Authoritarianism in Psychology: Threat, Submission, Aggression, and Social Dominance
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 24, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Authoritarianism in contemporary psychology refers to a family of individual-difference constructs centered on social order, conformity, submission to established authority, and punitive responses toward people or groups perceived as threatening shared norms. The most developed research tradition is right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), but contemporary work also asks whether broader, partly ideology-general forms of authoritarianism can be measured. A major 2023 review describes authoritarianism as a set of psychological processes shaped by both relatively stable individual differences and changing social conditions, especially perceived threats to safety and social cohesion. Osborne et al. (2023)
This scientific meaning is narrower than everyday political labeling. In research, authoritarianism is normally measured with questionnaires that assess attitudes and motivational orientations; it is not a clinical diagnosis, a psychiatric disorder, or a categorical personality “type.” A score summarizes responses to a particular instrument in a particular context. It does not establish that a person will obey every authority, support every punitive policy, behave aggressively, or prefer hierarchy in every domain.
The construct also needs to be separated from neighboring ideas in the psychology of power. Authoritarianism is not the same as possessing social power, holding authority, occupying high rank in a social hierarchy, or using interpersonal dominance. A person may endorse authoritarian attitudes while having little power over anyone else, and a powerful person may score low on authoritarianism.
The most important contemporary distinction is between authoritarianism and social dominance orientation (SDO). RWA is organized primarily around collective security, conformity, and responses to norm threat; SDO concerns preference for group-based hierarchy and inequality. The two constructs can correlate and can predict some of the same outcomes, but they have different motivational centers and should not be treated as synonyms. Perry, Sibley, and Duckitt (2013) provide meta-analytic evidence for this distinction.
What Does Authoritarianism Mean in Psychology?
The modern psychological study of authoritarianism asks why some people place greater value on social cohesion, obedience, conventional norms, and forceful enforcement of those norms than others do. The word authoritarianism therefore refers to an orientation toward how social order should be maintained, not simply to a preference for “strong leaders.” Different theories emphasize different mechanisms: learned attitudes, motivational goals, social conformity, perceived threat, personality-linked dispositions, group identification, and the interaction between predispositions and context.
RWA became the dominant empirical framework after Robert Altemeyer reformulated earlier authoritarian-personality research around three interrelated attitudinal clusters: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. Later psychometric work questioned whether these clusters should be collapsed into one score. Funke (2005) showed that a three-dimensional structure can fit the construct better than treating it as purely unidimensional, while Duckitt et al. (2010) developed a tripartite Authoritarianism–Conservatism–Traditionalism model in which the three components are related but distinct ideological attitudes.
That development matters because the components can react differently to circumstances and predict different outcomes. Saying that a person is “high in authoritarianism” can hide whether a result is mainly about submission, punitive aggression, conventionalism, or a combination. Contemporary research increasingly treats this internal structure as a substantive question rather than a technical footnote.
The Three Classic Components of Right-Wing Authoritarianism
Authoritarian Submission
Authoritarian submission is a generalized willingness to defer to authorities that are perceived as established, legitimate, or entitled to direct the group. It is not identical to a single act of compliance. A person may follow a rule because of expertise, incentives, habit, fear of sanctions, or situational pressure without holding a broad authoritarian orientation. Conversely, someone can endorse deferential attitudes while disobeying a particular authority they regard as illegitimate.
This distinction is why authoritarian submission belongs conceptually beside, but does not replace, the psychology of authority and legitimacy. Authority research asks when people accept a right to direct behavior; authoritarianism research asks, among other things, why individuals differ in their willingness to favor strong deference and social control.
Authoritarian Aggression
Authoritarian aggression refers to approval of harsh, punitive, or coercive responses toward people seen as threatening the established social order, violating valued norms, or challenging legitimate authority. The term can be misleading if read as ordinary trait aggression. It is specifically aggression connected to norm enforcement, sanctioned punishment, or defense of the in-group’s perceived order.
Psychometric work supports treating this component separately. In the Aggression–Submission–Conventionalism scale, Dunwoody and Funke (2016) found that the three facets contributed differently to outcomes such as ethnocentrism, political intolerance, and antidemocratic attitudes, with the aggression component often providing particularly strong unique prediction. This does not mean that a high score implies violent behavior; it means that approval of punitive enforcement is an important part of the measured orientation.
