Left-wing authoritarianism exists and is a key predictor of psychological and behavioral outcomes

[Metaphor]

https://www.psypost.org/2021/06/lar...f-psychological-and-behavioral-outcomes-61318

Right-wing authoritarianism is a well-studied personality construct characterized by adherence to conventional values, submission to authority, and aggression towards those who deviate from social norms. New research provides evidence that a similar construct could help to explain authoritarian attitudes and behaviors among those on the left side of the political spectrum.


The study, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, found that left-wing authoritarianism not only exists, it is also a strong predictor of participation in political violence.


...

“Now, with this new work, we can study both left- and right-wing authoritarianism and, hopefully, isolate the psychological core of authoritarianism by comparing and contrasting them in future research.”






In six studies, which included 7,258 individuals in total, the researchers validated their measure of left-wing authoritarianism, which they called the Left-Wing Authoritarianism Index. The results indicated that left-wing authoritarianism was comprised of three primary dimensions.


The first is anti-hierarchical aggression. People who score high on this dimension agree with statements such as “The rich should be stripped of their belongings and status” and “We need to replace the established order by any means necessary.”

The second is top-down censorship. People who score high on this dimension agree with statements such as “I should have the right not to be exposed to offensive views” and “Getting rid of inequality is more important than protecting the so-called ‘right’ to free speech.”


The third is anti-conventionalism. People who score high on this dimension agree with statements such as “All political conservatives are fools” and “The ‘old-fashioned ways’ and ‘old-fashioned values’ need to be abolished.”


Costello and his colleagues also found a large overlap in personality traits, cognitive styles, and beliefs among those who scored high on left-wing authoritarianism and those who scored high on right-wing authoritarianism. Both groups had heightened levels of psychopathic meanness and boldness, dogmatism, disinhibition, conscientiousness, need for closure, fatalistic determinism beliefs, belief in conspiracy theories, and belief in a dangerous world.


Moreover, both forms of authoritarianism were predictors of heightened scores on a laboratory-based measure of behavioral aggression against political opponents.


...

But the new research points to several important differences between left-wing and right-wing authoritarians. For instance, left-wing authoritarians consistently scored higher than their right-wing counterparts on measures of neuroticism, belief in science, and willingness to ban opposing views.

 

[cycomiko]

i like how they threw in "belief in science" as a key difference between left-wing and right-wing crazies. makes it sound like left-wing crazies have beliefs based in reality but still have an over-amplified sense of importance in those beliefs. while the right-wing crazies hold beliefs from fairy tale land with an over-amplified sense of importance in those beliefs.

does the study say what the overall ratio is of left-wing to right-wing crazies? is this an attempt to say that the left if just as bad if not worse than the right? here in the US the crazies from one side have far more representation than the other.

for the record, i'm against crazies in general.

 

[Metaphor]

i like how they threw in "belief in science" as a key difference between left-wing and right-wing crazies. makes it sound like left-wing crazies have beliefs based in reality but still have an over-amplified sense of importance in those beliefs. while the right-wing crazies hold beliefs from fairy tale land with an over-amplified sense of importance in those beliefs.

does the study say what the overall ratio is of left-wing to right-wing crazies? is this an attempt to say that the left if just as bad if not worse than the right? here in the US the crazies from one side have far more representation than the other.

for the record, i'm against crazies in general.

The authors do not say the problems caused by or the numbers of LWA or RWA are equal.

One sentence struck me in particular:

Both groups had heightened levels of psychopathic meanness and boldness, dogmatism, disinhibition, conscientiousness, need for closure, fatalistic determinism beliefs, belief in conspiracy theories, and belief in a dangerous world.

I have particularly noticed the psychopathic meanness and boldness, dogmatism, and belief in a dangerous world in the authoritarian left.

 

[cycomiko]

One sentence struck me in particular:

Both groups had heightened levels of psychopathic meanness and boldness, dogmatism, disinhibition, conscientiousness, need for closure, fatalistic determinism beliefs, belief in conspiracy theories, and belief in a dangerous world.

