The Authoritarian Personality
Then and Now
The motivation for sharing this article today is that March 15, 2025, marks the 75th anniversary of the publication of the first edition of The Authoritarian Personality (1950) by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford—a landmark work that sought to uncover the psychological foundations of authoritarianism, a topic that remains profoundly relevant in our modern world.
The Authoritarian Personality refers to a set of personality traits and social attitudes characterized by rigid adherence to convention, uncritical submission to authority, and hostility toward those who defy societal norms. First conceptualized in the aftermath of World War II, this personality profile was proposed to explain how ordinary people could embrace fascist and anti-democratic ideologies. Individuals with a high “authoritarian” score tend to be highly conformist, deferential to established authority, and punitive toward out-groups who are seen as deviating from traditional values. In essence, they crave order, certainty, and security, often seeing the world in black-and-white terms. This concept has been highly significant in psychology because it attempts to link personality with susceptibility to extremist or authoritarian movements.
Understanding the authoritarian personality is not just of historical interest—it remains strikingly relevant today. In modern society, rising populist and extremist movements around the world have prompted renewed interest in the psychological factors that underlie authoritarianism. With right-wing extremist parties and strongman leaders gaining support in many countries, psychologists note that authoritarianism offers a valuable lens for explaining these trends. Those with authoritarian tendencies may feel drawn to political figures who promise a return to “law and order,” strong leadership, and a clear social hierarchy. Indeed, contemporary studies find that higher authoritarian attitudes correlate with voting for authoritarian-leaning candidates and support for hardline policies, contributing to today’s political polarization. By examining the authoritarian personality, we gain insight into how fear, socialization, and personality can make some individuals more receptive to authoritarian leaders and ideologies – a topic as urgent now as it was in the post-war era.
Historical Foundations: Adorno’s 1950 Study and the F-Scale
The concept of the authoritarian personality has its roots in the mid-20th century, when researchers sought to understand the psychological factors behind the rise of fascism. In 1950, Theodor Adorno, along with Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford, published The Authoritarian Personality, a landmark study that was part of the Berkeley Studies in Prejudice. This ambitious project was motivated by the horrors of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, as the researchers – many associated with the Frankfurt School – wished to investigate how certain personality traits could make individuals susceptible to anti-Semitic and fascist propaganda. Adorno’s team theorized that there existed a “potentially fascistic” personality type, one marked by deep-seated insecurities and prejudices, which could be cultivated by certain childhood experiences and then exploited by authoritarian movements.
At the heart of Adorno et al.’s study was the development of the F-scale (F for Fascism), a questionnaire designed to measure authoritarian tendencies. The F-scale presented respondents with statements tapping into a range of attitudes toward authority, convention, aggression, superstition, and sexuality. Scoring high on the F-scale indicated an “anti-democratic” personality profile – in other words, a mindset prone to authoritarian beliefs. Notably, Adorno’s F-scale delineated nine key traits or dimensions of the authoritarian personality:
Conventionalism: Rigid adherence to traditional middle-class values and conventions.
Authoritarian Submission: Uncritical, submissive attitude toward idealized authorities of the in-group (e.g. trusting and deferring to established leaders).
Authoritarian Aggression: A tendency to be on the lookout for deviance, and to condemn or punish people who violate conventional values.
Anti-Intraception: Opposition to subjective or imaginative thinking; a dislike of introspection and tender-mindedness.
Superstition and Stereotypy: A belief in mystical determinants of fate and a propensity to think in rigid, simplistic categories.
Power and Toughness: Preoccupation with dominance–submission relationships; identification with power figures; exaggerated assertions of strength and toughness.
Destructiveness and Cynicism: Generalized hostility, distrust, and cynical views of human nature.
Projectivity: The tendency to project one’s own unconscious impulses onto others and to perceive the world as a dangerous, threatening place.
Sex (Puritanical Attitudes): An exaggerated concern with sexual “goings-on” and the sexual behavior of others.
Using the F-scale and related attitude scales, Adorno’s team surveyed hundreds of American participants. They found that individuals who scored high on authoritarianism also tended to exhibit prejudice against minority groups (ethnocentrism), hostility to out-groups, and a punitive attitude toward “deviants.” These high scorers often idealized their parental figures and authority in general, and displayed a strong need for order. To explain these patterns, Adorno drew on Freudian psychoanalytic theory: he hypothesized that overly harsh, punitive parenting produced children who repressed their hostility and over-identified with authority figures. In this view, an authoritarian personality begins in early childhood: a child with domineering, status-focused parents learns to obey authority unquestioningly and to displace any anger onto safer targets (minority groups or the weak) rather than onto authority. Thus, the authoritarian character was seen as a product of a punitive upbringing – a person who outwardly conforms and submits, but harbors unconscious aggressions that can be unleashed against perceived “inferiors” or scapegoats.
Despite its insights and influence, Adorno’s work drew substantial criticism. Over the decades, researchers identified a number of methodological problems and biases in The Authoritarian Personality. For one, the original samples were not very diverse (largely white, middle-class Americans), raising concerns about sample bias and generalizability. The F-scale questionnaire itself was also criticized for a flawed design: all its items were phrased in a pro-authoritarian direction, meaning that agreeing with every statement yielded a high score. This made the test vulnerable to an acquiescence response bias (the tendency to agree with items regardless of content) – indeed, one study found that simply reversing the wording of F-scale items drastically reduced peoples’ scores, indicating that response style was at play. Additionally, scholars argued that Adorno’s approach was colored by a political bias: it seemingly pathologized conservative and right-wing attitudes by equating them with a psychological disorder. Conservative critics like historian Christopher Lasch charged that the authors were effectively defining “mental health” as adherence to left-liberal values, using the authoritarian personality as an “ideological weapon” against their political opponents.
