The Journal of Social Psychology, 12 The Authoritarian Personality: An Inadequate Explanation for Intergroup Conflict in South Africa J, LOUW-POTGIETER Department of Psychology University of Natal, South Africa ABSTRACT. Intergroup conflict within South Africa has often been explained in terms of the authoritarian personality structure of the ruling group. Such an in- dividualistic explanation of a social phenomenon is inadequate and, unless crucial social factors are taken into account, a true understanding of South African in- tergroup relations cannot be attained. Specific trends in authoritarian personality research within the South African context are highlighted. THE OBSESSION with methodology and the collection of empirical data within social psychology has resulted in an uncritical and theoretically im- poverished discipline (Billig, 1976). An example of this is the nature and level of social psychological explanations for intergroup conflict: In- variably, processes on the individual and interpersonal levels are invoked to elucidate why one group discriminates or is prejudiced against, or goes to war against, another group (Billig, 1976; Doise, 1980, 1984, 1986). An individual-processes explanation for example, would locate the origin of in- tergroup conflict firmly within the individual’s presocial human nature—his or her instincts, personality, or cognitive structure. An interpersonal level of explanation would focus on the relationship between individuals, usually in a face-to-face situation; the parent-child relationship is often referred to on this level. Billig (1976) argued that any reduction of large-scale social processes to individualistic or interpersonal processes involves a distortion and precludes a critical social analysis. To avoid this, social psychologists should strive for Requests for reprints should be sent to J. Louw-Potgieter, Department of Psychol- ogy, University of Natal, King George V Avenue, Durban 4001, South Africa. 1 Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.16 _The Journal of Social Psychology a level of explanation in which intergroup processes are analyzed in their own terms, on a social level. At such a level, cultural and societal variables are taken into account, such factors as intergroup power and ideological beliefs are addressed, and, most important, a phenomenon such as in- tergroup conflict can be explained in terms of the properties of the groups themselves. For approximately the last two decades, some social psychologists have endorsed a specific explanation for intergroup conflict in South Africa. This explanation focuses on personality variables said to be characteristic of the powerful, governing group in South Africa, “the Afrikaners.” Afrikaans speakers are alleged to possess an authoritarian personality, which is regarded as the main causal factor in the deterioration of in- tergroup relations in that country. This conception is an inadequate ex- planation of intergroup conflict. ‘The Authoritarian Personality Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1950) published various papers and monographs concerning antisemitism as The Authoritarian Personality, a single volume in a multi-volume series of Studies in Prejudice, directed by Horkheimer and funded by the American Jewish Committee. This enquiry into The Authoritarian Personality, a “potentially fascistic individual, one whose structure is such as to render him particularly susceptible to anti-democratic propaganda,” asserted that, these potentially fascistic individuals ‘‘exhibit numerous characteristics that, go together to form a ‘syndrome’ "” (Adorno et al., 1950, p. 1), which con- sisted of a constellation of nine related traits, the ontogeny of which could be traced back to a strict, disciplined upbringing. Sanford (1986) pointed out that this study had no “‘grand design” (p. 211) and that the authors followed their own intuition in designing additional scales and investigating related topics. ‘Adorno et al.'s (1950) study immediately became the object of enor- mous methodological criticism (see Altemeyer, 1981; Christie & Jahoda, 1954; Kirscht & Dillehay, 1967; Wilson & Nias, 1973 for overviews). The authors were accused of over-emphasizing the subjective and psychological causes of authoritarianism, but a close reading of the sections Adorno wrote reveals that he emphasized objective as well as subjective factors (Billig, 1982; Jay, 1984). Adorno’s role in this study was to instruct the rest of the team in Marxism and critical theory, but it