Essay: Is there a significant difference between males/females in authoritarianism?

Literature Review
Authoritarianism, according to Oxford English Dictionary (2018), is linked to the enforcement of strict obedience to the authority, especially between leader of a group and its members. Altemeyer (1996) described authoritarians as people who are submissive to establish authorities. In 1950 Adorno et al. specified a type of personality called “authoritarian”. They characterised it as a person who is politically and religiously conservative, precisely adhere to conventional, middle-class values and has a tendency to condemn, reject or even punish people for violating social conventions and traditional values. Furthermore, they noticed a strong belief in stereotypes, putting emphasis on dominance-submission relation or leader-follower relationship and power-seeking behaviours. Due to stable set of values and group cohesion authoritarian beliefs promote, people dealing with the social threats are more likely to adapt them in order to cope with the uncertainty and chaos of a threatening social environment (Hastings & Shaffer, 2008; Duncan at al., 1997)
It was found that people demonstrating these behaviours and attitudes present a particular, quiet impersonal style of leadership (3). Based on Goleman findings (2007), authoritative leaders are distinguished their entrepreneurial spirit as well as an ability to mobilize the team toward common vision and focus on achieving goals. This type of personality is also related to the need to organize, control and dictate all decision-making processes within the group. However, authoritarian leaders more often resort to hard influence strategies, such as manipulation, putting pressure instead of making use of the soft influence strategies, such as couching or friendly attitude (Yukl, 2002). Moreover, they are more likely to use various types of negative sanctions, for example monetary penalties or negative evaluation (3. Dustin & Davis, 1967). Authoritarians also put a lot of emphasis on the integrity of the group and prone to be prejudiced toward those, who question or violate group norms (4. (Duckitt, 2006; Napier & Jost, 2008; Stenner, 2005)). As a result of combining their conservative religious values and support for group hierarchy and inequality, they may criticize women’s rights (6).
Authoritarianism is strongly associated with the psychological construct of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1988). According to Duckitt et al. (2010), this concept is based on Conservatism, Traditionalism and Authoritarianism, where the last facet can be either linked to having an authoritarian personality or to showing a high degree of willingness to submit to this authority. He also noted that people representing this type of personality tend to be more self-righteous and religious, mixed with some conscientiousness and some agreeableness, but not so much openness. Recent research on relation between Big Five’s and the facets of Right-Wing Authoritarianism found a significant correlation with agreeableness (2), which is defined as an acceptance of others and cooperative towards them (Barrick & Mount, 1991). This relation might be justified by authoritarians’ desire to fitting in with a group and supporting system change all the more if it is for the good of the group (2).
Examining authoritarianism is fully recommended in terms of considering one’s leadership style as it is useful indicator of proneness to become a leader (Heaven, 1985). Whether it is a job recruitment or team building process, assessing candidates’ personality is a useful tool in HR practice (Morgeson et al., 2007). Authoritarians can play a significant role in situations where completing task with a great urgency and in a short period of time is critical and when team needs to get a clear direction or support in making the right decisions. However, from the other point of view, authoritarian leaders tend to create the atmosphere of constant stress and pressure within the workplace, due to their high demands and hard influence strategies (Beehr, 1995). Authoritarianism is also a case for political science. Authoritarian regime includes all forms of undemocratic rule (Lauth, 2012), which pose a threat to the democracy (Way, 2016).
