Politics, Culture & Socialization Vol. 1 2010, No. 4
Content Preface .......................................................................................................................
309
Articles Sabrina de Regt, Tim Smits & Dimitri Mortelmans On cross-national variation in the correlation between authoritarianism and social dominance orientation ...............................................................................................
311
Brian J. Bowe & Robin Blom Facilitating Dissent: The Ethical Implications of Political Organizing via Social Media .........................................................................................................................
323
Christos Kassimeris & Andreas G. Philaretou Playing Politics with Charisma: Archbishop Makarios III and the Cyprus Issue .....
337
Russell F. Farnen Islamophobia: Definitions, Diagnosis, and Solutions A Comparative Empirical Study of American and European Students’ Attitudes and Opinions on Arabs/Islam Today .........................................................................
353
Erik Andersson Stake in the political: Young people’s condition for political socialization in social media .........................................................................................................................
379
Politics, Culture and Socialization, 1. Vol., No. 4/2010, pp. 307-308
308
Contents
Book Reviews Christ’l De Landtsheer Mental long waves. An outline until 2021 [Mentale langegolfbewegingen. Krijtlijnen tot 2021] (by Helmut Gaus) ...................................................................
399
Dennis Hegmans Radio goes to War: The Cultural Politics of Propaganda during World War II (by Gerd Horten) .......................................................................................................
402
Conference Section ..................................................................................................
409
Preface
The finding that in East European countries the relation between authoritarianism and social dominance orientation is negative (in contrast to other European countries where this relation is positive), certainly opens new theoretical perspectives. This empirical finding is of both social and methodological interest, and the research preceding it by Sabrina de Reght, Tim Smits, and Dimitri Mortelmans is the subject of the opening article (On crossnational variation in the correlation between authoritarianism and social dominance orientation) of the current, fourth Vol. 1 issue of Politics, Culture and Socialization. Authoritarianism, nationalism and political personality are classic themes in political socialization and political psychology and because of their actual relevance, it is good news that scholars invest their energy and talents in them. Besides of the opening article, two other studies in this fourth journal issue address these classic themes. The importance of the personality of the leader for the course of political events has been recognized since Antiquity and it increasingly gains scientific interest since the thirties of the former century, even though political profilers are still scarcely dispersed among us. Of particular interest therefore, is the social constructionist study by Christos Kassimeris and Andreas G. Philaretou of the popularity of Makarios III who serves both as the Archbishop and the president of the Republic of Cyprus from 1960 until his death in 1977. The article is, besides of a case study of Cypriote political history, an inspiring analysis of the “branding” of charismatic leadership (Playing Politics with charisma: Archbishop Makarios III and the Cyprus case). Yet another traditional area of inquiry with actual importance is nationalism. Russell F. Farnen’s empirical study about Islamophic tendencies with youngsters may bring less good news, but it clarifies a number of tricky terms and concepts (Islamophobia: Definitions, Diagnosis, and Solutions. A Comparative Empirical Study of American and European student’s attitudes and opinions on Arabs/Islam Today). But let us introduce one new topic that is addressed in two other articles of this issue of Politics, Culture and Socialization. The topic “Internet and Politics” may possibly have, at this particular moment, even bigger social relevance compared to the former ones. In Tunisia we were able to see where the Internet and other new communication technologies can “catapult” us when used by young educated people who experience poverty, anger about corruption, and the frustration of their justified ambitions. Non legitiPolitics, Culture and Socialization, 1. Vol., No. 4/2010, pp. 215-216
310
Preface
