1. Authoritarianism and anomia reconsidered: applying cross-lagged autoregressive & latent growth curve models Dipl.-Soz. Elmar Schlüter Philipps-University Marburg DFG-Research Training School Group-focused enmity contact: e_schluet@gmx.de Dr. Eldad Davidov Prof. Dr. Peter Schmidt Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen Department of Social Sciences

2. 1. Background aim: illustrating the complimentary use of autoregressive & latent growth models both methodologies offer unique perspectives on substantive theoretical problems latent growth models relatively seldom used within sociology and political sciences anomia & authoritarianism as example

3. 2. Plan of the presentation theoretical background: interrelationship of anomia & authoritarianism cross-lagged autoregressive & latent growth models: review of basic assumptions sample & indicators: Group-focused Enmity panel 2002-2004 preliminary results discussion: pros & cons of cross-lagged autoregressive and latent growth models

4. 3. The interrelationship of anomia and authoritarianism Anomia (Srole 1956) - perceived breakdown of the social order - feeling of being helpless, alone and powerless Authoritarianism (Adorno et al. 1950) -deep-rooted intraindividual characteristic -reflects conformity with the ingroup, submission to ingroup leaders & aggressive stances towards outgroups

5. (1) Srole (1956, p. 716; see Scheepers et al. 1992): anomic individuals choose authoritarian stances in order to recover orientation (2) Adorno et al. (1950), McClosky & Schaar (1965) authoritarian individuals are hampered to interact effectively less opportunities to escape from social isolation resulting in anomia AuthoritarianismAnomia Authoritarianism

6. AnomiaAuthoritarianism (3) reciprocal relationship: not necessarily implausible Research questions for longitudinal analysis: a) are authoritarian attitudes stable over time? are anomic attitudes stable over time? does anomia cause authoritarianism, does authoritarianism cause anomia or do we get evidence for both processes? b) if we get evidence for individual change of authoritarian and/ or anomic attitudes: is there an increase or a decrease? do we get evidence for individual differences concerning such a development? is there a relationship between the initial level of authoritarianism/ anomia and its dynamic?

7. 4.a Cross-lagged autoregressive models autoregressive model each variable X at t 2 function of its lagged measure at t 1 and residual stability coefficients indicate degree of stability of interindividual differences cross-lagged autoregressive model (Finkel 1995) cross-construct regression weights: X predicting Y, controlling for former values of Y X t1 Y t1 X t2 Y t2 res 2 res 1 a b c d

8. 1 1 1 Intercept X t3 X t1 X t2 res 1 res 2 res 3 4.b latent growth curve models for analysing individual change processes using single/ multiple indicators assumption: a latent trajectory characterizing the sample (or subgroups) can be found individual change as function of intercept and slope factors for each time period individual change as function of intercept and slope factors for each time period 1 F Slope 0

9. 5.a Data Sample: Group-focused enmity panel 2002-2004 (Heitmeyer et al. 2002, 2003; 2004 forthcomig) CATI-survey german-speaking persons aged 16 and over in households with telephone current analyses: respondents with german citizenship only GFE-Survey 2002GFE-Survey 2003GFE-Survey 2004 N max 23641175824

10. 5.b Indicators VarItem ATHRT_1„One of the most important characteristics one should have is obedience toward the authorities” ATHRT_2„We should be grateful for the leading figures who tell us what to do“ 4-point-scale: 1 „exactly true“; 2 „ moderately true“; 3 „ barely true“; 4 „ not at all true“; recoded: higher values indicate higher degrees of authoritarianism Authoritarianism: VariableItem ANM_1“Everything has become so much in disarray that one does not know where one actually stands“ ANM_2 „Matters have become so difficult these days that one does not know what is going on“ 1 „exactly true“; 2 „ moderately true“; 3 „ barely true“; 4 „ not at all true“; recoded: higher values indicate higher degrees of anomia Anomia:

11. Anomia 2002-2004: TimeVariableNMSDMin. 2002 ATHRT_1 27062.68.93914 ATHRT_2 26982.13.85614 2003 ATHRT_1 11662.70.91414 ATHRT_2 11682.20.83514 2004 ATHRT_1 8172.69.91814 ATHRT_2 8212.20.84514 Authoritarianism 2002-2004: 6. Results - descriptives TimeVariableNMSDMin.Max. 2002 ANM_127052.57.90514 ANM_227052.53.89814 2003 ANM_111662.78.90014 ANM_211732.73.90014 2004 ANM_18252.90.88214 ANM_28242.87.87414

12. 6. Results used software: Amos 5.0 missings: pairwise all factor loadings >.60 measurement model showed good fit: 1.0,012,9821,127 pcloseRMSEAAGFI  2 / df all factors loadings and stability coefficients intertemporal invariant (p =.49)

13. 6.a Cross-lagged autoregressive model: unconditional bivariate analysis anomia and authoritarianism standardized coefficients only; not shown: observed indicators + measurement errors; residual correlations; insignificant paths 80%80% 83%83%.15.15.12.12.64 51%.39.91.84.12 ATHRT_2002ATHRT _2003 ATHRT _2004 56%.67.15 83% ANM_2002 ANM_2003ANM_2004.15 80%  2 / df AGFIRMSEApclose 2,664.958.045.754

14. 6.b Latent growth model I: unconditional univariate analysis authoritarianism.  2 / df CFIRMSEApclose 3.312.996.045.373.91 ATHRT_2002ATHRT_2003 ATHRT_2004.93 Intercept M =2.675 (.033) S =.459 (.070).95 0 89%.09 Slope M =.023 (.026) S =.035 (.082) 89% 90%.15 sig. mean of intercept authoritarianism sig. variance of intercept indicates individual differences insignificant mean of slope indicates: no change in authoritarian attitudes over the three time points

15. 6.c Latent growth model II: univariate analysis anomia  2 / df CFIRMSEApclose.808.999.000.992.79.84 ANM_2002ANM_2003 ANM_2004.81 Intercept M = 2.581 (.030) S =.404 (.027) 0 70%.37.18 72% 71% Slope M =.166 (.015) S =.020 (.010) sig. mean of intercept indicates starting point of anomic attitudes at 2.58 points sig. variance of intercept indicates individ. differences at starting point sig. mean of slope indicates an increase of.16 over the period of study sig. variance of slope indicates individ. differences concerning the growth process

16. .95.29.82.81.83 70% 6.d Latent growth model III: bivariate analysis anomia and authoritarianism 1.99.54 89%88%89% 71% ATHRT_2002ATHRT_2004 ANM_2002ANM_2003ANM_2004 Slope Anm M =.206 (.031) S =.023 (.012) Intercept Anm M = 2.58 (.031) S =.41 (.027) Intercept Athrt M = 2.69 (.28) S =.49 (.03) ATHRT_2003  2 / df CFIRMSEApclose 1.497.99.0251.0 0.14

17. 7. Conclusion/ Discussion 1.Cross-lagged autoregressive analysis: - authoritarian attitudes more stable than anomic attitudes - tendency to support the authoritarianism-causes-anomia model 2. Latent growth curve analysis: - linear increase for anomic attitudes - no sig. growth for authoritarian attitudes - pos. cov. between intercept of authoritarian and anomic attitudes