1. Abstract
The California F Scale (where “F” stands for fascism or pre-fascist personality tendencies) represents one of the most historically significant and extensively debated psychometric instruments in the history of social psychology and personality assessment. Developed in the aftermath of World War II by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford (1950) at the University of California, Berkeley, the instrument was engineered to quantify implicit antidemocratic ideological orientations and susceptibility to authoritarian propaganda without overtly mentioning specific minority groups or political figures. Grounded in a synthesis of Freudian psychoanalytic theory and Frankfurt School critical theory, the F Scale operationalizes authoritarianism as an enduring personality structure comprising nine theoretically covariant subterranean dimensions: Conventionalism, Authoritarian Submission, Authoritarian Aggression, Anti-intraception, Superstition and Stereotypy, Power and “Toughness,” Destructiveness and Cynicism, Projectivity, and Exaggerated Concern with Sexual “Goings-on.”
The scale underwent several iterative revisions, progressing through preliminary forms (Forms 78 and 60) to the canonical 30-item Form 45/40. Items are conventionally evaluated on a 6-point forced-choice Likert-type scale ranging from +1 (“Disagree Strongly” or -3 converted) to +6 (“Agree Strongly” or +3 converted), deliberately excluding a neutral midpoint to compel respondents to lean toward agreement or disagreement. Psychometrically, early investigations reported strong internal consistency, with split-half reliability coefficients typically ranging from r = .87 to .91 across diverse community and student samples. However, subsequent methodological critiques identified substantial psychometric vulnerabilities, most notably pervasive acquiescence response set bias resulting from all items being keyed in the pro-trait direction, instability of its hypothesized unifactorial structure, and moderate-to-high correlations with general cognitive ability, educational attainment, and socioeconomic status. Despite these structural limitations—which ultimately catalyzed the development of balanced revisions by Bass (1955) and Christie et al. (1958), and later Bob Altemeyer’s Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) Scale—the California F Scale remains an indispensable foundational benchmark in political psychology, psychometrics, and the empirical study of prejudice and authoritarian dynamics.
2. Keywords
California F Scale, Authoritarian Personality, Authoritarianism, Fascism, Theodor W. Adorno, Conventionalism, Authoritarian Submission, Authoritarian Aggression, Anti-intraception, Acquiescence Bias, Political Psychology, Social Dominance, Psychometrics, Ideological Belief Systems, Right-Wing Authoritarianism
3. Authors
The California F Scale was conceived, operationalized, and validated by an interdisciplinary research team affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley, working under the auspices of the Berkeley Public Opinion Study and sponsored by the Scientific Department of the American Jewish Committee:
- Theodor W. Adorno, Ph.D. (1903–1969): Leading philosopher, sociologist, cultural critic, and seminal figure of the Frankfurt School (Institute for Social Research). Adorno provided the overarching philosophical, sociological, and ideological direction for the project, contextualizing modern character structure within dialectical social structures.
- Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Ph.D. (1908–1958): Prominent Austrian-American psychologist, psychoanalyst, and pioneer in the study of cognitive styles and intolerance of ambiguity. She was primarily responsible for formulating the clinical interview protocols, developing projective assessment procedures (such as the Thematic Apperception Test coding systems), and elucidating the defense mechanisms linking child-rearing patterns to authoritarian ego structures.
- Daniel J. Levinson, Ph.D. (1920–1994): Psychologist and psychometrician who later became recognized for his stage-developmental theories of adult personality at Yale University. Levinson took the lead in constructing and calibrating the initial objective survey scales, including the Ethnocentrism (E) Scale, the Politico-Economic Conservatism (PEC) Scale, and the successive iterations of the Fascism (F) Scale.
- R. Nevitt Sanford, Ph.D. (1909–1995): Clinical psychologist, psychoanalyst, and professor of psychology at UC Berkeley, who later served as founding director of the Wright Institute. Sanford provided clinical leadership, coordinated participant recruitment across institutional and community contexts, and synthesized empirical psychometrics with psychodynamic diagnostic formulations.