mate power-bases are damaged, abolished, or replaced by other more or sometimes even less legitimate power bases. Romania is the first example of a revolution facilitated by the Internet. Before that particular political break-through of new communication technologies, people made for several ages productive use of leaflets and newspaper articles, for attacking governments, emperors, oppressors, invaders and other power holders. This fourth issue of Politics, Culture and Socialization pays, with two articles, special attention to the impact of the internet in the political sphere, especially for adolescents. This issue presents us with one article by Brian J. Bowe and Robin Blom that gives an insight in a number of relevant processes which in various countries have accompanied political dissent, such as the political organizing through social media. The Internet at times brings back the power to the citizens, but institutions are certainly aware of this possibility and tend to interfere, for the better or the worse (Facilitating Dissent: The Ethical Implications of Political Organizing via Social Media). The findings by Erik Anderson in his discursive study of the net community understate the positive news about the political function of new communication technologies. The study (Stake in the political: Young people’s condition for political socialization in social media) testifies of the participatory effect of the internet for youngsters on political acting. Hopefully you will enjoy the subjects dealt with in this issue, as well as the variety in the methods used and in disciplinary and cultural background of the authors. This fourth issue of Politics, Culture and Socialization testifies of the extreme richness of the focus and diversity of the domain that links political socialization to political psychology. You are invited to taste the spirit of “psycho-political socialization” in Cracow, Poland, where the IPSA research committees RC21 on political socialization and RC29 on PsychoPolitics organize their coming expert meeting at the Jagellienian University starting June 23 until June 25. The call for papers is open at www.politicalsocialization.org! Christ’l De Landtsheer (University of Antwerp, Belgium) President of IPSA RC21 Editor of Politics, Culture and Socialization
On cross-national variation in the correlation between authoritarianism and social dominance orientation *
Sabrina de Regt , Tim Smits & Dimitri Mortelmans University of Antwerp, Research Centre for Longitudinal and Life, Course Studies (CELLO), Sint-Jacobstraat 2, B-2000 Antwerp, Belgium. * Corresponding author. E-mail:
[email protected]
Abstract: In this article, empirical evidence on cross-national variation in the authoritarianism–social dominance orientation (SDO) association has been provided. Authoritarianism and SDO measures were derived from the existing European Values Study (EVS) data. In the first study, it has been shown that the new EVS measures correlate substantially with the scales normally used to measure the constructs, that the scales have adequate levels of internal consistency, and that the EVS measures have comparable relations with external variables similar to the scales usually employed. In the second study, the authoritarianism–SDO association has been shown for twenty-eight European countries. For many of these countries, no information on this association was available until today. It has been shown that not only the magnitude of this relationship differs between countries but more noticeably the direction of this association also. In East European countries, negative relationships between authoritarianism and SDO have been found while in other European countries this relationship has been found to be positive. Keywords: Authoritarianism – Social Dominance Orientation – European Values Study – Scale validation – Cross-national research
Introduction Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson and Sanford (1950) introduced The Authoritarian Personality (TAP). Altemeyer reconceptualized authoritarianism as the covariance to (1) a strict adherence to conventional norms and values (conventionalism), (2) an uncritical subjection to authority (authoritarian submission), and (3) feelings of aggression toward violators of norms (authoritarian aggression) (Altemeyer, 1981, 1988). Later Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth and Malle (1994) introduced the often-used concept of Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). This individual-difference variable indicates the extent to which one desires that one’s in-group dominates and is superior to out-groups. Whether and how authoritarianism and SDO correlate is a recent topic in authoritarianism research. According to Duckitt’s thesis (2001), which is empirically supported by the meta-analysis of Roccato and Ricolfi (2005), there are significant differences between countries in this correlation (besides intracultural differences). In this article we will use The European Politics, Culture and Socialization, 1. Vol., No. 4/2010, pp. 311-322
312
Sabrina de Regt et al.: On cross-national variation
Values Study (EVS) (see ‘data and measurement’ section, Study 2 for more information) to test Duckitt’s hypothesis (2001). Our test has some advantages over the meta-analysis of Roccato and Ricolfi (2005). First, the same measures will be used across countries such that between-country differences are not due to differences in the measurements used. Second, the time span of our study is limited, because we base our analysis on the latest available wave of the EVS. Therefore our results will be less influenced by social developments that occur over time. Third, we will use representative samples. This is especially important because the correlation between authoritarianism and SDO appears to increase with age (Duckitt, 2001), and therefore it is a suboptimal test of the theory if only or mostly student samples are used. Last, we will examine the relationship in a broader range of countries. Countries of all European regions will be examined, and the large number of Central and East European countries is especially interesting. Until date, these countries have been largely unstudied (see Farnen & Meloen, 2000).
