THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATION FOR OBEDIENCE: THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
While some examination boards mandate students to study the Authoritarian Personality, it's crucial to understand that its inclusion is primarily aimed at fostering critical examination, as the Authoritarian Personality theory lacks robustness or comprehensiveness. Moreover, numerous theories have been proposed to explain the Holocaust, Milgram’s Agency Theory and the Authoritarian Personality are just two examples.
While exam boards acknowledges the discussion of the Authoritarian Personality as an alternative explanation to Agency theory and vice versa, suggesting the Authoritarian theory as a better alternative to Agency theory implies a lack of understanding of its flaws.
To demonstrate a deeper understanding of the atrocities associated with the Holocaust, it may be more prudent to discredit the Authoritarian Personality theory as an alternative explanation. Instead, consider presenting theories like Social Impact Theory, Social Identity Theory, or Evolutionary Theory as more robust and relevant alternatives to the Agentic State.
WHAT IS A DISPOSITIONAL THEORY?
A dispositional explanation is a type of psychological explanation that attributes behaviour or traits to an individual's inherent, enduring characteristics, traits, or dispositions. In other words, it suggests that certain behaviours or characteristics are primarily influenced by an individual's internal, stable, and relatively consistent attributes rather than external factors or situational influences.
Erich Fromm, a psychoanalyst and social psychologist, proposed the concept of the authoritarian personality in his 1941 book titled "Escape from Freedom" (also known as "The Fear of Freedom" in some editions). Fromm's work explored the idea that some individuals develop authoritarian attitudes and behaviours as a response to social and psychological factors, including their upbringing and societal influences.
Fromm's theories on the authoritarian personality contributed to the broader understanding of authoritarianism and its psychological underpinnings. Later research, including that conducted by Adorno and his colleagues, expanded on and refined these ideas. This group, often referred to as the Frankfurt School, conducted extensive research to explore the psychological characteristics and social attitudes associated with individuals who exhibited authoritarian tendencies. It is an explanation for people who held rigid, intolerant, and conservative beliefs and were characterised by absolute obedience to authority and the domination of those of lower social standing. Adorno et al. believed this personality was shaped in early childhood by parenting that focused on hierarchical and authoritarian parenting styles. Under such conditions, children learn to obey authority and acquire the same attitudes through a process of social learning and imitation.
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY IN MORE DETAIL
The authoritarian personality concept was initially developed to understand the psychological factors that contributed to support for fascist and authoritarian ideologies, particularly in the context of the post-World War II era.
Authoritarianism: They have a strong preference for authority figures and a desire to submit to them. They value conformity, obedience, and order, often viewing authority figures as infallible.
Intolerance: They are generally intolerant of those who are different from themselves, whether in terms of race, religion, ethnicity, or other characteristics. They may hold prejudiced or discriminatory views.
Conventionalism: They have a strong preference for traditional values and norms. They tend to resist change and are more comfortable with established social structures.
Rigid Thinking: Authoritarian individuals often engage in black-and-white thinking, seeing issues in absolute terms. They may be resistant to ambiguity or nuance.
Hostility: They may tend hostility, especially when dealing with those they perceive as different or threatening to their worldview.
Repression: Authoritarian personalities may tend to repress their emotions and desires, particularly those that do not align with societal or authority-approved norms.
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY THEORY IS A PSYCHODYNAMIC
Adorno's theory of the Authoritarian Personality is rooted in psychodynamic principles, drawing heavily from psychoanalytic psychology developed by Sigmund Freud. This approach delves into the unconscious aspects of human behaviour, early childhood experiences, and the utilisation of ego defence mechanisms, including displacement.
One prominent ego defence mechanism associated with Adorno's theory is "displacement." In psychoanalysis, displacement involves redirecting or transferring one's emotions, often negative or hostile, from their original target to a less threatening one. Applied to Adorno's theory, it suggests that individuals who endured authoritarian or domineering parenting in their formative years might have suppressed anger or frustration directed at their parents. As adults, they may unconsciously displace these emotions onto individuals or groups perceived as less powerful or threatening, such as minority groups or those with lower social standing. This displacement of suppressed emotions onto others is proposed as a contributing factor to obedience in Adorno's dispositional theory of the Authoritarian Personality.
THE F SCALE
The F Scale, also known as the "Fascism Scale" or "Authoritarian Personality Scale," is a psychological instrument developed by Theodor W. Adorno and his colleagues in the 1940s. This scale was designed to measure authoritarian personality traits and attitudes. It consists of a series of 30 questions or statements. Respondents answer these questions using a 6-point scale, indicating the degree to which they agree or disagree with each statement. Here are the 30 questions along with examples of how one might answer them:Here are some sample questions or statements from the F Scale:
Take the F Scale Test Yourself (F-SCALE)
Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Slightly Agree / Slightly Disagree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
People should not question their government's actions during times of crisis.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Slightly Agree / Slightly Disagree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
It is essential to uphold traditional values and morals in society.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Slightly Agree / Slightly Disagree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
People who do not conform to the established norms should be severely punished.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Slightly Agree / Slightly Disagree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
Those in positions of authority should have unquestioned power.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Slightly Agree / Slightly Disagree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
It is important to maintain law and order, even if it means limiting some personal freedoms.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Slightly Agree / Slightly Disagree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
Society would be better off if it followed a strict moral code.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Slightly Agree / Slightly Disagree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
Some groups of people are simply inferior to others.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Slightly Agree / Slightly Disagree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
The government should have the right to monitor citizens' activities for security reasons.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Slightly Agree / Slightly Disagree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
Political dissent should not be tolerated in a stable society.
