Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 26

High School Journal 1985, 68 (4), 415-423.



John J. Ray

University of New South Wales, Australia

The Authoritarian Personality by Adorno, Frenkel-

Brunswik, Levinson & Sanford (1950) was widely
welcomed as demonstrating the existence of a type
of psychopathology peculiar to the political Right.
These "California" authors, in fact, were quite explicit
in referring to the syndrome they had "discovered" as
being a "disease". Since there can be little doubt that
most psychologists have at least some Leftish
sympathies, this set of proposals about
"authoritarianism" became and remains very popular.
The weight of criticisms that have been levelled at
the California work would surely have long ago
equated "authoritarianism" with "phlogiston" if the
social sciences were in fact truly scientific but
ideology and intellectual fashions still seem to have
an influence among us that makes mere evidence
often seem surprisingly irrelevant (Christie & Jahoda,
1954; Titus & Hollander, 1957; Titus,1968;
McKinney,1973; Ray,1976; Altemeyer, 1981).

One of the more distressing consequences of the

characteristic ideological polarization among social
scientists is that the entire discipline seems to have
suffered an almost total inability to see that there are
many psychopathological syndromes on the Left too.
Even quite recent work has, for instance, contained
the assertion that such a thing as Left-wing
authoritarianism just cannot be found (Stone,
1981/82; Altemeyer, 1981). It was long ago pointed
out that on the world political scene authoritarianism
seems to be at least as common among Leftist
governments as it is among Rightist governments
(Christie & Jahoda, 1954) but, try as they might,
psychologists have so far seemed quite unable to
find any psychological syndrome that corresponds to
this undoubted political reality. It is easy to find
psychological characteristics that explain Rightist
authoritarianism but Leftist authoritarianism seems to
be some part sort of mystery that somehow should
not be there at all.

From my point of view as an anarchist, all

governments are basically Fascist and in my sixteen
years of research into authoritarianism I have never
had the slightest difficulty in finding authoritarianism
on both the political Left and the political Right so it
may be that I am one of the few who can do
something to help rectify the strange selective
blindness that seems to have characterized
psychology since the Second World War. If in this
paper, I concentrate on the Left, therefore, please do
not think that I am thereby in any way trying to
excuse the Right. I am simply trying to restore a
balance. The Right has already had a bad press for
30 years or more so I feel that their sins are already
well-known (or, at least, well-accepted).

Why has the search for psychological

authoritarianism on the Left proved so difficult?
Perhaps the most obvious reason is that
authoritarianism has usually been defined in ways
that make it virtually synonymous with conservatism.
The "new anthropological type" that Adorno et al.
(1950) purported to have discovered was no new
type at all. He was just the old, familiar, conservative.
For a Marxist intellectual, Adorno seems to have
known surprisingly little about traditional political
conservatism. Respect for the established authorities
and the various other elements of the F scale have
always been core themes of conservative thought.
Conservatives have always been disapproving of
sexual irregularities and mistrustful of the good
intentions of others. That is what makes them
conservatives. To use such attributes as indicators of
totalitarian predilections was virtually to preclude
Leftists from being shown as having totalitarian
leanings (Ray, 1973a).

This point, is, of course fairly well-known by now and

Rokeach (1960) made a valiant effort to measure
authoritarianism in a way that did not inextricably
confound it with conservatism. As is now also quite
evident, however, even Rokeach's 'D' scale does
show a sometimes quite strong tendency to correlate
positively with conservatism of ideology (Hanson,
1970; Ray, 1970). This is one of the reasons why the
inevitability of at least some association between
conservatism and authoritarianism seems to have
become generally accepted.

Assuming the validity of the F scale

Let us therefore for the sake of the argument assume

for a moment that the F and D scales are valid as
measures of what they purport to measure. Let us
assume that they do measure a psychopathological
type of authoritarian personality. I will submit that
even given this unlikely (if popular) assumption we
can still find authoritarianism and psychopathology
on the political Left.