Another major critique was that Adorno and colleagues failed to demonstrate a clear link between authoritarian attitudes and actual authoritarian behavior. In other words, did scoring high on the F-scale really predict that a person would act in authoritarian ways (such as discriminating against others or obeying orders blindly)? Early critics (e.g., Hyman & Sheatsley, 1954) argued that the study did not convincingly prove that personality causes such behaviors, and later analyses found the picture to be complex. Some rigid or dogmatic individuals may function well in society, and situational factors also play a strong role in obedience and prejudice. By the 1960s, the original F-scale was falling out of favor, viewed as unreliable and overly rooted in Freudian theory.
Despite these issues, The Authoritarian Personality had a profound impact. It launched decades of research in psychology, sociology, and political science on how personality and ideology intertwine. Many of Adorno’s findings – for example, the correlation between authoritarian attitudes and prejudice – were replicated and confirmed in later studies. The work also sparked debate that refined the concept of authoritarianism, leading future researchers to address its flaws. Adorno’s basic insight, that a certain mindset of obedience, conformity, and aggression could predispose individuals to anti-democratic movements, proved enduring. As one scholar noted, this study “does not leave many people indifferent,” inspiring strong reactions but undeniably shaping the agenda of social psychology. To this day, The Authoritarian Personality is widely cited and remains a touchstone in discussions of the psychology of fascism and intolerance. It set the stage for modern theories that would update the authoritarian personality concept using new methods and perspectives.
Modern Perspectives: RWA and SDO in Contemporary Research
In the decades after Adorno’s pioneering work, psychologists sought to update and improve the measurement of authoritarian tendencies. Two influential constructs emerged that refined the idea of the authoritarian personality: Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). These modern perspectives maintain links to Adorno’s original theory but offer distinct twists, focusing on specific clusters of attitudes and motivations rather than a Freudian personality syndrome.
Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) was developed by Canadian psychologist Bob Altemeyer in the 1980s as a streamlined, empirically robust successor to the F-scale. Altemeyer felt that Adorno’s broad personality concept had merit but needed to be distilled into more concrete, measurable attitudes. RWA is defined as a pattern of covarying attitudes, including: (1) Authoritarian submission – a high degree of obedience and submission to authorities perceived as legitimate; (2) Authoritarian aggression – hostility toward individuals whom those authorities target as wrongdoers or outsiders; and (3) Conventionalism – a strong adherence to the social conventions endorsed by society and its established leaders. In short, an “RWA personality” is someone who follows the rules and leaders of their in-group, favors punitive action against those who defy authority, and upholds traditional norms.
Altemeyer’s RWA scale, first introduced in 1981, consisted of attitude statements (e.g. “Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn,” or “The established authorities know best what is good for society”). Unlike the F-scale, the RWA questionnaire included balanced wording to reduce bias and was grounded in contemporary context rather than Freudian conjecture. Research using the RWA scale showed that people high in RWA indeed tend to be more prejudiced against minorities, more punitive toward criminals, more nationalistic, and more supportive of censorship and police power, among other traits. These individuals aren’t necessarily physically aggressive themselves; rather, they endorse authorities using aggression to maintain order. Altemeyer noted that such people could be seen as “authoritarian followers”, distinct from authoritarian leaders. They essentially prefer to follow strong leaders and believe in enforcing societal rules, but they are not the ones who originate those rules. RWA represented a shift from Adorno’s focus on deep personality dynamics to an emphasis on social attitudes that can be measured and tracked over time. By the 1990s, Altemeyer’s work (e.g. his book Enemies of Freedom and later The Authoritarian Specter) had revitalized the study of authoritarianism in psychology with far more rigorous methods.
Around the same time, another line of research tackled a different aspect of authoritarian tendencies: the preference for group inequality and dominance. This led to the concept of Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), introduced by Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto in the 1990s. SDO is defined as an individual’s general desire for hierarchically structured relations among social groups, with one’s own group dominant over others. In other words, someone high in SDO believes society should be stratified – there should be clear “winners” and “losers,” and they are comfortable with group-based inequality (believing, for example, that certain groups of people deserve higher status or more resources than others). Sidanius and Pratto argued that this dominance orientation is a distinct component of authoritarian or anti-egalitarian thinking that was not fully captured by measures like RWA. They developed the SDO scale to measure agreement with statements like “Inferior groups should stay in their place” versus “We should strive to make incomes more equal.” High SDO scores predict greater racial, ethnic, and gender prejudice, support for policies that favor one’s in-group (e.g. strict immigration laws, reduced welfare for out-groups), and endorsement of ideologies that legitimize hierarchy (such as beliefs in a “natural” social order). Interestingly, SDO tends to be higher among members of dominant social groups (on average, for example, some studies find men slightly higher in SDO than women, reflecting gender power differences). It also correlates with career preferences – people high in SDO gravitate towards hierarchy-enhancing jobs (police, military, business executives), whereas low-SDO folks prefer hierarchy-attenuating roles (social work, teaching).
While RWA and SDO both describe facets of an “authoritarian mindset,” they are not identical. RWA is primarily about submission to authority and enforcing moral order, whereas SDO is about power and superiority between groups. A high-RWA person seeks a strong leader to follow and social cohesion under authority, often driven by fear of societal breakdown. A high-SDO person seeks to dominate and is comfortable with inequality, often driven by competition and a mentality of “might makes right.” Not surprisingly, the two orientations often go hand-in-hand – many individuals who strongly endorse conventional authority (RWA) also favor group hierarchies (SDO), especially in societies where the authorities themselves promote inequality. However, one can find intriguing cases of divergence: for example, a religious fundamentalist might score high on RWA (wanting strict social rules) but not on SDO (they may not explicitly desire to dominate other groups, just to exclude or convert them). Conversely, a ruthless corporate climber might be high SDO (craving power differences) but low on RWA if they themselves reject any authority above them. Empirically, RWA and SDO are usually moderately positively correlated, but they predict somewhat different outcomes. RWA is often linked to moral issues and threats to cohesion (e.g. attitudes toward deviant behavior, religious or sexual minorities), whereas SDO more strongly predicts attitudes on intergroup competition and overt prejudice (e.g. racism, opposition to affirmative action).
