Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale

Abstract

The Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWAS) was developed by Bob Altemeyer to provide a psychometrically sound measure of authoritarianism, specifically addressing flaws in the pioneering but methodologically troubled F Scale. The original conceptual foundation for this line of research stemmed from the work on The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950), which linked personality traits to ideological susceptibility.

Altemeyer’s approach offers a simpler, social learning conceptualization of authoritarianism, defining it as a combination of three attitudinal clusters: Authoritarian Submission, Authoritarian Aggression, and Conventionalism. The RWA Scale, unlike its predecessor, is balanced against response sets. The 1994 version comprises 34 statements, with the final 30 items scored using a 9-point Likert scale ranging from -4 (very strongly disagree) to +4 (very strongly agree). Total scores for the RWA Scale range from a theoretical minimum of 30 to a maximum of 270.

Keywords

RWA, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Bob Altemeyer, Authoritarianism, Social Psychology, Conventionalism, Authoritarian Aggression, Political Ideology, F Scale, Personality Assessment.

Authors

Bob Altemeyer

Purpose

The purpose of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWAS) is to measure the trait of authoritarianism as it manifests in support of established, legitimate authority. The scale aims to quantify the degree to which an individual is prone to accepting and enforcing conventional societal norms and submitting to perceived authorities.

It is designed to capture a complex ideological orientation that is strongly associated with social and religious conservatism, and which predicts attitudes toward prejudice, punitive measures, and adherence to traditional teachings.

Construct

The psychological construct measured by the RWA Scale is Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), which Altemeyer defined not as a single attitude but as the necessary combination of three interdependent attitudinal clusters:

• Authoritarian Submission: Defined as a high degree of submission to authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate within one’s society.
• Authoritarian Aggression: Characterized as a generalized aggressiveness directed against various persons or groups, provided that this aggression is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities.
• Conventionalism: A strong adherence to the social conventions and traditions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities.

It is crucial that an individual exhibits the combination of these three attributes to be classified as high in RWA; possessing only one, such as conventional views, is insufficient to meet the criteria for the construct.

Validity

The combined empirical evidence strongly supports the validity of the RWA Scale in measuring its intended construct. High RWA scores are consistently linked to adherence to traditional religious teachings, demonstrating the scale’s sensitivity to the attribute of Conventionalism. This pattern has been observed across diverse religious samples, including Christians, Palestinian Muslims, and Orthodox Jews.

Furthermore, RWA scores show significant positive correlations with related constructs, such as Christian orthodoxy and dogmatism. Specifically, RWA scores correlate strongly with religious fundamentalism, with coefficients ranging between 0.66 and 0.75 in several studies. Individuals scoring high on the RWA Scale also tend to be more prejudiced, more willing to use punitive measures against perceived deviants, and more likely to report law violators to established authorities. The results align with theoretical expectations, suggesting that high RWA individuals tend to endorse stages of faith development characterized by literal and conventional interpretations (Stage 2: mythic-literal faith and Stage 3: synthetic-conventional faith) in Fowler’s theory of faith development.

Reliability

The RWA Scale demonstrates high levels of reliability, particularly in its later iterations. Altemeyer (1996) reported data from over 30 studies showing that internal consistency reliability coefficients (typically Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from 0.81 to 0.95. As a result of continuous test improvements over the years, the scale’s reliability generally stabilized at the 0.90 level or better.

The scale also exhibits excellent temporal stability. Test-retest reliability coefficients among student populations were found to be 0.95 over a brief one-week interval, and remained robust at 0.85 even when the interval between testings was extended to 28 weeks. A notable exception to the high internal consistency was reported among Xhosa-speaking students who completed the scale in English, yielding a lower coefficient of 0.43.

Factor Analysis

While the RWA construct is theoretically defined by three distinct components—Authoritarian Submission, Authoritarian Aggression, and Conventionalism—Altemeyer’s work generally treats RWA as a coherent, single-factor trait. The items are designed to load onto this overarching construct of Right-Wing Authoritarianism. The high internal consistency reliability coefficients (often exceeding 0.90) support the interpretation of the scale as measuring a monolithic psychological disposition.

The scale’s development was driven by the need for a measure that was psychometrically superior to the F Scale, specifically by balancing items to prevent susceptibility to response sets, thereby ensuring cleaner measurement of the underlying construct.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychological inventory.

Format: The 1994 version includes 34 statements, with 30 items scored. Items are answered using a 9-point Likert scale, ranging from -4 (very strongly disagree) to +4 (very strongly agree). Scoring involves adding a constant of five to each response for the 30 scored items (5-34) and summing them, yielding a total score between 30 and 270.

Language Available: English, Russian, German, and Spanish.

Population Group: General Population (Initially targeted students but extended to parents and diverse international samples).

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults.

Population Details: Initial standardization utilized University of Manitoba students in the early 1970s. Subsequent cross-validation included various North American student populations and their parents. Data has been collected from tens of thousands of individuals globally, including diverse non-Christianized groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, and Jews in Toronto samples).

Test Methodology: Paper-and-pencil administration; requires approximately 20 minutes to complete. Instructions are clear and self-explanatory, requiring no special training for administration.

