Does Extraversion Affect Authoritarianism
Studies joining brain research and political theory have demonstrated that character attributes, such as extraversion and receptiveness to encounters, are molding political activism elements. Nonetheless, the components through which this impact happens are still ineffectively comprehended. Studies conducted in the past by Eysenck (1960), Eysenck & Eysenck (1963), Heslin (1964), Mehryar (1970), and Eysenck & Wilson (1978) demonstrated a possible correlation between extraversion and authoritarianism. This point was contradicted by Ray (1980), who noted the very qualification of “tough-mindedness” was based largely on the spirituality and morals of the subjects studied using the California F/BF (Fascist/Balanced-Fascist) Scale. Highlighted was that the sample used by Eysenck & Eysenck (1963) consisted of only 200 Australian participants and n = 122 in a second study from 1959. In both cases, Ray showed only a weak correlation existed. These studies now being 40 years old for the most recent, we think it would be useful to reconsider the role of extraversion on authoritarianism through a larger and contemporary study. Aiming to deepen knowledge in this area, our study presents the consequences of an examination that hoped to investigate the interceded impacts of character characteristics in the sample setting—taking as intervening molding factors different perspectives and emotional attitudes generally found in writing, for example, enthusiasm for governmental issues and abstract political viability.
Using the Latin American Public Opinion Project information, the speculation was tried that character impacts conduct. It favors the improvement of various mentalities that work as fundamental components molding community commitment. The outcomes show the critical interceded impacts of extraversion and receptiveness to encounter, particularly with respect to political information. Tyranny has, for some time, been considered as an exceptionally steady character attribute. However, ongoing records have contended that dictatorship is too moldable to even think about justifying this origination. The study gave a trial of the correlation between extraversion and authoritarianism by estimating its coefficient in a group. The outcomes demonstrated that extraversion displayed almost no correlation with authoritarianism (r = .05).
In this regard, the outcomes were equivalent to those detailed for other character characteristics in past work, showing no correlation in authoritarianism’s origination. Although the original studies on political interest concentrated on appointive modalities, for example, casting a ballot and gathering commitment, new types of activism got ingested into research plans after the 1960s, especially those investigations connected to fights (Norris, 2007). Part of the writing worried about these new types of political citizenship has tried to recognize their molding factors at a macrosocial level, related to the political and financial structure of nations and worldwide districts, yet the elements at a miniature level, for example, material assets (pay) and intellectual assets (tutoring, information on governmental issues). In consideration of this element of individual conditions, the current article examines a segment still rarely investigated by political researchers: character. A few scientists researching individual contrasts’ brain science have contended that character attributes should be viewed as clarifying participatory political conduct (Mondak, 2010).
Notwithstanding, this incitement has produced hardly any reactions from Political Science, and there have so far been not many endeavors to observationally test the relations between character attributes and various types of political commitment. Some spearheading activities in the region ought to be featured, for example, the work, who, harking back to the 1950s, had seen that less participatory people had a propensity towards resignation, rigid reasoning, and accommodation towards power, and who distributed Personality and Democratic Politics, indicating that support was related with high confidence. This overall lack of engagement can be somewhat clarified by the trouble associated with characterizing what character is and the nonappearance of a fundamental scientific categorization that could be utilized in detailed investigations to produce reliable information. Regardless, this situation has changed altogether throughout the most recent decade. Such impediments have started to dissolve with the advancement of instruments fit for catching these mental structures in an adequately concise structure to be remembered for regular polls. These advances’ immediate impact has been the ongoing distributions of various examinations wandering into the territory of relations between participatory political conduct and character.
Nonetheless, the majority of these works center consideration around casting ballot conduct and different types of activism connected to agent establishments. They are exemptions in this setting since they have explicitly analyzed dissent types and will subsequently be examined later in this article. Stress that these couple of studies take as their exact gauge countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and, on account of the last-referenced investigation, Spain. Exploration led in nations that have encountered democratization measures moderately as of late, for example, those of Latin America, is much more uncommon, subsequently. The only exemptions are two works by Mondak and associates distributed in 2010, yet they are restricted to only two nations (Uruguay and Venezuela). For our local setting, we intended to add to this field by giving an underlying investigation of these relations. We discovered points concerning the impact of some character attributes on contribution in political fights. In this work, we highlight the need to extend our comprehension of these impacts through intelligent systems between the individual character and different elements molding perspectives that are consistently recognized in concentrates on cooperation.
