THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO THE EFFECT OF PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION ON AUTHORITARIANISM AMONG STIGMATIZED RACIAL MINORITIES: A MULTI-LEVEL ANALYSIS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE DIVISION OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE BY ERIC CHASE-SOSNOFF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS AUGUST 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES . v LIST OF TABLES . vii ABSTRACT . viii 1 A THEORY OF GROUP VARIATION IN AUTHORITARIANISM: THE CASE OF STIGMATIZED MINORITY GROUPS IN THE UNITED STATES . 1 1.1 Introduction . 1 1.1.1 What is Authoritarianism? . 1 1.1.2 Why Does Variation in Authoritarianism Matter? . 2 1.2 Authoritarianism, Then and Now . 6 1.2.1 Berkeley Beginnings . 6 1.2.2 Altemeyer Streamlines AP . 9 1.2.3 Duckitt Unifies RWA . 10 1.2.4 Feldman Streamlines GA . 16 1.2.5 Stenner Expands on SCA . 18 1.2.6 Hetherington & Weiler's Cognitive Turn . 21 1.2.7 Perez & Hetherington Attempt to Reject the Puzzle . 23 1.3 My Theory of Racial Variation in Authoritarianism (RVA) . 29 1.3.1 The Template of RVA . 29 1.3.2 (i) Group Identity . 30 1.3.3 (ii) Perceived Intergroup-Threat . 31 1.3.4 (iii) Need for Social Cohesion . 35 1.3.5 Implications for Authoritarianism Among Whites . 37 1.4 RVA Hypotheses . 39 1.4.1 (i) Group-Idenity Hypotheses . 40 1.4.2 (ii) Perceived-Threat Hypotheses . 41 1.4.3 (iii) Need-for-Social-Cohesion Hypotheses . 42 1.4.4 Contextual Hypotheses . 42 1.4.5 Conclusion . 44 2 AUTHORITARIANISM AMONG STIGMATIZED MINORITIES: SUMMARY STATIS- TICS . 45 2.1 Introduction . 45 2.2 Shape and Stability . 46 2.2.1 Temporal Variation Across Racial Groups . 47 2.2.2 Distributions Within Racial Groups . 51 2.2.3 Distributions Over Time . 53 2.3 Substantive Validity Across Variables of Interest . 55 2.3.1 Textbooks and Bibles . 56 ii 2.3.2 Cognitive Simplicity . 60 2.3.3 Ethnocentrism . 62 2.3.4 Perceived Discrimination and Linked Fate . 64 2.3.5 Gay Rights . 67 2.4 Conclusion . 69 3 RACIAL VARIATION IN AUTHORITARIANISM: LITERATURE REVIEW . 70 3.1 Introduction . 70 3.2 F-Scale: Introduction . 71 3.2.1 F-Scale: Hypothesis . 72 3.2.2 F-Scale: Review . 73 3.2.3 F-Scale: Criticisms . 77 3.2.4 F-Scale: Empirical Analysis . 79 3.3 RWA-Scale: Introduction . 82 3.3.1 RWA-Scale: Hypothesis . 85 3.3.2 RWA-Scale: Review . 87 3.3.3 Edwards and Leger: Introduction . 91 3.4 CRV-Scale: Introduction . 104 3.4.1 CRV-Scale: Construct Validity . 105 3.4.2 CRV-Scale: Review . 108 3.5 Conclusion . 114 4 AUTHORITARIANISM AMONG STIGMATIZED MINORITIES: INVESTIGAT- ING THE ROLE OF THREAT . 115 4.1 Introduction . 115 4.2 A Test Case For My `Experiment' . 116 4.3 Threat and Authoritarianism: Negative Interaction Versus Additivity . 118 4.4 Threat and Authoritarianism Among Minorities: Negative Interaction Revisited123 4.5 Is Perceived Discrimination Threatening? . 126 4.6 Concluding Remarks . 130 5 THE EFFECT OF PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION ON AUTHORITARIANISM AMONG STIGMATIZED RACIAL MINORITIES: A MULTI-LEVEL ANALYSIS 132 5.1 Introduction . 132 5.1.1 Substantive Contribution . 133 5.1.2 Methodological Contribution . 134 5.2 Theory and Hypotheses . 136 5.3 Analysis . 139 5.3.1 Data . 140 5.3.2 Authoritarianism . 140 5.3.3 Perceived Discrimination . 142 5.3.4 Model and Variables . 143 5.4 Results and Discussion . 146 5.5 Conclusion . 161 iii 5.6 Appendix A . 163 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FURTHER RESEARCH . 164 6.1 Introduction . 164 6.2 Chapter 1: Theory . 164 6.3 Chapter 2: Summary Statistics . 165 6.4 Chapter 3: Literature Review . 165 6.5 Chapter 4: Hypothesis Testing . 166 6.6 Chapter 5: Testing the Main Theory . 167 6.7 Questions and Problems . 168 6.8 Further Research . 169 6.9 Conclusion . 172 REFERENCES . 176 iv LIST OF FIGURES 2.1 Line plots of mean authoritarianism scores by race and year. Error bars in right- hand plot represent confidence intervals of +/− one standard error. Data: 1992, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2010 ANES ......................... 