Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale

Abstract

The Right-wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWAS) is a widely used psychological instrument developed by Bob Altemeyer, first formalized in 1981 and updated subsequently, including the 1988 version referenced here. It is designed to measure the personality variable of Right-wing Authoritarianism (RWA). Unlike earlier measures such as the F-Scale, the RWAS focuses on RWA as a coherent set of attitudes characterized by high submission to established authorities, aggression toward out-groups and social deviants, and a strong commitment to traditional social conventions. The scale has proven highly effective in predicting various forms of prejudice, political attitudes, and social policy preferences.

Keywords

Right-wing Authoritarianism, RWA, Bob Altemeyer, Social Psychology, Authoritarianism, Personality Scale, Political Attitudes, Conventionalism

Authors

Bob Altemeyer

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Right-wing Authoritarianism Scale is to provide a robust, psychometrically sound measure of authoritarian attitudes in the general population. Altemeyer sought to refine the concept of authoritarianism, moving away from the complex psychoanalytic theory underpinning Adorno et al.’s earlier work toward a simpler, social-learning-based definition. The scale aims to quantify an individual’s tendency toward specific behavioral clusters that collectively define RWA, allowing researchers to study its correlates and consequences, particularly concerning social dominance, prejudice, and political decision-making.

The RWAS is crucial for differentiating RWA from other personality constructs, such as Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), providing distinct explanatory power in predicting political and social outcomes. The instrument is utilized extensively in social and political psychological research to understand the psychological roots of conservative ideology and adherence to established social structures.

Construct

The RWAS measures Right-wing Authoritarianism (RWA), which is conceptualized as a cluster of three highly correlated attitudinal components:

• Authoritarian Submission: A high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in society. This submission is generally viewed as uncritical and absolute.
• Authoritarian Aggression: A general aggressiveness directed toward various persons and groups that are perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities, or who defy social norms and conventions. This aggression targets perceived deviants, “radicals,” and out-groups.
• Conventionalism: A strong adherence to the social conventions and traditions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities. This involves a belief in traditional values and resistance to social change.

Altemeyer views RWA as a personality variable that reflects a dispositional tendency to accept and enforce the social order, particularly when facing perceived threats or societal decay. The resulting score on the RWAS reflects the strength of these three components combined into a single, overarching measure of RWA.

Validity

The Right-wing Authoritarianism Scale demonstrates strong evidence of construct validity. Numerous studies confirm that scores on the RWAS correlate highly with measures of political conservatism, ethnocentrism, and various forms of prejudice (e.g., against homosexuals, racial minorities, and feminists), aligning precisely with the theoretical construct. Convergent validity is established through its moderate relationship with the F-Scale, while its distinction from other constructs like Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) supports discriminant validity, confirming that RWA measures obedience and conventionality rather than a desire for group hierarchy and dominance.

Furthermore, the RWAS exhibits strong predictive validity, consistently forecasting support for punitive social policies, resistance to civil liberties for nonconformists, and acceptance of aggressive actions by authorities. The scale’s ability to predict attitudes toward specific controversial issues, as reflected in the item content, confirms its utility as a powerful tool in social and political psychology.

Reliability

The RWAS is recognized for its high internal consistency, a critical measure of reliability. Across multiple samples and studies utilizing the 22-item version, the scale consistently yields high Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, often exceeding .90. This high reliability indicates that the items within the scale are highly interrelated and measure a single, cohesive underlying construct (RWA). Test-retest reliability has also been demonstrated to be strong, suggesting that RWA is a stable personality trait over time, particularly in adult populations.

Factor Analysis

Factor analytical studies conducted by Altemeyer consistently suggest that while RWA is theoretically composed of three distinct components (submission, aggression, and conventionalism), the scale items tend to load onto a single, dominant factor. This finding supports the interpretation of RWA as a unitary psychological construct rather than three separate, orthogonal dimensions. Although the three theoretical components drive item development and content, the statistical results emphasize the coherence and unidimensionality of the overall RWA construct, making the total score the most reliable and psychometrically useful measure.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire

Format: 22 items using a 9-point Likert scale.

Language Available: English (original), widely translated into numerous languages for cross-cultural research.

Population Group: General population, utilized in both student and community samples.

Age Group: Typically Adolescents (16+) and Adults.

Population Details: Developed initially using Canadian and US samples, but validated extensively across various Western and non-Western societies.

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement using the 9-point scale: Very Strongly Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Slightly Disagree, Feel Neutral, Slightly Agree, Moderately Agree, Strongly Agree, and Very Strongly Agree. Scoring requires reversing certain items (e.g., items 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21) before summing all responses to derive a total RWA score.

Keywords

Authoritarian Submission, Authoritarian Aggression, Conventionalism, Prejudice, Political Ideology, Social Dominance Orientation, Psychological Measurement

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source material.

Correspondence Address: Bob Altemeyer, University of Manitoba (Retired).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The version referenced in the source material was developed around 1988, following the initial publication in 1981. Bob Altemeyer has historically made the RWAS freely available for non-commercial academic research, promoting wide usage across the social sciences. Users seeking commercial use or formal permissions should consult the author or relevant academic publishers. The instrument can be found online at: http://personality-testing.info/tests/RWAS/.

Reference’s

• Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
• Altemeyer, B. (1996). The Authoritarian Spectre. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47-92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Altemeyer, B. (2003). What happens when authoritarians inherit the earth? A simulation. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3, 161-169.
• Altemeyer, Bob (2006). The Authoritarians (PDF). pp. 9–10. The original PDF can be downloaded here: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf.
• Additional theoretical context regarding the construct can be found on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism.

Items of the Right-wing Authoritarianism Scale

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just “loud mouths” showing off their ignorance.
2. Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.
3. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.
4. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.
5. It is always better to trust the judgement of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to cr‎eate doubt in people’s minds.
6. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.
7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.
8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.
9. Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people.
10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.
11. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else.
12. The “old-fashioned ways” and the “old-fashioned values” still show the best way to live.
13. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority’s view by protesting for women’s abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer.
14. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take us back to our true path.
15. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government, criticizing religion, and ignoring the “normal way things are supposed to be done.”
16. God’s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished.
17. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.
18. A “woman’s place” should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past.
19. Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the “rotten apples” who are ruining everything.
20. There is no “one right way” to live life; everybody has to cr‎eate their own way.
21. Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy “traditional family values.”
22. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group’s traditional place in society.