It's (a) Shame: Why Poverty Leads to Support for Authoritarianism

The literature has widely discussed and supported the relationship between poverty and support for authoritarian leaders and regimes. However, there are different claims about the mediating mechanism and a lack of empirical tests. We hypothesize that the effect of poverty on support for authoritarianism is mediated by shame: People living in poverty frequently experience social exclusion and devaluation, which is reflected in feelings of shame. Such shame, in turn, is likely to increase support for authoritarianism, mainly due to the promise of social re-inclusion. We support our hypothesis in two controlled experiments and a large-scale field study while empirically ruling out the two main alternative explanations offered in the literature: stress and anxiety. Finally, we discuss how the present findings can support policymakers in efficiently addressing the negative political consequences of poverty.

Social Dominance Orientation Moderates the Effects of Socioeconomic Status on Well-Being

In the current study we argue that social dominance orientation (SDO) has a moderating effect on the relationship between regional inequalities in socioeconomic status (SES) and subjective well-being (SWB). Specifically, we predicted that individuals high in SDO, from high-SES regions of the United States, would have higher levels of well-being than those from low-SES regions of the United States. This hypothesis was tested by administering a series of self-report measures of SDO, SES, and SWB to a sample of undergraduate psychology students (n = 409). The data were analyzed with hierarchical linear modeling software to explore the relationships between these variables. The results were consistent with the initial hypothesis: Participants in high-SES regions (i.e., wealthier and more educated), who also identified as high in SDO, possessed higher levels of well-being than the participants from low-SES regions. Implications of such regional inequalities are discussed.

The Relationship Between Authoritarianism and Life Satisfaction Changes Depending on Stigmatized Status

Members of stigmatized social groups are typically more authoritarian than their nonstigmatized or higher status counterparts. We draw on research demonstrating that authoritarianism compensates for the negative effects of stigma to predict that this endorsement will be more psychologically beneficial (and less harmful) for the stigmatized compared to their high-status counterparts. Consistent with this idea, data from the 2008 ( N = 2,322) and 2012 ( N = 5,916) American National Election Study indicate that for members of stigmatized social groups (low income, low education, and ethnic minority), authoritarian child rearing values have more positive psychological effects than for members of high-status groups. These results were robust to covariates, including demographics, religiosity, political ideology, and cognitive style.

The Relationships Between Internal and External Threats and Right-Wing Attitudes

The interplay between threat and right-wing attitudes has received much research attention, but its longitudinal relationship has hardly been investigated. In this study, we investigated the longitudinal relationships between internal and external threats and right-wing attitudes using a cross-lagged design at three different time points in a large nationally representative sample ( N = 800). We found evidence for bidirectional relationships. Higher levels of external threat were related to higher levels of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and to both the egalitarianism and dominance dimensions of Social Dominance Orientation at a later point in time. Conversely, higher levels of RWA were also related to increased perception of external threat later in time. Internal threat did not yield significant direct or indirect longitudinal relationships with right-wing attitudes. Theoretical and practical implications of these longitudinal effects are discussed.