4.1.1 Authoritarian personality Flashcards
Case study for authoritarian personality
Theodor Adorno
Authoritarian personality ideas
Theodor Adorno’s ideas stemmed from the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany.
His work was aimed at discovering a link between ‘collective ideologies’ such as those proposed by the Nazi’s and the personalities of individuals.
He believed certain personality traits increase obedience.
They believed that high levels of obedience was a psychological disorder- so it was a result of the person’s personality and not the situation.
Adorno argued that people with an authoritarian personality show an extreme respect for and submissiveness to authority.
They are especially likely to obey.
Origins of the authoritarian personality
Psychodynamic approach:
Importance of childhood experiences
Unconscious motives and desires
The person is seen as dynamic or constantly changing
Adorno saw the origins of the authoritarian personality in harsh parenting:
Strict discipline and severe criticism of failings
Expectations of loyalty
Conditional love- affection depends on how the child behaves (I will love you if…)
He felt that fear, resentment and hostility in the child would be repressed (pushed into the unconscious mind).
These repressed feelings would be displaced on others, especially those seen as socially inferior such as minority groups, the poor or unemployed.
Adorno et al - F scale
Adorno devised the F-scale (F for fascism) to measure the authoritarian personality.
He studied more than 2000 middle class white Americans.
He wanted to find out about their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups.
Findings: Adorno found that those who scored highly on the scale had characteristics of the authoritarian personality.
The F Scale:
The F scale measures authoritarian personality traits. Normal is considered to be between 2.5-4.5.
Conclusion
Adorno concluded that a high level of obedience was basically a psychological disorder that could be located in the personality of the individual
Evaluation
A strength is that there is supporting evidence:
Elms and Milgram (1966) interviewed a small sample of people who had taken part in the original obedience experiment.
They found that 20 highly obedient participants in Milgram’s study scored highly on the Fscale than 20 disobedient participants.
When interviewed, they also said that they saw the authority figure in Milgram’s study as more admirable and the learner less so.
Counterpoint
However, when the researchers analysed the individual subscales of the F-scale they found that the obedient participants had a number of characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians. They:
Didn’t generally glorify their fathers
Didn’t experience unusual levels of punishment in childhood
Didn’t have hostile attitudes towards mothers
It is also impossible for this explanation to explain the real life obedient behaviour of the whole nation of Germany during the Second World War.
During WW2, individuals were obedient to the Nazis and showed racists and antisemitic behaviour.
It is extremely unlikely that they could possess an authoritarian personality.
Social Identity Theory
Another explanation is social identity theory which suggests that the majority of the German people identified with the antisemitic Nazi party and had internalised similar beliefs.
A further weakness is that the scale is based on an extreme form of right-wing ideology which makes it culture bound.
Christie and Jahoda (1954) argued that it is a politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personality.
They point out that left-wing ideologies e.g. Chinese Maoism also emphasise the importance of complete obedience.
A limitation of Adorno’s theory is that is it not a comprehensive explanation that can account for obedience across the political spectrum.
Evidence for locus of control
Holland (1967)
Purpose: Can LOC be used to predict obedient behaviour?
Procedure: Repeat of Milgram’s study + measured the LOC for each participant (whether they were internal or external)
Results: 37% of ‘internals’ did not continue to 450V. 23% of ‘externals’ did not continue to 450V
Conclusion: Having an internal LOC partially predicts whether participants will disobey orders
Evidence against locus of control
Twenge et. Al (2004)
Purpose: to check the link between LOC and ability to resist over a lifetime
Procedure: Measure LOC twice, but 42 years apart (1960 + 2002). Then, measure how resistant these participants are to obedience
Results: Participants gained a more external LOC. Participants had become more resistant to obedience
Conclusion: This is the opposite result of what was expected. This means that LOC is not a valid explanation for how people resist social influence
Evidence against locus of control 2
Rotter (1982)
Maybe LOC is only important in new situations.
In a familiar situation, individuals may continue conforming because they conformed before.
In a new situation, individuals have to think more about their decisions, which is less automatic than a familiar situation.
