithnegativeandstereotypicalattitudes owardminoritygroupsand to the willingnessto use force,bothdomes-tically and internationally.Authoritarianism hould also be relatedto key socialorientations;ngroupversusoutgroupattachments, desirefor orderoverfreedom,andpatriotism. f ourempiricalresults areconsistent across this set of dependentvariables we will be able to relatewith considerableconfidence our findings toliterature n authoritarianism.

Attitudes Toward Minority GroupsNegative racial stereotyping.The NES studyincluded a batteryof questionson perceptionsof the traitsof fourgroups:whites, blacks,Hispanics,andAsians.Foreachgroup,respondentswere first asked to indicateon a seven-pointscale theextentto whichgroupmembersweretypicallyviolentorpeaceful. Theythen ratedeach groupon a scale of hardworkingversus lazy, andfinally intelligentversusunintelligent.For each of the threeminoritygroups,difference scores were com-putedto indicatethe extent to whichgroupmemberswereperceivedto have morenegative characteristics han whites on each of the three trait dimensions. Thisproduceda totalof nine indicators: hreegroupsby threetraits.In orderto obtaina somewhat more normaldistribution,we took the squareroot of each of thesedifferencescores. We thenaveraged he nineindicators oproduceasinglemeasureof negative racialstereotyping.The measurehas an estimatedreliability(coeffi-cient a) of .90.Tendency o blame blacks. The second measureof attitudes owardminoritygroups s an itemgaugingthe extenttowhichrespondents hought hat herelatively

Feldman and Stenner48


10/31

PerceivedThreatandAuthoritarianismimpoverishedcircumstances n which blacksfind themselveswere due simplytolack of efforton thepartof the latter.Specifically,thequestionaskedrespondentsto indicate the extent to which they agreedor disagreedwith the statement,"It'sreally a matterof some people not tryinghardenough;if blacks would only tryharder heycould bejust as well off as whites."Gayrights.Respondentswereasked,"Doyou favor oropposelaws to protecthomosexualsagainst ob discrimination?Do you favor/opposesuch laws stronglyor not strongly?"

Social and Political Attitudes

Groupattachments-ingroupversusoutgroup.One of themajorhypothesizedcharacteristics f authoritarianss thatthey areinordinatelyattached o the domi-nantingroups n society andrejectthe outgroups. n fact, Duckitt(1989) sees thisas one of the definingcharacteristics f authoritarianism. he NES questionnaireasked people to indicate whetherthey feel close to a wide range of social andpoliticalgroups,specifically,to indicatethepeople"who are most like you intheirideas and interests and feelings aboutthings."We designatedthe middle class,whites, andbusinesspeople as ingroups,andblacks,Hispanics,Asians,andpoorpeople as outgroups.Fromtheseresponseswe constructed wo separatemeasures,one of ingroupattachment nd one of outgroupattachment, ach scored0 to 1,with1indicating hatrespondentselt close to all of thegroups ntheset,and0 indicatingthatthey felt close to none of the groups(withvaluesbetween 0 and 1 indicatingother intermediate evels of group closeness). Since we sought a measurethatindicates the extent to which people both feel close to ingroupsand do not feelclose to (feel distant rom)outgroups,we multiplied he ingroupattachment coreby the reverse of the outgroupidentificationscore. This yields a final measurerangingfrom0 to 1, with a scoreof 1 indicating hat therespondent eels close toall of the ingroupsand none of the outgroups.A score of 0 would occur if therespondenteither felt close to none of the ingroups,or felt close to all of theoutgroups.Order versusfreedom. People high in authoritarianismhouldplace a highvalue on order n societybut not on individual reedom.We constructedameasureof thispropensity romavalue-rankingmeasuredesignedbyInglehart 1977). Thequestionreads,"Fora nation,it is not always possible to obtaineverythingonemightwish. Onpagetenof the booklet severaldifferentgoals are isted. If youhadto choose amongthem,which one seems most desirable o you?Which one wouldbe yoursecondchoice?... 1. maintainingorder n the nation;2. giving thepeoplemore say in importantpolitical decisions; 3. fightingrising prices;4. protectingfreedomof speech."We thencreated wovariablesrepresentingheextenttowhichtherespondentvaluedorderandfreedom.Each is scored 1 if thatvaluewasrankedmost important, .5 if rankedsecond mostimportant,and 0 if not chosen.As withthe groupcloseness measure,we areinterested n theextent to whichpeopleboth

749


11/31

Feldman and Stennervalue orderand do not value freedom.We thereforeconstructed he final measureas theproductof the ordervariablemultipliedby the reversed reedomvariable.TrueAmerican.Authoritarians reexpectedto be bothpatrioticand inclinedto demandsocial conformity.We might reasonablyexpect them to be concernedabout he definitionof citizenshipand o definecitizenship n a manner hatrequiressubscription o andconformitywith traditionalnorms andpractices.Happily,oneof the NES questionsreads,"Somepeoplesay thereare certainqualities hatmakeapersona trueAmerican.Others aythat here sn'tanything hatmakesonepersonmore American han another. 'm going to read some of thethingsthathave beenmentioned.For each of the following, tell me how importantyou think it is inmakingsomeone a trueAmerican-extremely important,very important, ome-whatimportant, r not at all important... Believing in God."

Attitudes Toward the Use of ForceSupport or the death penalty. A central aspect of authoritarianisms thewillingnessto use extrememeasures o punishthose who violatelaws. In theU.S.,the most extreme use of legitimateforce is the deathpenalty.The relevantNESquestionaskswhetherrespondents"favororopposethe deathpenaltyforpersonsconvicted of murder" andwhetherthey favor/opposethe deathpenaltystronglyor not strongly).Defense spending.Thewillingnesstouseforce can extendbeyondthe nation'borders,both to protectthe countryand to punish wrongdoers.One indicatorofsuchwillingnessto use force is support or greaterspendingon defense. TheNESquestion we employ is, "Some people believe that we should spend much lessmoney for defense. Others eel that defense spendingshouldbe greatly ncreased.Wherewouldyou place yourselfon this scale, orhaven'tyou thoughtmuchaboutthis?" The originalmeasureranges from 1 (defense spendingshould be greatly

decreased)to 7 (spendmuch moremoney for defense).Supportor the Gulfwar.Respondentswere asked:"Doyou think we did theright thing in sendingU.S. militaryforces to the PersianGulf or should we havestayedout?"Note that this is a retrospectiveudgmentasked in the fall of 1992.INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Child-Rearing ValuesThe centralexplanatoryvariable s a measureof authoritarian alues formedfromresponsesto a series of questionsconcerning"child-rearing alues." Thesequestionspresentedrespondentsnturnwith fourpairsof qualities-independenceor respectfor elders;obedience or self-reliance;curiosityor good manners;andbeing considerateor well-behaved-and asked them to indicate which of the two

750


12/31

Perceived Threat and Authoritarianismwas the most desirablequalityfor a child to have. The four separate tems werecoded such that the "authoritarian"esponseto each pairof qualities(respectforelders, obedience, good manners, being well-behaved) was scored 1; the"nonauthoritarian"esponse(independence, elf-reliance,curiosity,beingconsid-erate)was scored0; andrespondentswho offered thattheywere uncertainof theirchoice, or thought that neither or both qualities were important,were scored0.5. The authoritarianismmeasure is then a simple additive scale constructedby summingthese four variables.Theestimatedreliabilityof the fouritem scaleis .66.The influenceof authoritarianismn intolerance,punitiveness,andnegativeattitudes owardoutgroups s expectedto be contingentupon-specifically, mag-nifiedby-conditions of fear and threat.Thus,we constructeda rangeof variablesmeasuringconditions which might be threateningto the individual, includingpolitical, economic, andpersonalthreats.Then for each of the threatconditionsrepresentedby these variables,we constructedan interaction ermfor inclusioninthe model,crossingeach of the threatvariableswiththe measureof authoritarian-ism. Sincetheprevious iterature as toucheduponawiderangeof potential hreatsthatmaycontributeoauthoritarianism, e have tried o samplebroadlyrather hanpreciselydefiningthreatandmeasuring t narrowly.Onegoal of thisanalysisis tocomparethe impactof the variousconditionsthat have been hypothesizedto bethreateningo authoritarians.

