This is the html version of the file http://www.psy.kuleuven.ac.be/religion/adobe/LeftWingAuthoritarianism.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:mFhYA6MnvoYJ:www.psy.kuleuven.ac.be/religion/adobe/LeftWingAuthoritarianism.pdf++%22relationship+between+Openness+to+Experience+and+political+ideology+%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted:  relationship  between  openness  to  experience  and  political  ideology 
Page 1
The ideological roots of conventionalism, submission and aggression:
Right-wing and Left-wing authoritarianism in Western and Eastern Europe
Alain Van Hiel, Bart Duriez, and Malgorzata Kossowska
Author Note:
Alain Van Hiel, Department of Developmental and Personality Psychology, Ghent
University (Belgium); Bart Duriez, Department of Psychology, Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven (Belgium); Malgorzata Kossowska, Institute of Psychology, Krakow (Poland).
Correspondence should be sent to Alain Van Hiel, Department of Developmental and Personality
Psychology, Henri Dunantlaan 2, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium. E-mail: alain.vanhiel@rug.ac.be
Abstract
The presence of left-wing authoritarianism (LWA) as well as its relationship with right-wing authoritarianism
(RWA), ideology-free authoritarianism (IFA) and various ideological variables (racism, economic and
cultural conservatism) were tested in a sample of Flemish political activists (N = 69) and two adult samples,
one in Flanders (N = 88) and one in Poland (N = 235). An adapted version of Altemeyer's LWA-scale was
internally consistent and the facets conventionalism, aggression and submission could be distinguished. In
the political activist sample, high levels of left-wing authoritarianism were obtained among communists. The
relationship between left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism as well as the results in the Polish sample are
discussed.
Page 2
2
The ideological roots of conventionalism, submission and aggression:
Right-wing and Left-wing authoritarianism in Western and Eastern Europe
The Authoritarian Personality by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson and Sanford (1950) can be
considered as one of the cornerstones of political psychology and has been cited in more than 2,000
publications (Meloen, 1993). Recent attention for the authoritarianism concept has led to various
publications on its relationship with opinions about contemporary societal problems such as HIV (e.g.
Cunningham, Dollinger, Satz & Rotter, 1991) and environmental problems (Schultz & Stone, 1994),
personality correlates such as rigidity (Schultz, Stone & Christie, 1997), social dominance orientation (e.g.
Duriez & Van Hiel, in press; Heaven & Bucci, 2001; McFarland, 1999; Whitley, 1999) and the NEO_PI_R
Openness to Experience dimension (McCrae, 1996). Research overviews in Advances of Experimental
Social Psychology (Altemeyer, 1998) and Political Psychology (Martin, 2001) also attest the recent
resurgence of interest in the authoritarianism concept.
The work of Adorno et al. (1950) consisted of two parts. The “qualitative” part was concerned with
interviews which covered general areas such as vocation, income and religion, clinical data with inclusion of
family background, and political issues and opinions about minorities and racial differences. Also tech-
niques such as the Thematic Apperception Test and a set of projective questions were administered. The
“quantitative” part was concerned with the “covariation principle” which states that anti-semitism coexists
with other attitudes, such as ethnocentrism, political and economic conservatism, and authoritarianism (see
Brown, 1965). The authors constructed questionnaires to measure each of these attitudes and observed
very high positive correlations among them in samples of university students, war veterans, psychiatric
patients, members of trade unions, prisoners, teachers and nurses, with a total N well beyond 2,000.
However, critics discovered serious methodological flaws. Criticisms on the qualitative part of the study
were numerous and include issues such as the coding of multiple variables from the same content and the
fact that coders knew in advance that the interview they were coding belonged to a high or low scorer on
Page 3
3
Ethnocentrism (Hyman & Sheatsley, 1954). Other authors (e.g. Bass, 1955) pointed at severe methodo-
logical problems with the questionnaire data. In particular, the items of the F-scale which was used to
measure authoritarian personality as well as the scales which were used to measure the other ideological
variables were worded in such a way that agreement with the items led to high scores on each scale (note
however that the political and economic conservatism scale had negative items as well). Thus, the positive
correlations between these scales might have been due to participants simply expressing agreement with
every statement they encounter (i.e., yeah-saying). Continued attempts to construct balanced scales that
contain an equal number of positive and negative statements were not entirely successful. Nevertheless, it
was concluded that, although acquiescence might somewhat elevate the correlations between the various
scales, these scales also share “true” common variance (e.g. Brown, 1965).
In search of left-wing authoritarians
Various authors have criticised The Authoritarian Personality because it was limited to the problem of right-
wing extremism (Eysenck, 1954; Rokeach, 1960). These authors asserted that fascists and communists
have many attitudes in common that oppose the value systems of democrats. The position that fascists as
well as communists share traits similar to these described in The Authoritarian Personality has become
known as extremism theory or authoritarianism of the left theory. Early contributions in this tradition tried to
identify personality dimensions that characterize extremists of whatever political stance. In order to achieve
this aim, Eysenck (1954) extracted two factors from the correlations among 40 attitudinal statements. The
first dimension was interpreted as liberalism versus conservatism. The second dimension was labelled
toughmindedness versus tendermindedness. Eysenck (1954; Eysenck & Coulter, 1972) showed that
moderates generally obtain low toughmindedness scores, whereas extremist groups such as communists
and especially fascists obtain higher scores. However, Eysenck's study has been severely criticized
because the F-scores reported for the moderate group were the lowest obtained so far (Christie, 1956).
Moreover, Rokeach and Hanley (1956) argued that Eysenck's results could be explained on the basis of the
content of the toughmindedness scale, which was composed of anti-religiosity and anti-humanitarianism
Page 4
4
items. Rokeach and Hanley (1956) argued that communists obtain high scores on this scale because they
express agreement with the anti-religiosity items, whereas fascists obtain high scores on this scale because
they agree with the anti-humanitarianism items. Thus, adherents of both extremist groups are likely to
obtain higher toughmindedness scores than moderates who are likely to reject these statements.
In an attempt to overcome the latter problem, Rokeach (1960) developed the dogmatism scale to measure
ideology-free authoritarianism. He obtained somewhat higher though non-significant dogmatism scores in
communists (N = 13). However, in a study of the Italian Parliament, DiRenzo (1967) obtained the highest
dogmatism levels among neofascists (N = 24), whereas communists (N = 25) obtained the lowest scores.