Conventionalism
Conventionalism is strong attachment to norms, values, traditions, and moral expectations perceived as socially established. The psychological issue is not ordinary preference for routine or cultural continuity. Conventionalism becomes part of the authoritarian configuration when established norms are treated as binding standards whose violation justifies condemnation, exclusion, or stronger enforcement.
The content of “conventional” norms changes across societies and historical periods. A scale built around the conventions of one country or era can therefore partly measure local ideological content rather than a timeless psychological essence. This is one reason researchers continue to revise authoritarianism measures and to debate how much of RWA is general authoritarian motivation and how much reflects historically specific political and cultural content.
Is Authoritarianism a Personality Trait, an Attitude, or a State?
There is no single answer accepted across every research program. Earlier traditions often treated authoritarianism as a deep personality disposition. Contemporary models more commonly describe RWA as a social or ideological attitude orientation that is influenced by personality, socialization, worldviews, and context. Osborne et al. (2023) explicitly frame RWA and SDO as social ideological attitudes rather than simple personality traits.
At the same time, authoritarianism shows meaningful stability. People tend to retain relative differences from one another over time, and longitudinal research finds substantial rank-order stability in RWA. Stability, however, does not imply immutability. Situational and societal changes can alter average levels or particular facets, especially when people perceive threats to collective safety or order.
A useful contemporary formulation is therefore dispositional sensitivity plus contextual activation. Individuals differ in enduring tendencies, but the social environment can amplify, suppress, or selectively activate components of authoritarianism. A literature review focused on contextual antecedents concluded that research supports both socialization influences and situational effects, with threat receiving especially consistent attention. Schnelle et al. (2021)
Threat and the Authoritarian Response
Threat is one of the strongest recurring themes in contemporary theories of authoritarianism. In the dual-process motivational model, perceptions of the social world as dangerous and unpredictable support a motivational emphasis on collective security, order, and cohesion. That pathway is proposed to foster RWA. A different worldview — seeing social life as a competitive struggle over resources and rank — is more closely connected to SDO.
The distinction has meta-analytic support. Across 46 studies with 12,939 participants, Perry et al. (2013) found a moderate partial association between dangerous-world beliefs and RWA (r = .37) and a stronger association between competitive-world beliefs and SDO (r = .53). The meta-analysis was primarily correlational, so the coefficients establish patterned association rather than a simple one-way causal story.
Longitudinal evidence reinforces that caution. In a three-wave nationally representative sample of 800 people, Onraet, Dhont, and Van Hiel (2014) found bidirectional relationships: perceived external threat predicted later RWA, while higher RWA also predicted later perceptions of external threat. Authoritarianism can therefore shape how danger is interpreted at the same time that perceived danger can strengthen authoritarian attitudes.
Experimental work provides more direct evidence that some components can move in response to threat. Winter et al. (2023) randomly assigned roughly 300 U.S. online participants to COVID-19 threat, domestic-terrorism threat, or neutral conditions. Submission increased after both threat primes relative to the control condition; aggression did not show the same change, and conventionalism changed only after the terrorism prime. The study supports facet-specific responsiveness while also showing why “threat makes people authoritarian” is too crude a summary.
Threat effects are neither universal nor deterministic. People vary in prior attitudes, perceived vulnerability, trust, group identification, political context, and beliefs about which authorities are legitimate. Even cognitive motives interact with context in non-obvious ways. In a longitudinal Dutch sample, De Keersmaecker et al. (2017) found that need for closure related to RWA differently depending on perceived external threat. The psychological pathway is conditional, not a fixed reflex.
Social Conformity, Autonomy, and Order
A major alternative formulation defines authoritarianism around the tension between social conformity and personal autonomy. Feldman (2003) argued that valuing conformity over autonomy creates an authoritarian predisposition, while perceived threat to social cohesion helps translate that predisposition into intolerance and punitive attitudes. This approach shifts attention away from a single ideological inventory and toward the motivational problem of preserving social order.