Political ThreatPerceivedideologicaldistance rom majorpolitical actors.This variable apsone aspectof whatmightbe termed"political hreat,"hereoperationalized s thesum of acitizen'sperceived"ideologicaldistance" romeach of fourmajorpoliticalactors: heRepublicanandDemocraticparties,andtheRepublicanandDemocratic

presidentialcandidates.These represent he major objectson a citizen's politicalhorizonand the main alternativesamong which political choices are made. Thevariable was constructedby summing the four absolute distances between arespondent'sown ideological positionon a seven-point iberal-conservative on-tinuum(self-placement),and the perceived positions of each of the two majorparties,andthe two majorpresidential andidates BushandClinton).Thuswe are interested n the ideologicaldistancethat individualsperceivetoexist between themselves andall of the majoractorsin the politicalarena,ratherthan how ideologically distantthey feel from the nearestpolitical alternatives(politicalpartiesandpresidential andidates).We operationalizedeologicalthreatin this mannerbecause we anticipate hatwhat is threatening o authoritarianssideological diversity per se, notwithstandinghat theremay exist a partyand/orcandidatewhosepositionson importantmattersareproximate o theirown. Givenmany empirical indings regarding heauthoritarian'sxaggeratedneedto protectthe dominant culture, and consequent intolerance of unconventional,deviant

751


13/31

Feldman and Stennerattitudesandbehavior,we expectauthoritarianso be fearfulof the mereexistencein thepoliticalarenaof beliefs that areremoved from their own. Moreover,giventhe tendency of people to perceive that the public as a whole shares their ownopinions(Ross, Greene,& House, 1977), partiesand candidateswho are farfromthe respondent's deological position are likely to be seen by that individualasdivergingfrom thepositionof mostpeople in theU.S.Negativity of responsetopresidentialcandidates.Anotherpotentially mpor-tantaspectof "political hreat"s the extentto which individualsreactnegativelyto bothof the majorpresidentialcandidates.We createda variablemeasuring hisconstruct romresponsesto two groupsof questionsgaugingpositiveandnegativeemotions arousedby the candidates and respondents'ratingsof the candidates'possessionof a varietyof traits.The first groupof questionsinvolved eight items dealing with positive andnegative emotions arousedby Bush and Clinton.These questionsaskedrespon-dents to report, n turn,whethereach of the presidentialcandidates-"because ofthe kind of personhe is, or because of somethinghe has done"-had ever madethem feel angry,hopeful,afraid,orproud.For each candidatewe formedavariablethatcountsthenumberof reportednegativeemotionsminusthe numberof reportedpositive emotions.These two variableswere thenmultiplied ogetherso thathighscores indicate a preponderanceof negative emotions towardboth candidates.Thus, a respondentwould achieve a low score on this componentof the overallmeasure f he or she hadlargely positiveemotions abouteithercandidate.The second componentto ourmeasure of negativityof responseto politicalleaders nvolved individuals'ratingsof the candidates'possessionof each of ninetraits.ConsideringBush andClintonin turn,respondentswere asked to indicatehow well a numberof wordsorphrasesdescribed he candidate n question.Sincetheseposeda series of positivetraits-intelligent, compassionate,moral, nspiring,strong,caring,knowledgeable,honest, and"gets thejob done"-our measure ofnegativityfirstreversed,and thensummed the traitratingsfor each of the candi-dates. We thenmultiplied he Bush andClintontraitscorestogetherso that,again,low scores would be obtained on this component f the respondent aw either ofthe two candidatesas having largelypositive traits.Ouroverall measure of negativityof responseto the presidentialcandidatesthen consisted of an equally weighted summationof the negativityof emotionsarousedbythe twocandidates,andthenegativityof their raitratings. t is importantto recognize that,by the way in which we have constructed his measure,highnegativityscorescannot be producedby intensedislike of only one candidate,asmight occur if the respondentwas a very strong partisan.High negativityscoreswill only obtain if the respondenthas strongnegativefeelings towardbothpresi-dentialcandidates.

Negativity of responsetopolitical parties.Just as peoplemaybe disturbedbythe perception that both presidentialcandidateshave predominantlynegativecharacteristics, o too maynegativeperceptionsof bothpoliticalpartiesbe threat-

752


14/31

Perceived hreat ndAuthoritarianismening.Unfortunately,we do not have availablethe same kindof emotionandtraititems forpartiesthatwere availablefor the candidates,andmost resort nsteadtothe "feeling thermometer" cores for the Democratic and Republican parties.Respondents atedeach of themajorpartiesona scaleranging rom averynegativescore of 0 to a highly positive score of 100. Since we are interested n the degreeof negativityfelt towardbothparties,we reversed his scoringand thenmultipliedthe two ratings.As before, high scores on this overall measure indicate strongnegativereactions o bothpolitical parties.

Economic ThreatBeyond the conceptof politicalthreat, t is clear that theremaybe conditionsof economic threatorinsecurity hataffectthe extentto whichpeopleare ntolerantand/orpunitive.To investigate the threatpotentialof economic conditions,weincludedvariablesmeasuringeach respondent's evel of threat n threerespectsthat we anticipate might affect one's sense of securityand well-being: fear ofunemploymentandperceptions hat he economicsituationof one's household,andof the nation as a whole, hadworsened.We operationalizedear of unemployment y firstformingdummyvariablesindicatingwhether herespondent,and his or herspouse(if one existed and was inthe workforce)were "veryworried"aboutlosing theirjobs, or (if unemployed)aboutnotbeingable to findjobs in the nearfuture.Thesevariableswere then eachweightedby the extent to which the household was dependentuponthatperson'sincome-multiplying thedummyvariablebytheproportion f thefamily's incomeearnedby the individual n question-and summed.The formulafor constructingthevariable hus variedaccording o the maritalandemploymentcircumstances feach respondent.High scores indicatea fear of unemploymentcombinedwith ahigh level of familydependenceupontheincome of thepersonin question.Next, we formed a scale measure of negativity of retrospectivepersonaleconomic evaluationby summingresponsesto two items gauging respondents'perceptionsof the extent to whichtheirhouseholdeconomic situationshadgottenbetterorworse over thelastyear.The two questionsare,"Weare nterested n howpeople aregettingalongfinanciallythesedays.Wouldyou say thatyou (andyourfamilylivinghere)arebetteroff orworse off financially hanyou were ayearago?"and "Doyou thinkthatover thelastyear(your/your amily's) income hasgone upmorethan the cost of living, has it fallen behind,or has it stayedabout even withthe cost of living?"Since we are interested n perceptionsthatthe respondent'seconomicsituationhasgottenworse,we dichotomizedresponses obothquestionsinto "worse"versus"same"or "better."Ourmeasurethencombinesresponsestobothquestions.Similarly, we constructeda scale measure of negativity of retrospectivenational economic evaluation by summing responses to three items gaugingrespondents'perceptionsof theextenttowhich thenationaleconomicsituationhad

753


15/31

FeldmanndStennergottenbetteror worse:(1) "Howabouttheeconomy.Wouldyou say that overthepast year the nation's economy has gotten better, stayed the same, or gottenworse?"; (2) "Compared o four years ago, would you say that the nation'seconomyhasgottenbetter,stayedabout hesame,orgottenworse?";and(3) "Howabout America'sabilityto competein the worldeconomy?Overthepastyearhasthatgottenbetter,stayedthe same,orgottenworse?"As was the case forpersonaleconomic evaluations,we dichotomizedresponsesforeachquestion nto"worse"versus "same"or "better," nd formed a single measureby combiningresponsesto the threequestions.