Modern theorists have integrated RWA and SDO into comprehensive models of authoritarianism. One influential framework by psychologist John Duckitt proposes a dual-process model: individuals who grow up perceiving the world as a dangerous, chaotic place tend to develop RWA (seeking security via obedience and conformity), while those who see the world as a competitive jungle tend to develop SDO (seeking to dominate to secure resources). Both routes can lead to authoritarian outcomes (intolerance and support for anti-democratic policies), but through different psychological motivations – one rooted in fear and order, the other in power and dominance. This helps explain why not all authoritarians look the same politically: some are more driven by values and norms, others by group interests and power. Together, RWA and SDO have become cornerstone measures in political psychology, considered two key dimensions underpinning prejudice, extremist ideology, and support for authoritarian leaders. They refine Adorno’s legacy by providing quantifiable, reliable scales that have been validated across cultures (with some caveats for cultural differences). In short, contemporary research views the “authoritarian personality” not as a monolithic Freudian type, but as a combination of attitudinal dimensions that can be measured and studied in relation to various psychological and social outcomes.
Psychological and Social Mechanisms of Authoritarianism
What makes someone develop an authoritarian outlook? Modern psychology points to a mix of personality factors, cognitive styles, motivations, and childhood socialization that contribute to authoritarian tendencies. Understanding these mechanisms helps explain how the authoritarian personality arises and persists.
One important factor is cognitive rigidity and closed-mindedness. Studies have found that individuals with authoritarian leanings tend to have a low tolerance for ambiguity and complexity. They prefer clear, unambiguous rules and answers, and may struggle with nuance or uncertainty. This manifests as a “black-and-white” thinking style – things are either right or wrong, friend or foe, with little gray area. Adorno had labeled one F-scale facet “anti-intraception,” capturing a distrust of subjective or imaginative thinking. Later work similarly found that high-RWA individuals often score lower on openness to experience (a Big Five personality trait reflecting curiosity and creativity) and higher on measures of dogmatism. The late psychologist Detlef Oesterreich noted that the authoritarian personality concept lumps together traits like being “rigid, anxious, prejudiced, and dogmatic” – essentially describing a closed-minded, over-certain individual. Such cognitive rigidity means authoritarians are uncomfortable with change and difference; they thrive on order, structure, and predictability. For example, an authoritarian-minded person might feel deeply unsettled by cultural changes or new social norms, perceiving them as chaos rather than progress. This rigidity is not inherently “maladaptive” in every context (it can be associated with discipline and focus), but it can predispose someone to reject new ideas and outsiders, fueling prejudice.
Another key mechanism is fear and threat response. Authoritarian tendencies often emerge or strengthen in response to perceived threats – whether physical, social, or moral. People who feel the world is dangerous and unruly may psychologically “retreat” to a stance of seeking strong protectors and simple solutions. Oesterreich argued that a “flight into security” is a basic reaction to fear and uncertainty. As children, we all depend on authority figures (parents) for safety; most of us gradually learn to handle uncertainty on our own, but some people carry a lingering need for external security providers into adulthood. When times are turbulent – say, during economic crises, rapid social change, or threats of terrorism – even relatively non-authoritarian individuals can become more authoritarian in their outlook as a defensive response. This has been shown in research: for instance, after national crises like the 9/11 attacks, surveys observed a spike in authoritarian attitudes among the public, presumably driven by heightened fear and a desire for robust leadership. Threat perception triggers authoritarian impulses: people prioritize security over civil liberties, “us vs. them” thinking intensifies, and there is a rallying around authority figures who promise safety. In a sense, authoritarianism can be viewed as a coping strategy for fear – one that emphasizes strength, unity, and strict order as the antidote to threats.
Conformity and obedience to authority are central features of the authoritarian personality, and these can be traced to both personality and social learning. Some individuals have a dispositional need to belong and follow rules; they feel comfort in conforming to group norms and doing as authority figures direct. Authoritarians typically endorse statements like “Children should learn obedience and respect above all” – reflecting a belief in hierarchy and order in interpersonal relations. In classic social psychology experiments on obedience (such as Stanley Milgram’s shock experiments), those who obey orders to harm others might be doing so partly due to situational pressure, but having an authoritarian personality (with its ethos of “obey authority no matter what”) likely increases the propensity to comply. Altemeyer’s concept of “authoritarian followers” encapsulates this: these are people who readily submit to the directives of leaders as long as those leaders are seen as established and legitimate. This submissiveness is often coupled with a moralistic view – authoritarians see authorities as upholders of society’s good, so following authority is inherently righteous. Conversely, disobedience or rebellion is seen as a great sin. This mindset is cultivated by strict, rule-oriented parenting and social environments (such as military or religious training) that valorize obedience and conformity. Over time, it becomes an internalized trait – the person feels a strong inner compulsion to follow norms and orders, even when authority is absent. Such individuals might follow rules to the letter and expect others to do the same, leading to frustration or aggression when others break rules.