4. Purpose
The overarching purpose of the California F Scale was to construct an objective, standardized, indirect psychometric instrument capable of measuring an individual’s susceptibility to antidemocratic propaganda and fascist ideology at the deep characterological level, without appearing to be a survey of political opinions or overt bigotry. In the wake of the Holocaust and the devastation wrought by European totalitarianism, social scientists sought to explain how entire populations could actively embrace or passively tolerate authoritarian regimes founded upon genocidal hatred, absolute subjugation to a dictator, and institutionalized terror.
Prior instruments developed during the Berkeley investigations—specifically the Antisemitism (A) Scale and the Ethnocentrism (E) Scale—suffered from an unavoidable psychometric limitation: their explicit, provocative content made them vulnerable to social desirability biases, conscious dissimulation, and topical obsolescence. Respondents could readily perceive the ideological intent of items that named specific ethnic, religious, or racial minorities. The investigators hypothesized that prejudice is not merely an isolated set of learned cultural attitudes or discrete social reflexes, but rather the surface expression of a pervasive, enduring personality syndicate—the Authoritarian Personality. The specific purpose of the F Scale was therefore to measure this underlying psychological readiness for fascism “covertly” by sampling everyday opinions, social expectations, moral attitudes, and interpersonal orientations that mirrored the underlying dynamic trends of the authoritarian character structure without ever mentioning Jews, minorities, or explicit fascist political platforms.
In contemporary clinical, academic, and socio-political research, the scale and its modern derivatives fulfill multiple functions:
- Sociological and Political Polling: Examining the psychological underpinnings of populist, nationalist, and extremist voting behaviors, ideological polarization, and resistance to democratic norms.
- Intergroup Relations and Conflict Studies: Investigating the structural correlates of xenophobia, generalized outgroup derogation, homophobia, institutionalized sexism, and punitive legal orientations.
- Cross-Cultural Personality Research: Mapping differences in societal socialization practices, rigid family structures, and how cultural strictures foster cognitive rigidity and deferential attitudes toward institutional authority.
- Methodological Pedagogy: Serving as an indispensable historical case study in psychometric scale construction, illustrating both brilliant psychoanalytic operationalization and the dangers of unidirectionally keyed items that foster acquiescence bias.
5. Psychological Construct
The core psychological construct measured by the California F Scale is implicit antidemocratic tendency or authoritarian potential. Adorno and colleagues conceptualized this construct not as an arbitrary assemblage of ideological stances, but as an integrated, dynamic syndrome composed of nine distinct, intercorrelated components rooted in childhood socialization, ego defenses, and psychological adaptations to societal power structures:
a. Conventionalism
Rigid adherence to conventional, middle-class values. This dimension reflects an uncritical, hyper-conformist acceptance of the dominant standards and mores of one’s social environment. The individual demonstrates severe anxiety when confronted with deviations from traditional norms, experiencing nonconformity as a direct threat to personal and collective stability. Example indicators emphasize that proper manners, breeding, and relentless industry are indispensable requirements for social acceptance.
b. Authoritarian Submission
A submissive, uncritical attitude toward idealized moral authorities of the ingroup. Rooted in an unresolved identification with punitive, all-powerful parental figures, this tendency manifests as an emotional craving to yield to strong leaders, divine forces, or uncompromising institutions. The authoritarian individual seeks psychological security by submerging personal autonomy into an idealized, supreme collective power, declaring unquestioned loyalty while relinquishing critical scrutiny of the leader’s decrees.
c. Authoritarian Aggression
The disposition to be on the lookout for, and to condemn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional values. When individuals repress their own natural impulses, resentments, and forbidden desires due to fear of authority, the accumulated hostility cannot be directed upward at the punishing figure. Instead, it is displaced downward against marginalized, unconventional, or vulnerable outgroups. The authoritarian individual experiences profound moralistic outrage against criminals, deviants, and cultural nonconformists, eagerly endorsing severe corporal punishment, public shaming, or total ostracism under the guise of maintaining moral order.
d. Anti-intraception
Opposition to the subjective, the imaginative, and the tender-minded. Derived from Murray’s concept of intraception, this subscale captures a profound fear and disdain for interiority, emotional vulnerability, philosophical introspection, and artistic sensitivity. The anti-intraceptive individual insists upon strict practicality, cold efficiency, and empirical tangibility, fearing that honest self-reflection might expose inner psychological conflicts, guilt, or latent weaknesses. Mental distress is met with directives to “keep busy” and avoid thinking about subjective problems.
