Authoritarianism and anomia reconsidered:

applying cross-lagged autoregressive & latent growth curve models

The interrelationship of anomia and authoritarianism

•Anomia (Srole 1956)

- perceived breakdown of the social order

- feeling of being helpless, alone and powerless

•Authoritarianism (Adorno et al. 1950)

-deep-rooted intraindividual characteristic

-reflects conformity with the ingroup, submission to ingroup leaders & aggressive stances towards outgroups

(1) Srole (1956, p. 716; see Scheepers et al. 1992):

•anomic individuals choose authoritarian stances in order to recover orientation

AuthoritarianismAnomia

(2) McClosky & Schaar (1965)

•authoritarian individuals are hampered to interact effectively

•less opportunities to escape from social isolation

•resulting in anomia

Anomia Authoritarianism

Anomia Authoritarianism

reciprocal relationship: not necessarily unplausible

Research questions for longitudinal analysis:

a) are authoritarian attitudes stable over time?

• are anomic attitudes stable over time?

• does anomia cause authoritarianism, does authoritarianism cause anomia or do we get evidence for both processes?

b)

• if we get evidence for individual change of authoritarian and/ or anomic attitudes: is there an increase or a decrease?

• do we get evidence for individual differences concerning such a development?

• is there a relationship between the initial level of authoritarianism/ anomia and its dynamic?

Cross-lagged autoregressive models

autoregressive model •each variable X at t2 function of its lagged measure at t1 and residual

•stability coefficients indicate degree of stability of interindividual differences

Xt1

Yt1

Xt2

Yt2

res2

res1

a

b

c

d

cross-lagged autoregressive model (Finkel 1995)

• cross-construct regression weights: X predicting Y, controlling for former values of Y

latent growth curve models

•for analysing individual change processes using single/ multiple indicators

• assumption: a latent trajectory characterizing the sample

(or subgroups) can be found

• individual change as function of intercept and slope factors for each time

period

Xt3Xt1Xt2

res1

res

2res

3

11

1

Intercept

1 F

Slope

0

•individual change as function of intercept and slope factors for each time period

5.a Data

Sample:• Group-focused enmity panel 2002-2004 (Heitmeyer et al. 2002, 2003;

2004 forthcomig)

• CATI-survey

• german-speaking persons aged 16 and over in households with telephone

• current analyses: respondents with german citizenship only

GFE-Survey 2002GFE-Survey 2003GFE-Survey 2004

Nmax23641175824

5.b Indicators

VarItem

AU03W1R„One of the most important characteristics one should have is obedience toward the authorities”

AU04W1R„We should be grateful for the leading figures who tell us what to do“

4-point-scale: 1 „exactly true“; 2 „ moderately true“; 3 „ barely true“; 4 „ not at all true“; recoded: higher values indicate higher degrees of authoritarianism

Authoritarianism:

VariableItem

an01w1r“Everything has become so much in disarray that one does not know whereone actually stands“

an02w1r „Matters have become so difficult these days that one does not know what isgoing on“

1 „exactly true“; 2 „ moderately true“; 3 „ barely true“; 4 „ not at all true“; recoded: higher values indicate higher degrees of anomia

Anomia:

Anomia 2002-2004:

TimeVariableNMSDMin.Max.

2002AU03W1R27062.68.93914

AU04W1R26982.13.85614

2003AU03W2R11662.70.91414

AU04W2R11682.20.83514

2004AU03W3R8172.69.91814

AU04W3R8212.20.84514

Authoritarianism 2002-2004:

6. Results - descriptives

TimeVariableNMSDMin.Max.

2002an01w1r27052.57.90514

an02w1r27052.53.89814

2003an01w2r11662.78.90014

an02w2r11732.73.90014

2004an01w3r8252.90.88214

an02w3r8242.87.87414