On the other hand, gender is also a variable whose influence cannot be neglected (3). Several studies documented gender differences in personality traits (Costa et al., 2001). As an example, men are apt to be more successful in developing strategic perspective though women obtained higher scores in drives for results and taking the initiative and overall presented a better leadership effectiveness (Zenger & Folkman, 2012). Since men’s and women’s styles of management and ways of exercise of power differ demonstrably (Holska, 2017), it is thought that authoritarianism might be one of the several variables whose impact might be intensifying these differences (3). Authoritarian men were considered as defensive, maladjusted, troubled and depressed as authoritarian women were perceived as traditional, religious and family oriented, based on the findings of Lippa and Arad (6). However, Rajan and Krishan (3) identified authoritarian man as more friendly with a stronger tendency towards choosing assertiveness and bargaining as the strategies in negotiations. Moreover, Lyness and Thompson (1997) carried out a research, which was ought to find either women’s or men’s job have less authority. By measuring the number of employees their participants have been managing, they found out that positions occupied by women had less authority. Thus, when women’s and men’s jobs are at the same organizational level, they women’s jobs may not be comparable when it to comes to having authority. This finding might be caused by difficulties in exercise of power and dominance as, according to Ridgeway (1997), women more often encounter resistance to their authority. As a result of this, lack of legitimacy for female leaders (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001) and the gap among men and women in executive leadership positions is increasing, as in 2015 only 12% of the world’s boards seats was held by women (Cenac, 2018).
These findings prove the importance of assessing either gender has an impact on authoritarian behaviors or are these two variables completely separated from each other. In the past many studies have been carried out in order to answer this question.
Heaven & Bucci (2001) carried out a study to investigate the personality correlates of Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism using the IPIP Method (Goldberg, 1999). This study has not reported any significant gender differences on the RWA measure. Similar studies have been carried out by Nicol & De France (2016) and they have also reported no significant differences on the right-wing authoritarianism, thus supporting Altermeyer (1998). Rajan & Krishnan (2002) have studied the impact of gender on frequency of use of influence strategies, amount of power and authoritarianism, using a sample of 109 managers from two organizations in India. They were looking at the sources of power that authoritarian men and women tap, as well as the influence strategies that they use. They have recorded no gender differences on authoritarianism, although they have founded that men are more likely to tap the legitimate power than the coercive one. It was thus reported that gender moderates the impact of authoritarianism on legitimate and coercive power, but not on authoritarianism itself. Another study that is correlated with authoritarianism was conducted by Brandt & Henry (2012). As they have established that authoritarianism is a response to rejection, a psychological threat associated with stigma, they focused on investigating whether authoritarianism is significantly prevalent among women in societies with high levels of gender inequality, since they face more psychological threats associated with stigma than men. According to their findings, females indicates higher authoritarianism than males, thus gender differences on that variable occur. They have also reported a direct correlation between the rates of gender inequality and the levels of authoritarian ideas in the male and female populations. They have found that in countries with less gender equality where men occupied the dominant societal roles, women were more likely to demonstrate traits such as obedience, which would allow them to survive in an authoritarian environment. In countries with higher levels of gender equality, men tend to show less authoritarian views. Lippa & Arad (1999) conducted a research on the display of authoritarianism, by interviewing men and women. The have also examined whether various self-report measures of masculinity and femininity were related to authoritarianism. They found that masculinity was significantly associated with men’s authoritarianism because of their their traditionalism, conservative religious values and abhorrence of homosexuality. Therefore, women’s femininity was weakly linked to authoritarianism.
Based on previously described studies and their results, it is expected no differences between males and females in relation to authoritarianism since majority of these studies agree that gender itself does not significantly influence if a person will have authoritarian personality or not. It is therefore hypothesized that authoritarianism and gender do not have a significant relationship.
Research Methods
Participants
200 participants took part in a survey which I was carrying out for Newcastle Business School. Among them 100 (50%) were males and 100 (50%) were females. At that time, 100% of them were students. 180 of them (90%) were in age 18-25, 10 of them (5%) were in age 26-35, 5 of them (2.5%) were in age 36-45 and the last 5 of them (2.5%) were in age 46-55. Participation in this study was on a voluntary basis.
Materials
Participants responded to thirty items using a six point scale of agreement (from 1=disagree strongly to 6=agree strongly), which were designed to measure authoritarian personality. The measure used in this survey was a personality questionnaire known as the F Scale or California F Scale, which was designed by Adorno et al. in 1950.