I have particularly noticed the psychopathic meanness and boldness, dogmatism, and belief in a dangerous world in the authoritarian left.

i don't quite understand why this is a revelation in any way. was this something you didn't know before? authoritarians are, by definition, hostile to competing ideas and feel they need the AUTHORITY to control things as they see fit. i like your abbreviations so i'll use those. if LWAs make up 10% (made up %) of all the crazies out there then we should probably be focusing on the RWAs for now. authoritarians are bad in general and i'm pretty sure most people knew that already.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

​Like other authoritarians, Left-wing Authoritarians are psychopaths and nuts. News at 11.

I'm aware the bridge Metaphor is desperately trying to make here is connect liberals with left-wing authoritarianism. Quite the gap there though.

 

[Trausti]

Given the history of the 20th Century, the OP is just common sense.

 

[thebeave]

Sadly, I recognize these LWA characteristics in several members of this forum.

 

[Metaphor]

One sentence struck me in particular:

Both groups had heightened levels of psychopathic meanness and boldness, dogmatism, disinhibition, conscientiousness, need for closure, fatalistic determinism beliefs, belief in conspiracy theories, and belief in a dangerous world.

I have particularly noticed the psychopathic meanness and boldness, dogmatism, and belief in a dangerous world in the authoritarian left.

i don't quite understand why this is a revelation in any way. was this something you didn't know before? authoritarians are, by definition, hostile to competing ideas and feel they need the AUTHORITY to control things as they see fit. i like your abbreviations so i'll use those. if LWAs make up 10% (made up %) of all the crazies out there then we should probably be focusing on the RWAs for now. authoritarians are bad in general and i'm pretty sure most people knew that already.

The psychological literature has studied RWA for a very long time (at least thirty years) but there is very little in the literature, until recently, about LWA (and indeed, even debate about its existence).

 

[KeepTalking]

i don't quite understand why this is a revelation in any way. was this something you didn't know before? authoritarians are, by definition, hostile to competing ideas and feel they need the AUTHORITY to control things as they see fit. i like your abbreviations so i'll use those. if LWAs make up 10% (made up %) of all the crazies out there then we should probably be focusing on the RWAs for now. authoritarians are bad in general and i'm pretty sure most people knew that already.

The psychological literature has studied RWA for a very long time (at least thirty years) but there is very little in the literature, until recently, about LWA (and indeed, even debate about its existence).

That seems rather odd, given that one need look no farther than China, or the USSR to see glaring examples of LWA.

I can understand a bit of a difference in the amount of literature, as in the West I think a lot of the literature would be concerned with those who promulgated WW2, and the modern day RWAs who would follow in their footsteps. It might be interesting to see data on whether there is, in fact, a significant difference there.

 

[Bomb#20]

i like how they threw in "belief in science" as a key difference between left-wing and right-wing crazies. makes it sound like left-wing crazies have beliefs based in reality but still have an over-amplified sense of importance in those beliefs. while the right-wing crazies hold beliefs from fairy tale land with an over-amplified sense of importance in those beliefs.

There's a big difference between believing in science and believing you believe in science. What both LWAs and RWAs actually believe in is their own tribal loyalty oaths. Believing in science is something the left believes it's supposed to do, so of course if you survey them and ask if they believe in science they'll say "yes". Consequently, when RWAs think evolution is a lie they don't mind admitting they disagree with science; whereas when LWAs think nuclear power is more dangerous than other power sources they'll insist they're still "believing in science." Thinking you agree with science has only an incidental correlation with whether science agrees with you.

 

[laughing dog]

I wish to thank the OP for reminding people of the obvious - that authoritarians of all stripes share characteristics. I await the next alert that rain is wet.

 

[cycomiko]

i like how they threw in "belief in science" as a key difference between left-wing and right-wing crazies. makes it sound like left-wing crazies have beliefs based in reality but still have an over-amplified sense of importance in those beliefs. while the right-wing crazies hold beliefs from fairy tale land with an over-amplified sense of importance in those beliefs.

There's a big difference between believing in science and believing you believe in science. What both LWAs and RWAs actually believe in is their own tribal loyalty oaths. Believing in science is something the left believes it's supposed to do, so of course if you survey them and ask if they believe in science they'll say "yes". Consequently, when RWAs think evolution is a lie they don't mind admitting they disagree with science; whereas when LWAs think nuclear power is more dangerous than other power sources they'll insist they're still "believing in science." Thinking you agree with science has only an incidental correlation with whether science agrees with you.