Similar results were obtained by Knutson (1974) who studied the governing bodies of six American political
parties, ranging form the Communist Party (N = 11) to the neo-nazi American Socialist White People's Party
(N = 13). Moreover, Rokeach obtained high positive correlations (.54 < r < .77) between dogmatism and the
F-scale, and other researchers reported positive correlations between dogmatism and Altemeyer's (1981)
Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale (e.g. Van Hiel & Mervielde, in press).
Some authors took the existence of left-wing authoritarianism for granted whereas others concluded that
left-wing authoritarianism is a myth, and a fierce debate developed among scientists on the characteristics
of political extremists (e.g. Christie, 1956; Eysenck, 1954; 1981; Ray, 1983; Rokeach & Hanley, 1956;
Stone, 1980). This debate, however, was one for which hardly any empirical data were available. According
to Stone and Smith (1993, p. 154), many political psychologists "... typically base their case on intuitive
evidence ... concerning apparent similarities between regimes of the far left and far right, rather than on a
systematic review of the empirical data on any personality and ideology." Research explicitly designed to
investigate the relationship between personality and political extremism could also be criticized. Most of
these studies were conducted with social science students, and few studies used samples more or less
representative for the electorate. It thus seems quite premature to generalize these findings to extremists.
Of course, extremist samples are hard to obtain. One reason for this is that, almost by definition,
“extremists” are not that numerous. Moreover, extremists have been reported to be unwilling to participate
Page 5
5
in empirical studies (e.g. Rosen, 1951).
Nevertheless, two recent lines of investigation tried to advance this debate. First, the fall of communist
regime in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s provided extremism theorists with an
excellent chance to prove that they were right. Studies of Hamilton, Sanders & McKearney (1995) and
McFarland, Ageyev and Abalakina-Paap (1992) showed, as expected by extremism theory, that right-wing
authoritarianism was strongly associated with support for communism. However, current thinking on right-
wing authoritarianism has evolved to a “new position” quite similar to the position advocated by extremism
theorists. For example, Altemeyer (1996, p. 218) argues that when he "began talking about “right-wing”
authoritarianism, I was (brazenly) inventing a new sense, a social psychological sense that denotes
submission to the perceived established authorities in one's life." This definition of right-wing
authoritarianism leads to the prediction that adherents of hard-line communist ideology in the former Soviet
Union should evince high authoritarianism levels, whereas communists in Western countries should obtain
low scores. Thus, according to this view, ideal support for extremism theory would be obtained in samples
of extreme left-wing party members who try to “throw over the bourgeoisie regime”.
Altemeyer's (1996) attempt to develop a Left-Wing Authoritarianism scale (LWA) constitutes a second line
of investigation that might advance the ongoing debate. Rather than searching for ideology-free measures
of authoritarianism, Altemeyer (1996) developed a scale that identifies positive attitudes toward the adher-
ence to rules and “party discipline”, submission to left-wing movement leaders, and the ruining of enemies
of the establishment. These attitudes respectively refer to (1) conventionalism, (2) submission and (3)
aggression, which have been identified as the core themes of authoritarianism. However, in various
Canadian samples of students (total N = 1,845) and their parents (N = 642), as well as among candidates of
moderate political parties (N = 67), Altemeyer did not find a single person that could be classified as left-
wing authoritarian (scoring on average at least 6.0 on 9-point scales). Moreover, somewhat surprisingly,
positive correlations (.11 < r < .18) between LWA and RWA were obtained as well.
Page 6
6
The present study
In the present study, an adaption of the LWA scale as well as various scales that measure political ideology
were administered. One of the West European samples was composed of activists of extreme and
moderate political movements. A heterogeneous adult sample was also collected in Western as well as
Eastern Europe.
Method
Samples
Sample 1, the political activist sample (N = 69), consisted of militants of various political movements. Right-
wing extremists were supporters of the "Vlaams Blok" (N = 11), a party that is very similar to other extreme
right-wing European parties such as the Centrum Partij in the Netherlands, Le Pen's Front National in
France, and the Republikaner in Germany (Ignazi, 1992). Left-wing extremists (N = 20) were communists
affiliated to the Stalinist "Partij Van De Arbeid" (PVDA). A sample of anarchists (N = 21) was also collected
because from a historical point of view, anarchists are assumed to support left-wing ideas but reject sub-
mission to any sort of authority. The anarchists were active in the anarchist movement and defined
themselves as such. Members of all other “traditional” parties (the green, christian democrat, socialist and
conservative party) are referred to as “moderates” (N = 17).
Sample 2 and 3 were recruited by undergraduate students asking their neighbours to participate in order to
obtain a heterogeneous sample. Sample 2 collected in Flanders (N = 88) and sample 3 collected in Poland
(N = 232) are referred to as “adult samples”. The adult Flemish sample consisted of 53% males and the
mean age was 40 years (SD = 14.68). Of these participants, 57.6% endorsed a position on the left-side
(one through three) of a six-point left/right self-placement scale, and 42.4 % indicated a position on the right-
side (four through six) of the scale. The Polish adult sample consisted of 73% males and the mean age was
39 years (SD = 15.22). Of these participants, 40.9% endorsed a position on the left-side of a six-point
left/right self-placement scale, and 59.1% indicated a position on the right-side.
Page 7
7
Measures
Left-wing authoritarianism (LWA)
An adaption of Altemeyer's (1996) Left-Wing Authoritarianism (LWA) scale consisted of 12 items divided
over the four-item facets aggression, submission and conventionalism. Each of these scales had an equal
number of positive and negative statements. The items are reported in Table 1. For the construction of this
scale, items from Altemeyer (1996) that clearly referred to one of the three facets of authoritarianism were
selected. Some items were stated in a more direct language. The aggression items made explicitly mention
of the use of violence against established regimes, whereas the submission items expressed positive
attitudes toward submission to leaders of left-wing movements. The conventionalism items indicated
adherence to norms of behavior endorsed by revolutionary authorities (especially statements referring to
hostility toward those presently in power). Because we were able to identify one item only that was
restricted to the idea of conventionalism, items 6, 13 and 14 were newly written. The conventionality items
were not administered in the Polish sample because of their limited validity for the East European situation.
