Altemeyer replies.

Replies to commentary by J. J. Ray (see record 2007-08928-001) regarding the current author's book, Enemies of freedom: Understanding right wing authoritarianism (see record 1988-98419-000). The foremost of Ray's six criticisms is that "insofar as (I have) studied anything at all, (I have) probably studied some form of conservatism." The constructs of "right-wing authoritarianism" and "conservatism" can be defined as one wishes, and one can declare that they are the same thing. I prefer to draw several conceptual distinctions however, perhaps because one brand of "conservatism", especially visible in the United States, resents government authority. Next, Professor Ray quite correctly points out that my explanation of the development of personal authoritarianism ignored genetic possibilities. The twins-studies have caught me completely flat-footed, with my back turned, though I would find evidence for a DNA-based explanation of authoritarianism quite exciting. As for attitudes toward authorities, I suspect they do wobble some during adolescence. However, neither of the two adult studies Professor Ray cites shows "a general attitude toward authority does not exist." If anything, they suggest it does. Professor Ray says the consistency of the RWA Scale only occurs because my item selection procedures have created a distortion of the real world, a world of my own "from which the most disturbing outside information has been rigorously excluded." In fact, the covariation among items mentioning different kinds of authorities goes back to the Berkeley F Scale. Finally, Professor Ray concludes that I am studying some nonpolitical form of conservatism, because the RWA Scale gives "virtually no prediction of right-wing political preference." Data is presented to dispute this allegation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Sexual identity, physical attractiveness and seating position as determinants of influence in discussion groups.

Two experiments are reported which show the importance of sexual identity as a determinant of influence in heterosexual discussion groups. In one study a male confederate was more likely than a female to get an elegant solution to a problem accepted. In general, male subjects were more active and exerted more influence in the group than did females. In the second study the social context of the problems was changed to make them less male-oriented, but a female confederate was still largely unable to get the elegant solution accepted. The physical attractiveness of the confederate had no influence on her effectiveness. Male domination of the discussions continued as before. Finally, there was some indication that sitting at the head of a table in a discussion group makes a person a little more influential in the group. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)