There is no doubt that scales of conservatism usually

correlate highly with even balanced forms of the F
and D scales (Ray, 1973b). Leftists get low scores.
This means that even extreme Leftists virtually never
have anything to say in favour of authority and
toughness. Yet what could be more authoritarian than
a Communist government?

Even Nikita Khrushchev acknowledged that Stalin

killed far more people than Hitler and Communist
governments have the unnerving characteristic that
they never fall. Fascist governments always seem to
revert to democracy after a time but no Communist
nation has ever done so to my knowledge. So what
we have on the part of the extreme Left is a complete
opposition between attitude and behavior. The
claimed attitudes are kindly but the governments they
create are almost terminally brutal. I cannot accept
that this authoritarianism of Communist governments
is in some sense accidental or aberrant. To my
knowledge,all Communist governments at all times
and in all places develop much the same
characteristics as far as authoritarianism is
concerned. They are arguably the most
thoroughgoing tyrannies the modern world has. It
seems to me, then, that this complete break between
ideology and practice is the most striking evidence of
Leftist psychopathology that we could possibly have.
If we do as the law courts do and infer people's real
motives from their behaviour, we have to say that
extreme Leftists are people with the most brutal and
tyrannical real motives which they are totally
incapable of acknowledging even to themselves.
Their total success at denial of unsavoury motives
would surely in Freudian terms be psychopathology
of the most serious and tragic sort. Whether we call it
hypocrisy, self-deception or Freudian denial really
matters very little. It is clear that the difficulty which
all psychologists have undoubtedly had in
demonstrating authoritarian sentiments among
Leftists is itself the most powerful evidence of Leftist
psychopathology. To be an extreme Leftist is to be
totally unable to acknowledge one's own real
motives. Extreme Leftists are people who hide the
most dismal motivations behind the cloak of good

There are, of course, some occasions when extreme

Leftists are able to acknowledge to some extent the
real bitterness, anger, destructiveness and envy of
their motivations. When they are talking about "the
bosses," "The establishment," "multinationals" or
"Fascists" the venom is quite evident. The trouble,
however, is that this anger is not merely situational. It
is a chronic hostility. When the revolution succeeds
and the bogeymen have all been banished, the
anger does not go away. The society that the
revolutionaries set up is just the sort of society that
bitter, angry, destructive and avaricious people would
be expected to set up. Anyone who threatens their
aim of becoming a new ruling class is pitilessly

Ideology, then, is such a poor guide to action that

anyone interested in politics might well decide that
there is no point in even taking an interest in
ideology. It could, however, be argued that perhaps
ideology is a better guide to action in democratic
societies such as Britain and the U.S.A. But is this
so? There can surely be little doubt that Winston
Churchill was a Right-wing conservative. His
reverence for the established authorities and ways of
doing things can scarcely be in doubt. Should he not
therefore have found a congenial ally in Adolf Hitler?
As we all know, it was in fact the Conservative
Churchill who led the opposition to Hitler. The Leftist
Joseph Stalin was quite happy to co-operate with
Hitler -- as the Poles remember to this day. Political
alliances seem to have little to do with similarity of

This is even true within our present-day societies. If

we regard party allegiance rather than ideology as
the key thing of interest in politics, then it is possible
to find authoritarianism on the Left no matter what
definition of authoritarianism we use. Hanson (1975)
has summarized the research which uses the F scale
as a predictor of candidate or political party
preference. It is surprising how often the F scale fails
to yield any significant prediction at all. What this
means is that high F scale scorers are equally likely
to choose such diverse figures as George McGovern
and Richard Nixon! Many McGovern supporters were
highly authoritarian in even the F scale sense! If
McGovern was a Left-wing candidate (and I can think
of no other recent American Presidential candidate
who better deserves the epithet), then half of all
authoritarians were, by their vote, Left-wing.

