The antecedents of collective action have received considerable attention in psychology, political science, and sociology. However, few studies have addressed the extent to which individual differences in psychological needs, motives, and traits predict collective action tendencies. In the present study, we focus on an especially important individual difference: authoritarianism. We examined three key hypotheses: (1) that authoritarianism would be associated with lower willingness to engage in collective action (net of other factors known to predict protest), (2) that the negative relationship between authoritarianism and collective action would be stronger among the politically engaged; and (3) that the negative relationship between authoritarianism and collective action would be weaker among those who lacked confidence in major social institutions. Using data from three independent waves of the World Values Survey, we find cross-national evidence supporting all three hypotheses.
AbelesR. P. (1976). Relative deprivation, rising expectations, and black militancy. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 119-137.
2.
AcevedoG. A. (2008). The fatalistic imagination and the continued salience of religion in the modern world: A test of resource compensation/resource amplification hypotheses using crossnational data. Sociological Spectrum, 28, 602-624.
3.
AdornoT. W.Frenkel-BrunswikE.LevinsonD. J.SanfordR. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
4.
AltemeyerB. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
AmentaE.CarenN.ChiarelloE.SuY. (2010). The political consequences of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 287-307.
6.
BenfordR. D.SnowD. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.
7.
BermanS. L.WittigM. A. (2004). An intergroup theories approach to direct political action among African Americans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7, 19-34.
8.
BollenK.LennoxR. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305-314.
9.
BrandstätterH.OppK. D. (2014). Personality traits (“Big Five”) and the propensity to political protest: Alternative models. Political Psychology, 35, 515-537.
10.
BrandtM. J.HenryP. J. (2012). Gender inequality and gender differences in authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1301-1315. doi:10.1177/0146167212449871
11.
BrunstingS.PostmesT. (2002). Social movement participation in the digital age predicting offline and online collective action. Small Group Research, 33, 525-554.
12.
CarneyD. R.JostJ. T.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29, 807-840.
13.
ConverseP. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In ApterD. E. (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.
14.
CorcoranK. E.PettinicchioD.YoungJ. T. (2011). The context of control: A cross-national investigation of the link between political institutions, efficacy, and collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 575-605.
DruryJ.ReicherS. (2005). Explaining enduring empowerment: A comparative study of collective action and psychological outcomes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 35-58.
17.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861-1894.
18.
DunnK. (2013). Preference for radical right-wing populist parties among exclusive-nationalists and authoritarians. Party Politics, 21, 367-380. doi:10.1177/1354068812472587
19.
DunnK.SinghS. P. (2014). Pluralistic conditioning: Social tolerance and effective democracy. Democratization, 21, 11-28. doi:10.1080/13510347.2012.697056
20.
FedericoC. M. (2015). The structure, foundations, and expression of ideology. In BerinskyA. (Ed.), New directions in public opinion (2nd ed., pp. 81-103). New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
FedericoC. M.FisherE. L.DeasonG. (2011). Political expertise and the link between the authoritarian predisposition and conservatism. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 686-708. doi:10.1093/poq/nfr02
22.
FedericoC. M.Reifen TagarM. (2014). Zeroing in on the right: Education and the partisan expression of authoritarianism. Political Behavior, 36, 581-603. doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9250-4
23.
FeldmanS. (2003). Enforcing social conformity: A theory of authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 24, 41-74.
24.
FeldmanS.StennerK. (1997). Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 18, 4741-4770. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00077
25.
FrommE. (1941). Escape from freedom. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
26.
GallegoA.OberskiD. (2012). Personality and political participation: The mediation hypothesis. Political Behavior, 34, 425-451.
27.
GerberA. S.HuberG. A.DohertyD.DowlingC. M.RasoC.HaS. E. (2011). Personality traits and participation in political processes. The Journal of Politics, 73, 692-706.
28.
GurrT. R. (1970). Why men rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
GuttingR. S. (2015). Ideological asymmetries in unconventional political participation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State University of New York, Stony Brook.
