تأثیر پایگاه اجتماعی- اقتصادی بر اقتدارگرایی

نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار گروه جامعه‌شناسی دانشگاه اصفهان

2 کارشناس ارشد جامعه‌شناسی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد دهاقان

3 کارشناس ارشد جامعه‌شناسی دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز

چکیده

 هدف از پژوهش حاضر پاسخ به این پرسش کلیدی است که پایگاه اجتماعی-اقتصادی چگونه به اقتدارگرایی کشانده می‌شود؟ برای پاسخ به این سؤال کلی از تئوری‌های لیپست، آدورنو و کوهن بهره گرفته شد و سه فرضیه اصلی به همراه هفت فرضیه فرعی طراحی نموده و مدلی پیشنهاد شده است. روش این پژوهش میدانی بوده و از طریق survey انجام گرفته است و داده‌ها از 407 دانشجوی دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز با تکنیک پرسشنامه خودسنجی جمع‌آوری شده‌اند. محتوای پرسشنامه از مواد زیر تشکیل شده است: اطلاعات زمینه‌ای، پایگاه اجتماعی- اقتصادی، کنترل استبدادی والدین، عزت نفس، احساس آنومی و اقتدارگرایی. نتایج نشان داد که پایگاه اجتماعی-اقتصادی به سبب کنترل استبدادی والدین، احساس آنومی بر اقتدارگرایی اثرگذار است. همچنین عزت نفس واسطه اثر کنترل استبدادی بر اقتدارگرایی است. دیگر یافته‌ها حاکی از همبستگی معنادار بین کلیه متغیرهای تحقیق بود. بجز همبستگی پایگاه اجتماعی-اقتصادی و عزت نفس در این پژوهش جهد شده است اقتدارگرایی به صورت تجربی مورد مطالعه قرار گیرد. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که تحلیل‌های آماری اولاً مدل تلفیقی پیشنهادی را تأیید می‌کنند، ثانیاً تئوری‌های بکار گرفته شده در مدل بصورت جداگانه تأیید می‌شوند.   

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effect of Socio-economic Status on Authoritarianism

نویسندگان [English]

  • Nasrollah Pour Afkari 1
  • Behzad Hakiminya 2
  • Arash Heydari 3
  • Shahrooz Foroutankia 3
1 Associate Professor, Department of Social Sciences, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
2 M.A. in Sociology, Islamic Azad University, Dehaghan Branch, Dehaghan, Isfahan, Iran
3 M.A. in Sociology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Scientific review of the authoritarian personality began in 1950 with the pioneering work of Adorno and his colleagues. Following their attempt, extensive studies were carried out in social psychology, political science, and sociology in this field. Despite the extensive amount of research on authoritarianism in Western societies, few have been conducted in developing countries. The dimensions of this phenomenon in Third World countries can be extensive. The importance of the study of Authoritarianism in Iranian society goes to the Constitutional Revolution (August 1906), when this issue has been in Iranian intellectual discourse. But since the origin of authoritarianism has always been searched in political elite, little attention has been paid to the roots of this phenomenon in the context of social and interpersonal interactions between individuals. Studies show that authoritarian attitudes have adverse social consequences for society in addition to their political consequences. Thus, the scientific study of this phenomenon and its social roots seems necessary. Authoritarian personality has European roots. These studies are influenced by Marx and Freud's theories from theoretical perspective and they are rooted in studies carried out on workers in France and Germany from empirical perspective (Roiser & Willing, 1995:77-97). A study conducted in the Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt in the late 1920s included a wide set of cultural, social and political attitudes among white collar and blue collar workers in Weimar Germany. These studies reported a minority who has authoritarian attitudes. In another study carried out by Horkheimer, Fromm and Marcuse in 1936, family roots of authoritarian personality were explored.
 




