Transcript Theoretical Background - University of Texas at Dallas

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
Anomia
Authoritarianism
(2) McClosky & Schaar (1965)
•authoritarian individuals are hampered to interact effectively
•less opportunities to escape from social isolation
•resulting in anomia
Anomia
Authoritarianism
reciprocal relationship: not necessarily unplausible
Anomia
Authoritarianism
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
a
Xt2
res
1
c
d
Yt1
b
Yt2
cross-lagged autoregressive model (Finkel 1995)
• cross-construct regression weights: X predicting Y, controlling for former
values of Y
res
2
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
res
1
res
res
2
3
Xt2
Xt1
Xt3
1
1
0
1
Intercept
1
F
Slope
•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
Nmax
GFE-Survey 2002
GFE-Survey 2003
GFE-Survey 2004
2364
1175
824
5.b Indicators
Authoritarianism:
Var
Item
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
Anomia:
Variable
Item
an01w1r
“Everything has become so much in disarray that one does not know where
one actually stands“
an02w1r
„Matters have become so difficult these days that one does not know what is
going on“
1 „exactly true“; 2 „ moderately true“; 3 „ barely true“; 4 „ not at all true“; recoded: higher
values indicate higher degrees of anomia
6. Results - descriptives
Authoritarianism 2002-2004:
Time
Variable
2002
AU03W1R
2706
2.68
.939
1
4
AU04W1R
2698
2.13
.856
1
4
AU03W2R
1166
2.70
.914
1
4
AU04W2R
1168
2.20
.835
1
4
AU03W3R
817
2.69
.918
1
4
AU04W3R
821
2.20
.845
1
4
2003
2004
N
M
SD
Min.
Max.
Anomia 2002-2004:
Time
2002
2003
2004
Variable
N
M
SD
Min.
Max.
an01w1r
2705
2.57
.905
1
4
an02w1r
2705
2.53
.898
1
4
an01w2r
1166
2.78
.900
1
4
an02w2r
1173
2.73
.900
1
4
an01w3r
825
2.90
.882
1
4
an02w3r
824
2.87
.874
1
4