Procedure
At the beginning of the survey participants were informed about the aim of the research, which was to examine the relationship between gender and authoritarianism. They were also advised that it is important that they will be honest and say what they really think and reminded about an anonymous character of that research. After distributing the four questionnaires, I had familiarized them with an instruction which consisted of e.g. reading each question carefully and not wasting time by looking back at the previous answers. After that, I debriefed the participants about the ethic side of this study and reminded them of the right to withdraw at any point. Also, if they would wish so, their data would not be used for publication as I was going to use it in order to form the basis of an article that I wanted to be published in the scientific literature. The survey took about 25 minutes. After the participant completed all of the questionnaires and turned them face down on the desk, I collected them.
Ethics
The ethical side of this surrey was significant as I wanted to make sure that each of the participant would not feel any pressure and be honest while answering all of the questions. At the very beginning I assured them that their responses will be anonymous and that all of the information gathered during these sessions will be treated in the strictest of confidence. Participants were able to withdraw from this study at any point as well as they could indicate at the beginning that they do not wish their data to be used for publication, so it would be noted at the front of your completed questionnaire.
Results
This section presents the results of the analysis that was undertaken to investigate if there is a significant difference between males and females in relation to authoritarianism. The descriptive statistics are presented first and are discussed.  Next the t-test results are presented and discussed.
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive Statistics are used to present quantitative descriptions as they are allowing to simplify large amounts of data in a sensible way (Trochim, 2006).
The average score for the authoritarianism (F Scale) within the sample overall was 2.1 (S.D. = 0.94) which is just under the mid point of the 1-5 scale. The average score for males was 1.2 (S.D. = 0.88) and the average score for females was 3 (S.D. = 0.98) on the authoritarianism. This indicates that females scored higher on the authoritarianism scale (F Scale) than males which thus indicates than women are more prone to be authoritarian than man do.
The males mean score is significantly below the mid point, whereas the mean score for females is towards the higher end of the 1-5 scale and above the mid point.
The mean scores are displayed in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Mean scores for males, females and the total sample on authoritarianism.
T-test Results
An investigation using the t-test was undertaken to investigate the difference between males and females in relation to authoritarianism. A t-test is used to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between the means in two unrelated groups. Statistical significance in a t-test tells us whether the difference between the two groups occurred by chance or actually exists.
The t-test results showed a high score of 1.97 (t=1.973) which indicates that there is no significant relationship between authoritarianism and gender. Those results support the experimental hypothesis that authoritarianism and gender do not have a significant relationship, which is therefore accepted.
Moreover, the significance score for the significance between authoritarianism and gender in a t-test was 0.049 (P<0.05). This score indicates that there is a significant difference between authoritarianism and gender. It also signifies that there is less then 5% probability that the difference has occurred by chance, what is also supporting the experimental hypothesis and therefore it should be accepted.
Discussion
The results showed that there is no significant difference between males and females in relation to authoritarianism, meaning there is no relationship between them.
Perhaps there is no relationship between gender and authoritarianism because our personality is more complex and is influenced by many other variables, such as childhood, occupation, social status or culture. Because our personality dependents on an uncountable number of factors therefore we cannot unambiguously state which one of them by itself influence personality.
Perhaps one’s sex has little or no bearing on personality, cognition and leadership, as it is argued by Hyde (2005). Her studies discovered that males and females from childhood to adulthood are more alike than different on most psychological variables, a theory that she defines as a gender similarities hypothesis. Her analysis has also presented evidences that gender differences fluctuate with age, growing smaller or larger at different times in the life time. Therefore, this fluctuation signifies that any differences are not constant and does not last long. According to Hyde, gender differences seem to be a result of the context in which they are measured. In her work, she presented the methods and results of one her experiments, which in fact was designed to examine whether gender roles and social context strongly determine a person’s personality and accordingly his/her actions and to eliminate gender norms. In this experiment participants were told at the beginning that they would not be identified as male or female. Hyde found out that none conformed to stereotypes about their sex when given the chance to be aggressive. In fact, they did the opposite of what would be expected – women were more aggressive and men were more passive. It states that when measuring relations between gender and personality traits, we should be aware that that biological and environmental variables interact and influence one other.