Fear of WarFinally,we soughtto operationalizeanimportant onceptraised n the discus-sion of terrormanagement heory.The researchwe reviewed raisedthepossibilitythat authoritarianismmay be a worldviewandmodusoperandi ormed in parttoprotect the individual from the terrifying recognition of his or her inevitablemortality. f authoritarianism oes involve a fearof dying,then the threatof deathoughtto be a powerful magnifierof the effects of authoritarianismn hostile andintolerantattitudes. Even if the frameworkof terrormanagement heory is not

accepted-and here we are entirelyagnostic-the threatof deathmay be suffi-ciently anxiety-provoking o disturb hose high in authoritarianism.With this inmind, andgiven the destructivepotentialof nuclearwarfare,we includeda finalthreat variable which measuredthe extent to which respondentsexhibitfear ofnuclearwar. This was based on a questionthat askedrespondents o reporthowafraid hey were that anuclearwarwould occur in the nearfuture.Control Variables

There are a number of plausiblerival influences on punitiveand intolerantattitudes that need to be included in our analysis. We constructedvariablesmeasuring he most important oncepts amongthese: moralconservatism,religi-osity, Christianundamentalism, oliticalconservatism,yearsof education,politi-cal knowledge,andparty dentification.Finally,we includedvariablesmeasuringfamily income (in thousands of dollars), age (in years), and gender (dummyvariable ndicatingmale).Detailsof theconstruction f thesevariablesareprovidedin theAppendix.Since the variables n this analysis mostly do not have anynaturalmetric,allof the variables-with the exception of family income, age, andyearsof educa-tion-were rescoredto rangefrom a minimum of 0 to a maximumof 1 to aid ininterpretationf the metricregressioncoefficients.Thus,a unitchangein each ofthese variables nvolves movement fromthe lowest possible score to the highestpossible score. To furtherassist in computingandinterpreting ffects, given the

754


16/31

Perceived Threat and Authoritarianismmany interaction terms in the model, each variable was centered on zero bysubtractinghe variable'smean.For each of the nine dependentvariables,we estimateda regressionequationviaordinaryeastsquares.Thespecificationof theseregressions ncludedall of theindependentvariables described above as well as interaction terms betweenauthoritarianism nd each of the threatvariables.By rescoringthe authoritarianchild-rearingvalues scale and the threatmeasuresto have meansof zero,priortoconstructionof the interaction erms,we have simplifiedthe interpretationf thecoefficients. The coefficient on authoritarian redispositionscan thus be inter-pretedas the effect (partial lopecoefficient)of this scale on thedependentvariablewhen all of the threatvariablesare at the same means. This will be almostexactlythe samecoefficientforauthoritarianhild-rearing alues thatwouldbe estimatedin asimplelinear,additiveregressionmodel with thesample ndependent ariables(except for the interaction erms).The coefficients for the interaction ermsthenindicate he extentto which theeffectof authoritarianismn thedependentvariablevaries as a functionof each indicatorof threat. n all cases, thethreatvariablesarecoded so thatwe expectpositive interaction oefficients.2With nine regressionequations,we obviouslyneed to be cautious in drawingconclusionsabout the impactof a particularndependentvariable or interaction.With thismanycoefficients,we couldget statistically ignificanteffectsbychance.One strategyfor dealing with this would be to combine these nine dependentvariables into a smallernumberof compositemeasures to reduce the numberofestimatedcoefficients. Wehave notchosen thisstrategybecausewe areparticularlyinterestedndiscerning he effects of authoritarianredispositions nd hreatacrossa wide rangeof dependentvariables.Instead,we will look for consistent effectsacross the nineregressionequations. f a variableorinteraction eallyhas no effecton authoritarian ttitudes,we should observe coefficients randomlydistributedaround zero across the nine equations.Consistentlypositive interactioneffectsacross the equationswouldbe extremelyunlikelyto occurby chance.

RESULTSBefore we present heregressionresults, t is enlightening o consider irstthesimplerelationship etweenauthoritarianredispositions ndthevariousmeasuresof threat.Accordingto the simple threat-authoritarianismypothesis-which we

earliercalled into question-environmental threatshouldlead to increasesin theobservedlevels of authoritarianism. onsistentwith the perspectivedevelopedin2Since we were including several interaction erms in the regressionequations,we first estimatedseparateequations, ncludingonly one interactionerm at a time, in order o guardagainstthe chancethat we were missing some significanteffects due to possible multicollinearity.These additionalregressionestimatessimplyconfirmed heresults we present n the single equations.

755


17/31

Feldman and Stennerthis paper,we found no suchrelationship.The largestcorrelationbetweenanyofthe threatmeasuresand authoritarianhild-rearingvalues was -.14, for the per-ceivedideologicaldistancemeasure.Moreover, hiscorrelationwasnegative:moreauthoritarian esponses were associated with the perceptionof less ideologicaldiscord(as well as with less negative perceptionsof the presidentialcandidates).The largestpositive correlationwas a mere .12, between authoritarianalues andfearof nuclearwar. The correlationsbetween authoritarian alues and each of thethree economic threatvariableswere all statistically ndistinguishablerom zero.We thus find no evidence that these sorts of threatsactuallylead to significantlyhigherlevels of authoritarianredispositionsperse.3The regressionestimates for the dependentvariables are shown in Tables IthroughIII. Since we have rescored authoritarian alues and all of the threatmeasuresas deviationsaround heirmeans,the coefficients for those variables inthe upperpanelof each of the tables)arevirtually he same as would be obtainedfromestimating inear additiveregressions,withoutany interaction ffects. Moreprecisely, the estimated coefficient for authoritarian alues is the effect of thatvariable on the dependentvariable when all of the threatmeasuresare at theirsamplemeans.Likewise, the coefficients for the threatvariablesgive theireffectson thedependentvariablewhenauthoritarianisms at its samplemean.Significantinteraction oefficients indicatethat the effect of authoritarianismn thatdepend-entvariablevarieswith level of threat andconversely,that heimpactof that hreatcondition on the dependentvariablevaries with level of authoritarianism).Althoughthe resultsare not perfectlyconsistent across the dependentvari-ables, a numberof the interaction ermsare statisticallysignificantand substan-tively large.4Onlythree nteraction ermsaresignificantwiththewrong (negative)sign, and only one of those is substantively arge. In contrast, wenty-oneof theinteraction ermsare statisticallysignificantin the predicted(positive) direction.This is well beyondwhat could be expectedby chance. The most consistentresultis the effect of the interactionof authoritarianpredispositionsand perceivedideological distance.This interaction s statisticallysignificantand substantivelylarge in seven of the nine equations.Recall that this measuretaps the overallideological distance thatrespondentsperceive to exist between themselves,andeachof the two majorpartiesandpresidential andidates.Highscores indicate hatrespondents ee all of thesecentralpolitical objectsasbeingdistant rom theirownposition.