In particular, the statement “members of military regimes” might be understood as referring to communist
leaders such as Jaruzelski, and the South-African Apartheid-regime has been given much less attention in
Poland than in Western Europe. However, the item "Right-wing extremists have to be considered as
dangerous troublemakers" was administered in Poland. Moreover, "Hitler and his gang should be tortured
slowly to death" was also administered as it refers quite straightforwardly to Polish collective memory. The
Polish LWA scale thus consisted of 10 items. In all samples, the LWA items were rated on 5-point Likert
scales (1 = completely opposed, 3 = neutral, 5 = completely in agreement).
Other indicators of political beliefs
Participants also completed eleven items of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA, Altemeyer, 1981;
translated by Meloen, 1991 and Koralewicz, 1987) and the cultural and economic conservatism scales (De
Witte, 1990; both 12 items). The cultural conservatism scale addresses issues such as upbringing, work
ethic, the position of women in society, premarital sexual intercourse, abortion and euthanasia. The
Page 8
8
economic conservatism scale addresses issues such as the desirable impact of trade unions, level of
government interventions in economics and income differences. Cronbach alpha's were .92, .86 and .84 for
RWA, .91, .82 and .82 for cultural conservatism, and .94, .82 and .81 for economic conservatism, for the
Flemish political activist sample, the Flemish adult sample and the Polish adult sample respectively. Finally,
Flemish participants completed a 9 item racism scale (Billiet & De Witte, 1991). According to Billiet and
De Witte (1991), this scale is comprised of two conceptually different components: xenophobia and
racism. An example of a xenopobia item is "In general, immigrants are not to be trusted". An example of
a racism item is "We have to keep our race pure and fight mixture with other races". However, a scree
test (Cattell, 1966) clearly pointed to one component only (cf. Duriez, 2001; Duriez & Hutsebaut, 2000;
Duriez, et al., 2000; in press). Cronbach alpha's were .94 and .92 for the political activist and adult
sample respectively. The items of all these scales were rated on 5-point Likert scales (1 = completely
opposed, 3 = neutral, 5 = completely in agreement).
An ideology-free authoritarianism scale
A 15-item ideology-free authoritarianism (IFA) scale was also administered in the Flemish samples. Twelve
items of the IFA-scale were drawn from the qualitative part of The Authoritarian Personality in which they
were explicitly mentioned as examples of the categories preoccupation with power (3 items), projection of
unconscious impulses (5 items), and destructiveness (4 items). According to Adorno et al. (1950), these
categories make up the core of the authoritarianism concept. Examples of items that measure the
categories power, destructiveness and projection are, respectively: "I really admire Napoleon's great leader-
ship", "I would experience great excitement to see on television how San Francisco would be like after an
earthquake", and "People may suddenly become dangerous." The three remaining items of the IFA-scale
were taken from the hostility scale of the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992). "When people
are especially nice, I wonder what they want" is an example of such an item. The IFA-scale was previously
tested in a Flemish adult sample (N = 381) and the internal consistency proved to be sufficient (Cronbach
alpha = .73). The IFA items were also rated on 5-point Likert scales. Cronbach alpha's were acceptable for
Page 9
9
both the political activist sample (.63) and the adult sample (.67).
Results
Psychometric analyses of LWA
As can be seen in Table 1, reliability analyses of the Flemish LWA revealed sufficient internal consistencies
for the political activist (.86) as well as the adult (.76) sample. Subsequent analyses revealed sufficient
internal consistencies for both the aggression (.88 and .61) and the submission facet (.77 and .64).
However, the conventionality facet only proved to be consistent in the political activist sample (.69), but not
in the adult sample (.46). In general, the internal consistency of the LWA scale and its facets was much
higher in the political activist sample, which corroborates the “attitude-constraint hypothesis” of expert
political judgment (Converse, 1964). The correlations among the LWA-facets were highly positive (rs > .30).
In the Polish sample, reliabilities of the aggression and submission facets were insufficient (Cronbach alpha
= .25 and .33 respectively), but Cronbach alpha was much better for the 10-item LWA scale (.63).
Insert Table 1 about here
Extraction of three factors (accounting for 36.2%, 15.2% and 9.6% of the variance respectively) of the
correlations among the aggression, submission and conventionality items in the Flemish samples (total N =
157) revealed that the items of the aggression and submission scale constituted the first and second factor.
However, only three conventionality items loaded on the third factor and one item (item 5) erroneously
loaded on the second factor. Table 2 reports the factor structures of the correlations among the aggression
and submission items. Note that the conventionalism items were not included in these analyses because
they were not administered in the Polish sample, and hence we could only compare the structure of the
aggression and submission items. In the Flemish samples, the aggression items loaded on the first factor
which accounted for 42.5% of the variance, and the submission items loaded on the second component
which accounted for 21.1% of the variance. In the Polish sample, negative items loaded on the first factor
Page 10
10
which accounted for 24.2% of the variance, whereas positive items loaded on the second factor which
accounted for 16.0% of the variance. Not surprisingly then, factor congruencies between the Flemish and
Polish factor solutions were invariably low (rs < |.35|), indicating that the underlying dimensions of the LWA-
items are entirely different for Western and Eastern Europe.
Insert Table 2 about here
Relationships between LWA and other indicators of ideology
Table 3 reports the correlations among the ideological variables. In the political activist sample, we obtained
negative correlations between LWA on the one hand, and RWA (r = -.41, p < .001) and IFA (r = -.25, p <
.05) on the other hand. These negative correlations were particularly high for the aggression facet (r = -.69,
p < .001, and r = -.36, p < .01 respectively; rs < |.21|, ns, for the other facets). In this sample, economic
conservatism (r = -.61, p < .001), cultural conservatism (r = -.36, p < .01), and racism (r = -.46, p < .001)
also correlated negatively with LWA. One would certainly expect these results to occur when people truly
think in terms of political ideology. However, in the Flemish adult sample, a positive relationship between
LWA on the one hand, and RWA (r = .34, p < .001) and IFA (r = .35, p < .001) on the other hand
corroborated Altemeyer's (1996) findings. These positive relationships were primarily caused by the
submission facet (r = .50 and .45 for RWA and IFA) and to a lesser extent by the conventionality facet (rs =
.26 and .26 for RWA and IFA). Similar positive relationships were obtained between LWA on the one hand,
and cultural conservatism and racism on the other hand. A slightly negative correlations between LWA and
economic conservatism was also found. In the Polish sample, the positive relationship between LWA and
both RWA (r = .45, p < .001) and cultural conservatism (r = .39, p < .001), and the negative relationship
between LWA and economic conservatism (r = -.18, p < .01) corroborated the results in the Flemish adult
sample.