Good point. Didn't the anti-vax movement start as more of a left-wing thing?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

i like how they threw in "belief in science" as a key difference between left-wing and right-wing crazies. makes it sound like left-wing crazies have beliefs based in reality but still have an over-amplified sense of importance in those beliefs. while the right-wing crazies hold beliefs from fairy tale land with an over-amplified sense of importance in those beliefs.

There's a big difference between believing in science and believing you believe in science. What both LWAs and RWAs actually believe in is their own tribal loyalty oaths. Believing in science is something the left believes it's supposed to do, so of course if you survey them and ask if they believe in science they'll say "yes". Consequently, when RWAs think evolution is a lie they don't mind admitting they disagree with science; whereas when LWAs think nuclear power is more dangerous than other power sources they'll insist they're still "believing in science." Thinking you agree with science has only an incidental correlation with whether science agrees with you.

Good point. Didn't the anti-vax movement start as more of a left-wing thing?

Bomb#20's post is conflating something though. Anti-nuclear power positions isn't an "LWA" thing. It can be said to find a home among liberals, but nothing about left-wing authoritarians says anything, to my knowledge, about nuclear.

Much like how anti-vax'ers tend to skew to the left, but again, that isn't left-wing authoritarianism. Just left-wingers who are stupid about vaccination.

 

[Bomb#20]

Good point. Didn't the anti-vax movement start as more of a left-wing thing?

Bomb#20's post is conflating something though. Anti-nuclear power positions isn't an "LWA" thing. It can be said to find a home among liberals, but nothing about left-wing authoritarians says anything, to my knowledge, about nuclear.

Much like how anti-vax'ers tend to skew to the left, but again, that isn't left-wing authoritarianism. Just left-wingers who are stupid about vaccination.

Not seeing a difference there -- there's nothing about right-wing authoritarians per se that says anything about evolution either. It's easy to find RWAs who agree with evolution. Likewise AGW. It's just a correlation -- lots of right-wingers happen to be stupid about evolution and AGW, same as lots of left-wingers are stupid about vaccination and nuclear power.

 

[Angry Floof]

So much demonstrable bullshit there.

“Authoritarianism has really only been studied in one group of people: conservatives,” said study author Thomas H. Costello, a Ph.D. candidate in psychology at Emory University.

Completely false. The correlation between authoritarianism and conservatism was found through not choosing subjects of any particular religious or ideological leanings. In fact, in Bob Altemeyer's experiments, he instructed participants to remove or cover all jewelry, tattoos or other indication of religion or ideological beliefs. AND his subjects were chosen from students at a liberal arts school in Canada. Yeah, they're just swarming with conservatives and Altemeyer chose to work there for that reason... That's the level of stupid you'd have to swallow to take that statement above seriously.

And Altemeyer's work is significant only among recent-ish work. He first published The Authoritarians in 2006. There's been lots more since and a hell of a lot more previously, as in a century of work published and built upon and updated over all that time. Please find a study or publication on this topic that targeted conservatives.

“The reasons for this are a little circular — namely, lots of scholars have theorized and argued that only conservatives can be authoritarian.

Also not true. Find any serious researcher who has not looked for and asked for falsification of the relationship between conservatism and authoritarianism.

The closest thing I've ever seen to a serious, honest attempt to falsify or even challenge right wing authoritarianism research was one guy who tried to compare apples to oranges: being bodily captured by law enforcement and held without charges, and laws that prevent private residents from discriminating based on religion when choosing a roommate from candidates responding to an ad.

But if this isn’t the case, and authoritarian individuals also exist on the left — as I think we show in the study — then the lack of research concerning left-wing authoritarianism becomes a big deal.”

They do, but they are rare, and given that liberal ideology is strongly based in inclusiveness and openness to change, to other views, and to differences, "left wing authoritarians" don't stay that way for long. If those authoritarian traits of an EXclusive world view, insistence on conformity, deference to authority versus one's own conscience, etc., are strong in that person's mind, they will end up moving to conservative ideology.