This leads to another mechanism: in-group versus out-group thinking and aggression. Authoritarian personalities tend to draw sharp boundaries between their in-group (the “normal,” “decent” people who share their values) and out-groups (those who are different in ethnicity, beliefs, or behavior). They often exhibit a strong in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. Adorno’s work showed a high correlation between authoritarian attitudes and ethnocentrism – the belief in the superiority of one’s own ethnic or cultural group alongside prejudice against outsiders. Psychologists have since demonstrated that RWA in particular is a powerful predictor of various prejudices (racism, homophobia, anti-immigrant sentiment, etc.), largely because high-RWA individuals see out-groups as sources of moral or physical threat. For example, someone high in RWA might view immigrants as dangerous outsiders who threaten social cohesion and must be kept in check. Authoritarian aggression is the flip side of authoritarian submission: while the person won’t question authorities themselves, they will aggressively target those whom authority designates as troublemakers or outsiders. This can include verbal attacks, support for harsh punishment, or in extreme cases, participating in violence against minority groups. Crucially, this aggression is sanctioned by authority in the person’s mind (“I’m just enforcing the rules”). It also serves a psychological function – it allows the discharge of repressed hostility (from, say, childhood) onto socially approved targets. Thus, authoritarian individuals can be paradoxically both obedient and bullying: docile toward their leaders, but abusive toward those “below” or outside their own group. This dynamic contributes to phenomena like mob violence, persecution of minorities, or strong support for punitive law-and-order policies among a segment of the population.
Early life experiences and childhood upbringing play a pivotal role in forming (or not forming) an authoritarian personality. Adorno’s original theory postulated that an authoritarian parenting style – one that is cold, strict, and often uses physical punishment – produces children who later exhibit authoritarian traits. In such families, the child is required to unquestioningly obey the parent, who often enforces rigid rules and emphasizes status and respect. The child learns that disobedience brings harsh punishment, so they suppress any anger or dissent and instead idealize the powerful parent (a defense mechanism). This results in a person who as an adult has difficulty thinking independently or challenging authority, since their basic psychological survival strategy was submission. Moreover, these individuals often carry subconscious anger (from feeling repressed as children) that gets redirected toward safer targets (e.g. minorities, or anyone deemed “weak” or “deviant”). Modern developmental research partially supports this: authoritarian parenting (as defined in developmental psychology) is associated with children who are more obedient but less adept at critical thinking and empathy. Longitudinal studies suggest that early temperament and childhood environment can predict later political-personality traits. For instance, a preschooler who is temperamentally anxious and raised in a very strict household might grow up to prefer the security of authoritarian stances. Of course, not every child of strict parents becomes authoritarian – factors like education and broader social influences can moderate these effects. However, the intergenerational transmission of authoritarian values is well-documented: children often inherit their parents’ worldview about authority and conformity (through both modeling and explicit teaching). By the same token, exposure to more egalitarian, open-minded socialization can counteract authoritarian predispositions. For example, schooling that encourages critical thinking and diversity can provide alternative frameworks for children and adolescents, potentially reducing the pull of authoritarianism even among those raised in authoritarian homes.
In summary, the authoritarian personality arises from a confluence of cognitive style (closed, black-and-white thinking), motivational orientation (a high need for security and certainty, often rooted in fear), social learning (strict, obedience-oriented upbringing), and identity dynamics (strong in-group identification and out-group scapegoating). These mechanisms reinforce one another: a fearful worldview feeds cognitive rigidity (“the world is dangerous, so I must not question my leaders or traditions”), and a rigid cognitive style makes one more prone to seeing the world as us-vs-them, which then justifies harsh treatment of “them.” It’s a self-perpetuating mindset that can be difficult to change, especially once it’s ingrained in one’s personality and social network. However, understanding these psychological building blocks is crucial for both predicting when authoritarian attitudes will surge (for example, in times of threat) and for figuring out how they might be mitigated.
Real-World Manifestations and Case Studies
Authoritarian personalities don’t exist just in theory or lab questionnaires – they manifest in many real-world arenas, shaping behaviors in politics, organizations, and social movements. By examining some concrete examples, we can see how authoritarian tendencies play out and how they affect group dynamics.
In politics, the influence of authoritarian personalities is perhaps most visible. Voters high in authoritarianism tend to be attracted to “strongman” leaders and populist movements that promise social order, national greatness, and a firm hand against dissidents. Political scientists have observed that in times of social change or unrest, authoritarians become a galvanized voting bloc, often swinging elections in favor of hardline candidates. A prominent example was the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, where research indicated that voters with higher authoritarian attitudes disproportionately supported candidates who used tough, uncompromising rhetoric on issues like immigration and law enforcement. These voters perceived threats to traditional values and social stability, and thus gravitated to a leader who pledged to confront those threats head-on. Political psychologist Karen Stenner has argued that a segment of the population has a latent authoritarian predisposition that “activates” when they feel normative order is collapsing – for instance, when faced with rapid racial diversification or cultural liberalization. Once activated, they demand a leader who will “make things simple again” – often by cracking down on out-groups and restoring hierarchies. This dynamic is not confined to the U.S.; in Europe, the rise of far-right parties has been linked to authoritarian sympathies among citizens troubled by globalization and immigration. In these cases, the authoritarian followers (the voters) are crucial enablers of authoritarian leaders. Their psychology helps explain why demagogues and autocrats can ascend to power through democratic means: there is a receptive audience ready to hand over power to a dominant figure, even at the expense of liberal democratic norms. History provides earlier case studies too – for instance, analyses of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy have noted that many ordinary citizens who supported those regimes exhibited authoritarian personality traits (e.g. strict upbringing, conventional values, prejudice), which made them susceptible to propaganda and complicit in oppression. Understanding this phenomenon is vital, as it underscores that democracy’s erosion often starts in the minds of the populace long before any leader formally dismantles institutions.
