Abstract
MeSH classes authoritarianism as a personality pattern: the behavioral and attitudinal characteristics that reflect a preoccupation with power and authority in interpersonal relationships. This article covers the authoritarian personality and its critics, right-wing authoritarianism and its three components, the dual-process model that pairs it with social dominance orientation, the activation of authoritarian predispositions by threat, the links between authoritarianism and political conservatism, and the debate over left-wing authoritarianism.
Keywords: authoritarianism, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, threat, left-wing authoritarianism
Debate exists over the core psychological components of authoritarianism: some conceptualize it as the combined tendency to obey authorities, punish rule breakers and conform to tradition, while others view the desire for conformity over personal autonomy as its core feature (Osborne et al., 2023). Fifty years after the publication of The Authoritarian Personality, the empirical literature on authoritarianism continued to grow even though there was no widely accepted theory to account for the phenomenon (Feldman, 2003).
Key Takeaways
- Right-wing authoritarianism has been measured as the covariation of three clusters: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression and conventionalism.
- The dual-process motivational model treats right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation as two distinct ideological attitude dimensions with different motivational goals.
- One study found no direct effect of perceived societal threat but an interaction between threat and authoritarian predispositions; later work links threats to safety and security with increases in right-wing authoritarianism.
- A meta-analysis found that dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity and several other psychological variables predict political conservatism.
- Whether authoritarianism also exists on the political left remains debated.
What Authoritarianism Is
MeSH defines Authoritarianism as the personality pattern or syndrome consisting of behavioral and attitudinal characteristics reflecting a preoccupation with the factors of power and authority in interpersonal relationships, lists Authoritarianisms as an entry term, and files the descriptor under personality.
Despite differences in focus, most agree that authoritarianism involves obeying high-status leaders from advantaged groups with the power to punish marginalized groups who threaten the unanimity of in-group values, and research typically consigns it to the political right (Osborne et al., 2023). One integrative account argues that at its core authoritarianism entails the desire for group conformity at the expense of personal autonomy, deference to in-group authority figures and a desire to punish those who violate cherished in-group norms, whether those norms reflect traditional or progressive values (Osborne et al., 2023).
Figure 1
The Three Components of Right-Wing Authoritarianism
Figure 1 shows the three components.
Three components, two directions
Switch between the right-wing and left-wing forms to see how each component is described.
- Authoritarian aggression: punishing rule breakers
- Authoritarian submission: obeying authorities
- Conventionalism: conforming to tradition
Right-wing authoritarianism is conceptualized as the combined tendency to obey authorities, punish rule breakers and conform to tradition.
The Authoritarian Personality
The Authoritarian Personality was published in 1950 by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson and Sanford (Adorno et al., 1950). The work has been called probably the most deeply flawed work of prominence in political psychology, with methodological, procedural and substantive errors that are well known and frequently attributed to poor methodological judgments, issues of scaling such as response set, or Freudian theories that legitimated circular interpretations (Martin, 2001). The same critique traces a more fundamental bias to the attempt to empirically verify the existence of a type of person whom the researchers thought dangerous and with whom they did not empathize (Martin, 2001).
The critique extends to later work. Altemeyer's work on authoritarianism, described as free from the defects of the Adorno et al. study and as involving some methodologically exemplary experiments, was judged similarly distorted by asymmetries (Martin, 2001). The same critic concluded that political psychologists should regard The Authoritarian Personality as a cautionary example of bias arising from the choice of methodological assumptions (Martin, 2001).
Right-Wing Authoritarianism
Altemeyer's 1981 volume surveyed the history of social psychological research on right-wing authoritarianism and described a more fruitful direction for future work (Altemeyer, 1981). He returned to the subject in The authoritarian specter (Altemeyer, 1996) and later wrote a chapter on the other authoritarian personality (Altemeyer, 1998).