has been concluded that his instruction did not have much impact on the final product (Samelson, 1986). Of interest to present-day social psychologists is the way in which dif- ferent sections of this study have been emphasized or neglected. Apart from Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.Louw-Potgieter__77 the different trends concerning authoritarianism and the actual data (see Billig, 1986; Samelson, 1986), another phenomenon concerning Adorno may be distinguished. Social psychologists mainly associate Adorno with the F Scale (a miniscule part of the overall study and one in which he was only indirectly involved) and may not be aware that Adorno was better known as a prolific, if controversial, philosopher, sociologist, musicologist, literary critic, and student of culture. All of these trends are particularly relevant in the case of South African studies of the authoritarian personality. ‘The Authoritarian Personality: South African Studies MacCrone (1930), using a psychoanalytic framework, explored the psychodynamics of prejudice in South Africa and focused specifically on the unconscious elements in white South Africans’ aversion for the color black. Mann (1971) remarked that, from this study, MacCrone came to en- visage a ‘*Calvinist-Puritanical”” personality, which in many ways resembled the authoritarian personality. By juxtaposing these two concepts, Mann reflected a popular viewpoint prevalent among laypersons and social psychologists: ‘‘Afrikaners”’ are authoritarian, It is a well-known fact that the dogma of the Afrikaans churches is based on a specific brand of Calvinism (see O'Meara, 1983). Add to this the stereotypical perception of Afrikaners child-rearing philosophy and practice as strict, disciplined, and patriarchal (to my knowledge, no empirical evidence exists to support this widely held stereotype), and the inevitable result is the seeming applicability of the concept of authoritarian personality to a specific group within South African society. The fairly large collection of publications on authoritarianism in South African society seems to suggest that Mann was not the only person to have made this link. The bulk of these publications, however, have been forth- coming from a single author, Patrick C. L. Heaven. The popularity of this explanatory construct could reflect either the fit social psychologists per- ceived between authoritarianism and their representations of a Calvinist, or simply the personal preference of a specific social psychologist who has published extensively on the subject. The aim here is not to review all the South African studies on the authoritarian personality (see Louw-Potgieter [1986] for such a review, also Meloen [1983] for a review involving 23 other countries), but rather to isolate general trends common to most of these studies. Before doing so, however, a single study, regardless of some methodological problems, merits exclusion: Pettigrew’s (1958) study on personality and sociocultural factors in intergroup attitudes in South Africa indicated that the personality variable of social conformity, rather than authoritarianism, played a part in Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.18__The Journal of Social Psychology determining white students’ attitudes toward black people. Sociocultural variables, such as being born in Africa, identifying with the ruling National Party, being upwardly mobile, and being from an Afrikaans background proved to be more crucial determinants of intolerance toward black people than any one personality variable. Like Adorno, Pettigrew stressed “that the psychological and sociological correlates of prejudice are elaborately in- tertwined and that both are essential to provide an adequate theoretical framework for this complex phenomenon” (p. 29). Later researchers, however, seeking to replicate Pettigrew’s work in South Africa, made the same mistake as those who replicated research in The Authoritarian Per- sonality: The heuristic distinction between personality variables and sociocultural variables adopted by the original authors became an empirical distinction. Thus, personality variables, easily obtainable by means of a single scale, became the main focus of intergroup research, leading to un- critical, individualistic explanations of social phenomena such as conflict and prejudice. The following general trends, therefore, are discernible in South African studies of the authoritarian personality. A Different Conceptualization of Authoritarianism Ray’s (1976) definition of