Authoritarian personalities also emerge in business and organizational leadership. In management theory, an autocratic leadership style – where a boss makes decisions unilaterally, demands strict obedience, and expects employees to follow orders without question – aligns closely with authoritarian traits. Some corporate leaders who fit this mold can be remarkably successful in high-pressure, hierarchical industries, at least in the short term. They provide clear direction, rapid decision-making, and enforce discipline, which can be assets in crisis situations or on factory floors. Employees with more authoritarian dispositions may even prefer such an environment, finding comfort in knowing exactly what is expected and having a strong figure to follow. However, the authoritarian management approach has serious downsides. It tends to stifle creativity and morale, as workers are discouraged from contributing ideas or feedback. Over time, this can impact innovation and team motivation – people feel disempowered and fearful, which is not conducive to productivity in knowledge-based industries. For example, a tech company CEO with an authoritarian personality might insist on micromanaging every project and punishing those who dissent; while this might produce short-term compliance, it could drive away talented employees and cause the company to miss out on creative solutions (since everyone is afraid to challenge the CEO’s view). Research on workplace climate finds that psychological safety (employees feeling safe to speak up) is key to performance, and authoritarian leadership directly undermines that. There have been case studies of companies with toxic cultures where authoritarian executives fostered fear – leading to outcomes ranging from accounting fraud (nobody dared question unethical orders) to catastrophic failures unreported by subordinates. Thus, while an authoritarian personality in leadership can create an illusion of efficiency and unity, it often breeds hidden problems. The best-run organizations typically benefit from a more democratic or participative leadership style, where authority is balanced with input and respect – essentially the opposite of an authoritarian approach.
A dramatic manifestation of authoritarian personalities can be seen in the realm of cults and extremist groups. Cult leaders often epitomize the authoritarian leader personality – they are charismatic, domineering, narcissistic, and deeply controlling. Leaders like Jim Jones (of the Peoples Temple) or the leader of the Heaven’s Gate cult demanded absolute obedience from their followers, regulated all aspects of followers’ lives, and brooked no dissent. These leaders frequently use techniques of undue influence and “brainwashing” that play on followers’ fears and dependency, reshaping their identities to be completely loyal (as psychologist Steven Hassan’s BITE model of authoritarian control outlines). Cult followers, on the other side, often display the classic authoritarian follower traits: they surrender their autonomy to the leader, accept the leader’s proclamations as truth, and actively police each other to enforce conformity. Many cult members come under the sway of such leaders during periods of vulnerability – for instance, when someone is searching for meaning or stability, the cult offers a tight-knit community and a clear authority to guide them. Unfortunately, this dynamic can lead to tragic outcomes (as seen in the Jonestown mass suicide/murder or the violent confrontations of groups like the Branch Davidians). Outside of religious cults, authoritarian social movements also operate on similar lines. For example, violent extremist organizations (whether far-right militias or terrorist cells) are frequently structured around an authoritarian leadership and ideology. Recruits undergo radicalization where they adopt an all-or-nothing belief system, view outsiders as enemies, and willingly follow orders to commit extreme acts. Many who participated in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, for instance, reported that they felt they were “following the orders” of then-President Trump, whom they saw as a legitimate authority figure telling them to “fight” for a righteous cause. This illustrates how an authoritarian-minded follower can be driven to illegal violence if their chosen leader greenlights it. In all these cases – cults, terror groups, militant political factions – we see how authoritarian personalities on both sides (leader and follower) interact in a toxic symbiosis: the leader demands absolute power and loyalty, and a subset of followers willingly complies and even evangelizes the leader’s message, often at great personal cost.
Authoritarian dynamics can also be found in everyday social contexts, albeit in milder form. School environments, for example, sometimes have authoritarian teachers or principals who rule with an iron fist, and certain students who prefer (or at least adapt readily to) that structure. Family dynamics, too, can reflect authoritarian patterns – e.g., a domineering parent and obedient children – which may perpetuate across generations. Even in democratic societies, mini “authoritarian enclaves” can exist: for instance, a strict religious community governed by elders with absolute say, or a sports team coached by someone with an authoritarian temperament who instills discipline at all costs. By examining these real-world cases, one common thread emerges: authoritarian personalities tend to create hierarchical, command-and-control social systems, whether it’s a nation, a company department, or a small cult. Those systems can achieve short-term cohesion and purpose, but they do so by limiting freedom and suppressing dissent. Over time, the stresses of such suppression often lead to dysfunction or rebellion. This is why many authoritarian regimes and organizations are plagued by instability or eventual collapse from within. Nevertheless, the allure of the authoritarian setup – clarity, unity, and strong direction – means it will likely always find adherents in human groups, especially during times of uncertainty.
Impact of Authoritarianism on Society
The prevalence of authoritarian personalities within a society can have far-reaching consequences, influencing everything from the tenor of political discourse to the culture of workplaces and the functioning of public institutions. Here we explore several domains where authoritarianism leaves its mark on social life:
Political Polarization and Democratic Stability: When a significant portion of a population harbors authoritarian attitudes, politics can become more polarized and zero-sum. Authoritarian-minded citizens often view their preferred party or leader as the embodiment of order and patriotism, and opposition parties as dangerous or illegitimate. This can erode the norms of tolerant debate and peaceful power transfer that underpin democracy. For instance, high-RWA individuals are typically less tolerant of dissent and civil liberties for disliked groups; they may support measures like banning rallies of the opposition or favoring censorship of “subversive” media. Over time, this creates a pressure on democratic institutions to bend rules in favor of one side. Political scientists have noted that rising authoritarian sentiments among voters can push elected officials to adopt more extreme, hardline positions to satisfy their base, leading to a spiral of polarization where compromise is seen as betrayal. In the worst case, if an authoritarian leader is in power, these voters provide a blank check for authoritarian behavior – they may cheer efforts to gerrymander, restrict voting rights, or even violently confront political opponents, as long as it maintains their in-group’s dominance. The end result can be a slide into competitive authoritarianism or outright autocracy, facilitated in part by a citizenry that not only accepts but demands such undemocratic practices. On the flip side, societies that manage to cultivate a strong “democratic personality” among citizens – characterized by tolerance, critical thinking, and respect for pluralism – are more resilient against these polarizing trends. It becomes harder for demagogues to pit groups against each other when the average person values diversity and dialogue. Thus, the balance of authoritarian vs. democratic psychological orientations in a populace is a kind of barometer for the health of a democracy.