Page 11
11
Insert Table 3 about here
In order to further explore the relationships among the ideological variables, two factors were extracted from
the correlations among the ideological variables in all samples (see Table 4). In both Flemish samples,
RWA, racism, IFA and cultural conservatism loaded on the first component, whereas LWA and economic
conservatism loaded on the second dimension. There were however some inconsistencies between both
samples with respect to the secondary loadings of some variables. Factor-analysis of the Polish sample
revealed that LWA loaded on the factor that consists of RWA and cultural conservatism, whereas economic
conservatism loaded on a second factor. RWA had a secondary loading on this second factor. These
results suggest that LWA primarily relates to economic progressivism in the Flemish samples, whereas
RWA primarily relates to cultural conservatism. Conversely, in the Polish sample, LWA primarily relates to
cultural conservatism, whereas RWA relates to both cultural conservatism and economic progressivism .
Insert Table 4 about here
Mean level differences in LWA between ideological groups
Table 5 reports the mean levels of LWA and its facets for the four ideological groups in the political activist
sample. In general, these results confirm the validity of the LWA scale and its facets. As expected, the
highest LWA levels (M = 3.20) were obtained by the group of left-wing extremists, whereas the right-wing
extremist group exhibited the lowest LWA levels (M = 1.73). Moderates and anarchists scored somewhere
in between (M = 2.21 and 2.69 respectively). Differences between the ideological groups were significant
(F(3, 64) = 11.90, p < .01). With respect to authoritarian aggression, high scores were obtained by left-wing
extremists and anarchists (M respectively 3.96 and 3.87), whereas moderates and right-wing extremists
had much lower scores (M = 1.89 and 1.66 respectively; F(3, 64) = 32.99, p < .001). Quite interestingly, and
as expected, anarchists obtained the lowest submission scores (M = 1.75), whereas left-wing extremists
Page 12
12
obtained the highest submission scores (M = 3.05). Moderates and right-wing extremists scored in between
(M = 2.21 and 1.73 respectively; F(3, 64) = 7.56, p < .001). Right-wing extremists obtained significantly
lower conventionalism scores (M = 1.50) than left-wing extremists, anarchists, and moderates who all
obtained about equally high scores (M = 2.60, 2.45 and 2.38 respectively; F(3, 64) = 4.91, p < .01). For
RWA, IFA, cultural and economic conservatism, and racism, left-wing extremists and anarchist generally
obtained significantly lower scores than moderates and right-wing extremists.
Insert Table 5 about here
In order to conduct mean level analyses in the adult samples, three different categories were created.
Participants who obtained a score of 1 or 2 on the 6-point left/right self-placement scale were considered
left-wing adherents. Participants who obtained a score of 3 or 4 were considered moderates. A score of 5 or
6 resulted in an assignment to the right-wing category. As can be seen in Table 6, much less substantial
differences were obtained between these different groups in the Flemish as well as the Polish adult sample.
In the Flemish adult sample, no significant differences were obtained for LWA and its facets (Fs < 2.87).
Significant higher scores for right-wing adherents than for moderates and left-wing adherents were found for
RWA (M = 3.67, 2.87 and 2.79 respectively; F(2, 81) = 6.09, p < .01), IFA (M = 2.70, 2.47 and 2.53; F(2, 81)
= 3.88, p < .05), economic conservatism (M = 2.63, 2.36 and 2.08; F(2, 81) = 4.03, p < .05), cultural
conservatism (M = 3.17, 2.50 and 2.33; F(2, 81) = 6.83, p < .01) and racism (M = 2.64, 1.96 and 1.74; F(2,
81) = 6.83, p < .01). In the Polish sample, no significant differences were obtained for LWA and its facets
(Fs < 1.54). Higher levels of RWA were found among left-wing adherents (M = 2.98) than among moderates
(M = 2.65) and right-wing adherents (M = 2.83; F(2, 211) = 3.28, p < .05). Left-wing adherents (M = 2.64)
also showed lower levels of economic conservatism than moderates (M = 3.01) and right-wing adherents
(M = 3.00; F(2, 211) = 3.08, p < .05). Finally, right-wing adherents scored higher on cultural conservatism
(M = 3.17) than moderates (M = 2.86) and left-wing adherents (M = 2.86; F(2, 211) = 3.43, p < .05).
Page 13
13
Insert Table 6
Discussion
The present results suggest the presence of authoritarianism among adherents of left-wing extremist
parties. So, it seems that we achieved in finding "the Loch Ness Monster of political psychology"
(Altemeyer, 1996, p. 218). This major finding, as well as the relationship between LWA and RWA is
discussed first, after which attention is paid to the results obtained in the Polish sample.
LWA: The Loch Ness Monster of political psychology
Altemeyer (1996) reported that he could not identify one single left-wing authoritarian in various Canadian
samples of students and their parents, as well as among candidates of moderate political parties. In the
political activist sample, the maximum LWA score on a nine-point scale was 4.92. Only 12 students out of a
total of 546 were found to score above the neutral point of 5.00, with a highest score of no more than 5.65.
In the parents sample, only 20 participants out of a total of 642 scored above the midpoint, with a highest
score of 5.85. Opposed to Altemeyer's (1996) results, the highest scoring individual in our political activist
sample obtained the maximum score (5.00). Six participants obtained a score between 4.00 and 5.00, and
9 participants scored between 3.00 and 4.00. In other words, 23% of the participants of this sample
generally agreed with the LWA items, and hence, can be considered as true left-wing authoritarians. The
aggression facet yielded higher scores than the submission and conventionality facets. Six participants
obtained the maximum score, 20 participants had a score between 4.00 and 5.00, and 7 participants had a
score higher than 3.00 but lower than 4.00. In other words, 48% of our participants strongly agreed with the
use of violence to throw over the Establishment. The submission facet elicited less agreement. Only 2
participants obtained the maximum score and 5 participants obtained a mean level between 4.00 and 5.00.
The conventionality facet elicited least agreement: only 1 participant obtained the maximum score and 2
participants scored between 4.00 and 5.00.
