Search

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00579.x Byline: Jaime L. Napier (1), John T. Jost (1) Abstract: More than 60 years ago, psychologists identified a potential threat to democracy from within, namely the 'antidemocratic personality' arising from the 'authoritarian syndrome.' It was soon discovered that the problem of authoritarianism was especially acute among those who were low in education and income, and that it was associated with intolerance toward others. However, several important questions were left unresolved. We revisit fundamental theoretical and empirical questions concerning the existence and nature of 'working-class authoritarianism,' focusing especially on four psychological aspects of authoritarianism, namely, conventionalism, moral absolutism, obedience to authority, and cynicism. In a cross-national investigation involving respondents from 19 democratic countries, we find that all four aspects of authoritarianism are indeed related to moral and ethnic intolerance. However, only obedience to authority and cynicism are especially prevalent among those who are low in socioeconomic status. Conventionalism and moral absolutism were significant predictors of economic conservatism, whereas obedience to authority and cynicism were not. We find no support for Lipset's (1960) claim that working-class authoritarianism would be associated with economic liberalism. Instead, we find that authoritarianism is linked to right-wing orientation in general and that intolerance mediates this relationship. Implications for electoral politics and political psychology are discussed. Author Affiliation: (1)New York University Article note: (*) Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John T. Jost, Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10003 [e-mail: john.jost@nyu.edu].

Three studies are conducted to assess the uncertainty-threat model of political conservatism, which posits that psychological needs to manage uncertainty and threat are associated with political orientation. Results from structural equation models provide consistent support for the hypothesis that uncertainty avoidance (e.g., need for order, intolerance of ambiguity, and lack of openness to experience) and threat management (e.g., death anxiety, system threat, and perceptions of a dangerous world) each contributes independently to conservatism (vs. liberalism). No support is obtained for alternative models, which predict that uncertainty and threat management are associated with ideological extremism or extreme forms of conservatism only. Study 3 also reveals that resistance to change fully mediates the association between uncertainty avoidance and conservatism, whereas opposition to equality partially mediates the association between threat and conservatism. Implications for understanding the epistemic and existential bases of political orientation are discussed. Keywords: uncertainty; threat; ideology; liberalism; conservatism; political orientation

Despite the fact that gay men and lesbian women face significant economic disparities compared to their heterosexual counterparts, people appear to believe that the opposite is true, a phenomenon which has been dubbed the "myth of gay affluence." In the current research (Ntot = 2,162), we address the consequences of this belief. Specifically, we hypothesize and find that believing that gay men and lesbian women are financially well off—either chronically (Study 1) or because of an experimental manipulation (Studies 2–3)—leads participants to deny discrimination against gay men and lesbian women, above and beyond anti‐gay attitudes, and this is mediated by the belief that there is a "gay agenda" that is backed by powerful lobbyists. Thus, perpetuating this myth—either intentionally or inadvertently—could have deleterious effects on efforts for social change and the promotion of rights for sexual minorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present research investigated social and biological intergroup hierarchy beliefs in the US and South Korea, representative Northern European-heritage and East Asian cultures, respectively. We hypothesized that individual-orientation (the emphasis on individuals and individual achievements) and group-orientation (the emphasis on groups and efficient functioning of groups) would predict social and biological hierarchy beliefs differently within and between these cultures. As expected, intergroup hierarchy beliefs were stronger in South Korea than in the US, particularly for biological hierarchy beliefs. Multigroup structural equation modeling analyses revealed that group-orientation predicted intergroup hierarchy beliefs across cultures, but more strongly in South Korea than in the US. Also, an emphasis on individual achievements predicted social hierarchy beliefs only in the US, whereas an emphasis on roles/positions within groups predicted social and biological hierarchy beliefs only in South Korea. Results implied that intergroup hierarchy beliefs may be generally associated with group-orientation and the value of competence or efficiency in each culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Across two studies, we find evidence for our prediction that experimentally increasing feelings of physical safety increases conservatives' socially progressive attitudes. Specifically, Republican and conservative participants who imagined being endowed with a superpower that made them invulnerable to physical harm (vs. the ability to fly) were more socially (but not economically) liberal (Study 1) and less resistant to social change (Study 2). Results suggest that socially (but not economically) conservative attitudes are driven, at least in part, by needs for safety and security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]