authoritarianism, - the desire to impose one’s will on others” (p. 314), seems to be the most generally accepted for South African studies (¢.g., Duckitt, 1983a, b, c; Heaven, 1977, 1979, 1980a, b, c, 1981, 1983a, b, c; Heaven & Moerdyk, 1977; Heaven & Nieuwoudt, 1981; Heaven & Rajab, 1980, 1983; Heaven & Ray, 1980; Heaven & Stones, 1979, 1980; Ray, 1980a, b, 1984a, b; Ray & Heaven, 1984). Although Adorno and his coworkers assumed that authoritarianism was a complex of nine covarying traits, and Altemeyer (1981) suggested a refined conceptualization of three covarying traits (authoritarian submis- sion, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism), the previously men- tioned authors, following Ray, postulated that the essence of authoritarianism was a single trait, namely, a tendency or desire to impose one’s will on others. If Ray’s definition has indeed captured the essence of authoritarianism, it could be assumed that the intercorrelations between the original complex of traits constituting the syndrome and the correlations between the F Scale, the A-S Scale, and the E-Scale would not be affected. If affected, however, it could also be asserted that Ray’s definition does not represent the essence of authoritarianism (see, for instance, Duckitt, 1983c, Heaven, 1980c, 1981, 1983a, b, c; Heaven & Rajab, 1980, 1983; Ray & Heaven, 1984; which do not support these original correlations), Duckitt (1983c) argued that Ray’s conceptualization of authoritarianism has relatively little in common with the authoritarian personality Adorno Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.ee Louw-Potgieter__79 described. The implications of basing scales measuring authoritarian behavior and attitudes on this conceptualization must now be discussed. Different Measuring Instruments Adomo and his coworkers developed Form 45 of the F Scale, consisting of 29 items, to measure susceptibility to antidemocratic propaganda at the per- sonality level. With the exception of Mynhardt (1980), Mynhardt, Plug, Tyson, and Viljoen (1979), Nieuwoudt and Nel (1975; who used a short form), Orpen (1970; who used only 25 items), and Pettigrew (1958; who also used a short form), no other South African study has employed the original 29-item Form 45 of the F Scale. Most of these other studies used Ray’s (1976) Directiveness Scale (DR), a 26-item (short form plus 12 other items), or a 1ditem (short form) scale, measuring authoritarian personality and regarded as a predictor of actual authoritarian behavior (as assessed by peer ratings). A factor analysis of the DR scale showed that 50% of the variance in the results could be explained by three factors: submissiveness, dominance, and aggressiveness (Heaven, 1983d). Ray (1976) also con- structed a balanced F Scale (BF), a 28-item (original) or a 14-item (short form) scale, measuring authoritarian attitudes in the Adorno et al. sense. Both these scales are based on Ray’s definition of authoritarianism. Ray went to great lengths to prove that there is no relationship between authoritarian attitudes and authoritarian behavior. He stated that, although existing authoritarian scales could sometimes predict submissiveness, “©... . they do not predict the utilization of an authoritative position in a domineering, aggressing, or destructive way” (Ray, 1976, p. 310). At issue here is the assertion that ‘the Adorno et al. account of the etiology of racism is totally inapplicable to South Africa” (Ray & Heaven, 1984, p. 168), while using a construct and instruments to measure this construct that are different from those used by Adorno and his coworkers. All the studies cited previously used Ray’s definition of authoritarianism and his measures of authoritarian attitudes (BF Scale) or authoritarian behavior (DR Scale), based on this definition. It could be argued that results obtained from these studies cannot be compared with those results obtained from studies using Adorno’s definition or measures. Differences obtained from such com- parisons may simply be a reflection of the initial differences between the conceptualizations of authoritarianism and the instruments measuring these constructs. To persist in such comparisons would be ‘‘an essentially pointless exercise’’ (Duckitt, 1984, p. 65). Unexplained Intragroup Variations in Authoritarianism Heaven and Nieuwoudt (1981) found that a sample of black students was more authoritarian than a sample of white, English-speaking students and Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.80__The Journal of Social