Strongly Agree / Agree / Slightly Agree / Slightly Disagree / Disagree / Strongly Disagree
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION OF F-SCALE RESEARCH
Zillmer et al. found that Nazi war criminals scored highly on 3 of the personality dimensions of Adorno's F-scale questionnaire but not all 9. This only gives limited support for the authoritarian personality, suggesting it has limited validity.
Altemyer (1988) found that participants who were more willing to give themselves electric shocks were also identified as having an authoritarian personality type, lending support for this explanation.
Elms (1966) et al. found that the participants who took part in Milgram's obedience study and were the most obedient were rated by the F-scale as more authoritarian than participants who resisted, which supports the link between the authoritarian personality type and obedience. Those who were more obedient also reported being more distant from their fathers during their childhood, which supports the possibility of the authoritarian personality having been learned through social modeling. However, we cannot say this for certain, as we cannot infer cause and effect with correlational data when other variables may be affecting personality type, such as innate temperament.
CRITICISMS OF THE F-SCALE QUESTIONNAIRE
While Adorno's theory offers insights into the potential psychological origins of authoritarianism, it has faced criticism and limitations. One of the primary criticisms is the lack of empirical support and the validity of the F Scale used to measure the authoritarian personality.
Evidence for dispositional explanations for obedience, such as the Authoritarian personality, is considered weak. For example, although the F-scale has some support, authoritarian personality types do not always score highly on all dimensions as the theory would predict, suggesting it is oversimplified, and something more complex is occurring. Also, Milgram showed that variations in social context were more important, i.e., location, presence of allies, proximity to victims, which further weakens this explanation.
Psychopathy and Individual Differences: Adorno's theory also does not account for the diversity of individual experiences and reactions. It does not imply that all individuals with authoritarian personalities are psychopathic or engage in extreme acts of violence.
Example: While some individuals with authoritarian personalities may express prejudiced beliefs or conform to authority, they may not necessarily exhibit psychopathic traits or engage in criminal behaviour.
Response Bias: The F Scale questions are often framed in a way that encourages agreement with authoritarian or fascist attitudes, potentially leading to inflated scores. For example, a question may be worded in a manner that makes it socially desirable or acceptable to express authoritarian beliefs. Respondents might feel compelled to answer in a certain way, leading to a response bias.
Example: A question on the F Scale might ask, "Do you agree that strict discipline is necessary for maintaining a stable society?" This question could implicitly suggest that agreeing with strict discipline is the socially accepted or desirable response.
Lack of Predictive Validity: Critics argue that high scores on the F Scale may not necessarily translate into real-world authoritarian behaviour. In other words, there may not be a strong correlation between F Scale scores and people's actual actions or political affiliations.
Example: Someone who scores high on the F Scale might express authoritarian attitudes on the questionnaire but may not engage in authoritarian or oppressive behaviour in their daily life.
Cultural Bias: The F Scale was primarily developed and tested on American samples during the 1940s and 1950s, which raises concerns about its applicability to people from different cultural backgrounds. Questions may not capture cultural variations in authoritarianism.
Example: Questions on the F Scale might be culturally biased and not relevant or easily understood by individuals from non-Western cultures, potentially yielding inaccurate results.
Political Bias: Some critics argue that the F Scale exhibits political bias by associating authoritarianism mainly with conservative or right-wing views while neglecting authoritarian tendencies in individuals with left-wing or liberal beliefs.
Example: The F Scale might implicitly assume that authoritarianism is more prevalent among conservative individuals, overlooking potential authoritarian traits in individuals with progressive, communist or liberal ideologies.
COMMON TRAITS SHARED BY FASCISTS AND COMMUNISTS:
Authoritarianism.
Totalitarianism.
Rigid ideology.
Propaganda use.
Cult of personality.
Suppression of dissent.
Emphasis on collective identity.
State control of the economy.
Militarism.
Despite these similarities, the two political ideologies have opposing ideologies, with fascism emphasising extreme nationalism and communism seeking a classless, stateless society.
Historical Context: The F Scale was developed during a specific historical context, primarily in response to World War II and the Cold War. Critics argue that this historical context may limit its relevance for understanding authoritarianism in different historical or social contexts.
Example: The questions on the F Scale may reflect the concerns and attitudes prevalent during the mid-20th century but may not apply equally to contemporary societal norms and issues.
Oversimplification: Some argue that the concept oversimplifies the causes of authoritarianism by attributing it primarily to personality traits. It may not consider other influential factors, such as societal conditions, historical events, or group dynamics.