No matter how firmly one decides that ideology is

politically irrelevant, such results do seem a little
strange. One begins to ask questions about
methodology. Most of the research was done on
students and the F scale has well-known problems of
ambiguity, openness to acquiescent response set
etc. Some time ago, therefore, I also attempted a
more rigorous replication of this lack of relationship. I
applied a balanced F scale and a balanced D scale
to a random sample of the population of the
Australian city of Sydney. Sydney has about three
million people of mainly British descent and is
Australia's largest city. There were 118 respondents
in the sample and they also received various
conservatism scales. The positive and negative
halves of the F and D scales correlated respectively .
56 and .27 in the expected direction but neither scale
predicted political party choice. As the Left of
Australian politics is represented by an avowedly
Socialist party, there can be no doubt that there were
real Leftists in the sample and that they were just as
likely to be high scorers on the F and D scales as
they were to be low scorers. Again there was no
shortage of Leftist authoritarians if it is political
behaviour (in the sense of vote) that we look at. As
far as political ideology was concerned, however, all
the more expected relationships were observed: Both
the F and D scales correlated significantly with
separate scales measuring political, social and moral
conservatism (Ray, 1973b). Even old-fashioned
conservatives can and often do vote for Leftist
political parties.

The theorist who is best known for pointing this out

is, of course, Lipset (1960). His claim is that working
class people tend to be conservative and
authoritarian but that they vote for radical parties out
of economic self-interest. The high F scorers who
voted for George McGovern or the Australian Labor
Party ought, then, on this analysis, to have been
working class people who were hoping for a handout.
In a recent study specifically aimed at testing Lipset's
theory (Ray, 19846) I also found that high scorers on
Wilson's Conservatism scale were particularly likely
to favour the Australian Labor Party.

So far, then, I have shown two types of

psychopathology on the political Left. Ideological
Leftists are unable to acknowledge their authoritarian
motives and ordinary Leftists voters are quite likely to
be high scorers on the F scale.

My third proof of Leftist psychopathology also

involves the F scale. In my salad days as an
authoritarianism researcher, I thought of the idea of
balancing the F scale by adding to it a whole group of
statements of the sort that were being shouted at the
time by anti-Vietnam protestors and which were
being taught by Leftist intellectuals. I therefore
gathered together a very humanist set of statements
such as: "All men are equal," "Human life is sacred,"
"Human beings are more important than efficiency,"
"Individual freedom is a basic human right,"
"Dictatorships are totally wrong" etc. I do not think
anyone could doubt that these sound a pretty Leftish
set of statements. There were even statements like
"Patriotism is just a glorified name for national
selfishness" and "The government should do more to
help the disabled." As it happened, however, the
scale formed by these statements did not correlate
negatively with the F and D scales (see Ray, 1972a).
They correlated positively. People who thought that
"all men are equal" and that "human beings are more
important than efficiency" were Fascists, not anti-
Fascists. If this should seem at first highly surprising,
let us not forget that Hitler was a socialist and that, in
English, the name of his political party was "The
National Socialist German Workers party."
Nonetheless, I am sure that we all would agree that
such a collocation of sentiments would not be found
among the students samples that we usually study.
On what sample, then, was this alarming
combination of sentiments found? On a sample of
Australian Army conscripts during their first week in
camp. In the Army, idealism and tough mindedness
go together. Among healthy young men in a military
setting, socialism has an iron fist. While this finding
may go a long way towards explaining how
communists so often resort to violence and
aggression ("armed struggle") in pursuing their
apparently humane objectives, some questions do
nonetheless remain. In particular, we may be inclined
to ask whether the finding was not some sort of
accidental result caused by poor research methods.
Can such a finding be repeated?

