Outline the similarities and differences between Adorno et al.’s (1950) and Altemeyer’s (1981) approach to authoritarianism

The rise of fascism in Germany in the 1930’s and the acts of aggression and atrocities committed by the Nazis during the Second World War led to questions being asked as to why some people where prone to such levels of violence and hate in the name of political ideology. The ‘Authoritarian Personality’ was a concept suggested in 1950 by German sociologist Theodor Adorno and colleagues following their research identifying the personality traits believed to allow an individual to be bias towards and follow a fascist ideology. Although initially met with great excitement, over time the authoritarian personality alone was seen, by many psychologists, as not sufficient to explain the potential for extreme prejudices and its popularity declined.
In the early 1980’s Canadian psychologist Bob Altemeyer revived the interest in authoritarianism following revision of the original work done by Adorno et al. Altemeyer was interested in right wing political ideology only just as Adorno et al had been, both excluding the potential authoritarianism personality characteristics associated with communism from their research. (McAvoy, J. 2012).
As a result of his research Altemeyer was able to address the methodological shortcomings of the original work and propose a revised concept of authoritarianism.

Similarly both bodies of research utilized standardised personality questionnaires as a method to measure beliefs, attitudes and behaviors of the participants. Although the questions in Altemeyer’s Right Wing Authoritarian scale (RWA scale) differed from the Fascism Scale (F-Scale) of Adorno et al, each used a numerical scale against a fixed choice response per questionnaire statement designed to measure particular personality traits. This approach allowed quantitative data to be produced from the numerical values collected for both research groups and objective analysis of the responses carried out (McAvoy, J. 2012).

Further research, since the publication of the F-scale, into questionnaires using scales has shown a level of acquiescence response bias, an inclination to agree with a statement regardless of its context, by some participants when completing questionnaires. The F-scale was worded in such a way that an authoritarian response was always indicated by agreement to the questionnaire statement, leaving it prone to such a problem. In contrast the RWA scale was constructed to have not only questions responded to positively indicating an authoritarian leaning but also inclusion of reverse statements where a negative response also demonstrated the same personality tendency (Smith, M. Brewster 1997). For example the statement from the F-scale; Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn, (Adorno et al 1950), would if responded to positively point to a high authoritarian tendency. On the other hand agreement of the following statement from the RWA scale; Our country needs free thinkers who will have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people, (Altemeyer, B. 1981) would indicate a low affiliation for authoritarianism. The inclusion of both advocative and adversative statements towards authoritarianism addressed the possibility of acquiescence response bias unlike the F-scale.

Adorno et al’s research defined the authoritarian personality as having nine characteristics including stereotypical gender role opinions, being superstitious and concern with unmoral sexual behavior McAvoy, J. (2012). Although Altemeyer’s research also recognised and supported these findings his concept of authoritarianism was different. He defined RWA not as personality type with fixed characteristics but as a set of three attitudes similar to three of the characteristics Adorno et al also used to describe the authoritarian personality:
Authoritarian submission: A high level of respect and submission to perceived legitimate authority figures or establishments. Authoritarian aggression: Aggressiveness directed against targets identified by the established authorities. Conventionalism: The aversion to new ideas with a preference towards social norms which should be adhered to by all of the individual’s society (Bobbio et al 2007).

Although Altemeyer agreed with Adorno et al on what the behavioral and attitudinal features of authoritarianism were, a key difference he put forward was his interpretation of where it actually came from. Adorno et al took a psychoanalytical approach, as first popularised by Sigmund Freud in the late 19th century to the explanation of the causes of authoritarianism. They claimed children who experienced a strong level of parental discipline would develop a level of hate for the parent that would be buried in their subconscious. This parenting style subconsciously contributed to their personality formed of fixed unchangeable traits displaying worship toward authority figures, respect for harsh disciplinarians and intolerance towards those different to themselves. This causal interpretation identified the authoritarian personality as one susceptible to the fascist ideology as displayed by the Nazi party.

In contrast Altemeyer rejected this subconscious based explanation and instead suggested that social learning theory, popularised by Albert Bandura’s research in the 1960’s (Oates, J. 2012), caused the three right wing authoritarianism attitudes. His theory claimed that behaviours such as unquestionable respect for authority, intolerance and hostility towards alternative lifestyles or situations were learnt through observation and direct instruction from disciplinarian parents and was a conscious process (Bandura, A. 1977). Furthermore he claimed individuals would be aware of the consequences of their behaviour making a conscious decision to act in a certain way and not the subconscious unchangeable personality causing their actions as claimed by Adorno et al.

Similarly when identifying the causes of authoritarianism neither Altemeyer’s RWA nor Adorno et al’s authoritarian personality took into consideration the current socio-political environment as a causative factor but looked to childhood experiences only as a cause shaping attitudes or personality.

It is clear that both Adorno at al and Altemeyer’s held a negative view of authoritarianism associated to the political arena. Both used similar methodology designed to show what a person susceptible to authoritarianism looked like and how they could be easily identified by use of their individual personality scales. They did however differ in their interpretation of the causes of authoritarianism, either personality alone as suggested by Adorno et al or as a set of attitudes as viewed by Altemeyer. Nevertheless it is undoubtable that both Adorno et al and Altemeyer’s approaches to authoritarianism have significantly impacted the understanding of what may sway people to act in the way they do and pointedly influenced further psychological research in this field. (993)