Page 14
14
Why did we find so many left-wing authoritarians in this sample, while Altemeyer (1996) did not find a single
one of them in his studies? The answer is obvious: Altemeyer (1996) did construct a valid scale, but in order
to establish left-wing authoritarianism, he should explicitly have administered this scale to left-wing extrem-
ists. As expected, the results in the Flemish adult sample exactly mirror Altemeyer's (1996) conclusions:
The highest LWA score was 3.42 with only 4 participants (4.5%) scoring above the 3.00 midpoint.
The left-wing extremists in our political activist sample, who generally obtained LWA scores above the 3.00
midpoint, were adherents of the PVDA. This political party has its roots in Stalinism, and might thus be
called classic instead of neo-communist. Some statements on the web site of the PVDA (http://www.-
pvda.be, Dutch language only) illustrate this. Under the heading "The historical experience of communism"
it reads "Mao's revolutionary movement has opened the doors to the socialist movement in the third world."
Chroetsjov is depicted as "The first step of revisionism that undermined the socialist state in the Soviet
Union". Under the heading "Against who does the PVDA fight?", it is argued that "the PVDA fights against
the world of high finance, banks, holdings and multinationals ... which cause exploitation and misery and the
rise of fascism". Moreover, the police is depicted as "a private militia of the capitalists". Under the heading
"What does the PVDA want?", it reads "the PVDA wants the destruction of the capitalist system and the
foundation of the socialist state which bears on the working class." These statements reveal an admiration
of harsh regimes known to have terrorized millions of people. However, although these messages do have
an aggressive undertone, they do not call for the actual use of violence. In other words, the PVDA does not
advocate violence, but it members might nevertheless infer the legitimacy of such actions because the
Establishment is depicted as hostile, aggressive and illegitimate. Not surprisingly, these people obtain high
LWA scores, as well as high scores on both the aggression and the submission facet.
The anarchist movement in Flanders is less well organized. Rather it is constituted by loosely organized
organizations and individuals. This movement does, however, has its own information channels. Since most
participants of the anarchist sample read the anarchist magazine "De Nar", we figured that looking at this
magazine's website might be informative (http://users.online.be/~pr002099/index2.htm, Dutch language
Page 15
15
only). On this website, it is explained that the aim of "De Nar" is to provide information for, and to stimulate
discussions among those who - from an anti-authoritarian viewpoint - attach importance to participatory
democracy, solidarity, and direct action. "De Nar" supports the strive for a world based on mutual aid in
which there is no room for either political or economical repression. On several pages, it is explained that
anarchists loath authority and the capitalist system (and, in fact, the System in general). Hence, not
surprisingly, anarchists showed levels of anti-Establishment aggression similar to left-wing extremists, but
obtained significantly lower scores on the submission facet and, as a consequence, on LWA in general. On
average, anarchist were found to score below the midpoint on LWA, in spite of their high levels of left-wing
authoritarian aggression.
Ideology and authoritarianism
The LWA scale not only proved to be successful in distinguishing those adhering an extremist left-wing
ideology (i.e. anarchists and communists) from those who don't (the aggression facet is most fruitful for this
purpose), but also in distinguishing those adhering an authoritarian left-wing ideology (i.e. communists) from
anarchists who adhere an anti-authoritarian left-wing ideology (the submission facet is most fruitful for this
purpose). These results further substantiate Altemeyer's research efforts. Conversely, the ideology-free
authoritarianism (IFA) scale yielded rather disappointing results despite the exclusive use of items which do
not explicitly refer to any ideology. In the political activist sample, this measure correlated positively with
RWA but negatively with LWA. Moreover, left-wing extremists obtained significantly lower IFA scores than
moderates. These results corroborate the results of previous research using Rokeach's dogmatism scale
(see above). Thus, although the left-wing extremists in our sample can be regarded as left-wing authoritar-
ians, there is a substantial difference between left-wing authoritarianism and authoritarianism as it is
generally understood.
Authoritarians from the left seem prepared to submit themselves to authoritarian leaders, but only if these
leaders adhere a left-wing extremist ideology. This ideology is essentially an economical theory about the
redistribution of wealth, as becomes apparent when taking into account the overall negative correlations
Page 16
16
between LWA and economic conservatism and the inconsistent correlations between LWA and cultural
conservatism. In contrast, right-wing authoritarians are primarily concerned about the conservation of the
culture they live in. This becomes apparent from the overall high correlations between RWA and cultural
conservatism, as well as the cultural specific correlations between RWA and economic conservatism. Right-
wing authoritarians seem prepared to submit themselves to leaders adhering no matter what ideology, as
long as their aim is to protect their culture from the influences of outsiders (i.e. immigrants) as well as
people with deviating opinions and/or life-styles.
Wild-Card Authoritarianism
According to Altemeyer (1996), the presence of “wild-card authoritarians” who score high on both LWA and
RWA might explain the existence of hostility, dogmatism and authoritarianism among left-wing extremists.
Moreover, Altemeyer (1996, p. 224) reported the highest levels of ethnocentrism and anti-gay attitudes
among wild-card authoritarians, whom he attributed severe hostility. However, the results in the Flemish
samples do not corroborate the idea that left-wing authoritarianism can be accounted for by the presence of
hostile wild-card authoritarians. In the adult sample, the positive correlation between LWA and RWA is
primarily caused by the submission facet, not the aggression facet. High scorers on RWA who "happen to
be" at the extreme left-side would therefore be obedient and submissive rather than hostile, violent and
aggressive. Moreover, the negative correlation between LWA and RWA in the political activist sample,
suggests that the occurrence of wild-card authoritarianism is rather limited.
To investigate this in more detail, we distinguished between four groups of participants: (1) below median
score on RWA and LWA, (2) below median score on RWA and above median score on LWA, (3) above
median score on RWA and below median score on LWA, and (4) above median score on RWA and LWA.