3Nor, alternatively, hat authoritarian redispositionsmake it more likely thatpeople will perceivevarioustypesof threat.4Sincethere s no obviousreason oexpect anyof thecoefficients for theinteraction erms o benegative,we use one-tailed tests of significancefor thesecoefficients (p < .05) andtwo-tailedtests elsewhere.Strictlyspeaking,no interaction oefficientwith thewrong(here,negative)signshouldbe statisticallysignificantusing a one-tailed test. Nonetheless, we do indicatecoefficients that would have beensignificantatp < .05 if we had useda two-tailedtest.

756


18/31

Perceived Threat and AuthoritarianismTable I. Determinants f Attii

IndependentvariablesAuthoritarianaluesPerceivedideologicaldistanceNegativityof responseto presidential andidatesNegativitytowardpolitical partiesNegativityof retrospectivenationaleconomic evaluationsFearof unemploymentNegativityof retrospectivepersonal

economic evaluationsFearof nuclearwarAuthoritarianism PerceivedideologicaldistanceAuthoritarianism Negativitytowardpresidential andidatesAuthoritarianism Negativitytowardpolitical partiesAuthoritarianism Negativityof nationaleconomic evaluationsAuthoritarianism Fearof unemploymentAuthoritarianism Negativityof personaleconomic evaluationsAuthoritarianism Fearof nuclearwarChristian undamentalistMoralconservatismPolitical conservatismParty dentification Republican)ReligiosityGender male)Age (10 years)Familyincome ($10,00s)Education 10 years)PoliticalknowledgeConstant

tudesTowardMinorityGroupsRacial Blacks Don't

Stereotyping TryHard.11 (.019)* .11 (.026)*

-.01 (.041) -.18 (.057)*-.11 (.046)* -.13 (.065)*-.14 (.040)* .02 (.056)

.05 (.016)* .03 (.022)

GayRights.09 (.035)*.05 (.076).09 (.087).12 (.075)

-.06 (.030).04 (.023) .04 (.032) -.01 (.042)

-.01 (.012) -.03 (.017) -.02 (.023).02 (.015).39 (.136)*

-.10 (.152)

.02 (.021)

.84 (.190)*

.02 (.213)

-.06 (.028)*-.09 (.254)

.51 (.285)*-.20 (.132) .37 (.184)* -.24 (.246)

.06 (.049) .08 (.069) .01 (.093)-.04 (.074) .20 (.104)* .02 (.139)-.10 (.039)# -.03 (.054) .06 (.072)

.04 (.047)

.03 (.012)*

.07 (.027)*

.01 (.027)

.00 (.018)-.04 (.020)*

.01 (.010)

.02 (.003)*

.00 (.002)-.07 (.024)*-.14 (.026)*-.01 (.008)

.12 (.066)*

.02 (.017)

.22 (.038)*

.07 (.038)

.04 (.024)-.10 (.028)*

.04 (.015)*

.00 (.004)-.00 (.003)-.18 (.034)*-.16 (.037)*-.02 (.011)

.14 (.088)*

.08 (.022)*

.43 (.051)*

.21 (.050)*

.13 (.033)*.05 (.038)

.14 (.019)*

.00 (.006)-.00 (.004)-.05 (.046)-.12 (.049)*-.09 (.015)*

AdjustedR2 .20 .21 .24Note: Entriesareunstandardizedegressioncoefficients and standard rrors.* = p < .05 (one-tailedtest on interaction oefficients, two-tailedtests for othercoefficients);# = p < .05 had a two-tailedtestbeen appliedto the interaction erminstead.Source: 1992 NationalElectionStudy,non-Hispanicwhitescompletingbothpre-andpostelectionquestionnaires.N = 1564.

I

757


19/31

Table II. Determinants f Social and Political Attitudes

Independent ariablesAuthoritarianaluesPerceived deologicaldistanceNegativityof responseto presidential andidatesNegativitytowardpolitical partiesNegativityof retrospectivenationaleconomic evaluationsFearof unemploymentNegativityof retrospectivepersonal

economic evaluationsFearof nuclearwarAuthoritarianism Perceived deologicaldistanceAuthoritarianism Negativitytowardpresidential andidatesAuthoritarianism NegativitytowardpoliticalpartiesAuthoritarianism Negativityof nationaleconomic evaluationsAuthoritarianism Fearof unemploymentAuthoritarianism Negativityof personaleconomic evaluationsAuthoritarianism Fear of nuclearwarChristian undamentalistMoralconservatismPolitical conservatismParty dentification Republican)ReligiosityGender male)Age (10 years)Familyincome ($10,000s)Education 10 years)PoliticalknowledgeConstantAdjustedR2

Ingroup/Outgroup.00 (.028)-.05 (.061)-.20 (.070)*-.06 (.061)-.01 (.024)

Ordervs.Freedom.02 (.040)

-.09 (.086)-.36 (.098)*-.00 (.086)

.02 (.034)

TrueAmerican.13 (.028)*

-.22 (.061)*.01 (.070)

-.09 (.061).03 (.024)

-.04 (.034) -.01 (.048) .06 (.034)-.02 (.018) .03 (.026) .01 (.019)-.03 (.023) -.02 (.032) .09 (.023)*

.37 (.204)* .17 (.289) .38 (.205)*-.29 (.229) .75 (.324)* -.11 (.230)-.07 (.198) .02 (.280) .42 (.199)*

.18 (.075)* .21 (.105)* -.02 (.075)-.10 (.112) .04 (.158) -.08 (.112)-.11 (.058)# -.09 (.082) -.04 (.058)

.14 (.071)* -.06 (.101) -.06 (.071)-.02 (.018) -.03 (.025) .10 (.018)*

.05 (.041) .20 (.058)* .23 (.041)*

.04 (.040) .20 (.057)* .17 (.041)*

.09 (.026)* .08 (.037)* -.00 (.027)

.01 (.030) -.00 (.043) .38 (.031)*

.00 (.016) -.07 (.022)* .04 (.016)*-.01 (.004) -.02 (.006)* .01 (.004)*

.02 (.003)* .00 (.004) -.00 (.003)

.19 (.037)* .03 (.052) -.14 (.037)*

.08 (.040)* .09 (.056) -.16 (.040)*

.00 (.012) .05 (.017)* -.05 (.012)*

.15 .07 .43Note: Entriesareunstandardizedegressioncoefficients andstandard rrors.* = p < .05 (one-tailedteston interaction oefficients,two-tailedtests for othercoefficients);# = p < .05 had a two-tailedtest been appliedto the interaction erminstead.Source:1992 NationalElectionStudy,non-Hispanicwhitescompletingbothpre-andpostelectionquestionnaires.N = 1564.

