Identifying “Types” of authoritarians: A latent profile analysis of left- and right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research argues that authoritarianism exists on the right and left, further positing that both manifestations share core features. We explore this possibility by conducting a latent profile analysis of left-wing authoritarianism (LWA), right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and social dominance orientation (SDO) in a nationwide random sample of adults ( N = 34,101). Five unique profiles emerged: Low Social Dominators (low-to-moderate LWA/RWA, low SDO; 41.8% of the sample), Moderate Right-wing Authoritarians (low LWA, moderate RWA, low-to-moderate SDO; 35.7% of the sample), Moderate-Moderates (low LWA, moderate RWA, moderate SDO; 13.7% of the sample), Left-wing Authoritarians (high LWA, low RWA/SDO; 7.5% of the sample), and High Social Dominators (low LWA, low-to-moderate RWA, high SDO; 1.34% of the sample). Men, people low in agreeableness, and people high in vengeful rumination were more likely to belong to all profiles (compared to the Low Social Dominators ), suggesting some similarities across distinct forms of authoritarianism. Left-wing Authoritarians did, however, differ substantively in their demographic characteristics, personality, and social attitudes, undermining claims of a shared authoritarian core. These findings highlight the need to further evaluate how distinct types of authoritarians manifest across the political spectrum and the utility of the common core hypothesis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".