e. Superstition and Stereotypy
The belief in mystical determinants of an individual’s fate and the disposition to think in rigid, oversimplified categories. Superstition shifts personal agency and moral responsibility outward onto cosmic forces, astrology, divine intervention, or catastrophic destiny, shielding the individual from conscious accountability. Stereotypy manifests as an inability to tolerate complexity, cognitive ambiguity, or nuanced interpersonal realities; the social world is divided sharply into rigid binary classifications: the weak versus the strong, the pure versus the degenerate, the righteous ingroup versus the corrupt outgroup.
f. Power and “Toughness”
Preoccupation with the dominance-submission, strong-weak, leader-follower dimension; identification with power figures; overemphasis upon the conventionalized attributes of the ego; and exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness. The individual displays an intense psychological allergy to any appearance of softness, gentleness, or compromise, viewing human relationships strictly as a hierarchy of dominators and dominated. To compensate for underlying feelings of impotence and fear of vulnerability, the person develops a facade of unyielding strength, rugged willpower, and hyper-masculinized resilience.
g. Destructiveness and Cynicism
Generalized hostility and vilification of the human species. Because the authoritarian must repress their hostility toward primary authority figures, a rationalized, pervasive contempt for humanity emerges. Human nature is perceived as fundamentally brutal, inherently selfish, dishonest, and incapable of enduring peace. This pervasive cynicism serves to rationalize aggressive actions: if everyone is fundamentally corrupt and predatory, preemptive ruthlessness and coercive social control become logical necessities.
h. Projectivity
The disposition to believe that wild, dangerous, and chaotic things go on in the world; the projection outward of unconscious emotional impulses. Relying heavily on the classical psychoanalytic defense mechanism of projection, the authoritarian person disowns their own repressed, socially unacceptable sexual and aggressive impulses and projects them onto the external environment. The outer world is consequently experienced as terrifyingly unstable, conspiratorial, infested with hidden plots, and overrun by dangerous moral and physical contaminants.
i. Sex
Exaggerated concern with sexual “goings-on” and moral purity. This facet reflects a severe, punitive preoccupation with the sexual conduct of others, accompanied by an intense desire to police, expose, and severely punish sexual transgressions, including homosexuality, promiscuity, and unconventional relationship arrangements. Psychoanalytically, this obsessive moral vigilance functions as a reaction formation against the individual’s own repressed erotic fantasies and unconscious sexual conflicts.
6. Theoretical Framework
The California F Scale was developed at the theoretical intersection of European psychoanalysis and American empirical social science. In particular, the conceptual architecture synthesized classical Freudian drive theory, ego psychology, and the socio-philosophical critiques developed by Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm, and Theodor Adorno within the Frankfurt School’s Institute for Social Research.
The foundational assumption of The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al., 1950) is that political, economic, and social beliefs do not merely represent disconnected opinions acquired through rational intellectual evaluation or casual cultural exposure. Rather, attitudes form coherent, organized patterns—or ideological systems—that are held together by the underlying dynamic needs of the personality. Personality is conceived as an agency within the individual that mediates between basic biological and psychological drives (the id), internalized moral and cultural standards (the superego), and the demands of external reality (the ego).
According to the authors’ theoretical model, the genesis of the authoritarian personality lies in early childhood socialization characterized by rigid, hierarchical, and punitive parenting. In such domestic environments:
- Parental discipline is typically harsh, conditional, and based upon strict, unyielding adherence to arbitrary rules rather than emotional warmth, mutual understanding, or reasoned explanation.
- The child is forced to repress natural feelings of hostility, frustration, and resentment toward the parents, because open expression of anger would invite catastrophic punishment or abandonment.
- Unable to direct aggression toward its original targets, the developing child resolves the acute inner conflict through absolute, submissive identification with the punitive parent—an early manifestation of what Anna Freud termed identification with the aggressor.