758 Feldman and Stenner


20/31

Perceived Threat and AuthoritarianismTable III. Determinants f AttitudesToward he Use of Force

Death Defense GulfIndependent ariables Penalty Spending WarAuthoritarian alues .16 (.031)* .04 (.020)* .02 (.034)Perceived deologicaldistance -.16 (.067)* .02 (.043) -.14 (.075)Negativityof responseto presidential andidates -.14 (076) -.07 (.049) -.68 (.085)*Negativitytowardpoliticalparties .11 (.066) .00 (.042) -.05 (.074)Negativityof retrospectivenational .02 (.026) -.04 (.017)* .02 (.030)economic evaluationsFear of unemploymentNegativityof retrospectivepersonal

economic evaluations

.08 (.037)* .00 (.024) -.02 (.042)

.01 (.020) .01 (.013) -.01 (.023)Fear of nuclearwar -.00 (.025) .05 (.016)* -.01 (.028)Authoritarianism Perceived deologicaldistance .59 (.224)* .34 (.143)* .55 (.250)*Authoritarianism Negativitytoward .48 (.251)* -.04 (.161) .44 (.281)*presidential andidatesAuthoritarianism Negativitytoward -.15 (.217) -.02 (.139) .13 (.243)political partiesAuthoritarianism Negativityof national .07 (.082) .10 (.052)* .17 (.091)*economicevaluationsAuthoritarianism Fearof unemployment .02 (.122) -.12 (.078) -.44 (.137)#Authoritarianism Negativityof personaleconomic evaluationsAuthoritarianism Fear of nuclearwarChristian undamentalistMoralconservatismPolitical conservatismParty dentification Republican)ReligiosityGender male)Age (10 years)Familyincome ($10,000s)Education 10 years)PoliticalknowledgeConstant

.05 (.064) -.03 (.041) -.01 (.071)-.03 (.078) -.03 (.050) -.09 (.087)-.02 (.020) .02 (.013) -.01 (.022)

.18 (.045)* .13 (.029)* .16 (.050)*

.16 (.044)* .05 (.028) .13 (.050)*

.08 (.029)* .08 (.018)* .18 (.032)*-.13 (.033)* .03 (.021) -.01 (.037)

.06 (.017)* .03 (.011)* .07 (.019)*-.01 (.005) -.00 (.003) -.03 (.006)*

.00 (.003) .00 (.002) .00 (.004)-.03 (.040) -.08 (.026)* -.04 (.045)-.03 (.044) -.06 (.028)* .09 (.049)-.01 (.013) -.02 (.008)* -.02 (.015)

AdjustedR2 .11 .15 .16Note: Entriesareunstandardizedegressioncoefficients andstandard rrors.* = p < .05 (one-tailedtest on interaction oefficients,two-tailedtests forothercoefficients);# = p < .05 had a two-tailedtest been appliedto the interaction erminstead.Source:1992 NationalElectionStudy,non-Hispanicwhitescompletingbothpre-andpostelectionquestionnaires.N = 1564.

759


21/31

FeldmanndStennerHow does the effect of authoritarianalues vary with perceivedideologicaldistance?Letustake anexample.Consider he case of supportor the deathpenalty,which is aboutaveragefor the size of this interaction oefficient. For someoneatthe 10th percentileof the ideological distance measure,the predictedeffect ofauthoritarian alues is just .08-very close to zero. On the otherhand,someonescoringat the 90th percentileon the ideologicaldistance measurehas a predictedcoefficient for authoritarianism f .26. Since all the variables are coded to be ofunitrange,a coefficient of .26 canbe interpreted s the fractionof therangeof thedependentvariable supportor the deathpenalty)acrosswhich arespondentwouldbe predicted to move if authoritarianismncreased from its minimum to itsmaximumvalue (holdingall else constant).It is clear both thatauthoritarianism

has a substantial nfluence upon intolerantand punitive attitudes,and that theperceptionof ideologicaldistancestronglymoderates he influenceof authoritarianvalues.Apartfrom the ideological distancemeasure,the interactionwith negativereactionsto the presidentialcandidates s significantandcorrectlysignedin fourof the nineequations,as is the interactionwithnegativeperceptionsof thenationaleconomic situation,while the interactionwith negative reactionsto the politicalparties is significant in two equations. (And there are no significantnegativeinteractioncoefficients in any of these cases.) In sharpcontrast, he interactionofauthoritarianredispositionsandpersonaleconomic conditions s not statisticallysignificant inthepredicteddirection) n anyof theequations.Theinteractionwithfear of unemploymentdoes little betteras it is significant inthepredicteddirection)only once. The interactionwith fear of nuclear war is statisticallysignificantinthreeequations,butthe coefficients arerelativelysmall.Since the largest and most consistent interactioneffects emerged for theinteraction of authoritarianismwith the ideological distance measure, we ranadditional analyses to assure ourselves that these significant effect were not

spurious. t ispossiblethatscoreson theideologicaldistancemeasurearecorrelatedwith education, political knowledge, or ideological extremity. The significantinteraction effects might then be a function of these other variablesand havenothing to do with the perception of ideological diversity. We therefore re-estimatedall of the equationsadding,one at a time, interactionsbetweenauthori-tarianpredispositionsandeducation,politicalknowledge,andideologicalextrem-ity. None of theseadditionssignificantlyaltered heestimated nteraction ffect ofauthoritarianredispositionsandideological distance.Thus,this findingappearsto be robust o alternative pecifications.These resultsprovidesupport orourinteractionversionof thethreat-authori-tarianismhypothesisandnosupportat allfor thesimplehypothesisof adirecteffectof short-termthreat on authoritarian alues. The largest and most consistentinteractioneffects are registeredfor variablesthattap perceived societal threat.When people perceive that the political partiesand presidentialcandidatesholdideological positionsvery different romthem,or have very negativereactions o

760


22/31

PerceivedThreatand Authoritarianismthepresidentialcandidates,or see a deteriorating ationaleconomy,the impactofauthoritarianredispositionss greatlymagnified.These resultssuggest,then,thatratherthan threats to individuals' immediatewell-being-for example, to theirhousehold economic situation-it is perceived threat at the societal level thatarouses the ire of authoritarians ndamplifiesthe impactof authoritarianredis-positionson intolerantandpunitiveattitudes.

Authoritarian Predispositions and the Effects of ThreatTo thispointwe have discussed theregressionresults n termsof the extenttowhich various threats moderate the effect of authoritarian redispositionson a

range of dependentvariables.However, interactioneffects can always be inter-preted rom twoperspectives.We can alsoexamine the extent to whichthe variousthreatmeasures affect the dependentvariables as authoritarianismaries. Oneobvioushypothesis s that ncreasingperceptionsof threat houldbe related omoreethnocentricandpunitiveattitudes or those high in authoritarianism. his effectof threatmightthengo to zero asauthoritarianismecreases.That s, we mightfindthatpeople highinauthoritarianismre sensitive to andprovokedby theperceptionof threat,while those low in authoritarianismredispositionsarerelativelyunaf-fected by increasing hreat.Before re-examining he interaction ffects fromthis alternativeperspective,it is useful first to look at the coefficients for the threatvariables.Recall that,byour coding, these coefficients yield the effect of each threatmeasure on thedependentvariable when authoritarian alues are at the sample mean. Theseestimatesareveryclose to thosethatwe would have obtainedbyestimatinga modelwithouttheinteraction erms.Lookingacrossthedependentvariables,we note thatit is clear that the coefficients for the threatmeasuresaretypicallyclose to zero.Wheretheyarestatisticallydifferent romzero,thecoefficientsarenegative.Thus,if we had tested a simple model thatpredictsa direct,unconditionalrelationshipbetweenthreatandauthoritarianintolerant ndpunitive)attitudes,we wouldhavefound no evidence at all in supportof thatprediction.Turningnow to the interactionof threatandauthoritarianism, e find supportforonlyhalfof theexpectedpattern.Wedo findthepredicted ffectof threatamongthose high in authoritarianism.Here, greaterperceptionsof threatare associatedwith moreethnocentricandpunitiveattitudes.Moreover, he resultsclearlyshowthat it is only amongthose high in authoritarianismhatthreathas this effect. Aswe have just seen, even given averagelevels of authoritarianism,one of thesethreatvariableshas a significantpositiveeffect on anyof the dependentvariables.And,amongthoselow in authoritarianism, e observe a surprising esult.Here,asperceptions of threat increase, we actually observe more liberal (libertarian)responseson our dependentvariables.This patternemerges for every one of thesignificant interactioneffects across the nine equations. The role of threat isthereforemore complex thanwe originallyanticipated.High levels of perceived

