The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Dimensionality of Right‐Wing Authoritarianism: Lessons from the Dilemma between Theory and Measurement
Abstract
The RWA Scale (Altemeyer, 1981,1988,1996) is commonly regarded as the best measure of right‐wing authoritarianism. The one‐dimensional instrument assesses the covariation of three attitudinal clusters: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. The incongruence between the implicit conceptual dimensionality on the one hand and methodological operationalization on the other makes room for discussion about whether it would be advantageous to measure the 3 facets of RWA separately. I rely on three arguments: (1) confirmatory factor analyses showing that three‐dimensional scales fit the data better than the conventional one‐dimensional practice; (2) the dimensions showing a considerable interdimension discrepancy in their capability to explain validation criteria; and (3) the dimensions showing an intradimensional discrepancy which is dependent upon the research question. The argumentation is illustrated by empirical evidence from several Web‐based studies among German Internet users.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02296192 · Cited by 5,282
Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 · Cited by 4,904
The Analysis of Covariance Structures: Goodness-of-Fit Indices
HOELTER, J. W. (1983) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124183011003003 · Cited by 1,624
Cited by
Bruder, M., Haffke, P., Neave, N., Nouripanah, N., & Imhoff, R. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225 · Cited by 1,049
Speaking (Un–)Truth to Power: Conspiracy Mentality as A Generalised Political Attitude
Imhoff, R., & Bruder, M. (2014) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.1930 · Cited by 831
Azevedo, F., Jost, J. T., Rothmund, T., & Sterling, J. (2019) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/josi.12310 · Cited by 207
Investigating right wing authoritarianism with a very short authoritarianism scale
Bizumic, B., & Duckitt, J. (2018) · Journal of Social and Political Psychology · doi:10.5964/jspp.v6i1.835 · Cited by 204
Metacognitive Failure as a Feature of Those Holding Radical Beliefs
Rollwage, M., Dolan, R. J., & Fleming, S. M. (2018) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.053 · Cited by 193
Metadata
- Authors
- Funke, F.
- Venue
- Political Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-03-09
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 195-218
- ISSN
- 0162-895X (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9221
- OpenAlex
- W2096910457
- Cited by
- 315
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 19.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Dimensionality of Right‐Wing Authoritarianism: Lessons from the Dilemma between Theory and Measurement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00415.x
- The paper
- Funke, F. (2005). The Dimensionality of Right‐Wing Authoritarianism: Lessons from the Dilemma between Theory and Measurement. Political Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00415.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