The conformity–autonomy perspective helps explain why authoritarianism is conceptually close to obedience but still distinct. Obedience is a response to a command or authority in a particular situation; authoritarianism is a broader orientation toward social control, legitimate leadership, norm enforcement, and cohesion. The English Hub treats Obedience to Authority as its own canonical phenomenon for exactly this reason.
Personality, Socialization, and Development
Authoritarian attitudes are associated with broader personality differences, but the associations do not reduce authoritarianism to a Big Five profile. A meta-analysis of 71 studies involving 22,068 participants found that RWA was most consistently associated with lower Openness to Experience and, more modestly, higher Conscientiousness; SDO had a different profile, especially lower Agreeableness. Sibley and Duckitt (2008) interpreted these patterns within a dual-process model in which personality influences ideological attitudes partly through beliefs about the social world.
These are population-level correlations, not diagnostic signatures. Many people low in openness do not endorse authoritarian attitudes, many people high in openness can support coercive policies in particular circumstances, and personality measures alone cannot identify an “authoritarian person.” The same caution applies to cognitive rigidity, need for closure, uncertainty sensitivity, and other frequently discussed correlates.
Socialization also matters. Family environments, schools, peer groups, institutions, cultural norms, and historical conditions can shape beliefs about obedience, conformity, danger, and group boundaries. The contextual review by Schnelle et al. (2021) organizes these influences across micro-, meso-, and macro-levels and argues that authoritarianism is best understood through interaction between longer-term socialization and shorter-term situational pressures.
Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Are Related but Different
RWA and SDO are often placed together because both predict intergroup attitudes and support for some forms of coercive social organization. Yet the constructs answer different psychological questions. RWA centers on order, cohesion, obedience, norm enforcement, and response to perceived social threat. SDO centers on whether social groups should be equal or hierarchically unequal.
Contemporary SDO research defines the construct as a generalized preference for group-based hierarchy and inequality. A 2025 review of three decades of evidence describes SDO as a motivational basis of hierarchy-regulating cognition and behavior across social contexts. Ho, Kteily, Sheehy-Skeffington, and Thomsen (2025) summarize evidence that SDO is sensitive to both individual differences and social position.
The difference is easier to see through motives. Someone high in RWA may favor strict coordination and punishment because they perceive disorder or norm violation as dangerous. Someone high in SDO may favor unequal group relations because they see hierarchy as desirable or legitimate. A person can endorse both orientations, one without the other, or neither.
This also separates SDO from interpersonal status strategies. The psychology of dominance versus prestige concerns routes by which individuals attain status in groups. SDO concerns preferred inequality between social groups. RWA concerns authoritarian social order. Using “dominance,” “status,” and “authoritarianism” interchangeably collapses three different levels of analysis.
Authoritarianism, Prejudice, and Intergroup Attitudes
One of the most replicated findings in this literature is that RWA and SDO predict prejudice, although they often do so through different motivational routes and toward different targets. RWA tends to be especially relevant when an out-group is perceived as threatening social norms, security, or cohesion; SDO is especially relevant when an out-group is positioned within a hierarchy of status and resources.
Longitudinal evidence suggests that these orientations can precede changes in generalized prejudice rather than merely reflecting it. Using ten annual waves from a large nationwide New Zealand panel, Osborne et al. (2021) reported high stability in RWA, SDO, and generalized prejudice and evidence that RWA and SDO predicted subsequent within-person increases in generalized prejudice. Because the data are observational, the findings strengthen temporal ordering without proving that every association is unconfounded.
Prejudice is therefore an important consequence domain, but it should not be built into a circular definition of authoritarianism. Good measurement separates the predictor from the outcome as much as possible. This concern motivated newer instruments that try to reduce item overlap between authoritarian attitudes and the criteria those attitudes are supposed to predict. Dunwoody and Funke (2016)
Authoritarian Aggression and Actual Aggressive Behavior
Authoritarian aggression is not equivalent to a stable tendency to physically attack others. It is an attitudinal orientation toward punishment and sanctioned coercion against perceived norm violators or threats. Studies sometimes measure support for punitive policies, intergroup hostility, or approval of violence; other studies measure behavior. These outcomes should not be merged.