In fact, the research methods used were thoroughly

standard. The research was just like any other done
with the F scale. But is that sufficient? Has not the F
scale been much attacked due to its one-way-
wording. Could not the result be an acquiescence
artifact? This possibility had to be taken seriously. If
both sets of items were measuring acquiescence
only, the result would be explained as artifactual.
When checks for this were applied, however (Ray,
1974a) it was found that acquiescence did not
explain the result. We are left, then, with the original

But can the result be repeated? In particular, can it

be repeated on a general population sample? Do the
Army conscripts represent the community as a
whole? To answer this, a new study was recently
carried out. In this study the same set of apparently
humanist items was administered to a random
sample of the population of the Australian city of
Sydney together with a balanced version of the F
scale. This time the humanist items were orthogonal
to the F scale (Ray, 1984e). Note what this means. It
means that some people in the community did
respond as we would expect our students to
respond. They agreed with the humanist items and
rejected the Fascist items. The other half of the
community, however, responded as the conscripts
did: They agreed with both the Fascist and the
humanist items. It has been confirmed, therefore that
in large parts of the community Fascist and humanist
sentiments can be found together. Violent socialists
like Hitler and Stalin can be found even in an Anglo-
Saxon democracy.

Assuming that the F scale is not valid

As I think I have now demonstrated that an

assumption of F scale validity leads to three clear
proofs of psychopathology or authoritarianism on the
political Left, I am sure that we will all now feel more
friendly towards the extensive evidence leading to
the view that the F scale is of dubious validity as a
predictor of authoritarian behavior. I will not go into
that evidence here as I have already summarized it
extensively elsewhere (Ray, 1976, Ray & Lovejoy,
1983). Rejecting the F scale, however, does not get
Leftists out of the woods. Let us look at some
alternative measures of authoritarianism.

One of the things that often strikes me about many

items from both the F and D scales is that they tend
to sound rather old-fashioned or even ignorant. They
seem to represent a sort of Wisdom of Yesteryear
(Hartmann, 1977). Perhaps the best evidence of this
is a little-remarked paper by Pflaum (1964). It is one
of the few papers in modern psychology that quotes
research from the pre-war era. What the author did
was to set out to construct a parallel form of the F
scale. He appears to have done so very successfully
simply by drawing on collections of superstitions and
misconceptions current among college students in
the 20s and 30s.

Over a decade ago, therefore, I tried to write a scale

that would both be couched in a fairly modern terms
and would concentrate on authoritarianism alone
without at the same time dragging in whole slabs of
conservative ideology. I called what I produced the
"A" scale (Ray, 1972b). It was a balanced scale but it
had items glorifying the army, Mussolini, punctuality,
discipline, military preparedness, obedience and war.
It showed very persuasive validity characteristics as
a measure of authoritarianism and even strongly
predicted some types of authoritarian behaviour -
which is more than the F scale can do (Titus, 1968;
Ray & Lovejoy, 1983). Yet this scale also showed
extremely high correlations with various measures of
conservative ideology. Only conservatives could find
anything to agree with its pro-authority items. From
its validity characteristics, I might just as well have
called it a conservatism scale. So once again we find
that, even when carefully defined, authoritarianism of
ideology is conservative. Quite recently, two other
authors (Rigby & Rump, 1979) have repeated the
same type of experiment. They set out to write a
totally straightforward attitude to authority scale
covering a range of attitudes towards different sorts
of authority but nothing else. They too found that
their resultant scale correlated highly with
conservatism. Even when we move outside the F
scale, then, we find that it is only conservatives who
have a good word for authority. Leftists may practice
authoritarianism when in power but they will never
openly advocate it.