- The superego remains poorly integrated and externalized; moral values are not genuinely internalized through reasoned empathy, but are instead experienced as severe, rigid taboos enforced by outside authority figures.
Consequently, the child develops a chronically fragile ego that lacks genuine self-confidence and tolerance for emotional ambiguity. To protect against overwhelming unconscious anxiety, the ego relies on primitive defense mechanisms: repression (banishing unacceptable hostile and sexual impulses from conscious awareness), reaction formation (converting unconscious hatred into exaggerated, obsequious adulation of authority), and projection (attributing forbidden aggressive and erotic urges onto external targets, particularly nonconformists and marginalized minority groups).
Furthermore, the theoretical framework incorporates Erich Fromm’s conceptualization of the “escape from freedom” (1941). When modern, industrialized societies dissolve traditional social ties, individuals experience profound isolation, alienation, and existential insecurity. Those with brittle ego structures cannot tolerate this state of autonomy and uncertainty. They surrender their individual agency to powerful collective movements and charismatic demagogues, seeking emotional fusion with an infallible power that promises absolute order, moral certainty, and triumphant collective dominance over perceived enemies.
7. Validity
The psychometric validity of the California F Scale has been the subject of extensive empirical evaluation, rigorous replication efforts, and intense methodological controversy since its introduction in 1950.
a. Construct and Convergent Validity
In the original Berkeley investigations, the F Scale demonstrated exceptionally strong convergent correlations with the other scales developed in the study. Across multiple participant cohorts, scores on Form 78 and Form 45/40 correlated substantially with the Ethnocentrism (E) Scale (correlations typically ranging from r = .73 to .75) and the Antisemitism (A) Scale (ranging from r = .53 to .65). These high correlations supported the authors’ core hypothesis: individuals who scored high on general authoritarian personality trends, measured without referencing specific minority groups, were also overwhelmingly inclined toward outgroup derogation, ethnocentric nationalism, and overt prejudice.
Beyond self-report attitude inventories, construct validity was corroborated through intensive clinical interviews and projective testing using the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). Blinded clinical raters evaluated interview transcripts of individuals scoring in the highest and lowest quartiles of the F Scale. As predicted by the psychodynamic model, high scorers exhibited significantly higher levels of externalized moralizing, rigid dichotomization of social reality, idealization of parents accompanied by covert hostility, preoccupation with themes of power and status, and extreme intolerance of ambiguity, whereas low scorers exhibited nuanced introspection, psychological openness, and autonomous moral reasoning.
b. Predictive and Criterion Validity
The F Scale demonstrated robust predictive validity across a spectrum of laboratory and real-world behavioral settings. In experimental social psychology studies, high F Scale scorers were significantly more compliant in conformity paradigms (such as Asch-type conformity tasks) and exhibited marked deference to institutional figures. In retrospective and prospective analyses of Stanley Milgram’s classic obedience experiments, fully obedient participants who administered the maximum voltage shock scored significantly higher on the F Scale than those who defied the experimenter and terminated their participation (Elms & Milgram, 1966).
In judicial and legal research, high F Scale scores consistently predicted harsher sentencing recommendations, greater punitiveness toward defendants accused of unconventional or moral crimes, and a pronounced tendency to favor prosecution arguments over defense testimony, unless the defendant was an established authority figure or law enforcement officer.
c. Discriminant Validity and Methodological Critiques
Despite these successes, discriminant validity emerged as the instrument’s most contested vulnerability. Critics pointed out that F Scale scores correlated negatively with formal educational attainment (r = -.30 to -.50) and general verbal intelligence, raising critical questions regarding whether the scale measured deep psychodynamic authoritarianism or simply lower levels of education, cognitive sophistication, and familiarity with sophisticated test wording. Herbert Hyman and Paul Sheatsley (1954) argued that the observed relationships could be more parsimoniously explained by socioeconomic status and normative cultural learning rather than deep-seated ego pathology.
Most critically, Bernard Bass (1955) and Richard Christie et al. (1958) demonstrated that because the original F Scale was keyed entirely in a unidirectional format (i.e., every agreement reflected higher authoritarianism), the instrument was severely confounded by acquiescence response bias—the tendency of respondents, particularly those with less education, to agree with authoritative-sounding, general statements regardless of their specific ideological content. When Bass constructed reversed items, he found that many participants agreed with both the original authoritarian item and its diametric opposite, suggesting that a substantial portion of the scale’s variance reflected a general acquiescent response style rather than genuine fascist ideological commitment.