30.
HetheringtonM. J.WeilerJ. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
31.
HibbingJ. R.SmithK. B.AlfordJ. R. (2014). Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, 297-307. doi:10.1017/S0140525X13001192
32.
HornseyM. J.BlackwoodL.LouisW.FieldingK.MavorK.MortonT.WhiteK. M. (2006). Why do people engage in collective action? Revisiting the role of perceived effectiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1701-1722.
33.
InglehartR. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
JenkinsJ. C.WallaceM.FullertonA. S. (2008). A social movement society? A cross-national analysis of protest potential. International Journal of Sociology, 38(3), 12-35.
35.
JohnstonC. D.LavineH. G.FedericoC. M. (2017). Open versus closed: Personality, identity, and the politics of redistribution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36.
JostJ. T.FedericoC. M.NapierJ. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, function, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307-337.
37.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.
38.
KlandermansB. (1984). Mobilization and participation: Social-psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review, 49, 583-600.
39.
LavineH.BurgessD.SnyderM.TransueJ.SullivanJ. L.HaneyB.WagnerS. (1999). Threat, authoritarianism, and voting: An investigation of personality and persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 337-347.
40.
LavineH.LodgeM.FreitasK. (2005). Authoritarianism, threat, and selective exposure to information. Political Psychology, 26, 219-244.
41.
LavineH.LodgeM.PolichakJ.TaberC. (2002). Explicating the black box through experimentation: Studies of authoritarianism and threat. Political Analysis, 10, 342-360.
42.
LemieuxA. F.AsalV. H. (2010). Grievance, social dominance orientation, and authoritarianism in the choice and justification of terror versus protest. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 3, 194-207.
43.
MalkaA.SotoC. J.InzlichtM.LelkesY. (2014). Do needs for security and certainty predict cultural and economic conservatism? A cross-national analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 1031-1051.
44.
McCarthyJ.ZaldM. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1212-1241.
45.
McCraeR. R. (2015). A more nuanced view of reliability. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 97-112.
46.
MondakJ. J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
47.
OlsonM. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48.
ParvinM. (1973). Economic determinants of political unrest: An econometric approach. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17, 271-296.
49.
PettigrewT. F. (1967). Social evaluation theory: Convergences and applications. In LevineD. (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 241-311). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
50.
ReicherS. (2001). The psychology of crowd dynamics. In HoggM. A.TindaleR. S. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 182-208). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
51.
RuncimanW. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of the attitudes to social inequality in 20th century England. Berkeley: University of California Press.
52.
SchlozmanK. L.VerbaS.BradyH. E. (2012). The unheavenly chorus: Unequal political voice and the broken promise of American democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
53.
SimonB.KlandermansB. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319-331.
54.
SimonB.LoewyM.StürmerS.WeberU.FreytagP.HabigC.SpahlingerP. (1998). Collective identification and social movement participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 646-658.
55.
SinghS.DunnK. (2013). Veto players, the policy-making environment and the expression of authoritarian attitudes. Political Studies, 61, 1119-1141. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00959.x
56.
StennerK. (2005). The authoritarian dynamic. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
57.
StreinerD. L. (2003). Being inconsistent about consistency: When coefficient alpha does and doesn’t matter. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 217-222.
58.
TarrowS. G. (2011). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
59.
ThomasE. F.MavorK. I.McGartyC. (2012). Social identities facilitate and encapsulate action-relevant constructs: A test of the social identity model of collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 75-88.
60.
United Nations Development Programme. (2006). Human development report. Available from http://hdr.undp.org/en/
61.
van ZomerenM. (2013). Four core social-psychological motivations to undertake collective action. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 378-388.
62.
van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504-535.
63.
WalkerL.MannL. (1987). Unemployment, relative deprivation, and social protest. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 275-283.
64.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
65.
ZhangW. (2012). The effects of political news use, political discussion and authoritarian orientation on political participation: Evidences from Singapore and Taiwan. Asian Journal of Communication, 22, 474-492.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
