Submission or Rebellion? Disentangling the Relationships of Anxiety, Attitudes Toward Authorities, and Right-Wing Populist Party Support

IF 2.3 2区 文学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL American Behavioral Scientist Pub Date : 2024-04-18 DOI:10.1177/00027642241240717
Susanne Veit, Magdalena Hirsch, Heiko Giebler, Johann Gründl, Benjamin Schürmann
{"title":"Submission or Rebellion? Disentangling the Relationships of Anxiety, Attitudes Toward Authorities, and Right-Wing Populist Party Support","authors":"Susanne Veit, Magdalena Hirsch, Heiko Giebler, Johann Gründl, Benjamin Schürmann","doi":"10.1177/00027642241240717","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The success of right-wing populist parties (RPPs) is often attributed to their deployment of the rhetoric of fear that capitalizes on societal crisis and corresponding anxieties. However, empirical evidence on the relationship between anxiety and support for RPP (RPP support) remains inconclusive. We argue that right-wing authoritarian (RWA) and populist attitudes imply contradicting views on authority. Anti-elitism, a subdimension of populist attitudes, implies rebellion against established authorities; however, RWA submission relates to the inclination to obey authorities. These contradictory attitudes may account for the mixed results. In relation to anxiety, both rebellion and submission are conceived as defensive responses, but their relation to RPP support is different because the reactions to authority they induce are antithetical. Moreover, we differentiate between two forms of anxiety as sources of RPP support, which are often conflated in empirical studies: situational anxiety arising in response to specific threats and diffuse anxiety or a general sense of anxiety. We draw on mass survey data, including a survey experiment, that examines how anxiety drives support for the German right-wing populist party Alternative für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany, AfD) via attitudes toward authority. The path analyses support our hypotheses and reveal that anti-elitism mediates the positive relationship between anxiety and voter support for the AfD. At the same time, authoritarian submission increases with anxiety, but—unlike anti-elitism—it is negatively associated with AfD support. Furthermore, the two paths are confirmed for situational and diffuse anxiety, with the relative importance of authoritarian submission and anti-elitism varying according to the form of anxiety.","PeriodicalId":48360,"journal":{"name":"American Behavioral Scientist","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Behavioral Scientist","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241240717","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The success of right-wing populist parties (RPPs) is often attributed to their deployment of the rhetoric of fear that capitalizes on societal crisis and corresponding anxieties. However, empirical evidence on the relationship between anxiety and support for RPP (RPP support) remains inconclusive. We argue that right-wing authoritarian (RWA) and populist attitudes imply contradicting views on authority. Anti-elitism, a subdimension of populist attitudes, implies rebellion against established authorities; however, RWA submission relates to the inclination to obey authorities. These contradictory attitudes may account for the mixed results. In relation to anxiety, both rebellion and submission are conceived as defensive responses, but their relation to RPP support is different because the reactions to authority they induce are antithetical. Moreover, we differentiate between two forms of anxiety as sources of RPP support, which are often conflated in empirical studies: situational anxiety arising in response to specific threats and diffuse anxiety or a general sense of anxiety. We draw on mass survey data, including a survey experiment, that examines how anxiety drives support for the German right-wing populist party Alternative für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany, AfD) via attitudes toward authority. The path analyses support our hypotheses and reveal that anti-elitism mediates the positive relationship between anxiety and voter support for the AfD. At the same time, authoritarian submission increases with anxiety, but—unlike anti-elitism—it is negatively associated with AfD support. Furthermore, the two paths are confirmed for situational and diffuse anxiety, with the relative importance of authoritarian submission and anti-elitism varying according to the form of anxiety.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
服从还是反抗?厘清焦虑、对当局的态度和右翼民粹主义政党支持率之间的关系
右翼民粹主义政党(RPPs)的成功往往归因于他们利用社会危机和相应的焦虑情绪来发表恐惧言论。然而,关于焦虑与右翼民粹主义政党支持率(RPP 支持率)之间关系的经验证据仍无定论。我们认为,右翼威权主义(RWA)和民粹主义态度意味着对权威的相互矛盾的看法。反精英主义是民粹主义态度的一个子维度,意味着对既定权威的反叛;然而,右翼威权主义的服从则与服从权威的倾向有关。这些相互矛盾的态度可能是结果好坏参半的原因。就焦虑而言,反叛和服从都被视为防御性反应,但它们与人民力量党支持率的关系不同,因为它们引起的对权威的反应是对立的。此外,我们还将两种形式的焦虑作为人民力量党支持的来源加以区分,这两种焦虑在实证研究中经常被混为一谈:一种是针对特定威胁产生的情景焦虑,另一种是弥漫性焦虑或普遍焦虑感。我们利用大规模调查数据,包括一项调查实验,研究了焦虑如何通过对权威的态度推动对德国右翼民粹主义政党德国另类选择党(Alternative für Deutschland,AfD)的支持。路径分析支持了我们的假设,并揭示了反精英主义在焦虑和选民对 AfD 的支持之间起到了正向调节作用。同时,专制服从会随着焦虑的增加而增加,但与反精英主义不同的是,它与 AfD 的支持率呈负相关。此外,情景焦虑和弥漫焦虑也证实了这两条路径,专制屈从和反精英主义的相对重要性因焦虑形式而异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
3.10%
发文量
190
期刊介绍: American Behavioral Scientist has been a valuable source of information for scholars, researchers, professionals, and students, providing in-depth perspectives on intriguing contemporary topics throughout the social and behavioral sciences. Each issue offers comprehensive analysis of a single topic, examining such important and diverse arenas as sociology, international and U.S. politics, behavioral sciences, communication and media, economics, education, ethnic and racial studies, terrorism, and public service. The journal"s interdisciplinary approach stimulates creativity and occasionally, controversy within the emerging frontiers of the social sciences, exploring the critical issues that affect our world and challenge our thinking.
期刊最新文献
Satellite Political Movements: How Grassroots Activists Bolster Trump and Bolsonaro in the United States and Brazil Reading the Tea Leaves: Question Wording and Public Support for the Tea Party Movement Articulations of StrongMen: A Knowledge Cultural Sociology of Recognizing Autocratic Practices in Russian, Turkish, and Global Regimes Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing: The Autocratic Subversion of Brazil’s Fourth Estate Transforming the Legacy of Colonial and Racialized Inequities in Childcare Systems in the United States: (Re)Framing Futures Through Black Feminist Thought
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1