A meta-analysis integrating 177 samples and 47,933 participants found a positive association of right-wing ideological attitudes with aggressive tendencies, r = .31, with stronger links for attitudes toward violence than for behavioral indicators. Van Hiel et al. (2020) also found that context-specific aggression showed stronger associations than chronic aggressive behavior. The result supports a meaningful population-level relationship while leaving large individual variation.
This is a good example of why psychological language needs precision. “Authoritarian aggression” is a named component of a research construct. “Aggressive person” is a much broader description. “Violent behavior” is an observed outcome. One cannot be substituted for another.
Authoritarianism and Obedience to Authority
Authoritarianism can predict greater acceptance of obedience and strong authority, but obedience is not its behavioral definition. Situational studies of obedience show that ordinary people can comply under institutional pressure for reasons that include role expectations, gradual escalation, responsibility shifting, identification with a cause, legitimacy judgments, and the structure of the setting. None of those mechanisms requires a fixed authoritarian personality.
Likewise, an RWA score does not tell researchers whether a person will obey a specific instruction. The relevant authority may be rejected as illegitimate, the command may conflict with a stronger norm, or competing group identities may change the response. For the experimental and theoretical literature on compliance with authority, see Obedience to Authority: Milgram, Agency, Responsibility, and Social Influence.
Authoritarianism Is Not the Same as the Historical Authoritarian Personality
The Authoritarian Personality, published in 1950 by Theodor Adorno and colleagues, belongs to an earlier research tradition with a much broader psychoanalytic model and the F-scale. Later authoritarianism research retained the problem of explaining submission, aggression, prejudice, and antidemocratic attitudes but substantially changed the theory, measurement, and evidence base.
Contemporary reviews emphasize that the historical model and modern RWA should not be treated as one unchanged construct. The Freudian explanations of the original program, the psychometric properties of the F-scale, and the ideological content of its measures became major points of criticism. Nilsson (2024) reviews this history while examining current measurement debates, and Osborne et al. (2023) summarize how later RWA theory narrowed and reworked the construct.
For this reason, the English Hub reserves Authoritarian Personality for the Fromm–Adorno historical tradition and Authoritarianism in Psychology for the broader contemporary field. The distinction prevents a seventy-year intellectual history from being compressed into a single label.
For the dedicated historical account of Fromm, Adorno, the F scale, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and the classical methodological controversies, see Authoritarian Personality: Fromm, Adorno, Submission, Aggression, and Authority.
Is Authoritarianism Exclusively Right-Wing?
This is one of the most active conceptual disputes in the field. Most of the classic empirical literature was built around RWA, and many widely used measures include conventionally right-leaning ideological content. Researchers have therefore asked whether similar psychological patterns — coercive intolerance, punitive treatment of opponents, rigid enforcement of ideological norms, and submission to favored authorities — can also appear in left-wing forms.
A large six-sample program with 7,258 participants developed a measure of left-wing authoritarianism (LWA) and reported that LWA, RWA, and SDO share a constellation of personality, cognitive, belief, and motivational features while also differing in ideological targets and content. Costello et al. (2022)
The interpretation remains contested. Nilsson (2024) argues that some LWA research conflates authoritarianism with a broader set of antidemocratic tendencies and raises conceptual and measurement problems. A 2025 Annual Review by Kteily and Brandt (2025) reaches a more general conclusion about ideological psychology: there are meaningful similarities across ideological groups, but also reliable differences in dispositions, values, and the groups or causes toward which psychological tendencies are directed.
The scientifically defensible position is therefore not that authoritarianism is proven to be perfectly symmetric across left and right, and not that it can only exist on one side by definition. Contemporary research supports studying authoritarian tendencies across ideological contexts while treating measurement equivalence, content, and political environment as empirical questions.
How Authoritarianism Is Measured
Most authoritarianism research uses self-report scales. Participants rate agreement with statements about obedience, punishment, norms, social order, dissent, and related themes. Scores are then analyzed as continuous variables. Researchers may use a global RWA score or separate facets.