The RWA Scale is commonly regarded as the best measure of right-wing authoritarianism; the one-dimensional instrument assesses the covariation of three attitudinal clusters: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression and conventionalism (Funke, 2005). Its structure is contested. Confirmatory factor analyses showed that three-dimensional scales fit the data better than the conventional one-dimensional practice, and the dimensions differed considerably in their capability to explain validation criteria (Funke, 2005).
A tripartite approach treats the three as distinct, though related, social attitude dimensions, defined as the ideological attitude constructs of Authoritarianism, Conservatism and Traditionalism (Duckitt et al., 2010). In five samples from three countries the three dimensions could be reliably measured, were factorially distinct, and differentially predicted interpersonal behaviour, social policy support and political party support (Duckitt et al., 2010).
| Account | Source | Authoritarianism as | Current standing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right-wing authoritarianism | Altemeyer (1981); Funke (2005) | The covariation of authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression and conventionalism | Contested: debate exists over its core components (Osborne et al., 2023) |
| Tripartite model | Duckitt et al. (2010) | Three related ideological attitude dimensions: Authoritarianism, Conservatism and Traditionalism | Contested: debate exists over the core psychological components of authoritarianism (Osborne et al., 2023) |
| Social conformity-autonomy | Feldman (2003) | Predispositions originating in the conflict between the values of social conformity and personal autonomy | Debated: some view conformity over autonomy as the core feature, and the 2023 review adopts it as the core of its integrative account (Osborne et al., 2023) |
| Authoritarian dynamic | Stenner (2005) | An innate predisposition to intolerance interacting with changing conditions of societal threat | Supported in its activation core (Osborne et al., 2023); who responds to threat is contested (Hetherington & Suhay, 2011) |
| Left-wing authoritarianism | Costello et al. (2022) | A construct sharing a constellation of traits, beliefs and values with right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation | Contested: whether a common core underlies both remains to be seen (Osborne et al., 2023) |
Table 1 sets the accounts side by side; each description paraphrases the cited work's abstract, and each standing cites its source.
The Dual-Process Model
Duckitt proposed a dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice (Duckitt, 2001), and the model remains supported in its proponents' 2023 review (Osborne et al., 2023). An early test used structural equation modeling with data from American and White Afrikaner students; it supported the model, suggesting that social conformity and belief in a dangerous world influence authoritarian attitudes, whereas toughmindedness and belief in a competitive jungle world influence social dominance attitudes (Duckitt et al., 2002). Social dominance orientation, one's degree of preference for inequality among social groups, was introduced in 1994 and distinguished from interpersonal dominance, conservatism and authoritarianism (Pratto et al., 1994). Early theorists assumed that sociopolitical attitudes were organized along a single left-right dimension, but empirical findings suggested two distinct ideological attitude dimensions, best captured by right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, which express two distinct sets of motivational goals or values (Duckitt & Sibley, 2010).
In the dual-process motivational model, right-wing authoritarianism originates from the belief that the social world is an inherently dangerous, unstable, unpredictable and threatening place, whereas social dominance orientation stems from the belief that the social world is a competitive jungle where the strong and able win and the weak and feeble lose (Osborne et al., 2023). The model remains supported: its proponents report that correlational, experimental, longitudinal and causal modelling research corroborates its main prediction that the two attitudes emerge from separate developmental trajectories (Osborne et al., 2023).
A meta-analysis of 71 studies (N = 22,068) found that right-wing authoritarianism was predicted by low Openness to Experience but also Conscientiousness, whereas social dominance orientation was predicted by low Agreeableness and also weakly by low Openness; consistent with the dual-process model, the effects of Agreeableness on prejudice were fully mediated by social dominance orientation, and those of Openness were largely mediated by right-wing authoritarianism (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008).
The associations of dangerous and competitive worldviews with the two attitudes have been meta-analyzed (Perry et al., 2013). The proponents' later review reports that in a meta-analysis of 46 studies with about 13,000 participants a dangerous worldview correlated r = 0.37 with right-wing authoritarianism and r = 0.08 with social dominance orientation, while a competitive worldview correlated r = 0.55 with social dominance orientation and r = 0.11 with right-wing authoritarianism (Osborne et al., 2023). The same review notes that it is unclear whether the assumed causal effects of personality on the two attitudes are direct or whether the associations merely reflect shared genetic influences (Osborne et al., 2023).