Material and Methods
According to the theory proposed, in this study we intend to test the integrated model; in that based on Lipstadt's theory of authoritarianism in the lower class, we identify the mechanisms that in the socioeconomic class lead to authoritarian character. For this purpose, we move from three paths toward authoritarianism- in the first path which combines Lipstadt and Adorno's theory we expect that the class influences authoritarianism from parental authoritarian control. In the second path, we expect that the class influences authoritarianism from parental authoritarian and self-esteem control. This path combines Lipstadt, Adorno and Cohen's theory. In the third path, we expect that the class influences authoritarianism through feeling of anomie. This path combines Lipstadt, Merton, Ferum and Arendt's theory. The model is depicted in the following schema. Here, we examine each of the paths.

 

Figure 1: Theoretical model of the study

The population of this study was students of Shahid Chamran University. Based on Krejcie and Morgan table, a sample of 377 individuals is representative of a population of 20000 individuals. In this study, 420 were selected through systematic random sampling. In that the list of student names was taken from each faculty and then students' names were randomly selected and they were asked to refer to a class and complete the devised questionnaire. 13 incomplete questionnaires were excluded and 407 remained for final analysis. In our sample, 191 were males and 216 females. Respondents' age was 21.84 with a standard deviation of 2.34. Ethnic composition of the sample was as follows: 33 Turks, 51 Arabs, 84 Kord, 103 Lor and 136 were Fars. Authoritarianism Scale items were composed of 9 items derived from well-known scales measuring these variables. In this study, instead of using an objective socioeconomic base approach, the mental approach was applied. In this way, instead of assessing respondent's status based on achieved data with regard to their income and education and ranking them in three levels, the respondent self-assesses his economic status. To measure parental authoritarian control variable, we used 10 items which were derived from Daniel Shek's (2006) scale and have been used in various studies by different researchers and have a high ability to measure this variable. In addition, to assess one's anomie, we used well-known scales such as Srole's (1956), Dean's (1968) and Rashing's (1971) anomie scale- which are the most popular scales for measuring feeling of anomie. Self-esteem scale, which is the most common measure, is known as the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and has been translated and validated by HamzehGanji and is available at the psychometrics publication center. In the original version and also the translated one we had "Yes/No" questions that were transformed into the Likert scale, but there was no manipulation in the questions and the calculated α for this measure was 0.76.
Discussion of Results & Conclusions
Descriptive statistics show that the mean of students' authoritarianism attitude scores was 25.55 which was higher than the mean of the scale (22.5) that means that authoritarian attitudes is common among students. The mean of authoritarian control score was 29.25, which is more than the middle of the scale (25). This means that students greatly assess their parents' behavior toward themselves as authoritarian. This score is 14.25 for the socioeconomic base which is higher than the average of the scale (12.5) in that most students assess their social status as higher than average. In addition, the Pearson correlation coefficient was used to test hypotheses and to test the main hypothesis we took advantage of sub-standard regression coefficients (beta) in the form of path analysis. Table 4 shows correlation coefficients between the variables investigated. In addition, the socioeconomic base has a negative and significant relationship with anomie (p < 0.01, r = -0.244).
To determine the direct and indirect effects of variables on each other, according to the proposed theoretical models, the regression equations model were used. Results showed that the socioeconomic base has a significant effect on the parental authoritarian control (β = -0.129). In addition, the effect of the base on feeling of anomie is negative and significant.
This study on the one hand confirms the combined model and on the other hand confirms the theory used in the student population. The positive correlation found between socioeconomic base and authoritarianism directly confirms Lipstadt's theory (1965, 1959) and is in line with previous attempts (Srole's, 1956; Robert and Roukich, 1956; Mcdeal, 1961; Shiperz et al. 1992). But it is noteworthy to say that the relationship between base and authoritarianism is not direct and leads to authoritarianism through intermediate variables. One of such variables which has been derived from Adorno and his colleagues (1950) was parental authoritarian control. Authoritarian control was positively correlated with authoritarianism; this finding was in line with other studies in this field (Crockett and Midinger, 1956; Simons 1966; Scodel and Mussen (1953); Scodel andFreedman, 1956; Douriz et al. 2008). Results showed that the lower bases have more authoritarian behavior toward their children which confirms the results of other studies in this realm (Cohen, 1977; Geecas, 1979; Himer, 1997; Heydari, 2010).Results of path analysis shows that feeling of anomie is the mediating variable between base and authoritarianism. In sum, our combined model was completely confirmed. It should be noted that this is the first experimental research on the authoritarianism problem in Iranian society and there is a need for more studies in various forms to be able to assess the generalizability of the proposed model to other samples. 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • authoritarianism
  • socioeconomic
  • authoritarian parental control status
  • self-esteem
  • feeling of anomie

حیدری، آرش. (1389). «بررسی عوامل اجتماعی، اقتصادی و فرهنگی مؤثر بر احساس آنومی: مورد مطالعه دبیرستان‌ها و مراکز پیش‌دانشگاهی شهر اهواز»، پایان نامة کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز.