Keywords

Ideology, Personality, Social Dominance, Prejudice, Conventionalism, Authoritarian Submission, Religious Fundamentalism, Psychometrics, Social Attitudes, Attitude Scales.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A

Correspondence Address: N/A

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: The version reviewed is the 1994 RWA Scale. Earlier versions were published in 1981 and 1988.

Permissions & Fee: The scale items and scoring methodology are published in Altemeyer’s academic works, notably The Authoritarian Specter (1996), making the instrument widely accessible for research purposes, though specific commercial licensing fees are not detailed here.

Reference’s

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. I., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.

Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113-133.

Hunsberger, B. (1996). Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism and hostility toward homosexuals in non-Christian religious groups. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 6, 39-49.

Hunsberger, B., Pancer, M.S., Pratt, M., & Alisat, S. (1996). The transition to university: Is religion related to adjustment? In M. Lynn & D. Moberg (Eds.), Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion (Vol. 7, pp. 181-199). Greenwich, CT: JAi Press.

Hunsberger, 8., Pratt, M., & Pancer, S. M. (1994). Religious fundamentalism and integrative complexity of thought: A relationship for existential content only? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33, 335-346.

Leak, G. K., & Randall, B. A. (1995). Clarification of the link between right-wing authoritarianism and religiousness: The role of religious maturity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34, 245-252.

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.

Instructions: This survey is part of an investigation of general public opinion concerning a variety of social issues. You will probably find that you agree with some of the statements, and disagree with others, to varying extents. Please indicate your reaction to each statement by marking your opinion next to the statement, according to the following scale:

• 4 if you very strongly disagree with the statement
• 3 if you strongly disagree with the statement
• 2 if you moderately disagree with the statement
• 1 if you slightly disagree with the statement
• + 1 if you slightly agree with the statement
• + 2 if you moderately agree with the statement
• + 3 if you strongly agree with the statement
• + 4 if you very strongly agree with the statement

If you feel exactly and precisely neutral about a statement, mark a “O” next to it.

You may find that you sometimes have different reactions to different parts of a statement. For example, you might very strongly disagree (-4) with one idea in a statement, but slightly agree (+1) with another idea in the same item. When this happens, please combine your reactions and write down how you feel “on balance” (that is, a -3 in this example).

1. Life imprisonment is justified for certain crimes.
2. Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.
3. The established authorities in our country are usually smarter, better informed, and more competent than others are, and the people can rely on them.
4. It is important to protect fully the rights of radicals and deviants.
5. 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.
6. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.*
7. 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.
8. Atheists and others who have rebelled against established religion are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.*
9. The real keys to the “good life” are obedience, discipline, and sticking to the straight and narrow.
10. A lot of our rules regarding modesty and sexual behavior are just customs which are not necessarily any better or holier than those which other people follow.*
11. 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.
12. It is always better to trust the judgment 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.
13. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.*
14. There is no “one right way” to live your life. Everybody has to create their own way.*
15. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.
16. It’s a mistake to “stick strictly to the straight and narrow” in life, for you’ll miss a lot of interesting people from quite different backgrounds who can change you, and some of the best experiences you can have.*
17. The situation in our country is getting so serious, the strongest methods would be justified if they eliminated the troublemakers and got us back to our true path.
18. It would be best for everyone if the proper authorities censored magazines so that people could not get their hands on trashy and disgusting material.
19. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else.*
20. 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.*
21. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil and take us back to our true path.
22. People should pay less attention to the Bible and the other old traditional forms of religious guidance and instead develop their own personal standards of what is moral and immoral.
23. Enough is enough! If the loafers, deviants, and troublemakers won’t “shape up,” then they should be severely disciplined and taught a lesson they’ll never forget.
24. Our country needs freethinkers who will have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people.*
25. There is nothing wrong with premarital sexual intercourse.*
26. It may be considered old-fashioned by some, but having a normal, proper appearance is still the mark of a gentleman and, especially, a lady.
27. It is wonderful that young people today have greater freedom to protest against things they don’t like and to make their own “rules” to govern their behavior.
28. What our country really needs, instead of more “civil rights,” is a good stiff dose of law and order.
29. Government, judges, and the police should never be allowed to censor books.*
30. Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn.
31. We should treat protesters and radicals with open arms and open minds, since new ideas are the lifeblood of progressive change.*
32. Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.
33. Rules about being “well-behaved” and “respectable” should be changed in favor of greater freedom and new ways of living.*
34. The facts on crime, sexual immorality, and recent public disorders all show we have to crack down harder on deviant groups and troublemakers if we are going to save our moral standards and preserve law and order.

* Item is worded in the contrait direction, that is, the right-wing authoritarian response is to disagree.

Note 1. Only items 5-34 are scored.

Note 2. All items are scored on a 9-point basis. For protrait statements, “-4” is scored as I, and “+4” is scored as 9. The keying is reversed for contrail items. For both kinds of items, the neutral answer (“O”) is scored as 5. The lowest possible score is 30, and the highest is 270.

A-4 to +4 response scale has been used on the RWA Scale since 1980, rather than the usual -3 to +3, because experiments have shown it produces (marginally) higher reliability. Either a 9-point or a 7-point response scale appears to be superior to the 5-point scale Likert (1932) invented. A 3-point response scale (“disagree-?-agree”) seems to damage appreciably a scale’s psychometric properties among populations capable of making finer distinctions (Altemeyer, 1988, pp. 39-42).