Two worldviews, two attitudes
Pick a worldview to see how strongly it correlates with right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO).
Dangerous worldview: shared variance about 14% with RWA and about 1% with SDO.
Authoritarianism and Threat
A second line of work treats authoritarianism as a predisposition that threat activates. Measures differ across this literature: besides the RWA Scale, an often-used childrearing values measure assesses authoritarianism without overtly political content, through one's preference for an obedient, well-mannered child over a free-thinking, independent child (Osborne et al., 2023). Using individual-level data and a range of perceived threat measures, one study found no evidence of a direct effect of societal threat but significant evidence of an interaction between authoritarian predispositions and perceived threat (Feldman & Stenner, 1997). A later theory proposed that authoritarian predispositions originate in the conflict between the values of social conformity and personal autonomy, and that prejudice and intolerance should be observed among those who value social conformity and perceive a threat to social cohesion (Feldman, 2003).
Stenner's authoritarian dynamic is one such account of intolerance. It holds that racism, political intolerance, moral intolerance and punitiveness are principally caused by two factors: individuals' innate psychological predispositions to intolerance, interacting with changing conditions of societal threat (Stenner, 2005).
Later research is consistent with threat raising right-wing authoritarianism. Cross-national research examining objective indicators of threat across 91 countries found a positive correlation between threat and right-wing authoritarianism, and longitudinal studies show that perceptions of threat precede increases in it (Osborne et al., 2023). The type of threat matters: threats originating from perceived competition over scarce resources increase social dominance orientation, whereas threats to personal safety and security increase right-wing authoritarianism (Osborne et al., 2023). In an experiment with scenarios describing a future New Zealand that was secure, threatening or essentially unaltered, only threat influenced authoritarianism, with the effects mediated through social worldview (Duckitt & Fisher, 2003). A meta-analysis (total N = 22,086) and a questionnaire study in a large representative sample found that external threat, originating from society, yielded strong relationships with right-wing attitudes, whereas internal threat, emanating from one's private life, explained only a minor part of the variance (Onraet et al., 2013).
Who responds to threat is contested. In two national surveys after the 9/11 attacks, those who scored high in authoritarianism did not become more hawkish or less supportive of civil liberties in response to perceived threat from terrorism, tending to hold such preferences even in the absence of threat; instead, those who were less authoritarian adopted more restrictive and aggressive policy stands when they perceived threat (Hetherington & Suhay, 2011). That pattern differs from the activation account, in which threat acts through authoritarian predispositions (Feldman & Stenner, 1997).
Threat as an activator
Toggle perceived societal threat and compare people low and high in authoritarian predisposition.
Under low threat, the two groups differ only modestly.
Authoritarianism and Political Ideology
An analysis of political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrated theories of personality, including authoritarianism and dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity; its meta-analysis of 88 samples from 12 countries (22,818 cases) confirmed that several psychological variables predict political conservatism, among them dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity (weighted mean r = .34) and needs for order, structure and closure (.26) (Jost et al., 2003). The authors concluded that the core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality (Jost et al., 2003).
The account was challenged at once. A published comment proposed that the motives in the model are equally well served by rigid adherence to any extreme ideology, whether right wing or left wing (Greenberg & Jonas, 2003). The rigidity-of-the-right hypothesis remains contested: a multilevel meta-analysis (329 samples, N = 187,612) found that associations between conservatism and rigidity are tremendously heterogeneous, with social conservatism robustly associated with rigidity, whereas associations between economic conservatism and rigidity indicators were inconsistent, small and not statistically significant outside the United States (Costello et al., 2023).
The relation between authoritarianism and conservatism has been reviewed as an authoritarian-conservatism nexus (Nilsson & Jost, 2020). Whether authoritarianism predicts how people vote has also been examined, with attention to its facets, to ideological sorting and to the particular candidate (Ludeke et al., 2018).