Let us now move from the "A" scale to another

measure of authoritarianism -- the "Directiveness"
scale. Like the F scale, the "A" scale is an attitude
scale. Using attitude scales to index personality is,
however, a rather indirect approach. What about
using a conventional behavior inventory? That is
what the Directiveness scale is. It is a conventional
behavior inventory that was intended to measure
Nazi-type personalities - i.e. people prone to behave
in a domineering, aggressive and destructive way
towards others. It measures interpersonal
authoritarianism rather than some abstract notion of
how society should be run. It asks whether you
personally behave in an authoritarian way or not,
regardless of what you might think is good for society
as a whole. It has been extensively validated, mainly
against peer-ratings in three separate studies. It does
predict quite strongly the type of behavior it describes
and has little social desirability artifact (Ray, 1976 &
1981a, Ray & Lovejoy, 1983). The political correlates
of such a scale, then, must obviously be of some
interest. Do people who behave in an authoritarian
way interpersonally tend to be conservative? There
are now four studies (Ray, 1976, 1979, 1982 &
1984c) which show that there is in fact no overall
relationship between the Directiveness scale and
either vote or ideology. Leftists in all senses are just
as likely to get high scores on it as Rightists.
Interpersonal authoritarianism - in other words,
authoritarian personality -- is just as common on the
Left as the Right. Again, there is no shortage of
authoritarianism of the Left.

A small consolation in this context, however, may be

that high scores on the Directiveness scale have
been shown not to be psychopathological. They tend
in fact to be associated with positive mental health
(Ray, 1979 & 1984d). As among animals, it is healthy
to try to dominate others (Burnet, 1970).

For my fifth proof of psychopathology among Leftists,

I assume that racism represents some sort of
psychopathology. I in fact think that racism could on
at least some occasions not be psychopathological
but since negative racial attitudes among
conservatives have been used to brand
conservatives as in some sense deficient, I think it is
only fair to apply the same judgment when
considering Leftists. What is sauce for the goose
should be sauce for the gander. I wish, then, to take
you back to the "A" scale I mentioned a little
previously. I pointed out that although the "A" scale
was designed as a measure of authoritarianism, it
could also just as well be referred to as a measure of
conservatism. Low scorers on it, in other words are
definitely Leftists. Yet the relationship between that
scale and ethnocentrism is in fact orthogonality!
Racists are just as likely to be low scorers as high
scorers. Anti-authoritarian Leftists are just as likely to
be against foreigners as are pro-authoritarian
Rightists! If racism makes authoritarian Rightists
psychopathological then the same applies to anti-
authoritarian Leftists as well. And note that the "A"
scale is a balanced scale not prone to acquiescence
artifact. Other than that it differs from the F scale
mainly in that its items are more reasoned and
intelligent-sounding. Thoughtful conservatives and
thoughtful Leftists are equally likely to be racist (or
non-racist). The sample on which the relationship
was tested was again of Army conscripts so should
again be of unusually good generalizability. In case
anybody might be wondering what un-thoughtful
Leftists might do, let me suggest as food for thought
the fact that for many years in Australia, the great
bastion of support for the notorious White Australia
policy (i.e. Australia's refusal to accept non-European
immigrants) was the Australian Labor Party -
Australia's main Leftist party. The policy was
eventually abolished by a conservative government.
In referring to the possibility of Chinese immigration,
it was a noted Labor leader, Arthur Calwell, who
made the famous remark, "Two Wongs don't make a

The original reason why Adorno et al tried to

measure authoritarian personality via attitudes rather
than directly was that they thought people would not
admit openly to authoritarian motives. They thought
to detect motives covertly by finding out what people
said they believed in. As we have seen, they were
too covert by half. They ended up measuring
something of virtually no behavioral relevance at all.
Nonetheless, the direct approach to finding out
people's motives and tendencies (as embodied in the
Directiveness scale) does appear to have its
limitations. Even if it is not strong, there is after all
generally at least some correlations between the
Directiveness scale and social desirability. Lichter &
Rothman (1982), therefore, have, as part of a
considerable series of papers on the general topic of
student radicalism, taken the expedient of measuring
attributes associated with authoritarianism via
projective tests. Projective tests, of course, hold out
the promise of enabling us to detect motivations that
respondents would not willingly acknowledge. One
would have thought that the prospect of student
radicals being unaware of what was going on during
projective testing was rather slight, but for all that
Lichter & Rothman (1982) have found a number of
admittedly weak relationships with student
radicalism. They find that radical student activists
show higher than normal need for power combined
with fear of power. They are also unusually
narcissistic and "phallic" - a Freudian term for
immature assertiveness. Projective tests are of
course often criticized for their lack of test-retest or
internal consistency reliability but unfortunately
Lichter & Rothman provide no information on this
aspect of their work. Their most important
achievement may therefore be another part of their
work: the way they have debunked the early studies
which showed student radicals as particularly
mentally healthy. They showed that the measures of
mental health used contained items such as: "I am a
bit of a radical". One is hardly surprised that such
measures of mental health were found to correlate
with measures of radicalism. The two variables were
characteristically artifactually confounded.

