An Authoritarian Personality Is A Personality Type

Individuals often yield to conformity when they are forced to discard their individual freedom in order to benefit the larger group. Despite the fact that it is important to obey the authority, obeying the authority can sometimes be hazardous especially when morals and autonomous thought are suppressed to an extent that the other person is harmed. Obedience usually involves doing what a rule or a person tells you to but negative consequences can result from displaying obedience to authority for example; the people who obeyed the orders of Adolph Hitler ended up killing innocent people during the Holocaust. In the same way, Stanley Milgram noted in his article ‘Perils of Obedience’ of how individuals obeyed authority and

Authoritarian leadership style is where a leader has complete control and power over their team. They demonstrate their 'power' and 'control' by dictating policies and procedures, deciding what goals need to be achieved, and directs all activities to be done by the team. An authoritarian is usually most successful when things are going well or when in a crisis and decisions need to be made quickly.

Therefore, the study indicated that individuals with a strict upbringing by pushy parents were most likely to develop an authoritarian personality. It was believed that this was because the individual was not able to express hostility towards their parents (for being strict and critical). Consequently, the person would then displace their hostility to other people, namely those who are in a minority. Adorno et al. concluded that people with authoritarian traits, as identified by the F-Scale, were predisposed to having 'fascistic' characteristics such as ethnocentrism (the tendency to favour one's own ethnic group), respect for authority figures and obsession with power (McAvoy 2010).

Accordingly, Rotter proposed that people with an internal locus of control, having a confident personality, are more likely to resist to social influence. There are different studies supporting this idea. For instance, in their experiment consisting in interviewing the subjects, Oliner and Oliner (1988) suggested that the 406-non-Jewish participants who lived during the Holocaust in Germany and protected Jewish people were more inclined to have a higher internal locus of control in contrast to the 126 individuals who obeyed to commands. This outcome supports Rotter’s theory that internals are not as likely to follow commands in contrast to externals who may be more easily persuaded, although there may be other aspects that have to be considered in view of the circumstances people lived in WWII.

The rise of fascism in Germany in the 1930’s and the acts of aggression and atrocities committed by the Nazis during the Second World War led to questions being asked as to why some people where prone to such levels of violence and hate in the name of political ideology. The ‘Authoritarian Personality’ was a concept suggested in 1950 by German sociologist Theodor Adorno and colleagues following their research identifying the personality traits believed to allow an individual to be bias towards and follow a fascist ideology. Although initially met with great excitement, over time the authoritarian personality alone

The purpose of this essay is to outline the similarities and differences between Adorno et al.s (1950) and Altemeyers (1981) approach to authoritarianism. In 1981 Bob Altemeyer revamped Adornos study on authoritarianism, focusing on who the followers are, how they got that way, how they think and why they are so submissive and aggressive.

Authority is seen as an essential part of society that is set into place to keep groups, nations, and other organizations from a chaotic downfall. Although authority may seem to be a good asset to society, some may argue that it can corrupt one’s ethics. Several experiments on authority have shown how it can play a role on an individual’s character. The presence of an authority figure forces power among individuals which can lead to unusual change in behavior to an extent that it changes one’s own moral values.

The Authoritarian technique is commanding and direct. Its purpose is to establish control over the client and alter behaviour through the use of repetitious commands. This approach was used in early experiments because hypnotists believed that the authority they had over their client increased their chance of success (hypnosis for change: 26). The phrases used are: Close your eyes now or you will listen to my voice and my voice will make you relax.

To ‘investigate this question we will first discuss, in a theoretical section, the terms “authoritarian personality” and “authoritarianism”, then have a look at the evolution in methods to measure them, with different scales and studies. Secondly, we will discuss the difference between personality and behavior. Then

This study was centered around one thing: power. Power is defined as a person's ability to influence others or control over resources. We all desire power, as it can make us feel confident and is often seen as a measure of success. However, power is a double edged sword. Power has been the cause of countless conflicts throughout history, and has the ability to corrupt those even with the strongest of morals. This notion is one that was held by Abraham Lincoln, who expressed this in the phrase: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.” This phenomenon was investigated extensively by psychologist Philip Zimbardo through the Stanford Prison Experiment. The study saw how the guards felt that they were superior to the

According to Tom Jacobs, in his article “Rethinking the Classic ‘Obedience’ Sudies,” he mentions how some people believe that people are predisposed to follow authority figures without having any doubt, and also will quickly become somehow abusive when positioned in power. In this world most of the people are going have some experience with this topic, especially because in today’s century many people do whatever they want just because of the power they could have compared to others. Jacobs also mentions that in journal named “PLoS Biology,” “they argue that people will indeed comply with the questionable demands of authority figures—but only if they strongly identify with that person, and buy into the rightness of those beliefs;” in other

The article, “The Authoritarian Personality,” written by Erich Fromm discusses the common and different characteristics between the two forms of an authoritarian personality. He starts to explain how one becomes a mature person. He states that to become a mature person, said person needs to have developed love and reason. He then states that an authoritarian character has not reached maturity, and therefore, has not developed love or reason. Erich Fromm continues to explain that the difference between the ruler and the ruled is how they start to feel “greater.” The way the ruled feels “greater” is by depending on their ruler for guidance and by following the ruler to become a part of the larger group. The way the ruler feels “greater” is by depending on the ruled to continue to look at them as strong and powerful. He then points out that one person can hold both the ruler and the ruled characteristics. Erich Fromm continues to explain the differences between rational and irrational authority and where these two forms of authority are found. He ends by saying that the understanding of love and reason, and developing said characteristics is the foundation to a person’s own authority and political democracy. While reading this article, it brought me back to all the times I have dealt with people who have authoritative personalities and how it affected me. As stated by Erich Fromm, all people with authority personalities contain components of both the ruler and the ruled.

Over the course of several decades, the depiction of leadership has changed. What was thought to be innovative and participative or transformational tactic to leadership has replaced the classical and autocratic or authoritarian approach. The step forward that not everything old is bad and not everything new is good was made somewhere along the way. It was determined that different leadership styles suited different situations, and it is the responsibility of each leader to figure out when to make use of an individual leadership approach or style. The two leaders selected for this assignment are Martha Stewart representing an authoritarian leadership style and William Shatner’s television character, James Tiberius Kirk from the starship Enterprise representing a transformational leadership style.

The primary focal point of the authoritarian style is on respect rather than parent-child relationships. Authoritarian parents are known for being strict. They lay out rules and expect their children to follow them without question, even if the child has a valid reason for questioning a decision. They establish many rules for the household and leave little or no room for negotiation on policies. Authoritarian parents also fail to explain why the rules exist because they believe that, as the parent, they are the authority on all decisions and shouldn’t be questioned.

Bogardus scale was created by Emory Bogardus in 1968 to measure social distance empirically. The scale determines the desire of people in associate with different racial and ethnic groups during certain social situations. After 70 years of administering the test, certain patterns have formed. White Americans and northern Europeans are on the top of the hierarchy. Eastern and southern Europeans are at a greater social distance and racial minorities are on the bottom.