761


23/31

Feldman and Stennerthreat tend to polarize the responsesof those high and low in authoritarianism.Those high in authoritarianism ecome more punitive and ethnocentricunderconditionsof threat,while those low in authoritarianismecomeeven less punitiveand ethnocentricunder hese conditions.We might be tempted to attributethese results to some methodologicalproblemwere it not for two others studies thatfind this samepolarizationeffect.The first study comes from the terrormanagementresearchthat we discussedearlier(Greenberg t al. 1990). In one of the terrormanagement tudies,subjectswere given a modified versionof the F-scale. Recall thatthe threatmanipulationhere involved making the subjects' mortalitysalient. When the effects of thismanipulationwereexaminedseparatelyor thosehighand ow inauthoritarianism,divergentresultsemerged.As predicted,amongthosehighin authoritarianismhemortality hreatwas associatedwith morenegativeattitudes owardatargetpersonconstructed o be highly dissimilarto the subject.However,amongthose low inauthoritarianism, ortality hreatwas associated(thoughmoreweakly)with morepositive attitudes oward he dissimilar argetperson.The second study,one we also discussedearlier, s the comparativeanalysisof the effects of economic threaton authoritarianismn the U.S. and Russia(McFarland,Ageyev, & Hinton,1995).Usinga 16-itemshort ormof Altemeyer'sRight Wing Authoritarianismcale-and bear in mindthat we considerthis morea measureof authoritarianttitudes manifestations) han of authoritarianredis-position-these researchers ound that economic threat eads to a polarizationofscores on the authoritarianismmeasure.Compared o those in low-threatcondi-tions, there were higher proportionsof people registeringboth high and lowauthoritarianism mong those experiencingthreat.Interestingly,this result ap-pearedin the U.S. samplebut not in the Russiansample.Apparently, hen, thispolarizationeffect is quite real, emerging in three very different studies of theimpactof threaton characteristic uthoritarian ttitudes n theU.S. The absence ofthe polarizationeffect in the Russian data indicates that more cross-nationalresearch s needed to determine he generalizabilityof this finding.

Perceived Threat and the Structure of Authoritarian AttitudesThe nine dependentvariableswe have examinedin these regressionswerechosenbecause we believe them to be characteristicmanifestationsof authoritari-anism.If this is so, shouldn't hesevariablesbe strongly nterrelated?f authoritar-ian predispositionis a common factor underlying these variables, we mightreasonablyexpect to find a patternof correlationsamongthe variablesreflectingthis fact. However, the resultsjust presentedsuggest thatthe picturemay be farmore complex than this. We have shown that certaintypes of threatpolarizetheattitudesof those high andlow in authoritarianism,ausing high authoritariansobecome more intolerantand punitive, while low authoritarians ecome less so.Conversely,underconditions of low threat, he attitudesof those high and low in

762


24/31

PerceivedThreatand Authoritarianismauthoritarianism are less distinguishable. Thus, since the correlation betweenauthoritarianpredisposition and authoritarian manifestations varies with levels ofthreat, the correlations among the attitudinal manifestations of authoritarianismshould likewise depend upon threat.Since the ideological diversity measure produced the largest and most consis-tent interaction effects with authoritarianism in the earlier analysis, we examinedthe correlations among the nine dependent variables separately for those respon-dents above and below the mean in perceptions of ideological diversity. Thesecorrelations are shown in Table IV. Correlations above the main diagonal are forthose respondents reporting greater than average perception of threat, and thosebelow the diagonal are for those respondents experiencing the low-threat condition.Overall, the correlations among the dependent variables-our manifestations ofauthoritarianism-are substantially lower for those below the mean in perceptionsof ideological diversity. The average correlation is only .07 for this group. Theaverage correlation among the dependent variables then increases to .20 for thoseabove the mean in perceptions of diversity. Orconsider just the correlations amongthe dependent variables of Table I: our three measures of attitudes toward minoritygroups. Under conditions of low threat the three correlations average .18, whichrises to .30 when threat is above the mean.

Table IV. CorrelationsAmongAuthoritarianAttitudesStereo- Black Gay Order/ True Death Defense Gulftyping Effort Rights IngroupFreedom American Penalty $ warRacial 1.00 .42 .17 .05 .05 .36 .22 .24 .02Stereotyping

Blacks Don't .24 1.00 .30 .04 .11 .33 .29 .30 .13TryHardGay Rights .15 .13 1.00 .11 .11 .33 .23 .35 .18Ingroup/ .05 -.04 -.04 1.00 .15 .04 .13 .05 .19OutgroupOrdervs. .00 .03 .06 .06 1.00 .12 .14 .18 .22FreedomTrue .20 .13 .14 -.13 .01 1.00 .22 .31 .15AmericanDeath .08 .15 .02 .09 .07 -.01 1.00 .27 .18PenaltyDefense .05 .01 .09 -.02 .01 .13 .06 1.00 .26SpendingGulf war .01 .05 .06 .12 .07 -.01 .15 .16 1.00Note: Entriesarecorrelation oefficients. Thosecorrelationsabovethe diagonalare forthoserespondentsabovethe mean in perceptionsof ideologicaldiversity; hose below the diagonalareforthose below the mean inperceptionsof ideologicaldiversity.Source:1992National ElectionStudy,non-Hispanicwhitescompletingbothpre-andpostelectionquestionnaires.N = 1564.

763


25/31

Feldman and StennerIn addition to illustratingthe polarizing effect of threat on authoritarianattitudes, hese results raise seriousconcernsaboutthe propertiesof F-scale-likeauthoritarianismmeasures. Since these measurestypically include a goodly pro-

portionof items that are fairlyconcrete manifestationsof authoritarianism-likeattitudes toward minority groups, conventional social behavior, and punitive-ness-the observedinternalconsistencyof such scales may be in parta functionof levels of threat. This may account for Altemeyer's (1988) finding that theintercorrelations mongthe items of his Right Wing Authoritarianismcale (andhence, its estimatedreliability)variedconsiderablyover time.On the otherhand,our indicatorof authoritarianredispositions-the child-rearingvalues measure-was chosen in large partbecause it is a relativelylow-level, unobtrusivemeasure.As such,it should be far less sensitive to the effects ofthreat.In fact, the meancorrelationamongthe fourchild-rearingtems increasesonly slightly between the low- and high-threat onditions: from .28 to .34. Thisnicely reinforcesour centralconclusion thatthreatdoes not have a directeffect onauthoritarian redispositions,butrather ncreases the connectionsbetween thosepredispositionsandavarietyof characteristic uthoritarianttitudesandbehaviors.