Left-Wing Authoritarianism
Whether authoritarianism is confined to the right is contested. Past research suggested that authoritarianism may be a uniquely right-wing phenomenon (Conway et al., 2018), and left-wing authoritarianism became famously known as the Loch Ness Monster of political psychology (Costello et al., 2022). Two studies (n = 475 and n = 298) tested the hypothesis that authoritarianism exists in both right-wing and left-wing contexts in essentially equal degrees; a newly developed left-wing authoritarianism scale correlated positively with liberalism, prejudice, dogmatism and attitude strength, largely paralleling the right-wing scale's correlations with conservative-focused measures (Conway et al., 2018).
Across six samples (N = 7,258), a data-driven measure found that left-wing authoritarianism, right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation reflect a shared constellation of personality traits, cognitive features, beliefs and motivational values; relative to right-wing authoritarians, left-wing authoritarians were lower in dogmatism and cognitive rigidity and higher in negative emotionality (Costello et al., 2022). The resulting index comprises three correlated factors, anti-hierarchical aggression, support for top-down censorship and anti-conventionalism, that roughly capture left-wing manifestations of authoritarian aggression, authoritarian submission and conformity to traditional in-group values (Osborne et al., 2023).
Skeptics view the findings differently. People who endorse left-wing ideals rarely score high on canonical measures of authoritarianism in the western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic countries where most research has been conducted, and those who question left-wing authoritarianism argue that authoritarians are reactionaries even when they adopt nominally left-wing attitudes (Osborne et al., 2023). An earlier critique had already faulted the original study for combining a theoretically rich critique of the authoritarians with a lack of interest in the psychodynamics of liberals, and judged Altemeyer's work similarly distorted by asymmetries (Martin, 2001). A 2024 critical review argued that the newer conceptualizations have exacerbated conceptual confusions, including a pseudo-debate about the existence of left-wing authoritarianism and a conflation of authoritarianism with all antidemocratic predispositions; it proposed that antidemocratic predispositions on the right typically involve an authoritarian adherence to established norms, whereas those on the left more commonly involve a motivation to overthrow the established authority (Nilsson, 2024).
Worked Example
The dual-process correlations can be read as shared variance, the square of a correlation. A dangerous worldview's correlation of r = 0.37 with right-wing authoritarianism (Osborne et al., 2023) corresponds to 0.37 × 0.37 = 0.137, or about 14% shared variance, against 0.08 × 0.08 = 0.0064, under 1%, with social dominance orientation. A competitive worldview's r = 0.55 with social dominance orientation corresponds to 0.55 × 0.55 = 0.3025, about 30%, against 0.11 × 0.11 = 0.0121, about 1%, with right-wing authoritarianism. Each worldview therefore shares far more variance with its own attitude than with the other, which is the pattern the model predicts.
Discussion
Three conclusions follow. First, right-wing authoritarianism has been measured as the covariation of three attitudinal clusters, which later work argues may be better measured as three related dimensions (Funke, 2005; Duckitt et al., 2010).
Second, on the dual-process model there seem to be two distinct ideological attitude dimensions: right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation express different motivational goals and relate differently to Openness and Agreeableness (Duckitt & Sibley, 2010; Sibley & Duckitt, 2008).
Third, context matters: one study found no direct effect of threat but an interaction with authoritarian predispositions (Feldman & Stenner, 1997), later work links threats to safety and security with increases in right-wing authoritarianism, and whether the same psychology appears on the political left remains unresolved (Osborne et al., 2023).
Current Directions
Three questions are open. A shared core: it remains unclear whether a shared psychological core underlies both right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism, or whether they are analogous but distinct phenomena (Osborne et al., 2023). Genetics: the need to further examine the genetic underpinnings of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation has been highlighted (Osborne et al., 2023). Left-wing animus: the extent to which the dynamics linking right-wing authoritarianism to prejudice also characterize left-wing animus is unknown (Osborne et al., 2023).
Common Misconceptions
- “Threat makes everyone more authoritarian.”