فروم، اریک. (1388). گریز از آزادی، ترجمه عزت‌الله فولادوند، نشر مروارید چاپ سیزدهم.

نبوی، سید عبدالحسین؛ حسین‌زاده، علی حسین و حسینی، سیده هاجر. (1387). بررسی تاثیر پایگاه اجتماعی- اقتصادی، احساس بی‌قدرتی و هویت قومی بر احساس امنیت اجتماعی، سال دهم، ش 2(پیاپی 39)، صص 36-9.

نصیری، هدایت. ( 1388). «بررسی عوامل اجتماعی، اقتصادی و فرهنگی مؤثر بر بزهکاری خشونت آمیز»، پایان نامة کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز.

 Adorno, T. W. , Frenkel-Brunswik, E. , Levinson, D. J. , and Sanford, R. N(1950)" The Authoritarian Personality” , NewYork: Harper & Row.

Altemeyer, B. (1998). The Other Authoritarian Personality. In M. Zanna (Ed. ), Advances in experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 30, PP. 47-92). San Diego:academic Press.

Bean, R. A. ; Bush,K. R. ; McKeny, P. C.; Wilson, S. M. (2003)" The Impact of Parental Support, Behavioral Control, and Psychological Controlon the Academic Achievement and Self-Esteem of African Americanand European American Adolescents". Journal of Adolescent Research, Vol. 18 No. 5, 23.

 Bell, W. (1957). Anomie, social isolation, and the class structure. Sociometry, 20(2), 105-116.

 Carr, L. G. , & Hauser, W. J. (1973). Anomie and religiosity: An empirical examination. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 15(1), 69-74.

 Cohen , albert K. [ 1955] (1983). Delinquent boys. in cullen , francis T. and robert agnew (eds.), 2003. Criminological theories: past to present. CA: Roxbury publishing company.

 Crocket, w. H. ; Meidinger, T. (1956)” Authoritarianism and Interpersonal Perception”, Journal of Abnormal social Pychology, Vol. 53, PP. 378-380

DeHart, Tracy; Pleham, B. W; Tennen, Howard (2006)" What lies beneath: Parenting style and implicit self-esteem". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42 (2006) 1–17

 Duriez, B. , Soenens, B. , & Vansteenkiste, M. (2008) ”The intergenerational Transmission of authoritarianism: The mediating role of Parental Goal Promotion. ” Journal of Research in personality, Vol. 42 (3), PP. 622-642.

Grabb, Edward G. (1980)” Marxist Categories and Theories of Class: The Case of Working-Class Authoritarianism”, the Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Oct. , 1980), pp. 359-376

 Heimer, Karen, and Stacy De Coster. 1999. "The Gendering Violent Delinquency". Criminology. 37(2): 277-312

 Heimer, Karen. 1997. "Socioeconomic Status, Subcultural Definitions, and Violent Delinquency". Social Forces 75(3)799-833

 Kohn, M. L. (1976). Occupational structure and alienation. American Journal of Sociology, 82(1), 111-130.

 Kohn, M. L. , & Schooler, C. (1969). Class, occupation, and orientation. American Sociological Review, 34(5), 659-678.

 Kohn, M. L. , & Schooler, C. (1978). The reciprocal effects of the substantive complexity of work and intellectual flexibility: A longitudinal assessment. The American Journal of Sociology, 84(1), 24-52.