The traditional RWA scale intentionally mixed submission, aggression, and conventionalism in a largely unidimensional instrument. This helped capture their covariance but made it difficult to determine which component drove a particular association. Funke (2005) argued for greater dimensional precision, and Duckitt et al. (2010) demonstrated that related facets could be measured separately and could differentially predict social attitudes and behavior.
Later scales have also tried to reduce double-barreled items and ideological specificity. The ASC scale of Dunwoody and Funke (2016) was designed to measure aggression, submission, and conventionalism with more politically and religiously neutral wording. No instrument is context-free: translation, culture, period, and which authorities or conventions are salient can all affect meaning.
How to Interpret an Authoritarianism Score
An authoritarianism score has meaning only relative to the scale, scoring method, sample, and research purpose. There is no universal clinical cutoff separating “authoritarians” from “non-authoritarians.” Researchers usually compare people along a continuum or examine correlations with other variables.
A high score cannot diagnose a person, establish motives with certainty, or predict a specific act. It can indicate stronger endorsement of the attitudes represented by that measure. Interpretation becomes stronger when findings replicate across instruments, cultures, methods, and longitudinal or experimental designs.
The same rule applies to online quizzes. A quiz can reproduce items from a research tradition, but without validated scoring, representative norms, transparent psychometrics, and appropriate interpretation it should not be treated as a psychological diagnosis.
Authoritarianism, Power, Status, Dominance, and Authority
Authoritarianism is easy to confuse with power because authoritarian systems visibly involve command and control. At the individual level, however, the constructs are distinct. Social power concerns the capacity to affect another person’s outcomes or behavior. Authority concerns a socially recognized or accepted right to direct. Social hierarchy concerns ranked positions. Authoritarianism concerns attitudes and motivations about social order, obedience, norm enforcement, and coercive control.
Personal dominance is also different. Dominance can be a strategy for attaining status through intimidation or force, whereas prestige is a route based more on valued competence and freely conferred respect. The dominance–prestige distinction concerns status acquisition inside groups; it does not measure RWA or SDO.
These boundaries matter because otherwise the word authoritarian becomes an all-purpose label for strictness, hierarchy, leadership, coercion, prejudice, or political disagreement. Psychological explanation improves when each construct retains its own mechanism and measurement.
What Contemporary Evidence Supports Most Strongly
The most defensible conclusions are convergent rather than absolute. First, authoritarianism is meaningfully multidimensional: submission, aggression, and conventionalism can be separated even though they are related. Second, perceived societal threat is reliably associated with RWA and can alter at least some authoritarian facets. Third, RWA and SDO are distinct orientations with different worldview correlates, even though both can contribute to prejudice and coercive intergroup attitudes. Fourth, authoritarianism combines relative stability with contextual responsiveness.
The evidence is strongest when it comes from multiple methods. Meta-analyses establish recurring associations, longitudinal studies clarify temporal ordering, and experiments test whether manipulated threat can shift specific facets. No single method settles every causal question. Correlational findings about personality or threat should not be rewritten as deterministic causal laws, and one experiment should not be treated as proof that every crisis produces the same psychological response.
The field is least settled where the measurement itself is under dispute: the ideological neutrality of authoritarianism scales, the status of left-wing authoritarianism, the degree to which RWA should be one factor or several, and how well findings generalize outside the Western populations that dominate much of the literature.
Limits of the Evidence
Authoritarianism research has a long history of measurement controversy. Some scales contain policy or cultural content that may shift meaning across countries and decades. Self-report data can be affected by social desirability, acquiescence, political knowledge, and the salience of current events. When the same content appears in both predictor and outcome measures, correlations can be inflated by conceptual overlap.
Generalizability is another limitation. Although the literature includes cross-national work, many foundational studies were conducted in North America, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. “Authority,” “tradition,” “threat,” and “right-wing” do not map identically across political systems or cultures. Researchers increasingly need measurement-invariance tests and context-sensitive designs.
Causal interpretation also remains difficult. Threat may increase authoritarian attitudes, but people higher in authoritarianism may also perceive more threat; longitudinal evidence supports both directions. Social environments shape attitudes, while attitudes shape attention to the environment. The resulting feedback loops are psychologically more plausible than a one-factor explanation.