Variables other than authoritarianism

One adjustment variable that even Leftists will

generally acknowledge as adversely related to
Leftists is alienation - the feeling of estrangement
from those about one. Many Leftists would even
argue that alienation is inevitable for anyone who
rejects materialistic values and yet lives in a
materialistic society. I have confirmed the relevance
of this syndrome to Australia. I found among a group
of Australian University students a tendency for
Alienation and Neuroticism to be associated and a
tendency for Alienation to be more common among
those of Leftist sympathies. This seems then a
surprisingly uncontroversial way in which Leftism can
be maladaptive (Ray & Sutton, 1972).

Unfortunately, it holds true only among students.

When I applied a very carefully constructed
Alienation scale to a random sample of 118 people
interviewed from door to door in Sydney, I found no
significant correlation between this scale and a
measure of general social conservatism (Ray,
1974b). Further, by way of some previously
unpublished results from another study (Ray &
Wilson, 1976), a short form of the same alienation
scale was applied to a random Australia-wide sample
of 4,554 people and a correlation of .023 was
observed with another scale of general social
conservatism. Among the people at large, therefore,
it seems clear that Leftists are not particularly
alienated. This does not however take away from the
fact that radicals in our universities are alienated. It
seems unlikely, however, that this is due to a
rejection of materialism - as we shall see later.

Another well-documented correlation between

maladaptive personality and Leftism is Locus of
control. Leftists are routinely found to be
characterized by an external orientation (Ray, 1980),
which is considered to be much less adaptive than
an internal orientation. Conservatives have a sense
of personal power and efficacy whereas Leftists tend
to believe everything is out of their hands. Most of
the research on the topic has been with students but
I was nonetheless able to replicate the key
relationships with a community sample (Ray,

An area that has seen very little study is the

relationship between Leftism and moralism. There
are good grounds for believing moralism to be
maladaptive. To believe that "is good" or "is right"
statements are about objective moral properties
rather than mere value judgments is surely a fairly
serious misconception about the rules for behavior
(Maze, 1973; Ray, 1981b). I therefore carried out a
study designed to look at moralism in politics (Ray,
1974c). I found that although radicals were less
willing to admit the reality of objective moral
properties, they alone saw statements asserting the
objective reality of moral properties as socially
desirable. Although their ideology worked against
belief in objective moral properties, they were still
apparently attracted by the notion. This relationship
was observed in two separate groups of student
subjects using two quite different measures of
moralism. Apparently, then, moralism has normative
force among radicals even though they intellectually
reject it. There was no correlation at all between
social desirability and moralism among
conservatives. When a radical adopts moralistic
discourse, therefore, he is "faking good" to impress
his fellow radicals. Such a front would not impress
conservatives at all. That radicals should feel obliged
to act a part that they intellectually reject is surely an
unhappy form of adjustment. At the least, it bespeaks
serious compartmentalization.