 Kohn, M. L. , & Schooler, C. (1979). Job conditions and intellectual flexibility: A longitudinal assessment of their reciprocal effect. In Borgatta, E. F. , & Jackson, D. J. (Eds). Factor analysis and measurement in Sociological research: A multidimensional perspective. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

 Kohn, Melvin L. 1977. Class and Conformity. 2d ed. University of Chicago Press.

 Lee, G. R. & Clyde, R. W. (1974). Religion, socioeconomic status, and anomie. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 13(1), 35-47.

 Lipset, S. M. (1965)” Democracy and Working Class Authoritarianism. ” American Sociological Review, 24(4): 482-501.

 Lipsitz, L. (1965)”Working Class Authoritarianism: A Re-evaluation. ” American Sociological Review. 30(1): 103-109.

 Lutterman, Kenneth G; Middleton Russell (1970) “Authoritarianism, Anomia, and Prejudice. ” Social Forces, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Jun. , 1970), pp. 485-492

 McDill, E. L. (1961). Anomie, authoritarianism, prejudice, and socioeconomic status: An attempt at clarification. Social Forces, 39(3), 239-245.

 Menard, S. (1995). A developmental test of Mertonian anomie theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(2), 136-174.

 Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672-682.

 Mizruchi, E. H. (1960). Social structure and anomie in a small city. American Sociological Review, 25(5), 645-654.

 Mulford, C. L. (1968). Ethnocentrism and attitudes toward the mentally ill. The Sociological Quarterly, 9(1), 107-111.

 Napier J. L. , Jost, J. T. (2008). The “Antidemocratic Personality” Revisited: A Cross-National Investigation of Working-Class Authoritarianism. ” Journal of Social issues, Vol. 64(3), PP. 595-617.

 Ritzer George (2005) ‘’ encyclopedia of social theory. ” sage reference publications, vol 2.

 Roberts, A. H. & Rokeach, M. , (1956). Anomie, authoritarianism, and prejudice: A replication. The American Journal of Sociology, 61(4), 355-358.

Roiser, M. J. and Willig, C. (1995) “The Hidden History of Authoritarianism. ” History of the Human Sciences 8(4): 77–97.

Rushing, W. A. (1971). Class, culture and "social structure and anomie”. The American Journal of Sociology, 76(5), 857-872.

Scheepers, P. , Felling, A. , & Peters, J. (1992). Anomie, authoritarianism, and ethnocentrism: Update of a classical theme and empirical test. Politics and the Individual, 2(1), 43-59.

Scheepers, P; Felling, A. ; Peters, J. (1990), “Social Conditions, Authoritarianism and Ethnocentrism: A Theoretical Model of the Early Frankfurt School Updated and Tested. ” European Sociological Review, Vol. 6, No. 1 (May, 1990), pp. 15-29

Scodel, A. & Freedman, M. L. , (1956)”Additional Observation on the Social Perceptions of Authoritarians and Nonauthoritarians. ” Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, Vol. 52(1), PP. 92-95.

 Scodel, A. , & Mussen, P. (1953) “Social perceptions of authoritarians and nonauthoritarians. ” Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, vol. 48(2), PP. 181-184.

 Shek,D. T. L (2006). Assessment of perceived parental psychological control in chinese adolescents in hongkong. ” Research on social work practice, V. 16, N. 383.

 Simons, H. W. (1966)”Authoritarianism and social Perceptiveness. Journal of Social Psychology. ” vol. 68, PP (2). 291-297.

 Sonnak, Carina; Towell, Tony (2000). "the impostor phenomenon in british university students: relationship between self esteem, mental health, parental rearing style and socioeconomic status. Personality and individual difference, 31, 863-874.

 Srole, L. (1956). Social integration and certain corollaries: an exploratory study. American Sociological Review, 21(6), 709- 716.

 Teevan Jr, J. J. (1975). On measuring anomia: Suggested modification of the Srole scale. The Pacific Sociological Review, 18(2), 159-170.

 Wright, James D. (1972)” The Working Class,  Authoritarianism, and the War in Vietnam. ” Social Problems, Vol. 20, No. 2 , pp. 133-150.

 Xiao, Hong. 2000. "Class, Gender, and Parental Values in the 1990s". Gender & Society 14(6):785-803