Why RWA and SDO Can Predict Similar Outcomes Through Different Routes
RWA and SDO sometimes converge on the same social or political outcome, but convergence does not mean they represent the same psychology. The dual-process model proposes two partially independent routes. One begins with sensitivity to danger, disorder, and threats to social cohesion and favors stronger coordination, conformity, and control. The other begins with a competitive view of group relations and favors hierarchy, inequality, and group-based dominance. Perry et al. (2013) found the predicted asymmetry between dangerous-world beliefs and RWA versus competitive-world beliefs and SDO.
This distinction helps explain why the same person can be high on both orientations for different reasons. A punitive policy, for example, could be supported because it is seen as protecting collective security, because it is seen as preserving a status hierarchy, or because both motives are present. Statistical overlap between RWA and SDO therefore does not justify collapsing them into one score.
The distinction also matters when the target of an attitude changes. Threat-based authoritarianism should be especially responsive to groups framed as violating norms or destabilizing social order. SDO should be especially responsive to relationships that implicate group rank and inequality. Contemporary reviews use these different motivational pathways to explain why the constructs can show both shared and unique associations with prejudice. Osborne et al. (2023)
For the same reason, neither construct is equivalent to hierarchy itself. A social hierarchy is a structural arrangement of rank; SDO is an individual preference concerning group inequality; authoritarianism is an orientation toward order, authority, and norm enforcement. Structural conditions and psychological orientations can influence one another without being the same level of analysis.
Authoritarianism Across Cultures, Institutions, and Historical Moments
Authoritarianism measures travel imperfectly across cultures because the content of authority and convention is socially situated. A statement that represents deference to religious tradition in one society may represent ordinary mainstream conformity in another. A government, court, school, military, family, workplace, or religious institution can also evoke different expectations about legitimate obedience. The psychological construct therefore has to be interpreted together with the authority structure in which it is measured.
Contextual reviews describe authoritarianism as influenced by multiple levels of environment: family socialization, educational settings, peers, institutional experience, cultural norms, and large-scale social events. Schnelle et al. (2021) emphasize that short-term threat responses and long-term socialization are complementary rather than competing explanations. A crisis can activate attitudes that were shaped over years, while repeated institutional experiences can gradually reshape what counts as normal authority or acceptable coercion.
Historical change creates another measurement problem. Conventionalism necessarily refers to conventions that can change. A measure written decades ago may contain moral or political content that has shifted in social meaning. That does not make the underlying research unusable, but it means comparisons across generations require care. Researchers need to distinguish stability in a psychological orientation from stability in the specific beliefs used to measure it.
Cross-cultural generalization also depends on whether scales measure the same latent construct in different languages and populations. Translation alone is not enough. The meaning of submission, tradition, social threat, and ideological labels can vary, and measurement invariance must be tested rather than assumed. This is one reason broad claims about an entire nation or culture being “authoritarian” exceed what individual-difference scales can establish.
Stability, Change, and Psychological Feedback Loops
Authoritarianism research increasingly replaces the old choice between “fixed trait” and “temporary reaction” with models that allow both stability and change. Stable individual differences help explain why people exposed to the same event can respond differently. Contextual activation helps explain why the same individual can endorse different levels of submission or norm enforcement at different times.
Large longitudinal datasets show substantial stability in RWA while also detecting within-person change. Osborne et al. (2021) found high year-to-year rank-order stability across ten annual waves, yet the same longitudinal framework also showed that ideological attitudes and prejudice can change within people. Stability is therefore a property of degree, not evidence of psychological immobility.
Threat research adds a feedback-loop model. People who perceive greater external danger can become more supportive of authoritarian order, while people higher in RWA can later perceive more external threat. Once those processes interact, social information can be filtered through existing beliefs and existing beliefs can be reinforced by the information selected as threatening. The longitudinal findings summarized by Osborne et al. (2023) and observed directly by Onraet and colleagues make a one-directional fear model inadequate.
This also explains why the identity of an authority matters. Submission is not abstract obedience to every person with power. People judge whether an authority represents the valued group, protects the social order they recognize, and possesses legitimate standing. The broader psychology of authority therefore interacts with authoritarian orientation rather than being replaced by it.
