Political Conservatism, Authoritarianism, and Societal Threat: Voting for Republican Representatives in U.S. Congressional Elections From 1946 to 1992
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author found that the degree of national societal threat preceding congressional elections from 1946 to 1992 was positively associated with the mean state percentage of people voting for Republican representatives, supporting a conventional threat-authoritarianism hypothesis. However, threat was positively associated with the mean state percentage of people voting for Republican representatives in conservative states but not in liberal states, and the conventional threat-authoritarianism link was entirely driven by the relation in conservative states. The author classified states with a composite measure (alpha = .92) on the basis of state ideological identification, religious fundamentalism, composite policy liberalism, Republican Party elite ideology, and Democratic Party elite ideology. These results offer support to an interactive threat-authoritarianism hypothesis derived from the authoritarian dynamic theory of K. Stenner (2005), which postulates that only authoritarian persons are activated to manifest authoritarian behavior in times of normative threat. Also, the author discusses potential alternative explanations on the basis of system justification, need for closure, and terror-management theories.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".