The fourth group most closely ressembles the so called wild-card authoritarians. The results did not
corroborate the hypothesis that especially wild-card authoritarians should exhibit higher levels of hostility
and prejudice. In particular, univariate analysis in the adult sample, with racism as the dependent variable,
revealed that both the third group (M = 2.68, N = 25) and the group of wild-card authoritarians (M = 2.65, N
Page 17
17
= 18) obtained significant higher scores than the other two groups (M = 1.51 and 1.52, N = 23 and 21, for
group 1 and 2 respectively; F(3, 83) = 21.64, p < .001). In the political activist sample, the third group (M =
2.95, N = 27) had significant higher scores than the other three groups (M = 1.18, 1.28 and 1.79, N = 5, 29
and 7, for group 1, 2 and 4 respectively; F(3, 65) = 25.62, p < .001). Thus, high levels of LWA seem to
inhibit the effects of RWA on racism in the political activist sample.
Left-wing authoritarianism in Poland
Before 1989, when communism was the official doctrine in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, right-wing
authoritarianism was strongly associated with support for communism (Hamilton, Sanders & McKearney,
1995; McFarland, Ageyev & Abalakina-Paap, 1992). Due to the changing political climate however, this
correlation has dissipated over time and nowadays right-wing authoritarians may adhere to other conven-
tional alternatives such as nationalism and religionism (McFarland, Ageyev & Djintcharadze, 1996).
Because of the omnipresence of the catholic church and the resurgence of nationalistic feelings (Inglehart,
1997), such “alternative” expressions of traditionalism seem to be widely available in Polish society. In line
with these ideas, the present results revealed a correlation between RWA and cultural conservatism as high
as .66 (see also Van Hiel, Duriez & Kossowska, 2001; Van Hiel, Kossowska & Mervielde, 2000).
The correlation between economic and cultural conservatism actually showed a remainder of the former
communist regime. That is, previous research in Western Europe and the present results in the Flemish
samples revealed either positive correlations or zero correlations between these scales, but the present
study revealed a highly negative correlation (r = -.42, p < .001) for the Polish sample. High levels of cultural
conservatism are thus accompanied by high levels of economic progressivism. Analogously, RWA is
negatively related to economic conservatism (r = -.41, p < .001). Thus, in Poland, both left-wing and right-
wing authoritarians are likely to support trade unions and to prefer state intervention in economics rather
than capitalism. Of course, support for state controlled economics may stem from different reasons for left-
wing and right-wing adherents. Left-wing authoritarians might prefer communist economical principles
because it is part of their ideological system, whereas right-wing authoritarians might have an orientation
Page 18
18
toward the past and might experience communist economics as a part of their culture, or, alternatively,
might have started to re-appreciate communist economical principles after the first abrupt confrontation with
capitalism, which has led to high unemployment rates and increased poverty.
Finally, it should be noted that our conceptualization of left-wing authoritarianism might be invalid in Eastern
Europe. The fact that LWA was only marginally related to economic conservatism, but instead, bore a
higher correlation with cultural progressivism, suggests that one cannot consider the present LWA scale as
very succesful in detecting people preferring communist economical principles and extreme left-wing
ideology. Moreover, compared to the Flemish samples, factor analysis of the LWA items yielded another
structure in the Polish sample than in the Flemish samples, hereby indicating that left-wing authoritarianism
might have a different meaning in Poland. Thus, further elaboration of the concept of left-wing
authoritarianism in former communist countries might be an interesting avenue for future research.
Moreover, it might also be fruitful to try and include Polish political activists in future studies.
References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian
Personality. New York: Harper.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The Authoritarian Specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology (Vol., 30, pp. 47-92). San Diego: Academic Press.
Bass, B. M. (1955). Authoritarianism or acquiescence? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51,
616-623.
Billiet, J. & De Witte, H. (1991). Naar racisme neigende houdingen in Vlaanderen: Typologie en
maatschappelijke achtergronden [Attitudes that tend towards racism in Flanders: Typology and
societal backgrounds]. Leuven: Sociologisch Onderzoeksinstituut (SOI).
Brown, R. (1965). Social Psychology. New York: Free Press.
Buss, A. H. & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63, 452-459.
Page 19
19
Cattell, R.B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-
276.
Christie, R. (1956). Eysenck's treatment of the personality of communists. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 439-
451.
Cohn, T. S. (1953). The relation of the F scale to a response set to answer positively. (Abstract). American
Psychologist, 8, 335.
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and
Discontent, (pp. 206-261). New York: Free Press.
Cunningham, J., Dollinger, S. J., Satz, M., & Rotter, N. (1991), Personality correlates of prejudice against
AIDS victims. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 29, 165-167.
De Witte, H. (1990). Conformisme, radicalisme en machteloosheid: Een onderzoek naar sociaal-culturele
en sociaal-economische opvattingen van arbeiders in Vlaanderen. [Conformism, radicalism and
powerlessness: Examining Flemish workers' socio-cultural and socio-economic opinions]. Leuven,
Belgium: HIVA-KU Leuven.
DiRenzo, G. J. (1967). Professional politicians and personality structures. American Journal of Sociology,
73, 217-225.
Duriez, B. (2001). People are strange when you're a stranger. A research note on the relation between
religiosity and racism. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Duriez, B., Fontaine, J. R. J., & Hutsebaut, D. (2000). A further elaboration of the Post-Critical Belief
scale: Evidence for the existence of four different approaches to religion in Flanders-Belgium.
Psychologica Belgica, 40, 153-181.
Duriez, B. & Hutsebaut, D. (2000). The relation between religion and racism: The role of post-critical belief.
Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 3, 85-102.
Duriez, B., Luyten, P., Snauwaert, B., & Hutsebaut, D. (in press). The importance of religiosity and values in
predicting political attitudes: Evidence for the continuing importance of religiosity in Flanders (Belgium).
Mental Health, Religion and Culture.
Duriez, B. & Van Hiel, A. (in press). The march of modern fascism: A comparison of social dominance
orientation and authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences.
Eysenck, H. J. (1954). The psychology of politics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Page 20
20
Eysenck, H. J. (1981). Left-wing authoritarianism: Myth or reality? Political Psychology, 3, 234-239.
Eysenck, H.J. & Coulter, T. (1972). The personality and attitudes of working class British communists and
fascists. Journal of Social Psychology, 87, 59-73.
Hamilton, V. L., Sanders, J., & McKearney, S. J. (1995). Orientations toward authority in an authoritarian
state: Moscow in 1990. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 356-365.
Heaven, P. C. L., & Bucci, S. (2001). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and
personality: An analysis using the IPIP measure. European Journal of Personality Psychology, 15, 49-
56.