Authoritarianism, Ideological Rigidity, and Extremity
Authoritarianism should also be distinguished from ideological extremity, dogmatism, and motivated reasoning. A person can hold an extreme position without strongly endorsing submission to authority, and someone can reason defensively about a favored belief without supporting punitive norm enforcement. These constructs can correlate because they share cognitive or motivational features, but they are not interchangeable.
Recent comparative reviews of ideology argue against reducing left–right differences to one universal psychological profile. Kteily and Brandt (2025) find both cross-ideological similarities and meaningful asymmetries depending on the psychological domain, values, and social targets being studied. For authoritarianism, that means researchers must separate an abstract pattern of coercive intolerance from the concrete ideological content through which it is expressed.
This distinction is especially important for public discourse. Calling every rigid, intolerant, or extreme opinion “authoritarian” erases the specific empirical content of authoritarianism scales. The scientific construct earns explanatory value only when submission, aggression, conventionalism, threat sensitivity, and related mechanisms are measured rather than inferred from dislike of a political position.
What Authoritarianism Research Can and Cannot Explain
Authoritarianism research can help explain systematic differences in preferences for order, punishment, conformity, hierarchy-related attitudes, and responses to perceived threat. It can identify statistical tendencies across people and contexts and test whether particular motivational pathways precede later attitudes or behavior.
It cannot determine the moral worth of an individual, diagnose a disorder, infer hidden motives from one political opinion, or predict behavior with certainty. It also cannot replace institutional analysis. Whether coercive power is available, whether authorities are legally constrained, how media environments frame threat, and how organizations distribute incentives are structural questions that individual-difference psychology alone cannot answer.
The strongest use of the construct is therefore explanatory and comparative: measure a clearly defined authoritarian dimension, distinguish it from adjacent constructs, identify the relevant context, and test what it predicts. The weakest use is rhetorical: apply “authoritarian” as a synonym for disliked leadership, strictness, conservatism, radicalism, or interpersonal control without measurement.
Common Misconceptions
“Authoritarianism is just conservatism.”
RWA has historically correlated with political conservatism in many Western samples, but the constructs are not identical. Authoritarianism is a specific psychological orientation involving submission, punitive norm enforcement, and conventionalism; conservatism is a broader ideological category whose content varies across place and time. Contemporary reviews explicitly warn against treating the two as interchangeable. Kteily and Brandt (2025)
“Anyone who obeys authority is authoritarian.”
Obedience can arise from situational legitimacy, expertise, organizational roles, incentives, identification, fear, habit, or perceived responsibility. Authoritarian submission is a generalized attitude, not a label for every instance of compliance.
“Authoritarianism and social dominance are the same thing.”
They overlap in some outcomes but differ in motivational structure. RWA is more closely tied to dangerous-world beliefs and collective security; SDO is more closely tied to competitive-world beliefs and preferences for group hierarchy. Perry et al. (2013)
“Threat automatically turns people authoritarian.”
Threat effects depend on the kind of threat, the person, the context, and which facet is measured. Experimental evidence shows that submission can move without parallel changes in aggression, and longitudinal evidence shows reciprocal effects between perceived threat and RWA. Winter et al. (2023)
“Authoritarianism is a psychiatric diagnosis.”
It is a research construct in social and political psychology. Authoritarianism scales measure attitudes and orientations; they are not diagnostic instruments and do not establish a mental disorder.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is authoritarianism in psychology?
In contemporary psychology, authoritarianism is a family of constructs describing stronger preference for social order, conformity, submission to established authority, and punitive enforcement against perceived norm violators or threats. The best-developed tradition is right-wing authoritarianism, commonly organized around submission, aggression, and conventionalism.
What are the three components of right-wing authoritarianism?
The classic three are authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. Modern psychometric research often measures them separately because they can have different predictors and consequences.
Does fear or threat cause authoritarianism?
Perceived societal threat is one important contributor, especially to the submission and collective-security side of authoritarianism, but the relationship is not a simple one-way cause. Longitudinal studies find reciprocal effects, and experiments show that different facets can respond differently to different threats.
Is authoritarianism the same as obedience?