- One study found no direct effect of societal threat, only an interaction between perceived threat and authoritarian predispositions (Feldman & Stenner, 1997), although later work links threats to safety and security with increases in right-wing authoritarianism (Osborne et al., 2023).
- “Authoritarianism and social dominance are the same thing.”
- The dual-process model treats them as two distinct ideological attitude dimensions with different motivational goals (Duckitt & Sibley, 2010).
- “The Authoritarian Personality settled the question.”
- It has been called probably the most deeply flawed work of prominence in political psychology (Martin, 2001).
Glossary
- Anti-conventionalism.
- A factor of left-wing authoritarianism that roughly parallels conventionalism.
- Anti-hierarchical aggression.
- A factor of left-wing authoritarianism that roughly parallels authoritarian aggression.
- Authoritarian aggression.
- The tendency to punish rule breakers, one of the three components of right-wing authoritarianism.
- Authoritarian dynamic.
- The account in which predispositions to intolerance interact with changing conditions of societal threat.
- Authoritarian submission.
- The tendency to obey authorities, one of the three components of right-wing authoritarianism.
- Competitive worldview.
- The belief that the social world is a competitive jungle where the strong win and the weak lose, the root of social dominance orientation in the dual-process model.
- Conventionalism.
- The tendency to conform to tradition, one of the three components of right-wing authoritarianism.
- Dangerous worldview.
- The belief that the social world is an inherently dangerous, unstable and threatening place, the root of right-wing authoritarianism in the dual-process model.
- Dual-process motivational model.
- A model in which right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation are two distinct ideological attitude dimensions expressing different motivational goals.
- Left-wing authoritarianism.
- A proposed authoritarianism in the service of progressive values, whose existence and nature are debated.
- Response set.
- A scaling problem in which answers follow a pattern regardless of item content, one of the criticisms of The Authoritarian Personality.
- Right-wing authoritarianism.
- A construct measured as the covariation of authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression and conventionalism; the dual-process model treats it as an ideological attitude.
- Social dominance orientation.
- One's degree of preference for inequality among social groups; the second ideological attitude dimension of the dual-process model.
- Support for top-down censorship.
- A factor of left-wing authoritarianism that roughly parallels authoritarian submission.
- Tripartite model.
- The view that right-wing authoritarianism is three distinct but related ideological attitude dimensions rather than one personality construct.
Key Researchers
Theodor W. Adorno
(1903–1969). Philosopher and sociologist of the Frankfurt School; first author of The Authoritarian Personality (1950). Wikipedia - Wikidata
Bob Altemeyer
(1940–2024). Psychologist at the University of Manitoba; developed the right-wing authoritarianism construct. Wikipedia - Wikidata
Thomas H. Costello
Psychologist at American University; led a data-driven conceptualization and measure of left-wing authoritarianism. Faculty Page
John Duckitt
Social psychologist, Emeritus at the University of Auckland; proposed the dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Faculty Page
Stanley Feldman
Political scientist at Stony Brook University; theorized authoritarianism as a conflict between the values of social conformity and personal autonomy. Wikipedia - Wikidata - Google Scholar - Faculty Page
John T. Jost
Social psychologist at New York University; analyzed political conservatism as motivated social cognition in a meta-analysis of 88 samples. ORCID - Wikipedia - Wikidata
Chris G. Sibley
Psychologist at the University of Auckland; meta-analyzed with Duckitt the links between the Big Five, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice. ORCID - Wikipedia - Wikidata - Faculty Page
Karen Stenner
Political psychologist, formerly at Princeton University and Griffith University; author of The Authoritarian Dynamic (2005). ORCID - Wikipedia - Wikidata
Frequently Asked Questions
What is authoritarianism?
MeSH defines it as the personality pattern or syndrome consisting of behavioral and attitudinal characteristics reflecting a preoccupation with the factors of power and authority in interpersonal relationships.
What are the components of right-wing authoritarianism?
Authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression and conventionalism, whose covariation the RWA Scale assesses (Funke, 2005).