Hyman, H. H. & Sheatsley, P. B. (1954). “The authoritarian personality”: A methodological critique. In R.
Christie & M. Jahoda (Eds.), Studies in the scope and method of “The authoritarian personality” (pp. 51-
122). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Ignazi, P. (1992). The silent counter-revolution: Hypotheses on the emergence of extreme right-wing parties
in Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 22, 3-34.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43
societies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Knutson, J. N. (1974). Psychological variables in political recruitment. Berkeley, CA: Wright Institute.
Koralewicz, K. (1987). Autorytaryzm, lek, konformizm [Authoritarinaism, anxiety and conformity]. Zaklad
Narodowy im. Wroclaw, Poland: Ossolinskich.
McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323-337.
McFarland, S. G. (1999). Personality, values, and latent prejudice: A test of a causal model. Paper
presented at the annual convention of the International Society for Political Psychology, Amsterdam, the
Netherlands, July 1999.
McFarland, S. G., Ageyev, V. S., & Abalakina-Paap, M. A. (1992). Authoritarianism in the former Soviet
Union. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 1004-1010.
McFarland, S. G., Ageyev, V. S, & Djintcharadze, N. (1996). Russian authoritarianism two years after
communism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 210-217.
Martin, J. L. (2001). The authoritarian personality, 50 years later: What lessons are there for political
psychology? Political Psychology, 22, 1-26.
Meloen, J. D. (1991). Inventarisatie Nederlandse F-schalen 1959-1990. In P. Scheepers, & R. Eisinga
Page 21
21
(Eds.), Intolerant en Onderdanig (pp. 186-222). Nijmegen, Netherlands: ITS.
Meloen, J. (1993). The F-scale as a predictor of Fascism: An overview of 40 years of Authoritarianism
research. In W.F. Stone, G. Lederer, & R. Christie (Eds.), Strength and weakness: The Authoritarian
Personality Today (pp. 47-69). New York: Springer Verlag.
Ray, J. J. (1983). Half of all authoritarians are left-wing: A reply to Eysenck and Stone. Political Psychology,
4, 139-144.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Book Inc., Publishers.
Rokeach, M. & Hanley, C. (1956). Eysenck's tendermindedness dimension: A critique. Psychological
Bulletin, 53, 169-176.
Rosen, E. (1951). Differences between volunteers and non-volunteers for psychological studies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 35, 185-193.
Schultz, P. W. & Stone, W. F. (1994). Authoritarianism and attitudes toward the environment. Environmental
Behavior, 26, 25-37.
Schultz, P. W., Stone, W. F., & Christie, R. (1997). Authoritarianism and mental rigidity: The Einstellung
problem revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 3-9.
Stone, W. F. (1980). The myth of left-wing authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 2, 3-19.
Stone, W. F. & Smith, L. D. (1993). Authoritarianism: Left and right. In W.F. Stone, G. Lederer, & R. Christie
(Eds.), Strenghth and weakness: The Authoritarian Personality Today (pp. 144-156). New York:
Springer Verlag.
Van Hiel, A., Duriez, B., & Kossowska, M. (2001). The changing face of right-wing extremism:
Authoritarianism and social dominance orientation in Western and Eastern Europe. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Van Hiel, A., Kossowska, M., & Mervielde, I. (2000). The relationship between Openness to Experience and
political ideology. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 741-751.
Van Hiel, A. & Mervielde, I. (in press). Explaining conservative beliefs and political preferences: A
comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Whitley, B. E. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126-134.
Page 22
Table 1. Item-subscale correlations and Cronbach alpha's of facets and total LWA scale.
Political
Sample
-----------
Adult
Sample
-----------
Polish
Sample
-----------
Item 01 I agree with the communist basic idea of overthrowing the Establishment - with or without violence - and giving its wealth to the poor...............
.72
.25
.10
Item 02 A revolutionary movement is justified in using violence because the Establishment will never give up its power peacefully .................................
.84
.47
.14
Item 09 It would be wrong to solve our problems by acts of violence against the conservative Establishment (-)................................................................
.66
.44
.09
Item 10 Even though the conservatieve Establishment who controls our country is repressive and unfair, society should be reformed through
nonviolent means only (-) ..............................................................................................................................................................................................
.75
.32
.18
Cronbach alpha Aggression subscale
.88
.58
.25
Item 03 The conservative Establishment has so much power and is so unfair that we have to submit to the leaders and rules of a revolutionary
movement in order to destroy them ..............................................................................................................................................................................
.45
.25
.25
Item 04 A revolutionary movement is justified in demanding obedience and conformity of its members ..............................................................................
.66
.35
.09
Item 11 Even a revolutionary left-wing movement that fights against the totally unjust right-wing system does not have the right to tell its members
how to think and act (-)...................................................................................................................................................................................................
.63
.36
.18
Item 12 A left-wing party is not justified in demanding too much conformity and obedience, even after a revolution (-) ......................................................
.57
.42
.18
Cronbach alpha Submission subscale
.77
.56
.33
Item 05 The members of the conservative Establishment deserve to be dealt with harshly, without mercy, when they are finally overthrown..................
.52
.26
----
Item 06 Right-wing extremists have to be considered as dangerous troublemakers..............................................................................................................
.45
.29
----
Item 13 War criminals and members of military regimes deserve a fair trial, despite all the pain and the suffering they have caused (-) ..........................
.28
.30
----
Item 14 A good thing in the South-African peace process is that people who supported the former Apartheid regime can be granted amnesty (-) .........
.69
.21
----
Cronbach alpha Conventionality subscale
.69
.46
----
Cronbach alpha Total LWA scale
.86
.69
.63
Page 23
Table 2. Factor-analysis of the LWA-items in the Flemish and Polish samples
Flemish samples
Polish samples
Aggression
Submission
Negative Items
Positive Items
Item 02
.88
.13
-.01
.73
Item 01
.83
-.01
.05
.48
Item 09
.78
.14
.75
.18
Item 10
.76
.11
.47
-.33
Item 03
.50
.43
-.31
.58
Item 12
.01
.84
.55
-.13
Item 11
.02
.82
.66
-.05
Item 04
.28
.72
-.08
.57
Note: loadings greater than .40 in bold face.