Psychology “‘some Afrikaans-speaking students” (p. 278). They ascribed this difference to a difference in child-rearing philosophies between the groups. They failed to report, however, on the significant difference between F Scale scores (measured by an F Scale adapted by Mynhardt & Plug, 1977, for South African conditions) for two different samples of Afrikaans speakers. Reanalysis of the data revealed that Stellenbosch students scored significantly lower on the F Scale than students from the University of Pretoria, (284) = 4.49; p < .005. Furthermore, on examining those South African studies that are methodologically comparable (i.e., used the same measures) and had the necessary means and standard deviations available, degrees of intragroup variability are left unexplained by local social psychologists. For instance, when comparisons were made between the following subgroups of Afrikaans speakers, Bloemfontein students were found to score higher on the DR Scale than Bloemfontein citizens, 1(131) = 22.96, p < .005, (see Heaven [1977] for information on students and Heaven & Ray [1980] and Heaven & Rajab [1980] for information on the same sample of citizens). Students from the University of the Orange Free State in Bloemfontein scored significantly higher on the DR Scale than students from the Rand Afrikaans University in Johannesburg, (126) = 19.96, p < .0O1, (see Heaven, 1977, for information on Bloemfontein students and Heaven & Stones, 1980, for information on Johannesburg students). If these Afrikaans speakers had had a strict, disciplined upbringing, said to be characteristic of this ethnolinguistic group, and if such an up- bringing lies at the root of a subsequent authoritarian personality, then all of them should manifest such a personality trait as measured by appropriate tests. We shall ignore for the moment Altemeyer’s (1981) conclusion that, there is very little experimental support for the idea that authoritarianism has its roots in early childhood experiences. Instead, we see intragroup variablity (between an adult population and a student population from the same city, and between different student populations) that can only be ex- plained by means of sociocultural variables; for example, the difference be- tween a cosmopolitan city such as Johannesburg and Bloemfontein, so aptly described by Ray and Heaven (1984, p. 164) as ‘‘the Afrikaner heartland of the Orange Free State”; or the different cultures of the universities themselves, (cf. Newcomb, 1943, on acculturation into universities). The Postulation of a Personality Basis and a Cultural Basis for Authoritarianism within a Single Society Orpen (1970), using Afrikaans-speaking students at Stellenbosch Univer sity, recorded the highest ever F Scale item mean for ordinary university students. He concluded that “‘ . . . . in this sample personality factors play Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.Louw-Potgieter__81 a very important role in the development of prejudice”” (Orpen, 1970, p. 120). In 1975, however, reporting three studies that used English speakers as respondents (also published as Orpen [1971a, b, 1973]), Orpen claimed that personality factors would bear little relationship to prejudice in an authoritarian society and stressed ‘*. . . . the crucial role of the cultural millicu in shaping the attitudes of white South Africans toward the Africans in their midst (Orpen, 1971a, p. 218; also see Nieuwoudt & Nel’s, 1975 criticism). Following from this view, an implicit bias is detectable in studies by Orpen (1970, 1971a, b, 1972, 1973), Orpen and Rookledge (1972), and Heaven and Rajab (1980, 1983): For some groups in South Africa (English- speaking whites and South Africans of Indian extraction) authoritarian at- titudes are said to be determined by the environment, whereas for others (Afrikaans-speaking whites) these attitudes are said to be determined by personality structure. Such a distinction, applied to a single, albeit stratified and diverse society, raises the puzzling question of why Afrikaans speakers should be impervious to the environmental influences that have shaped the attitudes of fellow South Africans. A possible answer could be that Afrikaans speakers are not susceptible to environmental influences because of their personalities, thus positing personality as an intervening variable between attitudes and environment. Such an answer, however, presupposes that this intervening variable does not operate for English-speaking whites and Indians. It would seem that the research reviewed