Perhaps there is no relationship between gender and authoritarianism because of the tool used to measure personality traits. This relates to study carried out by Vianello and his research team (2013). Instead of using a standard personality questionnaire, which is thought to report answers influenced by the conscious biases (Jarret, 2016), they have chosen to use an implicit measure of personality. This involves using speed of keyboard responses so participants’ scores would not be affected by conscious manipulation of their answers in order to conform to cultural and social expectations around gender, thus they would not realize that they are exposing their honest thoughts about their personality. Results of this study included gender differences in personality, however they were three times smaller as compared to the ones from standard personality questionnaires. That suggests that use of different types of questionnaires might affects results regarding personality traits.
The results from the t-test supports other studies that have been done in order to identify if the differences between males and females in relation to authoritarianism are significant. For instance, research conducted by Rajan & Krishnan (2002) showed that there are no gender differences on authoritarianism. Furthermore, studies carried whose aim was to investigate if there is a significant relationship between gender and Right-Wing Authoritarianism have reported no significant gender differences on the RWA measure (Heaven & Bucci, 2001; Nicol & De France, 2016). On the other hand, research on display of the authoritarianism in interviews with men and women, which was conducted by Lippa & Arad (1999), showed a that masculinity was significantly associated with men’s authoritarianism and therefore, women’s femininity was weakly linked to authoritarianism. The differences which have arose between my and their results might have occurred because they have also considered in their research such factor as occupation or hobby preferences, whereas in my research nothing like that was take into account.
Moreover, study conducted by Brandt & Henry (2012) on investigating whether authoritarianism is significantly prevalent among women in societies with high levels of gender inequality have founded that in countries with higher levels of gender equality, men tend to show less authoritarian views. The differences occurred between my and their results might be caused by adding another aspect to the research, which in their case was rate of gender inequality in countries from which participants were from.
Although self-report questionnaires are a convenient way of collecting a large amount of data, they might occur some problems with them. People may not have the self-awareness or understanding to answer.  (Anastasi & Ubrina, 1997; Kagan, 1988; 2007; John & Robbins, 1994).  For this reason, you get better ratings when you pair self-ratings with peer rating (Connolly & Ones, 2010; Oh, wang & Mount, 2011). People of different cultures may respond to the items in different ways (Anastasi & Ubrina, 1997; Kagan, 1988; 2007; John & Robbins, 1994). People may also try to always give the socially acceptable answer, what is called social desirability (Anastasi & Ubrina, 1997; Kagan,1988; 2007; John & Robbins, 1994). People may also not pay attention and just choose any response thus, for example, they will agree with every statement/question. This tendency to agree, known as an acquiescence response bias (Anastasi & Ubrina, 1997; Kagan, 1988; 2007), might also pose a problem in terms of the F Scale. Because items on the F Scale are only positively worded, distinguishing between acquiescent and authoritarian people could be impossible.
Based on those limitations and results of that research, I would like to provide some directions for future study. It would be relevant to extend study and add peer ratings in order to compare them with self-ratings. That would be useful when participant does not have a sense of self-awareness. We could also put in reversed questions in order to ensure that acquiescence response bias would not have such a significant impact on results.
Relationship between gender and authoritarianism described before might be implicated for Human Resource Practice as a HR professional should be aware of them. In some cases, very high scores on authoritarian are not desirable for particular organizations. Very low scores, on the other hand, may be more appropriate in creative environment and less appropriate when rule following is needed. It is also important to know that in terms of recruitment or team building processes, high on authoritarianism can still be beneficial to the company and they should have the same opportunities within the workplace.