8. Reliability
The reliability parameters of the California F Scale were documented across its development phases and verified across hundreds of subsequent independent empirical studies.
a. Internal Consistency
In the original validation studies conducted by Adorno, Levinson, and Sanford (1950), the F Scale demonstrated high internal consistency across diverse adult samples, including university students, civil service employees, trade union members, psychiatric patients, and prison inmates:
- For preliminary Form 78 (administered to N = 1,514 subjects), split-half reliability coefficients, corrected via the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula, averaged r = .74.
- For intermediate Form 60, average internal reliability climbed to r = .87 across various sub-samples.
- For the standardized Form 45/40 and its finalized 30-item variants, the authors reported average split-half reliability coefficients of r = .90, ranging from .81 to .97 across specific testing groups. The mean internal consistency across all non-clinical samples settled around r = .88 to .91.
Subsequent psychometric investigations utilizing modern metrics confirmed that Cronbach’s alpha for the 30-item scale typically falls between α = .81 and .88 in broad community and student populations, indicating satisfactory overall internal consistency for an omnibus attitude inventory.
b. Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability
Longitudinal and test-retest evaluations have indicated moderate to high temporal stability over varying test-retest intervals. Sanford and colleagues observed test-retest correlations around r = .78 over a 3-to-4-month interval among college student cohorts. In long-term panel studies tracking adult populations over multiple years, stability coefficients have hovered between r = .60 and .72, indicating that while authoritarian sentiments are susceptible to profound historical upheavals, macro-economic shifts, and educational interventions, the underlying score reflects a reasonably stable individual difference construct across the adult lifespan.
9. Factor Analysis
Although Adorno et al. formulated the F Scale around nine theoretically distinct sub-dimensions, their empirical research treated the instrument as a largely unifactorial measure, relying on total composite scores. They argued that because the nine dimensions represented facets of a single, deeply integrated characterological syndrome, high intercorrelations among items were both expected and theoretically desirable.
Subsequent modern psychometric evaluations utilizing Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), however, challenged this assumed unidimensionality:
a. Exploratory Factor Analytic Findings
When researchers subjected the 30-item and 45-item forms to independent principal component and factor analyses, the hypothesized single general “F” factor rarely accounted for more than 15% to 25% of the total variance. Instead, EFA consistently extracted multiple distinct, interpretable factors, usually ranging from four to seven factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Common recurring latent dimensions extracted across historical studies include:
- Factor 1: Punitive Authoritarian Aggression and Traditional Morality: Heavy loadings from items concerning the public whipping of sex criminals, the punishment of insults to honor, and the condemnation of individuals lacking filial gratitude.
- Factor 2: Authoritarian Deference to Strong Leadership: Strong loadings from items demanding tireless, courageous leaders over laws and uncritical obedience to supernatural powers.
- Factor 3: Superstition, Cynicism, and Paranoia: Dominated by items asserting that astrology explains human affairs, that wars will end in cosmic natural catastrophes, and that everyday life is manipulated by secret political plots.
- Factor 4: Anti-intraceptive Toughness: Characterized by rejection of artistic, theoretical, and introspective pursuits in favor of practical business, hard work, and emotional suppression.
b. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Methodological Artifacts
Confirmatory factor analytic investigations have decisively shown that a strict unidimensional model exhibits poor fit to the empirical data (e.g., Comparative Fit Index [CFI] < .80; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] > .08). When Jackson and Messick (1958) examined the latent structure of the scale alongside balanced acquiescence controls, they demonstrated that factor analyses of the original F Scale were heavily contaminated by an omnipresent method factor representing response acquiescence.
These persistent structural anomalies led Canadian psychologist Bob Altemeyer (1981, 1988, 1996) to conclude that the California F Scale suffered from fatal psychometric flaws. Altemeyer showed that six of the original nine dimensions failed to hang together statistically when balanced against acquiescence. Retaining only the three statistically and conceptually robust sub-constructs—Authoritarian Submission, Authoritarian Aggression, and Conventionalism—Altemeyer developed the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) Scale, featuring balanced protrait and contrait items, which has largely superseded the F Scale in modern psychometric and political psychological research.
