Authoritarianism operates independent of status-threat condition

Evidence

RWA was strongly correlated with political affiliation, r(376) = .641, p < .001, and moderately correlated with White ethnic identification, r (376) = .403, p < .001, and was unaffected by condition, t(374) = 0.16, p < .872. RWA significantly predicted greater group status threat, support for all three Republican candidates, anti-immigrant attitudes, opposition to political correctness, and less support for the Democratic candidates. However, RWA did not interact significantly with condition to predict any of the dependent variables. — Brenda Major and Alison Blodorn and Gregory Major Blascovich, The threat of increasing diversity, 73

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies right-wing authoritarianism as a measured personality/dispositional variable distinct from situational manipulation.
• XREF: connects to: Status-threat alleviation should cancel the shift-conservatism effect, isolating threat as the mediator. — Maureen A. Craig and Jennifer A. Richeson, On the Precipice of a…, 46; Authoritarianism shifts with situational threat and status cues; Societal-level authoritarianism rises and falls with social threat levels — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 732 (+7 more)

Related

• Threat shifts supposedly stable ideological dispositions like authoritarianism (similarity 0.82)
• Authoritarian ideology and national threat mutually reinforce each other (similarity 0.82)
• Experimentally induced social threat raises authoritarianism via changed threat worldview (similarity 0.82)
• Societal threat causally drives authoritarianism rather than merely co-occurring with it. (similarity 0.82)
• Societal-level authoritarianism rises and falls with social threat levels (similarity 0.81)
• Anticipatory status threat directly shifts reported political identity toward conservatism. (similarity 0.81)
• External threats raise authoritarianism most among moderates, not committed authoritarians (similarity 0.81)
• Perceived threat directly raises authoritarianism but not social dominance. (similarity 0.81)
• Status-threat alleviation should cancel the shift-conservatism effect, isolating threat as the mediator. (similarity 0.80)
• Authoritarianism correlates with all six distinct components of conservatism (similarity 0.80)
• Different types of threat may drive authoritarianism differently (similarity 0.80)
• Right-wing authoritarianism tracks perceived threat and danger in the social world (similarity 0.80)
• Authoritarian traits meaningfully shape behavior despite situational influences (similarity 0.79)
• Situational threat raises authoritarianism while inequality raises social dominance (similarity 0.79)
• Authoritarianism and conservatism arise from needs to manage uncertainty and threat (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Authoritarianism shifts with situational threat and status cues #contradicts (0.90)
• Experimentally induced social threat raises authoritarianism via changed threat worldview #contradicts (0.90) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2480
• Societal-level authoritarianism rises and falls with social threat levels #contradicts (0.85) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 732
• Threat shifts supposedly stable ideological dispositions like authoritarianism #contradicts (0.85) — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 25
• Authoritarian traits meaningfully shape behavior despite situational influences #contradicts (0.80) — Bob Altemeyer, The Authoritarian Specter, 591
• External threats raise authoritarianism most among moderates, not committed authoritarians #contradicts (0.80) — Bob Altemeyer, The Authoritarian Specter, 1183
• Perceived threat directly raises authoritarianism but not social dominance. #qualifies (0.75)
• Situational threat raises authoritarianism while inequality raises social dominance #qualifies (0.75) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2479
• Different types of threat may drive authoritarianism differently #qualifies (0.72) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 833