The college sample included 204 participants (97 females and 107 males) at a mid-sized southeastern university who completed a partial course credit requirement survey. Participants aged between 18 and 43 years old (M = 20.3). Because participants freely select which measures to complete, some individuals in the full sample did not complete every measure. The majority of participants ethnically described themselves as White/Caucasian (57.8%), African American/Black (13.2%), Latino/Hispanic (9.3%), Asian American/Asian (5.4%), Middle Eastern (4.4%), Indian (1.5%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (1%), and Other (7.4%). Participants were asked to situate their political ideology on a scale varying from Extremely Liberal (2.5%), Liberal (20.1%), Slightly Liberal (11.8%), Moderate (42.7%), Slightly Conservative (8.3%), Conservative (12.3%), Extremely Conservative (1.5%). Two participants (0.9%) did not answer. Similarly, their Political Party Affiliation Category included Democrat (39.2%), Republican (28.9%), Independent (24%), and Other (6.9%). Two participants (0.9%) did not answer.
Participants responded to a questionnaire consisting of 147 variables. We assessed Extraversion through the International Personality Item Pool (I.P.I.P.) 50-Item Set, using ten items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree); Items 6, 16, 26, 36, 46 are reverse scored, and α = .011, p = .05 (IPIP-50-Item Set). Authoritarianism was measured using the Authoritarianism-Conservatism-Traditionalism (A.C.T.) Scale, with a score based on six items on a 9-point Likert scale (1 = very strongly agree to 9 = very strongly disagree); Items 1, 3, 5 are reverse scored, and α = -0.081, p = .05 (ACT-Scale). The six items were summed to obtain an overall Authoritarianism score. Higher scores indicated higher authoritarianism.
We employed the Big-Five Personality Traits as it has been largely used in the literature for the last 30 years and has adequate psychometric attributes. The three related ideological attitude dimensions of the Authoritarianism-Conservatism-Traditionalism Scale was employed for allowing a more explicit study of the complex sociopolitical phenomena.
This study used a non-experimental and correlational research design. Aiming to study the potential relationship between Extraversion and Authoritarianism, Jeffreys’s Amazing Statistics Program 0.13.1.0 (J.A.S.P) freeware was used to test our hypotheses. The 204 participants were informed that their participation in a study would be part of their course during that semester, in return for a bonus to their grades. It was put forward to them again during their initial class session. Participants first completed three online questionnaires. Subsequently, they were asked to complete an 85 questions self-report paper-based survey. The latter consisted of 9 questions regarding Participant Demographic Variables, 25 questions regarding College Student Demographic Variables, 8 questions regarding Socioeconomic Background Variables, 17 questions regarding Family/Childhood Background Variables, and 27 questions of Physical Characteristics/Health Variables/Health Inventory Scale Measures.
Design and Analysis
The Pearson’s r sample correlation coefficient of the sample was used to estimate the pooled variance between Extraversion and Authoritarianism. All types of r are given in Pearson’s r for the present analysis. We used the Correlation sub tool available in J.A.S.P.’s Regression to obtain significance, and correlation and confidence intervals were at 95%. The alternative hypothesis was selected to be correlated. Results gave a Pearson’s r of .05 and a p-value = 0.450, indicating an almost inexistent correlation and no evidence of a difference.
The correlation between the latent variables that we analyzed is presented in Table 1.
The hypothesis stated that given the studies carried out by Eysenck (1954), Eysenck & Eysenck (1963), and Eysenck & Wilson (1978), but contradicted by Ray (1976), Extraversion would have little if not no effect on Authoritarianism (Ray, 1980). For the present study, the correlation coefficients between the questionnaire results and the variables Extraversion and Authoritarianism were calculated. We tested our hypothesis through J.A.S.P’s Regression and its Classical Correlation service. Table 1 and Table 2 expose these results, bringing a statistically significant p-value of p = .450. However, the Big-Five Personality Traits analysis through the same Classical Correlation allowed to obtain a Pearson’s r of r = .05, showing almost no correlation between Extraversion and Authoritarianism. The Extraversion Standard Deviation showed with σ = 7.763, and variance of σ² = 60.264. The Authoritarianism Standard Deviation of σ = 6.454, and variance of σ² = 41.651.
Heslin, R. (1964). Predicting group task effectiveness from member characteristics.
Psychological Bulletin, 62(4), 248–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048870
Mehryar A. H. (1970). Authoritarianism, rigidity, and Eysenck’s E and N dimensions in an
authoritarian culture. Psychological reports, 27(1), 326. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.19220.127.116.116
Ray, J, J., (1980). Are authoritarians extraverted? British Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 19, 147-148.
Beier, M. E., & Ackerman, P. L. (2001). Current-events knowledge in adults: An investigation of age, intelligence, and nonability determinants. Psychology and Aging, 16(4), 615–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7918.104.22.1685
Blais, A., & Labbé-St-Vincent, S. (2011). Personality traits, political attitudes, and the propensity to vote. European Journal of Political Research. Vol. 50, Nº 03, pp. 395–417.
Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: the role of neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Journal of personality, 59(3), 355–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00253.x
Booth-Kwley, S., & Vickers Jr., R. R. (1994). Associations between major domains of personality and health behaviour. Journal of Personality. Vol. 62, Nº 03, pp. 281-298.
Hogan, P. (2011). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 246.