Search results

Altemeyer's (1981) Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale is the most popular authoritarianism measure today. However, the use of a unidimensional scale to measure a three factor construct and an apparent tautology between items and predictive criteria have garnered criticism. Revisions take one of two main approaches: either they simplify the construct to be unidimensional and create new items or they retain Altemeyer's three factor theory and alter Altemeyer's original items to produce a three factor scale. We combine these two approaches by retaining Altemeyer's three factor theory while creating new items. Our new measure, the Aggression-Submission-Conventionalism (ASC) scale, allows for a test of Altemeyer's theory divorced of the original items. The ASC scale was designed to maximize discriminant validity while creating less tautological and more politically and religiously neutral items. A total of 649 participants in three convenience samples from the United States completed surveys showing the ASC scale to have good reliability and validity. The ASC scale was found to have similar predictive validity to other three factor scales but superior discriminant validity. Most importantly, we found a clear contribution of all three factors in predicting ethnocentrism, political intolerance, and anti-democratic attitudes. Authoritarian aggression emerged as the most important and consistent predictor with submission and conventionalism effects dependent upon the criterion. The ASC subscales all added unique variance above current unidimensional measures, with aggression consistently adding the most variance. Our findings support Altemeyer's three factor theory and show that unidimensional measures fail to capture the nuances of our ASC scale. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion

Altemeyer's (1981) Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale is the most popular authoritarianism measure today. However, the use of a unidimensional scale to measure a three factor construct and an apparent tautology between items and predictive criteria have garnered criticism. Revisions take one of two main approaches: either they simplify the construct to be unidimensional and create new items or they retain Altemeyer's three factor theory and alter Altemeyer's original items to produce a three factor scale. We combine these two approaches by retaining Altemeyer's three factor theory while creating new items. Our new measure, the Aggression-Submission-Conventionalism (ASC) scale, allows for a test of Altemeyer's theory divorced of the original items. The ASC scale was designed to maximize discriminant validity while creating less tautological and more politically and religiously neutral items. A total of 649 participants in three convenience samples from the United States completed surveys showing the ASC scale to have good reliability and validity. The ASC scale was found to have similar predictive validity to other three factor scales but superior discriminant validity. Most importantly, we found a clear contribution of all three factors in predicting ethnocentrism, political intolerance, and anti-democratic attitudes. Authoritarian aggression emerged as the most important and consistent predictor with submission and conventionalism effects dependent upon the criterion. The ASC subscales all added unique variance above current unidimensional measures, with aggression consistently adding the most variance. Our findings support Altemeyer's three factor theory and show that unidimensional measures fail to capture the nuances of our ASC scale.

We explored how political beliefs and attitudes predict support for anti‐Muslim policies and extremist behavior in the United States following the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. A large sample completed measures of authoritarianism, social dominance orientation (SDO), generalized prejudice, identification with all humanity (IWAH), perceptions of Muslim threat, and support for anti‐Muslim policies and behaviors. These measures accounted for 73% of the variance in moderate anti‐Muslim policies and 55% of the variance in extreme anti‐Muslim policies. Authoritarianism and SDO directly and indirectly predicted support for anti‐Muslim policies, with their effects partially mediated by generalized prejudice, IWAH, and perceptions of Muslims as threatening. Threat both mediated and moderated the relationship between authoritarianism and anti‐Muslim policies. A negative interaction between authoritarianism and perceptions of Muslims as threatening predicted moderate anti‐Muslim policies, but a positive interaction predicted extreme anti‐Muslim policies. A tentative explanation is offered. Perceptions of Muslim threat was consistently a powerful predictor of anti‐Muslim policies and willingness to engage in extremist behaviors targeting Muslims. Programs to combat anti‐Muslim prejudice should consider the role of threat‐related stereotypes in expressions of anti‐Muslim prejudice.

In this article we apply research in the field of judgment & decision making to the policy of preemption. We use Brunswik's lens model to frame the policy of preemption as the integration of multiple fallible indicators under conditions of uncertainty. We use the Taylor-Russell diagram to demonstrate how the policy of preemption increases judgment uncertainty & error. The continuation of a policy of preemption will inevitably lead to an increase in false positives (mistaken military engagements), an increase in tension & dispute among U.S. allies (& foes) over these engagements, & a growing world perception that the United States is an aggressor nation. Post-9/11 policymakers & the public are explicitly focused on reducing false negatives at the implicit cost of increasing false positives. Greater appreciation of the inverse relationship between false positives & false negatives is needed to understand the consequences of the policy of preemption. Tables, References. Adapted from the source document.

Based on our observations and scholarship about how democratic norms are currently being undermined, we propose a model of fascist authoritarianism that includes authoritarianism, the production and exaggeration of threats, conspiracy-oriented propaganda adoption, and distrust of reality-based professions. We refer to this as the Fascist Authoritarian Model of Illiberal Democracy (FAMID) and argue that all components are essential for understanding contemporary antidemocratic movements. We demonstrate that all components of FAMID correlate with illiberal antidemocratic attitudes, that Republicans generally score higher than Democrats on the model components, and that all components significantly contribute to predicting illiberal antidemocratic attitudes. We find approximately equal support for both left-wing and right-wing illiberal antidemocratic attitudes. The fascist authoritarian model of illiberal democracy helps explain the basic mechanisms by which an authoritarian leader works to erode liberal democratic norms—and does a better job at doing so than simpler authoritarianism theories.