In recent years, there has developed a strong

tendency in psychology to index adjustment by self-
esteem. Perhaps under the influence of the anti-
psychiatry movement (Laing, 1969; Szasz, 1970),
psychologists have increasingly come to believe that
arbitrary judgments by self-proclaimed "experts"
about what constitutes "good adjustment" are
untenable. All that matters is how the person feels
about himself. If he is happy with himself and his
lifestyle who are we to criticize? High self-esteem,
then, means good adjustment. In some as yet
unpublished work using an Australia-wide postal
sample (N = 95) I found a correlation between
conservatism and self-esteem significant at the .05
level on a one-tailed test only. Conservatives had the
higher self-esteem. Even if further work with larger
samples should confirm this relationship, however, it
obviously accounts for very little of the variance in

Further, let us look at the common radical accusation

that conservatism is the politics of greed. This can
easily be examined by correlating a conventional
scale of materialistic achievement motivation with
either vote or ideology. In four studies of this kind
carried out so far in Australia, England and Scotland,
three have shown that conservatism and
achievement motivation are uncorrelated. Radicals
are just as greedy for personal materialistic
advancement as are conservatives (Ray, 1980b &
1984c). They are just as likely to wish to be "more
equal than others" as anybody else.

Another finding of "no difference" between radicals

and conservatives is in the study of
Machiavellianism. Christie & Geis (1970) report a
range of studies correlating their scale with vote and
could scarcely have found lower correlations. High
Machiavellians are then equally likely to be found on
either side of politics. There are just as many cynical,
amoral manipulators on the Left as on the Right. As
serious doubts have in recent times been cast on the
validity of the Machiavellianism scale, however, this
finding may need to be treated with some caution
(Hunter, Gerbing & Boster, 1982; Ray, 1983).

Finally, in a very recent study, l carried out an

examination of the relationship between sensation-
seeking and politics. I tested the hypothesis that
radicals are seekers after excitement rather than
sincere advocates of reform. I used two separate
indices of sensation seeking -- one a list of rather
counter-cultural excitements and the other a list of
very bourgeois, consumer society sort of sensations.
It was no surprise to find radicals affirming a higher
desire for the counter cultural experiences but they
were also found to affirm a higher desire than
conservatives for the experiences offered by the
consumer society that one would have expected
them to despise. Radicals crave new cars and the
like even more than conservatives. Clearly there is a
craving there for new sensations and satisfactions
that even transcends what ideology would dictate. I
might add, however, that again I used a general
population sample rather than students. An
ideological aversion to the consumer society might
among students have been more triumphant. Clearly,
however, insofar as revolutions rely on the people, a
substantial part of the radical's motivation would
seem to be revolution for revolution's sake. This is
surely a rather immature and dangerous form of
adjustment (Ray, 1984a).

In conclusion, then, the evidence for psychological

pathology among Leftists that seems most
convincing to me lies in the fields of denial of motives
and sense of personal inefficacy.


Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. &

Sanford, R.N. The authoritarian personality N.Y.:
Harper, 1950.

Altemeyer, R. Right-wing authoritarianism Winnipeg:

Univ. Manitoba Press, 1981.

Burnet, Sir F.M. Dominant mammal Sydney:

Heinemann, 1970.

Christie, R. & Geis, F.L. Studies in Machiavellianism

N.Y.: Academic, 1970.

Christie, R. & Jahoda, M. Studies in the scope and

method of "The authoritarian personality". Glencoe;
Ill.: Free Press, 1954.

Hanson, D.J. Dogmatism and political ideology J.

Human Relations 1970, 18, 995-1002.

Hartmann, P. A perspective on the study of social

attitudes. European J. Social Psychol. 1977, 7, 85-

Hunter, J.E., Gerbing, D.W. & Boster, F.J.

Machiavellian beliefs and personality: construct
invalidity of the Machiavellianism dimension. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 1982, 43, 1293-1305.

Laing, R.D. The divided self N.Y.: Pantheon, 1969.

Lichter, S.R. & Rothman, S. The radical personality:

Social psychological correlates of New Left ideology.
Political Behavior 1982, 4, 207-235.
McKinney, D.W. The authoritarian personality studies
The Hague: Mouton, 1973.

Maze, J.R. The concept of attitude. Inquiry 1973, 16,


Pflaum, J. Development and evaluation of equivalent

forms of the F scale. Psychol. Reports 1964, 15, 663-

Ray, J.J. (1970) The development and validation of a

balanced Dogmatism scale. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 22, 253-260.