49 2.2 Histogram of raw authoritarianism scores by race. Dark grey bars represent African-Americans, grey bars represent Latinos, and light grey bars represent whites. Even scores are excluded to enhance clarity. Data: 1992, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2010 ANES ................................ 52 2.3 Histogram of raw authoritarianism scores by race. Darker bars represent Native- Americans and lighter bars represent Asian-Americans. Even scores are excluded to enhance clarity. Data: 1992, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2010 ANES . 53 2.4 Histograms of raw authoritarianism scores by race and year. Dark grey bars represent African-Americans, grey bars represent Latinos, and light grey bars represent whites. Even scores are excluded to enhance clarity. Data: 1992, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2010 ANES ............................ 54 2.5 Line plots of mean authoritarianism scores by race and church attendance. Lines of lefthand plot represent whether R attends church: dark line represents Yes and light line represents No. Lines of righthand plot represent frequency of church attendance among Rs who attend church: dark line represents once a week or more (≥ 1/week) and light line represents less than once a week (< 1/week). Data: 1992, 2000, 2004, and 2008 ANES ..................... 57 2.6 Line plot of mean authoritarianism scores by race and education. Darker lines represent lower levels of education. Lighter lines represent higher levels of educa- tion. Data: 1992, 2000, 2004, and 2008 ANES . 59 2.7 Line plots of mean authoritarianism scores by race and Need for Cognition (NFC). Dark grey lines represent African-Americans, grey lines represent Latinos, and light grey lines represent whites. Data: 2004 and 2008 ANES . 61 2.8 Line plot of mean authoritarianism scores by race and ethnocentrism. Tick marks along x-axis represent quintiles (i.e., bins of 10% quantiles) of ethnocentrism scores. Dark grey lines represent African-Americans, grey lines represent Latinos, and light grey lines represent whites. Data: 1992, 2000, 2004 and 2008 ANES . 63 2.9 Line plot of mean authoritarianism scores by race and perceived discrimination. Data: 1992, 2000, 2004 and 2008 ANES ..................... 65 2.10 Line plot of mean authoritarianism scores by race and perceived discrimination index. Data: 2010 ANES. .............................. 65 2.11 Line plots of mean authoritarianism scores by race and linked fate, on the left, and perceived discrimination, on the right. Data: 1992, 2000, 2004 and 2008 ANES; only 2004 and 2008 for lefthand plot. ................... 66 2.12 Line plot of mean authoritarianism scores by race and support for gay rights index. Data: 1992, 2000, 2004 and 2008 ANES . 67 2.13 Line plots of mean authoritarianism scores by race and support for gay rights index. Data: 1992, 2000, 2004 and 2008 ANES . 68 v 3.1 Densities of raw authoritarianism scores by race, with vertical dotted lines at group means. 10 represents highest possible F-scale score. Data: 1952 American National Election Studies. .............................. 80 4.1 The Effect of Authoritarianism on Support for Gay Adoption across Different Levels of Perceived Threat. Data: (a) 2004 ANES; (b) 1992, 2000, 2004 and 2008 ANES ...................................... 119 4.2 The Effect of Authoritarianism on Support for Gay Adoption across Different Levels of Perceived Threat. Data: 1992, 2000, 2004 and 2008 ANES . 124 4.3 The Effect of Authoritarianism on Support for Gay Adoption across Different Levels of Perceived Threat. Data: 1992, 2000, 2004 and 2008 ANES . 128 5.1 Histogram of raw authoritarianism scores by race. Dark grey bars represent African Americans and light grey bars represent whites. Data: 1992, 2000, and 2004 ANES ...................................... 137 5.2 Coefficient estimates of effects of perceptions of discrimination on authoritarian- ism by race. black lines show sample means. Grey lines show the first and third quartiles. 148 race race 5.3 Sampled coefficients for βblack and βwhite. Bottom bars show all sampled values. Top lines show empirical densities. 150 5.4 Estimated values of Zi for blacks and whites, using modal values for all other variables. 151 5.5 Post-stratified estimates of authoritarianism by.