Is right-wing authoritarianism one dimension or three?
Confirmatory factor analyses showed that three-dimensional scales fit the data better than the conventional one-dimensional practice (Funke, 2005).
How does authoritarianism differ from social dominance orientation?
The dual-process model treats them as two distinct ideological attitude dimensions expressing two distinct sets of motivational goals or values (Duckitt & Sibley, 2010).
Which personality traits predict right-wing authoritarianism?
In a meta-analysis of 71 studies, low Openness to Experience but also Conscientiousness (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008).
Does threat make people more authoritarian?
One study found no direct effect of societal threat but an interaction between authoritarian predispositions and perceived threat (Feldman & Stenner, 1997).
Is authoritarianism related to political conservatism?
A meta-analysis found that several psychological variables, including dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity, predict political conservatism (Jost et al., 2003).
Does left-wing authoritarianism exist?
It is debated: a newly developed scale correlated with liberalism, prejudice and dogmatism in two studies (Conway et al., 2018), while skeptics argue that authoritarians are reactionaries even when they adopt nominally left-wing attitudes (Osborne et al., 2023).
References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper & Brothers.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780887558894
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Harvard University Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other "authoritarian personality". Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60382-2
Conway, L. G., III, Houck, S. C., Gornick, L. J., & Repke, M. A. (2018). Finding the Loch Ness monster: Left-wing authoritarianism in the United States. Political Psychology, 39(5), 1049-1067. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12470
Costello, T. H., Bowes, S. M., Baldwin, M. W., Malka, A., & Tasimi, A. (2023). Revisiting the rigidity-of-the-right hypothesis: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(5), 1025-1052. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000446
Costello, T. H., Bowes, S. M., Stevens, S. T., Waldman, I. D., Tasimi, A., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2022). Clarifying the structure and nature of left-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(1), 135-170. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000341
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 41-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(01)80004-6
Duckitt, J., & Fisher, K. (2003). The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24(1), 199-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00322
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1861-1894. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x
Duckitt, J., Bizumic, B., Krauss, S. W., & Heled, E. (2010). A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31(5), 685-715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00781.x
Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 75-93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.75
Feldman, S. (2003). Enforcing social conformity: A theory of authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 24(1), 41-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00316
Feldman, S., & Stenner, K. (1997). Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 18(4), 741-770. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00077
Funke, F. (2005). The dimensionality of right-wing authoritarianism: Lessons from the dilemma between theory and measurement. Political Psychology, 26(2), 195-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00415.x
Greenberg, J., & Jonas, E. (2003). Psychological motives and political orientation—The left, the right, and the rigid: Comment on Jost et al. (2003). Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 376-382. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.376
Hetherington, M., & Suhay, E. (2011). Authoritarianism, threat, and Americans' support for the war on terror. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 546-560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00514.x
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339-375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
Ludeke, S. G., Klitgaard, C. N., & Vitriol, J. (2018). Comprehensively-measured authoritarianism does predict vote choice: The importance of authoritarianism's facets, ideological sorting, and the particular candidate. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 209-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.019
Martin, J. L. (2001). The authoritarian personality, 50 years later: What questions are there for political psychology? Political Psychology, 22(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00223
Nilsson, A. (2024). Antidemocratic tendencies on the left, the right, and beyond: A critical review of the theory and measurement of left-wing authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 45(4), 693-708. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12951
Nilsson, A., & Jost, J. T. (2020). The authoritarian-conservatism nexus. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 148-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.03.003
Onraet, E., Van Hiel, A., Dhont, K., & Pattyn, S. (2013). Internal and external threat in relationship with right-wing attitudes. Journal of Personality, 81(3), 233-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12011
Osborne, D., Costello, T. H., Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2023). The psychological causes and societal consequences of authoritarianism. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2(4), 220-232. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00161-4
Perry, R., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013). Dangerous and competitive worldviews: A meta-analysis of their associations with social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 116-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.10.004
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 248-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308319226
Stenner, K. (2005). The authoritarian dynamic. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614712