here cannot provide an answer to the last question raised: Why, then, does personality not operate as an intervening variable for these groups? The Use of Sociocultural Variables when a Personality-Based Explanation Breaks Down An explanation based on intraindividual, psychodynamic personality proc- esses cannot explain prejudice and discrimination in South Africa. The ex- tremely low percentages of variance attributable to personality factors (see, for instance, the studies of Colman & Lambley [1970], Duckitt (1983a], Heaven [1983c]), plus clear indications that sociocultural variables, such as voting preference (see Heaven, 1983; Orpen, 1972, 1973; Orpen & Rookledge, 1972), group membership (see Duckitt, 1983a, 1983c; Heaven, 1977; Heaven & Nieuwoudt, 1981; Heaven & Rajab, 1980; Heaven & Stones, 1980; Mynhardt et al., 1979; Orpen, 1973), group values (see Orpen, 1971a), and education level (see Heaven, 1983c; Ray & Heaven, 1984) should reinforce Pettigrew’s advice: Both personality and sociocultural variables are essential to provide an adequate theoretical framework for the study of intergroup attitudes. Furthermore, both these types of variables should be included as measures in studies; the sociocultural variables should not be added as a post hoc explanation when Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.82__ The Journal of Social Psychology personality variables have provided inadequate explanations of intergroup phenomena (for instance, the post hoc inclusion of cultural norms and con- tact [Orpen, 1973], a group’s position in society {Heaven & Rajab, 1983), cultural influences (Heaven & Stones, 1979], urban or rural environment (Heaven, 1980a], group identification [Heaven, 1983c], and response to perceived threat (Ray, 1980a]). The Ad Hominem Argument Billig (1976) asserted that Adomo and his coworkers presented the authoritarian as a person whose psychological processes mirror the form of his ideological beliefs about outgroups and implied that these beliefs are the product of irrational psychological processes. Billig regarded this ideological conceptualization of authoritarianism as a variant of the ad hominem argument and is critical of the implication that, because the authoritarian’s beliefs are said to be the product of irrational psychological processes, the beliefs themselves are regarded as irrational. This type of argument is implicit (and sometimes explicit) in the studies of Heaven and Rajab (1980), Orpen (1972), Ray (1980a), and Stones (1980), who pos- tulated the existence of a collective psychopathology on the part of white South Africans. Even Duckitt, who found no significant correlation be- tween authoritarian attitudes and personal psychopathology, could not completely reject this notion of collective psychopathology, as he concluded that ‘‘characterizations such as authoritarian may be appropriate at a broad societal level, (but) they need not necessarily imply conformity pressures powerful and pervasive enough at the individual and reference group level to induce detectable psychological strain in nonconformists’” (Duckitt, 1983b, p. 212). A Rational-Economic Explanation A rather disquieting phenomenon, and one which is almost the obverse of the above ad hominem argument, is the tendency in some of the later South African studies (see Ray, 1980b, 1984a; Ray & Heaven, 1984), to present authoritarianism as a positive and admirable trait exhibited by upwardly mobile, Type A persons. On finding positive correlations between achieve- ment motivation and authoritarianism, it was alleged that “when we en- counter someone who tends to behave in an authoritarian way, we should entertain the hypothesis that he does so, not because he is in any way psychologically sick... . but because he is achievement motivated (Ray, 1980b, p. 34), and that “rather than being the twisted souls that a psychodynamic theory of prejudice would lead us to expect, South Africans may in fact be just the sort of person that American businessmen most Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.Louw-Potgieter__83 admire—hard-driving, go-getting people who know the value of a dollar’? (p. 35). At the basis of this explanation seems to be Ray’s theory that racism is the “‘rational”” outcome between the victim and the victimizer (see the debate between Billig and Ray on this issue (Billig, 1985; Ray, 1985)). In this way Ray treated racism as a generally valid, universal process (see Billig, 1986 as mentioned earlier). The Absence of a Critique of South African Society