Workplace Hierarchies and Culture: Authoritarian personalities can heavily shape workplace culture, especially if they occupy management roles. In organizations with many authoritarian leaders, you often find rigid hierarchies, strict rules, and a climate of fear or formality. While such organizations might run like “well-oiled machines” in routine times, they can struggle in adapting to change or fostering innovation. Employees under authoritarian bosses might be reluctant to voice new ideas or report problems upward – nobody wants to risk the wrath of a punitive superior. This can lead to serious issues being hidden until they explode (as has happened in some companies where lower staff knew of a defect or fraud but felt unable to speak up). Moreover, an authoritarian-heavy workforce may experience a lack of diversity and inclusion: if the culture prizes conformity, minority viewpoints or employees from different backgrounds may feel unwelcome or leave. Interestingly, authoritarian subordinates can also reinforce workplace hierarchy. Workers high in authoritarian submission might prefer a clear chain of command and expect micromanagement; they may even show disdain for more egalitarian management styles, perceiving them as “weak leadership.” This means that in some cases, employees themselves resist organizational changes aimed at flattening hierarchies or encouraging participation, because it clashes with their ingrained expectations. Job sectors like law enforcement, military, or security services, which naturally attract individuals valuing order and authority, can develop an exaggerated internal culture of authoritarianism. For example, the idea of a distinct “police personality” includes traits like authoritarianism and cynicism. While discipline is necessary in such jobs, excessive authoritarian attitudes among officers may contribute to abuses of power or a bunker mentality against the public. Recognizing this, some police and military training programs now emphasize ethical decision-making and empathy to balance authoritarian predispositions. In contrast, in creative industries or research institutions, too many authoritarian personalities could be detrimental to the core mission, as those fields thrive on questioning and novelty. Thus, the impact of authoritarianism in the workplace is double-edged: it can lend structure and decisiveness, but at the potential cost of morale, creativity, and ethical vigilance.
Law Enforcement and Justice: Authoritarian attitudes heavily influence approaches to law, order, and justice. Citizens with authoritarian leanings are more likely to support “tough-on-crime” policies, capital punishment, and broad police powers, viewing these as necessary to maintain social order. They prioritize security over civil liberties, often willing to curtail due process if it means capturing criminals or subversives. On the law enforcement side, authoritarian personalities among police and judges can shape how justice is administered. A police officer high in authoritarian aggression may be quicker to use force to subdue a suspect, rationalizing that it’s needed to establish authority on the streets. Indeed, studies have found that many police recruits score above average on authoritarian measures, which can translate into a policing style that is heavy-handed and less community-oriented. This might contribute to problems like racial profiling or excessive use of force, if not kept in check by training and accountability. In the judicial system, an authoritarian judge or juror might be more inclined to presume defendants (especially those from an out-group) are guilty and deserving of harsh punishment, rather than carefully weighing evidence or considering rehabilitation. On a broader scale, if a society’s justice system becomes dominated by authoritarian logic, it can slide toward punitive justice at the expense of rights – for example, implementing draconian sentencing laws, or tolerating prison conditions that violate human rights, all justified by “keeping law and order.” The recent debates around anti-terrorism laws, surveillance, and policing tactics often feature this divide: one side (more authoritarian-inclined) urges giving authorities more leeway and assuming the accused are dangerous, while the other side cautions about liberty and fairness. Balancing public safety with individual rights is always challenging, but an unchecked authoritarian influence tilts the balance toward a security state mentality.
Media and Information: Authoritarianism also impacts the media landscape and how people consume information. Individuals with authoritarian personalities often prefer media that reinforces their existing beliefs and societal norms – essentially state media or partisan outlets that echo their in-group values. They may be distrustful of independent journalism, critical media, or academia, sometimes denouncing them as biased or subversive if they challenge the authoritative narrative. For example, strong authoritarians might gravitate to news that portrays the world as dangerous (feeding their threat orientation) and emphasizes clear villains and heroes (aligning with their black-and-white thinking). Sensationalist and propaganda content can find a ready audience with those high in authoritarianism, since it typically uses fear-based messaging and simple slogans, exactly the kind of communication that resonates with their psychology. On the flip side, authoritarian regimes seek to control media precisely because they know the power of information in shaping personalities and opinions. In societies that have slid into autocracy, one of the first targets is the press: independent media is suppressed and replaced with state propaganda that glorifies the leader and demonizes designated out-groups. This creates a feedback loop – authoritarian citizens get only authoritarian-approved information, which further solidifies their views. Even in democratic countries, we’ve seen the rise of echo chambers on social media, where people (often including many with authoritarian or extreme views) isolate themselves with like-minded communities, amplifying polarization. The “fake news” phenomenon also links here: research suggests that those with higher RWA may be somewhat more susceptible to misinformation that aligns with their biases, because their strong in-group loyalty and distrust of outsiders can override fact-checking. However, it’s not a simple equation – plenty of non-authoritarians also fall for fake news. The difference is authoritarians may consciously reject sources that counter their worldview as “enemy lies,” a stance encouraged by authoritarian-leaning leaders. The net impact on society is a fragmented information sphere, where common ground shrinks. Combatting this requires media literacy education and efforts to expose people to diverse perspectives – essentially encouraging a more open-minded, analytical consumption of information, which runs counter to authoritarian habits.