If those liberal traits are stronger, their authoritarian leanings will diminish. This is well researched and documented.

Make a person more scared, and their mind will close up, become narrow in what they will tolerate or accept, and they will look for stronger individuals in the group to get closer to in order to feel safer.

Make a person feel more safe, and they will be more open to helping others, to being ok with people not like them, and more loose and broad in what they consider to be "us."

Honest researchers want rigorous challenge of the research and conclusions. And that includes laypeople like me.

And this "psypost" guy's article doesn't even come close to that weak ass tea. I can't believe you'd settle for such dishonesty and lazy, sloppy "research," Metaphor.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Good point. Didn't the anti-vax movement start as more of a left-wing thing?

Bomb#20's post is conflating something though. Anti-nuclear power positions isn't an "LWA" thing. It can be said to find a home among liberals, but nothing about left-wing authoritarians says anything, to my knowledge, about nuclear.

Much like how anti-vax'ers tend to skew to the left, but again, that isn't left-wing authoritarianism. Just left-wingers who are stupid about vaccination.

Not seeing a difference there

You are interchanging left-wingers or liberals with left-wing authoritarianism.

 

[Trausti]

When Orwell wrote 1984 and Animal Farm, it wasn’t right-wing authoritarianism he was critiquing.

 

[Angry Floof]

I wish to thank the OP for reminding people of the obvious - that authoritarians of all stripes share characteristics. I await the next alert that rain is wet.

True, but also, as I mentioned, those characteristics are driving factors in defining one's political and social views. It takes a strong conservative environment to override someone's liberal cognitive strengths, and vice versa.

Also worth noting: people of more open, inclusive, tolerant minds and views do not share the same level of violence, manipulation, or determination in controlling individual group members' thoughts or loyalty.

One thing have noticed about authoritarianism is that the mentality that necessarily gives rise to it doesn't recognize other ways of thinking or perceiving the world. Right wing authoritarians will always, always claim that the other side is just as bad. They have no other framework to apply. And as you can see, they don't give a shit about actual research or honesty in their attempts to back up their "both sides" claims.

 

[untermensche]

Authoritarianism is somebody lying about the election and millions going along with it.

The first step of authoritarianism is to deny reality.

The only answer to authoritarianism is democracy.

Those that bad mouth democracy and try to make it harder to vote are authoritarians.

What the US needs is democracy and more democracy.

Especially in the workplace.

 

[Metaphor]

So much demonstrable bullshit there.

Completely false. The correlation between authoritarianism and conservatism was found through not choosing subjects of any particular religious or ideological leanings. In fact, in Bob Altemeyer's experiments, he instructed participants to remove or cover all jewelry, tattoos or other indication of religion or ideological beliefs. AND his subjects were chosen from students at a liberal arts school in Canada. Yeah, they're just swarming with conservatives and Altemeyer chose to work there for that reason... That's the level of stupid you'd have to swallow to take that statement above seriously.

Of course that's not completely false, or even partly false. Once Altemeyer identified a constellation of traits he called 'right wing authoritarianism', it specifically embedded conservatism in it. Altemeyer himself distinguishes RWA from LWA.

And Altemeyer's work is significant only among recent-ish work. He first published The Authoritarians in 2006. There's been lots more since and a hell of a lot more previously, as in a century of work published and built upon and updated over all that time. Please find a study or publication on this topic that targeted conservatives.

All of them, because RWA is defined as a cluster of three traits (again, Wikipedia). People who did not fit the pattern are not RWAs.

• Authoritarianism: tough attitude towards violations of social rules, norms and laws.
• Conservatism: favoring obedient and respectful support for societal authorities.
• Traditionalism: favoring traditional, religious social norms and values.

And this "psypost" guy's article doesn't even come close to that weak ass tea. I can't believe you'd settle for such dishonesty and lazy, sloppy "research," Metaphor.

The psypost article summarises a peer-reviewed article and quotes an academic. You didn't critique any of the research itself--merely got angry that I'd posted it and finished off with the kind of nasty sarcasm that is par for the course.