Ray, J.J. (1972) Militarism and psychopathology: A

reply to Eckhardt & Newcombe J. Conflict
Resolution, 16, 357-362. (a)

Ray, J.J. (1972) Non-ethnocentric

authoritarianism. Australian & New Zealand Journal
of Sociology 8(June), 96-102. (b)

Ray, J.J. (1973) Conservatism, authoritarianism and

related variables: A review and an empirical study.
Ch. 2 in: G.D. Wilson (Ed.) The psychology of
conservatism London: Academic Press. (a)

Ray, J.J. (1973) Dogmatism in relation to sub-types

of conservatism: Some Australian data. European J.
Social Psychology 3, 221-232. (b)

Ray, J.J. (1974) Authoritarian humanism. Ch. 42 in

Ray, J.J. (Ed.) Conservatism as heresy Sydney:
A.N.Z. Book Co.

Ray, J.J. (1974) Who are the alienated? Ch. 52 in

Ray, J.J. (Ed.) Conservatism as heresy Sydney:
A.N.Z. Book Co.

Ray, J.J. (1974) Moralism and politics. Ch 53 in Ray,

J.J. (Ed.) Conservatism as heresy Sydney: A.N.Z.
Book Co. (c)

Ray, J.J. (1976) Do authoritarians hold authoritarian

attitudes? Human Relations, 29, 307-325.

Ray, J.J. (1979) Does authoritarianism of personality

go with conservatism? Australian Journal of
Psychology 31, 9-14.

Ray, J.J. (1980) Belief in luck and locus of

control. Journal of Social Psychology, 111, 299-300.

Ray, J.J. (1980) Achievement motivation as an

explanation of authoritarian behaviour: Data from
Australia, South Africa California, England and
Scotland. Chapter in: P.C.L. Heaven
(Ed.) Authoritarianism: South African
studies Bloemfontein: De Villiers.

Ray, J.J. (1981) Authoritarianism, dominance and

assertiveness. Journal of Personality
Assessment 45, 390-397. (a)

Ray, J.J. (1981) The morals of attitudes. J. Social

Psychology , 115, 227-235. (b)

Ray, J.J. (1982) Climate and conservatism in

Australia. Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 297-

Ray, J.J. (1983) Defective validity of the

Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Social
Psychology 119, 291-292.

Ray, J.J. (1984) Political radicals as sensation

seekers. J. Social Psychology 122, 293-294. (a)

Ray, J.J. (1984) Socialist tendencies among

conservatives in Australia. Journal of Social
Psychology, 123, 195-198. (b)

Ray, J.J. (1984) Achievement motivation as a source

of racism, conservatism and
authoritarianism. Journal of Social Psychology 123,
21-28 (c)

Ray, J.J. (1984) Authoritarian dominance, self-

esteem and manifest anxiety. South African Journal
of Psychology 14, 144-146.

Ray, J.J. (1985) Authoritarianism of the Left

revisited. Personality & Individual Differences 6, 271-

Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1983). The behavioral

validity of some recent measures of
authoritarianism. Journal of Social Psychology, 120,

Ray, J.J. & Sutton, A.J. (1972) Alienation in an

Australian University. Journal of Social Psychology,
86, 319-320.

Ray, J.J. & Wilson, R.S. (1976) Social conservatism

in Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of
Sociology 12(3), 255-257.

Rigby, K. & Rump, E.E. The generality of attitude to

authority. Human Relations 1979, 32, 469-487.

Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind N.Y.: Basic

Books, 1960.

Stone, W.F. The myth of Left-wing authoritarianism.

Political Psychology 1980, 2, 3-19.

Szasz, T. Ideology and insanity N.Y.: Anchor; 1970.

Titus, H.E. F scale validity considered against peer

nomination criteria. Psychol. Record 1968,18,395-

Titus, H.E. & Hollander, E.P. The California F scale in

psychological research 1950-1955. Psychol. Bulletin
1957, 54, 47-64.