Example: The authoritarian personality concept may not account for how external factors, such as economic instability or political upheaval, can contribute to authoritarian tendencies in individuals.
CRITICISMS OF THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY CONCEPT
BETTER EXPLANATIONS
SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY
An alternative explanation to the Authoritarian Personality concept lies in Social Identity Theory, which sheds new light on understanding events like the Holocaust. In Milgram's study, the learner was, after all, similar in all demographics to the participants, e.g., a white American male, possibly a member of their own in-group. Moreover, the laboratory subjects themselves did not know their victims and were not motivated by racism or other biases; they had no reason to hurt the learner or harbor animosity toward him, and they had nothing to gain by doing so.
Contrarily, the Holocaust perpetrators demonstrated a deep-seated devaluation of their victims, developed over a lifetime. For instance, the behavior of individuals like the Nazis can be attributed to their strong identification with an in-group, such as the German or Aryan race, and a belief in a noble cause, like safeguarding the German economy from perceived outsiders, including Jews. In this context, members of an in-group tend to uphold the positive qualities of their own group while dehumanizing and attributing negative qualities to the out-group, thus justifying discrimination and persecution. This perspective provides a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics behind such atrocities.
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
Evolutionary theory is a similar explanation to social identity theory in many ways, as it suggests that in-group members are xenophobic toward out-group members as a survival mechanism in a hostile environment. Surprisingly, Milgram did actually believe that some aspects of the Agentic Shift were caused by natural selection. He argued that obedience was a survival trait that enabled tribes of early humans to flourish. He thought that the early humans who were disobedient would not have survived the dangers of the prehistoric world and thus not passed on their genes. But this makes his theory confusing, as on the one hand, he denies dispositional theories, which would include biological causes of personality, but he accepts that biological mutations shape the brain.
EXAMPLE:
Evolutionary Theory and the Holocaust:
Group Conflict: Nazis considered targeted groups as outsiders.
Survival Instinct: Xenophobia towards outsiders for group survival.
In-Group Protection: Obedience to authority to protect in-group.
Human Evolution: Early human tribes favoring obedience for survival.
Genetic Factors: Obedience as a trait passed through generations.
Biological Influence: Recognition of the role of genetics in behaviour.
SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY
Social Impact Theory, developed by Bibb Latané in the 1980s, explores how social influence is exerted by the presence and actions of others. Applying this theory to the Holocaust can provide some insights, although it's important to remember that the Holocaust was an extremely complex historical event with various factors at play. Here's a brief overview of how Social Impact Theory might be applied:
Social Impact of Authority Figures:
The Nazi regime, led by Adolf Hitler, exerted immense authority and power over the German population. Their charismatic leadership and propaganda campaigns contributed to a strong social impact, leading many individuals to follow their directives.
Social Impact of Group Size:
The larger the group, the stronger its social impact. The Nazi Party had millions of members, and the widespread support for their ideology increased their influence over society.
Strength of the Source:
Nazi leaders and institutions had significant resources and control over media, education, and communication channels, amplifying their social impact.
Immediacy of the Source:
The immediate presence and actions of Nazi authorities and their enforcers, such as the Gestapo and SS, instilled fear and compliance among the population.
Number of Sources:
The Nazi regime utilized multiple sources of influence, including political, military, and propaganda apparatuses, to shape public opinion and behavior.
Consistency of the Message:
The consistent dissemination of Nazi propaganda and the alignment of messages with their ideology reinforced the social impact.
Minority Influence:
In the context of the Holocaust, it's essential to consider those who resisted or opposed the Nazi regime. Social Impact Theory also applies to individuals or small groups who resisted social pressures.
Social Impact Over Time:
As the Nazi regime maintained its power and control over Germany, the social impact intensified, leading to the systematic implementation of discriminatory and genocidal policies.
OTHER CRITICISMS
Inconsistency in Labelling All Germans: The authoritarian personality theory has faced criticism for implying that all Germans shared the same parenting style or authoritarian traits, particularly in the context of events like the Holocaust. This generalization is overly simplistic and can be misleading. It is important to note that individuals within any society exhibit a wide range of personality traits and behaviors influenced by various factors beyond parenting. While the Holocaust was a devastating event that involved the systematic persecution and murder of millions of innocent people, it is essential to avoid making broad generalizations about an entire nation based on the actions of a regime and its supporters.
Lack of Empirical Evidence: Critics argue that the psychodynamic concepts incorporated into the theory, such as unconscious processes and ego defence mechanisms, lack empirical evidence to support their role in shaping personality traits like authoritarianism.
Over reliance on Freudian Concepts: The authoritarian personality theory heavily relies on Freudian concepts, which have faced criticism for their lack of scientific rigor and testability.
Ethical Concerns: There are ethical concerns regarding labelling and potentially stigmatizing individuals based on their authoritarian personality scores, especially in the absence of strong predictive validity.
Overemphasis on Parental Influence: The theory places heavy emphasis on early childhood experiences and parental influence in shaping the authoritarian personality. Critics argue that this oversimplifies the development of personality and ignores other influential factors, such as peer relationships and societal influences.