How to build a Nazi. What’s with all the Authoritarians?
Run the Simulation
Psychological Correlates of Authoritarianism: An Interactive Educational Model
This simulation provides an interactive exploration of the empirical relationships between personality, cognition, and authoritarian attitudes as established in the peer-reviewed literature. It is designed for educational use in courses covering political psychology, personality research, and social cognition.
Empirical Foundations
The model draws on two primary meta-analytic sources. Effect sizes for the relationship between Big Five personality traits and authoritarian attitudes (RWA and SDO) are derived from Sibley and Duckitt's (2008) meta-analysis (Personality and Social Psychology Review; k = 71 studies, N = 22,068). The cognitive ability–authoritarianism relationship uses estimates from Onraet et al. (2015; European Journal of Personality; k = 67 studies, N = 84,017). Profile typologies are based on latent profile analysis from Sibley et al. (2019; N = 18,248), which identified empirically distinct authoritarian leader (1.2%) and authoritarian follower (7.6%) subpopulations.
Scope and Limitations
This tool models attitudinal correlates, not behaviour. The linear combination of predictors assumes independence, which inflates extremity of predictions given known inter-correlations among variables (e.g., Openness–cognitive ability, r ≈ 0.30). All effect sizes represent population-level associations; the model is not validated for individual assessment, clinical use, or behavioural prediction. Confidence intervals are provided for all coefficients to reflect estimation uncertainty.
Intended Use
The simulation is intended to help students understand (a) which psychological variables show robust associations with authoritarian attitudes, (b) the magnitude and direction of these effects, and (c) the distinction between statistical prediction and causal explanation. It is accompanied by full methodology documentation including exact citations and explicit statements of what claims can and cannot be defended empirically.