Authoritarian Personality - Validity

Validity

Soon after the publication of The Authoritarian Personality, the theory became the subject of many criticisms. Theoretical problems involved the psychoanalytic interpretation of personality, and methodological problems focused on the inadequacies of the F-scale. Another criticism is that the theory of the Berkeley group insinuates that authoritarianism exists only on the right of the political spectrum. As a result, some have claimed that the theory is corrupted by political bias. Kreml found that although there were stylistic similarities between authoritarians and anti-authoritarians (dogmatism, rigidity, etc.), construct variables like a) the relative need for order, b) the relative need for power, c) rejection or acceptance of impulse, and d) extroversion versus introversion, differentiated the two types and could underpin a full-spectrum psycho-political theory.

Wiggins provided an insightful explanation of how the authoritarian construct is an example of the synthetic approach to personality assessment. In short, in the synthetic approach, the assumption is that those with authoritarian personality characteristics are assessed with researcher’s intuitive model of what characteristics fit the criterion role requirements of the predicted situation (support of Fascism). Hence, it is not a completely empirical approach to prediction, but rather based on “arm chair” situational analysis of the criteria, and intuited psychological characteristics to be assessed that fit the situation. More recently, Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, and Sullloway (2003) have presented how the traditional research in authoritarianism or conservatism has confounded the psychological variables (e.g., personality characteristics) with the political criteria (conservative attitudes). Hence the scales measuring individual differences on authoritarianism often include the criteria attitudinal statements of political ideologies.

Although the authoritarian is a personality construct, Adorno et al., (1950) proposed that the social environment influenced the expression of prejudice expressed, based upon the “climate of opinion” that exists at the time. Hence, ideological beliefs created within the culture and other social forces shape the prejudices of the given authoritarian individual. However, as noted by Taylor (1998), this hypothesized interaction of society and the individual as lost to most of the subsequent research that implemented the F scale in differential psychological studies. Given the science of personality assessment, the variety of methods Adorno, et al. used are now unsupported, and might explain that lack of empirical studies using the F scale or the other scales developed by Adorno et al. in subsequent research. An example of the social environment impact is presented by Gibb (1969) in his critique of personality traits and leadership, where a study by Katz, suggested that the social situation can override personality differences. In the study, groups of black and white students where formed, some mixed racial groups had students scoring high authoritarian F scores, and in other mixed groups, low F score students. Comparisons of high authoritarian white students to those not scoring authoritarian indicated that the former student type were more cooperative and less willing to endorse stereotypes towards blacks. Situational norms against prejudicial perceptions might have influenced authoritarian students to act less prejudicial in order to conform to the prescribed norm.

After extensive questionnaire research and statistical analysis, Canadian psychologist Bob Altemeyer found in 1981 that only three of the original nine hypothesized components of the model correlated together: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. Almeyer added: "The reader familiar with the matter knows that most these criticisms are over 25 years old, and now they might be considered little more than flaying a dead horse. Unfortunately the flaying is necessary, for the horse is not dead, but still trotting around—in various introductory psychology and developmental psychology textbooks, for example.