Page 24
Table 3. Correlations among the ideological variables and LWA and its facets
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. LWA
----
.83
***
.82
***
.81
***
.74
***
.77
***
.80
***
.85
***
.76
***
NA
-.41
***
.34
***
.45
***
-.25
*
.35
***
NA
-.36
**
.12
.39
***
-.61
***
-.13
-.18
**
-.46
***
.32
**
NA
2. Aggression
----
.31
*
.44
***
.40
***
.55
***
.46
***
NA
-.69
***
.04
.33
***
-.36
**
.11
NA
-.63
***
-.14
.28
***
-.71
***
-.17
-.05
-.60
***
.04
NA
3. Submission
----
.58
***
.36
***
NA
.06
.50
***
.27
***
-.06
.45
***
NA
.09
.37
***
.25
***
-.23
.00
-.12
-.05
.44
***
NA
4. Conventionalism
----
-.21
.26
**
NA
-.12
. 26
**
NA
-.19
.06
NA
-.45
***
-.13
NA
-.38
**
.27
**
NA
5. RWA
----
.57
***
.57
***
NA
.90
***
.69
***
.66
***
.71
***
.15
-.41
***
.77
***
.74
***
NA
6. IFA
----
.57
***
.52
***
NA
.42
***
.03
NA
.63
***
.54
***
NA
7. Cultural conservatism
----
.61
***
.22
*
-.43
***
.74
***
.57
***
NA
8. Economic conservatism
----
.74
***
.18
NA
9. Racism
----
Note:
*
p<.05;
**
p<.01;
***
p<.001. First, second and third line figures refer to the Flemish political activist and adult samples and the Polish sample respectively.
Page 25
Table 4. Factor-analysis of the ideological variables in the three samples
Political activist sample
Adult Sample
Polish sample
I
II
I
II
I
II
RWA
.86
.34
.89
-.01
.71
.48
IFA
.80
.04
.77
-.22
NA
NA
Racism
.79
.45
.85
-.01
NA
NA
Cultural conservatism
.87
.26
.81
.24
.62
.55
Economic conservatism
.53
.73
.25
.81
-.05
-.92
LWA
-.10
-.94
.44
-.65
.88
-.06
Eigenvalue
3.96
0.90
3.01
1.18
2.21
0.84
Note: loadings greater than .40 in bold face.
Page 26
Table 5. Mean level differences with respect to the ideological variables in the Flemish political sample
Extreme left-wing
(N = 20)
Moderate
(N = 16)
Extreme right-wing
(N = 11)
Anarchist
(N = 21)
F(3,64) =
Aggression
3.96
a
(1.06)
1.89
b
(0.71)
1.66
b
(0.56)
3.87
a
(0.88)
32.99
***
Submission
3.05
a
(1.29)
2.36
b
(0.63)
2.02
b
(0.83)
1.75
b
(0.61)
7.56
***
Conventionalism
2.60
a
(1.24)
2.38
a
(0.61)
1.50
b
(0.56)
2.45
a
(0.38)
4.91
**
LWA
3.20
a
(1.12)
2.21
c
(0.46)
1.73
c
(0.49)
2.69
b
(0.43)
11.90
***
RWA
1.88
b
(0.64)
3.49
a
(0.83)
3.70
a
(0.36)
1.54
b
(0.35)
57.37
***
IFA
2.01
b
(0.50)
2.78
a
(0.58)
2.84
a
(0.48)
2.48
a
(0.41)
9.87
***
Economic conservatism
1.38
c
(0.51)
2.62
b
(0.74)
3.45
a
(0.70)
1.57
c
(0.30)
44.07
***
Cultural conservatism
1.96
b
(0.72)
3.08
a
(0.76)
3.34
a
(0.62)
1.39
c
(0.37)
35.02
***
Racism
1.35
a
(0.62)
2.26
b
(0.86)
3.83
c
(0.69)
1.38
a
(0.32)
45.41
***
Note:
*
p<.05;
**
p<.01;
***
p<.001. Standard deviations are written between parentheses. Mean levels with different subscripts are sgnificantly different at the .05 level.
Page 27
Table 6. Mean differences with respect to the ideological variables in the Flemish & the Polish adult sample
Left-wing
Moderate
Right-wing
F =
Aggression
2.42
a
(
0.82)
2.62
a
(
0.82)
2.06
a
(
0.62)
2.48
a
(
0.60)
2.13
a
(
0.73)
2.51
a
(
0.68)
1.78
0.49
Submission
2.31
a
(
0.68)
2.74
a
(
0.82)
2.13
a
(
0.62)
2.69
a
(
0.63)
2.48
a
(
0.75)
2.87
a
(
0.68)
1.69
1.54
Conventionalism
2.61
a
(
0.80)
NA
---------
2.23
a
(
0.48)
NA ---------
2.48
a
(
0.81)
NA
---------
2.87
------
LWA
2.45
a
(
0.60)
2.72
a
(
0.66)
2.14
b
(
0.44)
2.59
a
(
0.51)
2.37
b
(
0.65)
2.73
a
(
0.62)
2.80
1.48
RWA
2.79
b
(
0.95)
2.98
a
(
0.58)
2.87
b
(
0.78)
2.65
b
(
0.66)
3.67
a
(
0.47)
2.83
b
(
0.69)
6.09
**
3.28
*
IFA
2.53
b
(
0.53)
NA
---------
2.47
b
(
0.56)
NA
---------
2.70
a
(
0.67)
NA
---------
3.88
*
------
Economic conservatism
2.08
b
(
0.59)
2.64
b
(
0.60)
2.36
a
(
0.51)
3.01
a
(
0.66)
2.63
a
(
0.83)
3.00
a
(
0.76)
4.03
*
3.08
*
Cultural conservatism
2.33
b
(0.68)
2.86
ab
(0.86)
2.50
b
(
0.68)
2.86
b
(
0.80)
3.17
a
(
0.66)
3.17
a
(
0.64)
6.83
**
3.43
*
Racism
1.74
b
(
0.62)
NA
---------
1.96
b
(
0.73)
NA
---------
2.94
a
(
0.92)
NA
---------
10.36
***
------
Note:
*
p<.05;
**
p<.01;
***
p<.001. The number of participants in the left-wing, moderate, and right-wing group were 16, 55, and 13
for the adult sample and 25, 132, and 57 for the Polish sample. First and second line figures refer to the Flemish adult sample and
the Polish sample respectively. Standard deviations are written between parentheses.