Authoritarian personality: Faithful to a strong leader

Jakob Sverre Løvstad

CTO, Seema

28 May 2025

Today's article is based on one of my favourite psychological researchers, the recently deceased Bob Altemeyer (or Robert Anthony Altemeyer, for the pedantic). Altemeyer spent his life researching authoritarian personalities, initially called "right-wing authoritarians" (RWA). This is in the tradition of a number of researchers who looked at authoritarian traits in the wake of the Second World War. But as Altemeyer emphasises in his books, there are authoritarian types in every corner of the political spectrum. Or also in religion, military structures or whatever. So it's by no means "a thing" only on the far right political wing. It has more to do with a personality structure that:

1. often submits to authority figures (which can be in anything, really),
2. behaving aggressively on behalf of said authority figures, and
3. is very conventional/conformist in thoughts and behaviour.

Over the years, it has also been observed that those who fall into this category tend to score very low on "Openness" on the Big Five personality scale. This is probably no surprise (openness is the opposite of conformity, after all), but hints that parts of the phenomenon have a genetic component as well as more social psychological and generally evolutionary forces at play. And it's quite common when you see stable prevalent phenomena related to personality: It has its deeper underlying reasons, as also pointed out in Nature.

Being part of what's called "high RWA" is not a gigantic chunk of the population (it seems to be just over 10%, with some variation between countries). But the interesting thing about Altemeyer's research is that they can bring with them some pretty problematic tendencies - especially if they end up in positions of power. As Altemeyer says:

...research reveals that authoritarian followers drive through life under the influence of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and-to top it all off-a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic.

For those who have followed the media (or life in general), there are a number of people out there who aren't exactly open to listening to evidence-based thinking. And it's also interesting, for example, to be both "pro life" and at the same time very much in favour of waging warfare that, quite often, results in someone dying (often more than a few). Speaking of double standards and compartmentalisation. Just to name a few.

So why is this a problem in a diversity context? Well, I think I'll simply paste in the RWA questionnaire (there are similar ones for other "wings"), and it might speak for itself (you answer agree/disagree on all points):

1. The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just "loud mouths" showing off their ignorance.
2. Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.
3. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.
4. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else. (reversed)
5. It is always better to trust the judgement of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubt in people's minds.
6. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly. (reversed)
7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.
8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps. (reversed)
9. Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people.
10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral fibre and traditional beliefs.
11. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else. (reversed)
12. The "old-fashioned ways" and the "old-fashioned values" still show the best way to live.
13. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority's view by protesting for women's abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer. (reversed)
14. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take us back to our true path.
15. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government, criticising religion, and ignoring the "normal way things are supposed to be done." (reversed)
16. God's laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished.
17. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.
18. A "woman's place" should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past. (reversed)
19. Our country will be great if we honour the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the "rotten apples" who are ruining everything.
20. There is no "one right way" to live life; everybody has to create their own way. (reversed)
21. Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy "traditional family values." (reversed)
22. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group's traditional place in society.

What makes all this a little difficult is that the various authoritarian groups can also be argued to be part of the diverse community, part of natural human variation. At the same time, we're talking about voices that don't in any way want others to be allowed to be themselves. It's a paradox we encounter in several places in the diversity field: We want to reach out a hand, but we don't necessarily reach back. There is perhaps no obvious solution to this, and human history does not give the impression that it is a solved problem anywhere. In Altemeyer's research, he has also carried out several games in which the participants represent countries that will mediate or possibly go to war with each other (think an advanced version of "Risk"). The result is often that when authoritarians get to run the show, everyone is dead relatively quickly (in the game, that is) compared to those who do not score highly on these scales.

So yes...

However, what's really cool about Altemeyer in particular (to say something nice at the end here) is that he was a great idealist on behalf of his profession. So his books are available to free downloadand even the audiobooks cost next to nothing. In other words, just get started and read! It's very exciting stuff.