No. Obedience is behavior in response to authority in a specific situation. Authoritarianism is a broader attitudinal and motivational orientation. A person can obey without being generally authoritarian, and an authoritarian orientation does not guarantee obedience to every authority.
Is authoritarianism the same as social dominance orientation?
No. RWA emphasizes security, conformity, obedience, and norm enforcement. SDO emphasizes group hierarchy and inequality. They often correlate and can both predict prejudice, but contemporary models treat them as distinct.
Can authoritarianism be left-wing?
Researchers have developed left-wing authoritarianism measures and have reported authoritarian-like tendencies across ideological contexts. The degree of symmetry between left- and right-wing forms remains debated because measures, norms, and political content differ. The current evidence supports studying the question rather than assuming either perfect symmetry or impossibility.
Is authoritarianism fixed for life?
No. Individual differences can be relatively stable, but socialization and context matter. Threat, changing social conditions, and life experience can alter authoritarian attitudes, and some facets appear more context-sensitive than others.
Can a questionnaire tell whether someone is authoritarian?
A validated questionnaire can estimate where a person falls on the attitudes measured by that scale. It cannot diagnose a clinical condition, reveal motives with certainty, or predict a specific action. Interpretation requires norms, psychometric evidence, and context.
Related Articles
References
Costello, T. H., Bowes, S. M., Stevens, S. T., Waldman, I. D., Tasimi, A., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2022). Clarifying the structure and nature of left-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(1), 135–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000341
De Keersmaecker, J., Roets, A., Dhont, K., Van Assche, J., Onraet, E., & Van Hiel, A. (2017). Need for closure and perceived threat as bases of right-wing authoritarianism: A longitudinal moderation approach. Social Cognition, 35(4), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2017.35.4.433
Duckitt, J., Bizumic, B., Krauss, S. W., & Heled, E. (2010). A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The Authoritarianism–Conservatism–Traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31(5), 685–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00781.x
Dunwoody, P. T., & Funke, F. (2016). The Aggression–Submission–Conventionalism Scale: Testing a new three-factor measure of authoritarianism. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4(2), 571–600. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v4i2.168
Feldman, S. (2003). Enforcing social conformity: A theory of authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 24(1), 41–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00316
Funke, F. (2005). The dimensionality of right-wing authoritarianism: Lessons from the dilemma between theory and measurement. Political Psychology, 26(2), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00415.x
Ho, A. K., Kteily, N. S., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., & Thomsen, L. (2025). Social dominance orientation: The motivational basis of intergroup inequality. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 125–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2025.04.003
Kteily, N. S., & Brandt, M. J. (2025). Ideology: Psychological similarities and differences across the ideological spectrum reexamined. Annual Review of Psychology, 76, 501–529. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020124-115253
Nilsson, A. (2024). Antidemocratic tendencies on the left, the right, and beyond: A critical review of the theory and measurement of left-wing authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 45(4), 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12951
Onraet, E., Dhont, K., & Van Hiel, A. (2014). The relationships between internal and external threats and right-wing attitudes: A three-wave longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(6), 712–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214524256
Osborne, D., Satherley, N., Little, T. D., & Sibley, C. G. (2021). Authoritarianism and social dominance predict annual increases in generalized prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(7), 1136–1145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620969608
Osborne, D., Costello, T. H., Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2023). The psychological causes and societal consequences of authoritarianism. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2, 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00161-4
Perry, R., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013). Dangerous and competitive worldviews: A meta-analysis of their associations with social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.10.004
Schnelle, C., Baier, D., Hadjar, A., & Boehnke, K. (2021). Authoritarianism beyond disposition: A literature review of research on contextual antecedents. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 676093. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.676093
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 248–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308319226
Van Hiel, A., Onraet, E., Bostyn, D. H., Stadeus, J., Haesevoets, T., Van Assche, J., & Roets, A. (2020). A meta-analytic integration of research on the relationship between right-wing ideological attitudes and aggressive tendencies. European Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 183–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2020.1778324
Winter, T., Riordan, B. C., Scarf, D., & Jose, P. E. (2023). Experimentally induced changes in authoritarian submission as a response to threat. Scientific Reports, 13, 18699. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-44713-3