From the above trends, it is obvious that researchers have located the origins of intergroup phenomena, such as discrimination and prejudice, firmly within the individual (ic., the individual’s personality, motivation, or psychopathology giving rise to outgroup intolerance). The social context within which these individuals find themselves is treated as a given; the in- dividuals are at fault while the world in which they find themselves remains unexamined and uncriticized. The absence of a critique of South Africa as an apartheid society, providing the social context for intergroup discrimina- tion, is startling in these studies. This omission is in line with Billig’s (1986) criticism of isolating the authoritarian personality type from its historical context and treating it as a self-contained personality, and Samelson’s (1986) viewpoint that some researchers tend to drain the phenomenon of all political meaning. It could therefore be asserted that the South African studies of authoritarianism have encouraged the development and growth of a branch of social psychology that is basically conformist and politically conservative. Conclusion 1 am not denying the existence of authoritarianism within the South African context. The extreme and uncalled for kragdadigheid (an arrogant exercise of power over political opponents and dissidents) with which the ruling group in South Africa has treated outgroups or dissident ingroup members is nothing but authoritarian. The rigid and disciplined child-rearing philosophy of a number of past and present Afrikaans-speaking parents could very well have produced some authoritarian children. At issue, however, is the implicit assumption that all members of a single group within South African society share a specific personality and that this psychological ‘“‘defect”” is the cause of intergroup conflict in that country. In this paper, I have presented evidence of the inadequacy of such ‘a single explanatory factor” approach (Nieuwoudt & Nel, 1975, p. 91), while simultaneously stressing the importance of sociocultural variables as deter- minants of intergroup phenomena (an argument already put forth by Pet- tigrew in 1958 and elaborated by Altemeyer in 1981). Factors such as group Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.84_The Journal of Social Psychology membership, identification with a specific membership group, the group’s Position in society, the group’s ideology, the manner in which this ideology is transmitted across generations, and so forth, would provide a truly social psychological explanation of intergroup relations in South Africa. To ex- plain why some Afrikaans speakers are susceptible to antidemocratic propa- ganda and fascism, one not only has to take into account the type of socialization they have had, but also the influence of their education in a specific school system, peer pressure, the media, the privileged position of their group in society, and so forth. Sociocultural factors such as these are the only means by which to explain, for instance, the conflicts between workers and capitalists in the South African mines, between radical and conservative factions in the black population, and between Whites who stay in the country and those who opt to emigrate. The time has arrived for South African social psychologists to abandon the futile activity of endless reconceptualizations of authoritarianism, restandardizations of the F Scale or creations of a new measure, and calculations of new correlates of these new concepts or measures. We should start addressing the fact that South Africa is an apartheid society, based on economic and social inequalities, where various groups are waging a civil war against each other. REFERENCES Adomo, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, N. (1950). The ‘authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Brothers. Altemeyer, R. (1981). Right wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Mani- toba Press. Billig, M. (1976). Social psychology and intergroup relations. London: Academic Press. Billig, M. (1982). Ideology and social psychology. Oxford: Blackwell. Billig, M. (1985). The unobservant participator: Nazism, anti-semitism and Ray’s reply. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 8, 444-449. Billig, M. (1986). Political psychology and social psychological theory. In M. Brou- wer (Ed.), Political psychology in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Mola Russa. Christie, R., & Jahoda, M. (Eds.). (1954). Studies in the scope and method of “The ‘Authoritarian Personality.”