In each of these areas – politics, workplace, justice, media – the presence of authoritarian personalities can push the culture toward more hierarchical, intolerant, and rigid outcomes. It’s important to note that authoritarian-minded individuals are not inherently “bad people”; often, their motivations (safety, stability, tradition) are understandable human desires. But when those desires dominate without balance, the consequences can harm the fabric of a free, dynamic society. Social cohesion can curdle into social oppression, and legitimate authority can slide into authoritarianism. Therefore, recognizing the impact of authoritarianism is key for communities to self-correct: for example, ensuring that police forces cultivate empathy and accountability, or that political rhetoric is challenged by voices championing democratic values. As societies, being aware of these tendencies can help in striking a balance – maintaining order and cohesion, while preserving liberty and pluralism.
Future Directions and Ethical Considerations
The study of the authoritarian personality continues to evolve, raising new questions about nature vs. nurture, the malleability of authoritarian attitudes, and the ethical implications of labeling individuals as “authoritarian.” As we look to the future, several key debates and considerations stand out:
Innate Disposition or Social Conditioning? One enduring debate is the extent to which authoritarian tendencies are a product of one’s inherent personality (possibly genetic influences or early temperament) versus one’s upbringing and social environment. On one hand, some research in behavioral genetics and political psychology suggests there may be an innate component – for instance, twin studies have found that certain personality traits linked to authoritarianism (like traditionalism or threat sensitivity) have moderate heritability. It’s possible that some people are born with a lower tolerance for ambiguity or a higher baseline fear response, which can predispose them to seek security in authority. On the other hand, the social conditioning aspect is undeniable: children raised in authoritarian homes or homogeneous communities are far likelier to adopt those worldviews. Likely, both factors interact. A child with a timid temperament (a potential genetic factor) might become especially authoritarian if they also have very strict parents – the predisposition and environment reinforce each other. Meanwhile, a bold, curious child might resist authoritarian social pressures and grow up quite nonconformist even in a strict environment. Modern longitudinal studies are exploring these nuances, and neuroscientists have even begun looking at whether there are brain differences (in areas that process fear, for example) correlated with authoritarian attitudes. Importantly, even if there are biological predispositions, authoritarianism is not destiny. Unlike immutable characteristics, attitudes can and do change over a lifetime, especially with shifting social influences. The key point is that authoritarianism is a flexible combination of disposition and context – understanding that interplay is a frontier for future research.
Stability vs. Change of Authoritarian Attitudes: Relatedly, psychologists debate how fixed authoritarian traits are once established in adulthood. Adorno’s original view imagined the authoritarian personality as fairly ingrained by early adulthood (barring intensive psychoanalysis perhaps). However, newer research indicates that authoritarian attitudes can rise or fall with changing circumstances. For example, a person might become less authoritarian after attending college (where they encounter diversity and critical thinking), or more authoritarian in old age or during times of insecurity. The concept of an “authoritarian dynamic” (Stenner’s work) suggests many individuals have a latent potential for authoritarianism that activates under threat and deactivates in calmer times. This implies that rather than a fixed trait, authoritarianism might be better thought of as a context-dependent mindset that people can slip into. From a societal perspective, this is somewhat hopeful: by managing the environment (e.g., reducing excessive fear-mongering, improving economic security, fostering cross-group contact), we might reduce the triggers that cause authoritarian flare-ups. From a research perspective, this means future studies might focus less on labeling individuals as “authoritarian personalities” permanently and more on tracking how authoritarian thinking ebbs and flows. Some political polling already does this, asking authoritarian-related questions over time to gauge public mood. As the world faces new challenges (like rapid technological change, pandemics, climate crises), watching how these affect authoritarian attitudes will be important. We may find, for instance, that global threats that require collective action could either reduce authoritarianism (by uniting people across groups) or increase it (by scaring people into seeking strong protectors) – a question for researchers to explore.
Left-Wing Authoritarianism and Other Forms: Historically, authoritarian personality research focused on right-wing manifestations (due in part to the context of fascism and the way the F-scale was constructed). But is there such a thing as a “left-wing authoritarian”? Recent studies have revisited this question, suggesting that authoritarian psychology can exist across the ideological spectrum – it’s the core traits (dogmatism, aggression, conformity) that matter, not the specific content of beliefs. A left-wing authoritarian, for example, might dogmatically enforce progressive orthodoxy, exhibit intolerance toward dissenting (especially conservative) viewpoints, and support authoritarian tactics to achieve egalitarian goals. Some evidence for this mirror image has emerged (one study developed a Left-Wing Authoritarianism scale). While left authoritarians have historically been less common or less studied in Western democracies, the concept underscores that authoritarian personality isn’t inherently tied to traditionalist or right-wing beliefs. Any belief system, if held with rigidity, aggression, and uncritical submission to an in-group authority, can become authoritarian. Acknowledging this can depoliticize the concept and encourage a more balanced view: authoritarianism is a style of thought and behavior that can latch onto various ideologies. Future research will likely refine tools to measure authoritarianism in a content-neutral way, capturing the underlying psychology whether it appears in a far-right ultranationalist or a far-left revolutionary.
Interventions and Education: If authoritarian tendencies are problematic for society, can anything be done to mitigate them? This is a challenging area, but some possibilities are being explored. Education is often cited as a key antidote: educational curricula that emphasize critical thinking, media literacy, and exposure to multiple perspectives may help young people develop cognitive flexibility, making them less prone to dogmatism. There’s evidence that higher education levels correlate with lower authoritarian attitudes, though it’s not clear if that’s due to learning or simply the experience of meeting diverse people and ideas. Intergroup contact is another promising avenue – according to the classic contact hypothesis in psychology, direct positive interaction with members of different groups can reduce prejudice. If authoritarian individuals have more opportunities to personally know those they view as “others,” it might soften their in-group/out-group hostility. Community programs that bring different ethnic, religious, or political groups together might thus chip away at authoritarian-driven biases. Another angle is cognitive training: since need for closure is a component of authoritarian cognition, exercises that encourage people to embrace ambiguity or practice empathy might gradually increase cognitive openness. Some researchers are even experimenting with narrative and arts-based interventions – for example, can reading fiction (which puts you in others’ shoes) lower one’s authoritarian leanings? Early studies suggest it can increase empathy and perspective-taking, which run counter to rigid authoritarian thinking.