DISCUSSIONAlthoughwe cannot claim to have presenteda seamlesspatternof empiricalevidence, thisanalysishas foundsome intriguingandoften substantialnteractioneffects between various indicators of threat,authoritarian redispositions,andmeasuresof stereotyping,ntolerance,andpunitiveness.Whatare theimplicationsof these results?Let us summarize hemajor indingsof thisanalysisone at a time,and consider their significance for our understanding f the impactof threatonauthoritarianism.n so doing, we will also consider the broader mplicationsof

thesefindingsfor ourunderstandingf the natureof authoritarianismtself.We found no evidence to support he simple hypothesisthatperceptionsofthreat ncrease levels of authoritarian redisposition.None of the correlationsofthethreatmeasureswithauthoritarianism aslargeandmanywerenegative.Thus,theaggregate-levelrelationshipsbetweensocietalthreatandindicatorsof authori-tarianismdo not result from a directrelationshipbetween threatandindividuals'levels of the trait.Thisdoes not mean, however,that we canrejectthe hypothesesof researchers ike FrommandWilson,who arguethatauthoritarianisms shapedby the long-termconsequences of threatand insecurity.These hypotheses arebeyondthe scope of thepresentstudy.As we anticipated, hreatappearsto affect authoritarians y increasingtheconnection between theirpredispositions,and theirpolitical and social attitudes.This mechanismcanaccountfortheaggregateresultsshowingeffects of threatonauthoritarian ehaviors,withouthaving to adopta view of authoritarianismhatexpectspossiblysubstantial hort-termhange nlevels of thepredisposition.From

764


26/31

PerceivedThreatandAuthoritarianismthe perspective adoptedhere, authoritarianredispositionsmay not change at all(althoughchangeis notprecluded),butthe manifestations f authoritarianism-in-tolerance,prejudice,punitiveness,andthe like-will be morepronouncedunderconditions of threat.Perhapsmore importantly, t is not just that threatmagnifies the effects ofauthoritarianism ut thatthe observedconsequencesof authoritarianismependheavily upon the presence of threat. In the absence of threat, we find littleconnection between authoritarian redispositionsand the dependentvariables.Thus, threat appearsto be critical to the activation of authoritarianism.Anysatisfactory xplanationof authoritarianism ust,therefore,account or thecentralrole of threat.Although t mightbe possible to incorporate xternal hreat nto theAdorno et al. (1950) explanationof authoritarianism,heir focus was on the roleof childhood socializationandinternalconflict.It is not obvious how thisaccountcould incorporateour findings. Threat was certainlynot a centralpartof theirexplanation.It is even less clear how Altemeyer's (1988, 1996) social learningaccountcould accommodatea centralrole for external hreat.Altemeyerdoesarguethatperceptionsof a dangerousworldhelpto mediate the effects of authoritarian-ism, but this is very different rom the interactiveeffect of threatevidenced in ouranalysis.Moreover, here s nothing nAltemeyer'sexplanation o suggestwhyhisacquiredtraitof authoritarianismhould be activatedonly under conditions ofthreat.Whatkindof explanationswouldfare better? npart heanswerdependsuponthetypesof threat owhichauthoritarianisms sensitive.Ouranalysis ndicates hatpolitical threatsare especially salientto authoritarians. he most substantialandconsistentresult was the pronounced nteractioneffect of authoritarianismwithperceivedideological diversity.The moreideological distanceauthoritarianser-ceive betweenthemselvesand the two partiesandthepresidentialcandidates, hemoreprejudiced,ntolerant,andpunitive theybecome. We also foundsubstantialeffects for the interactionof authoritarianismwith negative assessments of thepresidentialcandidates. When people consider the candidatesto be bereft ofpositive qualities,arousingfeelings of angerandfear, the effect of authoritarianpredispositionss greatlyexacerbated.Shouldthepoliticalthreatswork n tandem,the magnitudeof impactis very sobering ndeed.Forexample, the influence thatauthoritarianism xerts on supportfor the death penalty is magnified by bothperceptionsof ideological diversityandfear andangertowardpoliticalleaders.Economic threatsalso interactedwith authoritarianismn severalcases, butnote that t is perceptionof a deteriorating ationaleconomythat s consequential.In sharpcontrast,threatsto personal economic conditions-whether unemploy-mentor moregeneralpersonaleconomic decline-appear to have no aggravatingeffect on authoritarians.Taken together, this patternof results indicates thatauthoritarianisms activated andaggravatedby threats o the politicalandsocialorder but not by threatsto personalwell-being. We thinkthis is a very criticalfinding.Authoritarianisms activatedwhen there s a perception hat the political

765


27/31

Feldman and Stenneror social order s threatened.This is at oddswithmostpreviousdiscussionsof therole of threat n authoritarianism, hich have focused on directpersonalthreats.So where does this line of reasoning eadus? It is no doubtprematureo arguein favor of a particular onceptualizationof authoritarianismn the basis of theanalysispresentedhere.Butwe cansingleoutwhatappear o be the mostpromisingleads in previousdiscussions of authoritarianism.We earliernotedthat threat s centralto Rokeach's(1960) theoryof dogma-tism. Rokeachargued hatpeopledevelopclosed-mindedbelief systemsas a directconsequence of threat and anxiety. Although Rokeach did not explicitly con-sider the effects of transient threaton closed-mindedness, it is plausible thatsomeone in possession of a rigid belief system that was generatedto wardoffthreat would be most inclined to exhibit intolerance when faced with ananxiety-provokingsituation.Oneof Rokeach'scentralclaimsaboutbeliefsystems s that heyareorganizedaround he distinctionbetween belief and disbeliefsubsystems.Reactions oothersarebased, therefore,upon degreesof similarity-dissimilarity. hus,intolerance san outgrowthof the clash of beliefs. Although startingfrom a very differentperspective,Duckitt(1989) has recentlyoffereda comparableconceptualizationof authoritarianismhat is based on intensegroup dentification,and the resulting"strain owardcohesion"(Duckitt,1989, p. 63). Duckittarguesthatgroupmem-bershipandconformity o groupnormsprovide hebasis forself-esteem.The moreintense an individual'saffectiveidentificationwith theirgroup, hemore dedicatedhe or she is to its integrityandcohesion,resulting n conformityandconvention-alism; respectfor and submission to authority;and intoleranceandpunitivenesstowardthose who fail to conformto theingroupnorms(Duckitt,1989,p. 70).According oDuckitt, hen,authoritarianismnvolves aheightenedattachmentto the ingroupand an associatedrejectionof the outgroup.This not only parallelsRokeach'sdistinctionbetween belief and disbelief systems, it likewise marksoutacentralrole forthreat.Duckittmakesreference otheextensive literaturen socialpsychology regardinghow external hreatscanheightenattachment o theingroupandrejectionof outgroups.The parallelbetweenDuckitt'sfocus on ingroup/out-group distinctions and Rokeach's analysis of belief and disbelief systems mayprovidethe basis for a moreencompassingview of authoritarianism.Anotherperspectivethatlikewise highlightsthe role of threat n dynamicsofauthoritarianismocuseson theauthoritarian'sresumedneedfor orderorstructurein the world. Such argumentshave been made in related,but somewhatdifferentways, by Gabennesch 1972), Kohn(1977), andForbes(1985). Kohnemphasizesorientations owardconformityversusself-direction.His measureof child-rearingvalues-a directantecedentof themeasuresusedin thispaper-taps thedesire forconformity.Threat s thusdefined in termsof challengeto thisconformity.Forbes(1985) argues,likewise, thatauthoritarians reconformists,who tend to yield totheopinionsof their ngroup n order o wardoff theanxietyproducedbythethreatof "isolationandloneliness"(Forbes,1985,p. 160).The authoritarian'snxietyis