* Glencoe: Free Press. Colman, A., & Lambley, P. (1970). Authoritarianism and race attitudes in South Africa. The Journal of Social Psychology, 82, 161-164. Doise, W. (1980). Levels of explanation in the European Journal of Social Psychol- ology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 213-231 Doise, W. (1984). Social representations, intergroup experiments and levels of analy- sis. In R. M Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Social representations (pp. 255-268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doise, W. (1986). Levels of explanation in social psychology. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. Duckitt, J. (1983a). Culture, class, personality and authoritarianism amongst white South Africans. The Journal of Social Psychology, 121, 191-199. Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.Loww-Potgie Duckitt, J. (1983b). Authoritarianism and adjustment in an authoritarian culture. The Journal of Social Psychology, 121, 211-212. Duckitt, J. (1983c). Directiveness and authoritarianism: Some research findings and a critical appraisal. South African Journal of Psychology, 13, 10-12. Duckitt, J. (1984). Reply to Ray’s directiveness and authoritarianism: A rejoinder to Duckitt. South African Journal of Psychology, 14, 65-66. Heaven, P. C. L. (1977). Do authoritarians hold authoritarian attitudes? The case of South Africa. Journal of Psychology, 95, 169-171 Heaven, P. C. L. (1979). The internal consistency of Wilson’s Conservatism Scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 109, 143-144. Heaven, P. C. L. (1980a). Authoritarian behaviour and self-esteem among some rural Afrikaners. The Journal of Social Psychology, 110, 289-290. Heaven, P. C. L. (1980b). Authoritarianism, prejudice and alienation among Afri kaners. The Journal of Social Psychology, 110, 39-42. Heaven, P. C. L. (1980c). Authoritarianism and its relation to dogmatism and in- tolerance of ambiguity. In P. C. L. Heaven (Ed.), Authoritarianism: South African studies (pp. 16-20). Bloemfontein: P. J. de Villiers Publishers. Heaven, P. C. L. (1981). Correlates of authoritarian personality. South African Journal of Psychology, 11, 85-86. Heaven, P. C. L. (1983a). Authoritarianism or acquiescence? The Journal of Social Psychology, 119, 11-15. Heaven, P. C. L. (1983b). Self-esteem and associated variables among white South ‘Afticans. The Journal of Social Psychology, 119, 282-284. Heaven, P. C. L. (1983c). Individual vs. intergroup explanations of prejudice among Afrikaners. The Journal of Social Psychology, 121, 201-210, Heaven, P. C. L. (1983d). A factorial study of a new measure of authoritarianism, Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 693-694. Heaven, P. C. L., & Moerdyk, A. (1977). Prejudice revisited: A pilot study using Ray’s scale. Journal of the Behavioural Sciences, 2, 217-220. Heaven, P. C. L., & Nieuwoudt, J. M. (1981). Authoritarian attitudes in South Africa. The Journal of Social Psychology, 115, 271-278. Heaven, P. C. L., & Rajab, D. (1980). Authoritarianism and patriotism: A study among Afrikaners and Indians in South Africa. In P. C. L. Heaven (Ed.), Authoritarianism: South African studies (pp. 9-15). Bloemfontein: P. J. de Villiers Publishers. Heaven, P. C. L., & Rajab, D. (1983). Correlates of self-esteem among a South African minority group. The Journal of Social Psychology, 121, 269-270. Heaven, P. C. L., & Ray, J. J. (1980). Non-authoritarian Afrikaners. In P. C. L. Heaven (Ed.), Authoritarianism: South African studies (pp. 40-44). Bloemfon- tein: P. J. de Villiers Publishers. Heaven, P. C. L., & Stones, C. R. (1979). The relationship between authoritarian behaviour and self-esteem. The Journal of Social Psychology, 109, 291-298, Heaven, P. C. L., & Stones, C. R. (1980). The authoritarianism of white South ‘Africans. The Journal of Social Psychology, 110, 137-138. Jay, M. (1984). Adorno. London: Fontana Paperbacks. Kirscht, J. P., & Dillehay, R. C. (1967). Dimensions of authoritarianism: A review of the research and theory. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press. Louw-Potgieter, J. (1986). The social identity of dissident Afrikaners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bristol, United Kingdom. MacCrone, I. D. (1930). Psychological factors affecting the attitude of white to black in South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 27, 591-598. Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.8&6 _The Journal of Social Psychology Mann, J. J. (1971). Attitudes towards ethnic groups. In H. Adam (Ed,), South Af- rica: Sociological perspectives (pp. 50-72). London: Oxford University Press. Meloen, J. (1983). [The authoritarian responses in times of prosperity and crisis.] Published doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Mynhardt, J. C. (1980). Prejudice among Afrikaans- and English-speaking South African students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 9-17. Mynhardt, J. C., & Plug, C. (1977). A shortened F-scale for South African condi- tions. Reports from the Psychology Department, UNISA, Pretoria. Mynhardt, J. C., Plug, C., Tyson, G. A., & Viljoen, H. G. (1979). Ethnocentrism, authoritarianism and conservatism among two South African student samples: A two-year follow-up study. South African Journal of Psychology, 9, 23-26. Newcomb, T. M. (1943). Personality and social change. New York: Holt. Nieuwoudt, J. M., & Nel, E. M. (1975). The relationship between ethnic prejudice, authoritarianism and conformity among South African students. In S. J. Morse & C. Orpen (Eds.), Contemporary South Africa. Social psychological perspec- tives (pp. 91-102). Cape Town: Cape & Transvaal Printers Ltd. O'Meara, D. (1983). Volkskapitalisme. Class, capital and ideology in the develop- ‘ment of Afrikaner nationalism. 1943-1948. Johannesburg: Ravan Press. Orpen, C. (1970), Authoritarianism in an “authoritarian” culture: The case of ‘Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. The Journal of Social Psychology, 81, 119-120. Orpen, C. (1971a). Prejudice and adjustment to cultural norms among English- speaking South Africans. The Journal of Social Psychology, 77, 217-218. Orpen, C. (19716). Authoritarianism and racial attitudes among English-speaking South Africans. The Journal of Social Psychology, 84, 301-302. Orpen, C. (1972). A cross-cultural investigation of the relationship between conserv- atism and personality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 81, 297-300. Orpen, C. (1973). Sociocultural and personality factors in prejudice: The case of South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 3, 91-96. Orpen, C. (1975). Authoritarianism revisited: A critical examination of “‘expressive”” theories of prejudice. In S. J. Morse & C. Orpen (Eds.), Contemporary South ‘Africa. Social psychological perspectives (pp. 103-111). Cape Town: Cape & Transvaal Printers Ltd. Orpen, C., & Rookledge, Q. (1972). Dogmatism and prejudice in South Africa. The Journal of Social Psychology, 86, 151-153 Pettigrew, T. F. (1958). Personality and sociocultural factors in intergroup attitudes: ‘A cross-national comparison. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 29-42. Ray, J. J. (1976). Do authoritarians hold authoritarian attitudes? Human Relations, 29, 307-325. Ray, J. J. (1980a). Racism and authoritarianism among white South Africans. The Journal of Social Psychology, 110, 29-37. Ray, J. J. (1980b). Achievement motivation as an explanation of authoritarian be- haviour: Data from Australia, South Africa, California, England and Scotland. In P. C. L. Heaven (Ed.), Authoritarianism: South African studies (pp. 21-39) Bloemfontein: P. J. de Villiers Publishers. Ray, J. J. (1984a). Authoritarian dominance, self-esteem and manifest anxiety. ‘South African Journal of Psychology, 14, 144-146. Ray, J. J. (1984b). Directiveness and authoritarianism: A rejoinder to Duckitt. South African Journal of Psychology, 14, 64. Ray, J. J. (1985), Research on fascism: A debate. Racism and rationality: A reply to Billig. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 8, 441-443, Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.Louw-Potgieter__§7 Ray, J. J., & Heaven, P. C. L. (1984). Conservatism and authoritarianism among urban Afrikaners. The Journal of Social Psychology, 122, 163-170. Samelson, F. (1986). Authoritarianism from Berlin to Berkeley. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 191-208. Sanford, 'N.. (1986). A personal account of the study of Authoritarianism: Comment on Samelson. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 209-214. Stones, C. R. (1980). Authoritarianism and the garrison society. In P. C. L. Heaven (Ed.), Authoritarianism: South African studies (pp. 45-54). Bloemfontein: P. 5. de Villiers Publishers. Wilson, G. D., & Nias, D. K. B. (1973). The need for a new approach to attitude measurement. In G. D. Wilson (Ed.), The psychology of conservatism (pp. 39-48). London: Academic Press. Received June 1, 1987 Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved.