The Authoritarian Personality in Emerging Adulthood: Longitudinal Analysis Using Standardized Scales, Observer Ratings, and Content Coding of the Life Story
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three different methods (a standardized scale, an observer-based Q-sort, and content coding of narratives) were used to study the continuity of authoritarianism longitudinally in emerging and young adults. Authoritarianism was assessed in a Canadian sample (N = 92) of men and women at ages 19 and 32 with Altemeyer's (1996) Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) Scale. In addition, components of the authoritarian personality were assessed at age 26 through Q-sort observer methods (Block, 2008) and at age 32 through content coding of life stories. Age 19 authoritarianism predicted the Q-sort and life story measures of authoritarianism. Two hierarchical regression analyses showed that the Q-sort and life story measures of authoritarianism also predicted the RWA scale at age 32 beyond educational level and parental status, and even after the inclusion of age 19 RWA. Differences and similarities in the pattern of correlates for the Q-sort and life story measures are discussed, including the overall lack of results for authoritarian aggression. Content in narratives may be the result of emerging adult authoritarianism and may serve to maintain levels of authoritarianism in young adulthood.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".