Cross-national differences in the authoritarianism–SDO relationship There are some theoretical similarities between authoritarianism and SDO. Both highSDO individuals and authoritarian personalities are theorized to be relatively conservative, racist, ethnocentric, and prejudiced, and both are expected to show little empathy for lower-status groups (Pratto et al., 1994). There are some important differences between these two concepts however. It is argued that the key difference between authoritarianism and SDO is that the latter seems to be the “dominant” personality version of authoritarianism, whereas authoritarianism is the “submissive” version (Altemeyer, 1998). Authoritarianism can be considered as an intra-group phenomenon and SDO as more of an intergroup phenomenon (Pratto et al., 1994). This is because authoritarianism focuses on submission to in-group authority figures independent of whether or not they advocate intergroup dominance, while SDO focuses on dominance over out-groups independent of the views of in-group authority figures (Whitley, 1999). Duckitt (2001) theorized that the correlation between the two concepts depends upon the degree of ideological contrast (that is polarized along a single, explicitly, ideologically articulated left–right dimension) in countries. In countries with a strong ideological contrast between the left and right, one will find persons who score low on both authoritarianism and SDO at the left end of the political spectrum, while one will find people who are high in both authoritarianism and SDO at the other end of the ideological spectrum. This of course results in a positive correlation between the two concepts. Alternatively, in countries where the degree of ideological contrast is low, authoritarianism and SDO scores are often more independent of each other resulting in low or nonsignificant correlations. This thesis has been tested and confirmed based upon 29 studies and 51 samples (Roccato and Ricolfi, 2005). The weighted mean correlation in countries that are characterized by a strong ideological contrast (r = 0.42) was more than twice of that found in countries with minor ideological contrast (r = 0.20). Also in recent studies strong correlations are reported in countries where the political system is highly ideologized like Germany (e.g. Cohrs et al., 2005), Italy (e.g. Dallago et al., 2008) and Belgium (e.g. Dhont and Van Hiel, 2009). Also in Sweden (e.g. Zakrisson, 2005), France (Dru, 2007), New
Politics, Culture and Socialization, 1. Vol., No. 4/2010, pp. 311-322
313
Zealand (e.g. Mavor et al., 2010) and Switzerland (Thomsen et al., 2008) the two versions of authoritarianism correlate significantly and positively. Also in line with Duckitt’s (2001) thesis weak correlations are reported in countries with a low degree of ideological contrast like the United States (e.g. Christopher et al., 2008, Nagoshi et al., 2007) and Canada (e.g. Nicol, 2007). However, not all correlations are congruent with what would be expected based on Duckitt’s premise (2001). In the United States, several studies find authoritarianism and SDO to correlate moderately strongly (r>0.4) even though the degree of ideological contrast in this country is considered to be weak (e.g. Crowson et al., 2005). In contrast, weak correlations are found in Australia (e.g. Heaven et al., 2006), in New Zealand (e.g. Jugert and Duckitt, 2009) and in Belgium (e.g. Duriez et al., 2008) although the political system is highly ideologized in those countries. As we have noted earlier, a fewer number of studies on the ideological consistency between authoritarianism and SDO have been conducted in East European countries. Some studies found that the two concepts were virtually unrelated in Poland (Duriez et al., 2005, Kossowska et al., 2008). Van Hiel and Kossowska (2006) find submissive and dominant authoritarianism to be uncorrelated in a Polish adult sample (r=0.09, p>0.05) while the two versions of authoritarianism are positively correlated in a Polish student sample (r=0.21, p
