ORCID

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0206-1141

Date of Award

Summer 2024

Language

English

Embargo Period

8-13-2024

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

College/School/Department

Department of Psychology

Program

Social/Personality Psychology

First Advisor

Mark Muraven

Committee Members

Mark Muraven, Anna Reiman, Cynthia Najdowski

Keywords

cognitive rigidity, left-wing authoritarianism, right-wing authoritarianism, threat, political ideology

Subject Categories

Personality and Social Contexts | Psychology | Social Psychology

Abstract

The Dual Diathesis-Threat Model of Authoritarianism proposes parallel motivational pathways by which similar personality features could predispose liberals and conservatives to different forms of authoritarianism. Specifically, the model posits that cognitive rigidity serves as a shared dispositional ‘diathesis’ of right- and left-wing authoritarianism ‘activated’ by distinct threats. For cognitively rigid conservatives, threats of change (i.e., threats to cohesion/conventions, cultural shifts) were expected to enhance the embrace of RWA; while for cognitively rigid liberals, threats to change (i.e., oppression, inequities, barriers to social progress) were predicted to promote LWA. Two studies examined this premise. In Study One, American citizens (N=256) of different political backgrounds reported qualitatively distinct threats and differently ranked a series of threats. Thematic content analysis revealed that for liberals (n=124), concerns about climate change, MAGA, inequality, poverty, and prejudice were preeminent, whereas for conservatives (n=70), issues like immigration, crime, war, terrorism, and perceived cultural decline were front of mind. Conservatives and liberals consistently, but not exclusively, framed their responses in terms of threats of and to change. Moderates (n=62) were particularly concerned about social and political division; overall, however, moderates’ responses and threat rankings paralleled conservatives’. Respondents were uniformly threatened by economic issues and their political opponents, the latter of whom were the top-ranked threats across ideological groups (for liberals, MAGA; for conservatives and moderates, the Woke Mob). Study Two tested the DDT model in a combined sample (N=465) of American undergraduates (n=206) and laypeople (n=259) using an experimental manipulation of threat of and to change. Hypotheses were partially supported, but there was little support for the DDT framework as a whole. Cognitive rigidity and threats of and to change predicted greater endorsement of authoritarian responses. However, these effects were not particular to conservatives or liberals. Moreover, a two-way interaction between cognitive rigidity and political ideology suggested that high cognitive rigidity enhanced authoritarianism among liberals, but not conservatives. Implications for the theoretical landscape are discussed, and directions proposed for future research.

License

This work is licensed under the University at Albany Standard Author Agreement.

Download

Share

COinS