766


28/31

PerceivedThreatandAuthoritarianismapparentlyreduced by cleaving to the ingroup, uncritically submittingto theingroupnorms,insisting on the complianceof others,avoiding "disruptive on-tacts"withoutgroupmembers,andexaggerating heirdifferences.Finally,Gabennescharguesthat individualswith limitedperspectiveson theworld around them-whether due to insularity, limited socialization, lack ofeducation or experience-are left prone to a particularworldview that he calls"reification." uchindividualsseem to understandocialrealityas "encompassinga superordinatenormativedimension,an external locus where events are deter-mined,where moralauthority esides,andto which men mustadaptthemselves"(Gabennesch,1972,p. 862-863). Thus,social institutions,customs and normsareunderstoodnot as humanproducts, ashionedby humansand thuschangeablebythem,but ratheras installedby God, nature,or the cosmos: the productof someexternalauthority. nstitutions ndcultureare thus accorded everenceandunques-tioningobedience,being"superordinatend nfusedwith transcendentaluthority"(Gabennesch,1972,p. 864).The connectionbetween Gabennesch'snotionof reification and authoritari-anism as a worldviewis readilyapparent.ndividualswho come to reifythe socialworldarethereby nclinedtowardmoral andculturalabsolutism; o rigidconven-tionalism and unquestioningconformityto externalauthority; o disavow self-directionandtovilify the human.Mostimportantor ourpurposeshere,we imaginethat those who uncriticallysubmitto traditionalmoralauthoritiesand the estab-lished social order are bound to judge harshly,and refuse to tolerate, ndividualdeviance anddiversityof public opinion.Moregenerally,we can expect them tobe threatenedand disturbedby any events thatchallengethe self-evident truthofestablishedbeliefs and the integrityof the social order.Althoughall of the perspectiveswe have mentionedhere providea way ofintegrating(with varying ease) the role of threat into a conceptualizationofauthoritarianism,hereis one last resultfrom ouranalysisthat is more difficulttodealwith,and hence moretheoreticallydiscriminating.t is not simplythatpeoplewho arehigh in authoritarianismreaggravatedby societal threat.Those who arelow in authoritarianism re sensitive also, but they become less intolerantandpunitive under conditions of threat.Unfortunately, t has been common in theauthoritarianismiterature o treat ow authoritarianism sjust the absence of theauthoritarianrait(see Kohn, 1972). But thepolarization ffect we have identifiedhere indicates that much more attentionneeds to be paid to both poles of thisdimension.

Of the conceptualizationsof authoritarianismhat we have discussedhere,only Duckitt(1989) explicitly considers both ends of the continuum.He definesauthoritarianisms "the ndividualorgroup'sconceptionof therelationshipwhichshouldexist, thatis, the appropriate rnormativerelationship,between the groupand its individualmembers" Duckitt,1989, p. 71). From thisdefinitionhe is ableto providea descriptionof both ends of the authoritarianism imension(Duckitt1989, p. 71): "At one extreme would be the belief that the purely personalneeds,

767


29/31


30/31

Perceived Threat and Authoritarianismlife; the extent to which they said theirreligionprovidedguidancein day-to-dayliving; and the frequencywith which they prayed,read the Bible, and attendedreligiousservices.Christianundamentalistbeliefswere measuredby a dummyvariable ndicat-ing a belief that the Bible was the actual word of God,"to be taken iterally,wordfor word."Political conservatism was measuredby respondents' placement of theirpolitical views on a seven-pointscale rangingfrom "extremely iberal"to "ex-tremelyconservative."Finally,party identificationwas indicatedby responsesto the standardques-tion "generallyspeaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican,aDemocrat, an Independent,or what?"along with its follow-up probes gaugingstrengthof partisanship from professedpartisans),or partisan"leaning"(fromthose who had deniedpartisanship).Thusthe final scalerangedacrossfive points,from a low of "0" for strongDemocraticpartisans, hrough o a high of "1" forstrongRepublicans.

REFERENCES

Adorno,T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick,E., Levinson,D. J., & Sanford,R. N. (1950). Theauthoritarianpersonality.New York:Harper& Row.Altemeyer,B. (1988).Enemiesoffreedom:Understanding ight-wingauthoritarianism. anFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.Altemeyer,B. (1996). The authoritarian pecter.Cambridge,MA: Harvard.Alwin, D. F., &Krosnick,J. A. (1985). Themeasurement f values insurveys:A comparisonof ratingsandrankings.Public OpinionQuarterly,49, 535-553.Doty, R. M., Peterson,B. E., & Winter,D. G. (1991). Threatandauthoritarianismn theUnitedStates,1978-1987. Journalof PersonalityandSocial Psychology,61, 629-640.Duckitt,J. (1989). Authoritarianism ndgroup dentification:A new view of an oldconstruct.PoliticalPsychology,10, 63-84.Forbes,H. D. (1985). Nationalism, ethnocentrism,and personality. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.Fromm,E. (1941). Escape romfreedom.New York:Holt,Rinehartand Winston.Gabennesch,H. (1972). Authoritarianism s world view. AmericanJournalofSociology, 77, 857-875.Greenberg, ., et al. (1990). Evidence for terrormanagementheoryII:The effects of mortality alienceon reactionsto those who threatenor bolster theculturalworldview.Journalof Personalityand

Social Psychology,58, 308-318.Kohn,M. L. (1977). Class and conformity.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.Kohn,P. M. (1972). Theauthoritarianism-rebellioncale: A balancedF-scale withleft-wingreversals.Sociometry,35, 176-189.Marcus,G. E., Sullivan,J.L., Theiss-Morse,E., &Wood,S. L. (1995). Withmalice towardsome.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Martin,J. G. (1964). Thetolerantpersonality.Detroit,WayneStateUniversityPress.

769


31/31

770 Feldman and StennerMcFarland,S. G., Ageyev, V. S., & Hinton,K. (1995). Economic threatand authoritarianismn theUnited Statesand Russia.Paper presentedat the 1995 meetingof the International ociety forPoliticalPsychology.Rokeach,M. (1960). Theopenand closed mind.New York:Basic Books.Rosenblatt,A. et al. (1989). Evidenceforterrormanagement heoryI: The effects of mortality alienceon reactionsto those who violate or upholdculturalvalues. Journal of Personalityand SocialPsychology,57, 681-690.Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The 'false consensus effect': An egocentricbias in socialperceptionand attribution rocesses.Journalof ExperimentalSocial Psychology,13, 279-301.Sales, S. M. (1972). Economic threat as a determinantof conversion rates in authoritarian ndnonauthoritarianhurches.Journalof Personalityand Social Psychology,23, 420-428.Sales,S. M.(1973).Threatas a factor nauthoritarianism.ournalof Personalityand SocialPsychology,28, 44-57.Sales, S. M., & Friend,K. E. (1973). Success and failure as determinants f level of authoritarianism.BehavioralScience, 18, 163-172.Staub,E. (1989). Therootsof evil. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Stenner,K. (1996). Societal Threat and Authoritarianism: acism, Intolerance,and PunitivenessinAmerica. Part I: Evidence from the General Social Survey 1972-1994. Paperpresentedat theAnnualMeetingof the AmericanPolitical Science Association,SanFrancisco.Wilkinson,R. (1972). Thebrokenrebel.New York:Harper& Row.Wilson,G. (1973). Thepsychology of conservatism.New York:Academic Press.

Authoritarianism Social Threat

Documents

Transcript of Authoritarianism Social Threat