On a societal level, strengthening democratic institutions and norms can also help keep authoritarianism in check. When the rule of law is strong and leaders of all parties consistently reject authoritarian measures, it sets a tone that limits how much individual authoritarian attitudes can translate into collective action. Media and tech companies also have a role: by designing algorithms that don’t purely feed people content that reinforces their prejudices, they might prevent authoritarian echo chambers from self-reinforcement. However, these kinds of interventions raise their own ethical issues (e.g., content moderation vs. free speech).
Ethical Considerations in Research and Labeling: Finally, it’s important to consider the ethical dimension of studying and discussing the “authoritarian personality.” One concern, raised since the days of Adorno, is the risk of stigmatizing individuals or groups. Labeling someone as having an authoritarian personality could be seen as pathologizing them or casting a value judgment on their character. Researchers must be careful to use these concepts descriptively, not as pejorative tags for people they politically disagree with. The lessons of earlier critiques (like those by Lasch) serve as a reminder to approach this topic with objectivity and nuance. Everyone has some degree of authoritarian and liberal tendencies; it’s a spectrum, not a binary of good vs. evil people. Ethically, psychologists should avoid using authoritarianism measures to “type” individuals in everyday settings – for instance, it would be problematic to use an RWA score in a hiring decision or to ostracize someone socially. The measures are meant for research and understanding, not for pigeonholing individuals. Moreover, there’s an ethical imperative to use the knowledge gained for positive ends: if we understand the authoritarian dynamic, ideally that insight should help reduce prejudice, prevent violence, and strengthen democratic engagement, rather than be weaponized to shame or manipulate.
As we move forward, the conversation around the authoritarian personality is likely to broaden. With global challenges on the horizon, including pandemics and climate change, we may see new forms of authoritarian and anti-authoritarian movements. The digital age also presents new questions: How does life online (social media algorithms, virtual echo chambers) affect authoritarian thinking? Early indications are that it can amplify it, but also that online communities might be harnessed to foster dialogue across divides. The future research will also be interdisciplinary – political scientists, neuroscientists, sociologists, and psychologists are all collaborating to paint a fuller picture of authoritarianism as a human phenomenon.
To conclude, the study of the authoritarian personality has come a long way from Adorno’s post-war interviews to today’s multifaceted analyses. It remains a vital topic because it touches on something perennial in human nature: the tension between freedom and security, autonomy and authority. By continuing to investigate this construct with academic rigor – and communicating findings in an accessible, fair-minded way – we equip society with the self-awareness to recognize when the authoritarian impulse is ascendant. That awareness is the first step in ensuring that our better angels, of reason, compassion, and liberty, prevail over our fears.
References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
Duckitt, John & Sibley, Chris. (2010). Personality, Ideology, Prejudice, and Politics: A Dual-Process Motivational Model. Journal of personality. 78. 1861-93.
Hassan, S. (1998). Combating Cult Mind Control. Park Street Press
Lasch, C. (1979). The narcissist as social type. The New York Review of Books. (Critique of The Authoritarian Personality thesis).
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zick, A., Küpper, B., & Hövermann, A. (2011). Intolerance, Prejudice and Discrimination: A European Report. Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. (Includes data on RWA/SDO and prejudice in Europe).
(Additional sources: Frontiers in Psychology, 11:533863, 2020; Wikipedia entries on Authoritarian personality and Right-Wing Authoritarianism)
Stay in the know! The All About Psychology newsletter is your go-to source for all things psychology. Subscribe today and instantly receive my bestselling Psychology Student Guide right in your inbox.
Upgrade to a paid subscription and also get the eBook version of my latest book Psychology Q & A: Great Answers to Fascinating Psychology Questions, as well as regular psychology book giveaways and other exclusive benefits. As a paid subscriber, you will also be:
Ensuring that psychology students and educators continue to have completely free access to the most important and influential journal articles ever published in the history of psychology.
Ensuring that psychology students and educators continue to hear from world renowned psychologists and experts.
Ensuring that free quality content and resources for psychology students and educators continue to be created on a regular basis.
Providing free, high-quality information and resources since 2008, All-About-Psychology.Com receives well over a million visits a year and has attracted over a million followers across its social media channels.
If you are looking to supercharge your brand awareness and reach, or promote your course, book, podcast, product or service; I can help.
Visit the All About Psychology Amazon Store to check out an awesome collection of psychology books, gifts and T-shirts.
For free and comprehesive psychology information and resources, visit All-About-Psychology.Com and connect with me via the All About Psychology social media channels:
This was an incredibly insightful read. The exploration of authoritarian personality traits feels especially relevant today, as we continue to see how fear, conformity, and obedience can be shaped by both upbringing and societal forces. What struck me most was the reminder that authoritarianism isn’t just a political issue—it’s deeply psychological. Understanding these patterns is key not just to recognizing them in others, but in ourselves. Thank you for making such a complex topic so accessible and thought-provoking.
Even with my background in psychology, I'm still very unfamiliar with this concept on a Substack that is "All About Psychology." It's not something I've come across before or had laid out in such an educational and enlightening manner. This article has definitely given me a lot to think about, and now I'm thinking of some previous encounters in entirely new ways! I definitely appreciate those who can inspire that with articles like this! I also find it interesting that in other areas of psychology, those symptoms of an authoritarian personality are also symptoms of things we consider neurodevelopmental disorders like autism, PTSD, etc.