10. Instrument / Measurement Tool
- Instrument Name: California F Scale (Fascism Scale; Authoritarian Personality Scale)
- Historical Iterations: Form 78 (early exploratory version, 78 items total including filler and other scale items); Form 60 (intermediate refinement); Form 45/40 (definitive 45-item research instrument); 30-Item Standard Version (most widely utilized abbreviated research form).
- Assessment Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or digital questionnaire.
- Administration Time: Approximately 15 to 25 minutes for the 30-item to 37-item variants.
- Target Population: Adults and adolescents (reading level approximately 8th grade or higher).
- Response Scale: Originally administered on a 6-point forced-choice agreement continuum deliberately devoid of a neutral zero point:
- -3: Disagree Strongly
- -2: Disagree Mostly
- -1: Disagree Somewhat
- +1: Agree Somewhat
- +2: Agree Mostly
- +3: Agree Strongly
(Note: In modern survey implementations, this is frequently scored directly on an equivalent 1 to 6 Likert-type metric: 1 = Disagree Strongly, 2 = Disagree Mostly, 3 = Disagree Somewhat, 4 = Agree Somewhat, 5 = Agree Mostly, 6 = Agree Strongly).
- Scoring and Transformation Rules: In the classic scoring procedure outlined by Adorno et al. (1950), raw scores from the -3 to +3 format are converted to a 1 to 7 scale by adding a constant of 4 to avoid negative integers, with missing responses scored at the hypothetical neutral midpoint of 4. Under the standard 1 to 6 framework, scores are summed or averaged across all items. Unless explicit reversal forms (such as Bass Reversals or Christie Reversals) are integrated, all standard F Scale items are keyed in the authoritarian direction, such that higher overall composite scores indicate greater authoritarian potential. Items marked with an asterisk (*) in specialized early versions denote reverse-keyed statements.
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The original California F Scale was developed between 1944 and 1949 and formally published in 1950 in the landmark monograph The Authoritarian Personality by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford (Harper & Brothers, New York). The copyright for the original monograph was held by Harper & Brothers (now HarperCollins) and the American Jewish Committee, which sponsored the Studies in Prejudice series.
As a foundational historical scientific scale published over seven decades ago, the items of the California F Scale have entered the academic public domain for non-commercial scholarly research, educational instruction, and academic replication studies. No commercial fees, formal licensing agreements, or publisher permissions are required to utilize, adapt, or cite the scale for research purposes. Researchers utilizing the instrument in scholarly publications are expected to provide standard academic attribution by citing Adorno et al. (1950).
12. References
- Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. Harper & Brothers. https://archive.org/details/authoritarianper00ador
- Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-Wing Authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1bb774k
- Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Jossey-Bass. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001416301
- Altemeyer, B. (1996). The Authoritarian Specter. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674037564
- Bass, B. M. (1955). Authoritarianism or acquiescence? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 616–623. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044547
- Christie, R., Havel, J., & Seidenberg, B. (1958). Is the F Scale irreversible? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56(2), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042456
- Christie, R., & Jahoda, M. (Eds.). (1954). Studies in the Scope and Method of “The Authoritarian Personality”. Free Press.
- Elms, A. C., & Milgram, S. (1966). Personality characteristics associated with obedience and defiance to authoritative command. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1(4), 282–289.
- Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from Freedom. Farrar & Rinehart.
- Hyman, H. H., & Sheatsley, P. B. (1954). “The Authoritarian Personality”: A methodological critique. In R. Christie & M. Jahoda (Eds.), Studies in the Scope and Method of “The Authoritarian Personality” (pp. 50–122). Free Press.
- Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. J. (1958). Content and style in personality assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 55(4), 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045996
- Kirscht, J. P., & Dillehay, R. C. (1967). Dimensions of Authoritarianism: A Review of Research and Theory. University of Kentucky Press.
- Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (1969). Measures of Political Attitudes. Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED041829