Threat shifts supposedly stable ideological dispositions like authoritarianism

Evidence

Recent research, for example, has shown that threats can lead to increases in group identification (Moskalenko, McCauley, & Rozin, 2006), authoritarianism (Duckitt & Fisher, 2003), social dominance orientation (Morrison & Ybarra, 2006), and power distance (Olivas-Lujan, Harzing, & McCoy, 2004). Thus, threats to an ingroup can influence attitudes, beliefs, and ideologies that are typically thought to remain invariant over time and across situations. — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 25

Categorization

• QUESTION: If threats shift authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, then security framing itself becomes a power instrument for ideological manipulation worth chasing.
• XREF: connects to: Anticipatory status threat directly shifts reported political identity toward conservatism. — Maureen A. Craig and Jennifer A. Richeson, On the Precipice of a…, 69; Authoritarianism operates independent of status-threat condition — Brenda Major and Alison Blodorn and Gregory Major Blascovich, The threat of increasing diversity: Why…, 73

Related

• Threats can produce targeted or generalized conservative shifts depending on type (similarity 0.84)
• Authoritarian ideology and national threat mutually reinforce each other (similarity 0.84)
• Experimentally induced social threat raises authoritarianism via changed threat worldview (similarity 0.83)
• Authoritarianism operates independent of status-threat condition (similarity 0.82)
• Societal threat causally drives authoritarianism rather than merely co-occurring with it. (similarity 0.82)
• Anticipatory status threat directly shifts reported political identity toward conservatism. (similarity 0.82)
• Ideologies and situational threats mutually reinforce each other in producing perceived competition (similarity 0.82)
• Threat dynamics among status-equal groups remain unexamined. (similarity 0.81)
• Societal-level authoritarianism rises and falls with social threat levels (similarity 0.81)
• Perceived threat directly raises authoritarianism but not social dominance. (similarity 0.81)
• Most people become temporarily more authoritarian when threat rises, then revert as threat fades (similarity 0.81)
• Groups are perceived as more threatening than individuals, so dissolving category boundaries lowers threat. (similarity 0.81)
• Authoritarian aggression ratchets upward after threat and does not recede. (similarity 0.81)
• External threats raise authoritarianism most among moderates, not committed authoritarians (similarity 0.80)
• Different types of threat may drive authoritarianism differently (similarity 0.80)