Electron electric dipole moment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_electric_dipole_moment 

The electron electric dipole moment d_e is an intrinsic property of an electron such that the potential energy is linearly related to the strength of the electric field:

${\displaystyle U={\mathbf{d}}_{\mathrm{e}}\cdot \mathbf{E}.}$

The electron's electric dipole moment (EDM) must be collinear with the direction of the electron's magnetic moment (spin). Within the Standard Model of elementary particle physics, such a dipole is predicted to be non-zero but very small, at most 10⁻³⁸ e⋅cm, where e stands for the elementary charge. The discovery of a substantially larger electron electric dipole moment would imply a violation of both parity invariance and time reversal invariance.

Implications for Standard Model and extensions

In the Standard Model, the electron EDM arises from the CP-violating components of the CKM matrix. The moment is very small because the CP violation involves quarks, not electrons directly, so it can only arise by quantum processes where virtual quarks are created, interact with the electron, and then are annihilated.

If neutrinos are Majorana particles, a larger EDM (around 10⁻³³ e⋅cm) is possible in the Standard Model.

Many extensions to the Standard Model have been proposed in the past two decades. These extensions generally predict larger values for the electron EDM. For instance, the various technicolor models predict |d_e| that ranges from 10⁻²⁷ to 10⁻²⁹ e⋅cm. Some supersymmetric models predict that |d_e| > 10⁻²⁶ e⋅cm but some other parameter choices or other supersymmetric models lead to smaller predicted values. The present experimental limit therefore eliminates some of these technicolor/supersymmetric theories, but not all. Further improvements, or a positive result, would place further limits on which theory takes precedence.

Historical record of electron electric dipole moment measurements in leptonic systems.

Formal definition

As the electron has a net charge, the definition of its electric dipole moment is ambiguous in that

${\displaystyle {\mathbf{d}}_{\mathrm{e}}=\int (\mathbf{r}-{\mathbf{r}}_0)\rho (\mathbf{r})d^3\mathbf{r}}$

depends on the point ${\displaystyle {\mathbf{r}}_0}$ about which the moment of the charge distribution ${\displaystyle \rho (\mathbf{r})}$ is taken. If we were to choose ${\displaystyle {\mathbf{r}}_0}$ to be the center of charge, then ${\displaystyle {\mathbf{d}}_{\mathrm{e}}}$ would be identically zero. A more interesting choice would be to take ${\displaystyle {\mathbf{r}}_0}$ as the electron's center of mass evaluated in the frame in which the electron is at rest.

Classical notions such as the center of charge and mass are, however, hard to make precise for a quantum elementary particle. In practice the definition used by experimentalists comes from the form factors ${\displaystyle F_i(q^2)}$ appearing in the matrix element

${\displaystyle ⟨p_f|j^{\mu }|p_i⟩=\overline{u}(p_f)\left\{F_1(q^2){\gamma }^{\mu }+\frac{i{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }}{2m_{\mathrm{e}}}{q}_{\nu }{F}_2(q^2)+i{ϵ}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{\sigma }_{\rho \sigma }{q}_{\nu }{F}_3(q^2)+\frac{1}{2m_{\mathrm{e}}}\left(q^{\mu }-\frac{q^2}{2m_e}{\gamma }^{\mu }\right){\gamma }_5{F}_4(q^2)\right\}u(p_i)}$

of the electromagnetic current operator between two on-shell states with Lorentz invariant phase space normalization in which

${\displaystyle ⟨p_f|p_i⟩=2E(2\pi {)}^3{\delta }^3({\mathbf{p}}_f-{\mathbf{p}}_{\mathbf{i}}).}$

Here ${\displaystyle u(p_i)}$ and ${\displaystyle \overline{u}(p_f)}$ are 4-spinor solutions of the Dirac equation normalized so that ${\displaystyle \overline{u}u=2m_e}$, and ${\displaystyle q^{\mu }=p_f^{\mu }-p_i^{\mu }}$ is the momentum transfer from the current to the electron. The ${\displaystyle q^2=0}$ form factor ${\displaystyle F_1(0)=Q}$ is the electron's charge, ${\displaystyle \mu =\frac{F_1(0)+F_2(0)}{2m_{\mathrm{e}}}}$ is its static magnetic dipole moment, and ${\displaystyle \frac{-F_3(0)}{2m_{\mathrm{e}}}}$ provides the formal definition of the electron's electric dipole moment. The remaining form factor ${\displaystyle F_4(q^2)}$ would, if nonzero, be the anapole moment.

Experimental measurements

Electron EDMs are usually not measured on free electrons, but instead on bound, unpaired valence electrons inside atoms and molecules. In these, one can observe the effect of ${\displaystyle U={\mathbf{d}}_{\mathrm{e}}\cdot \mathbf{E}}$ as a slight shift of spectral lines. The sensitivity to ${\displaystyle {\mathbf{d}}_{\mathrm{e}}}$ scales approximately with the nuclear charge cubed. For this reason, electron EDM searches almost always are conducted on systems involving heavy elements.

To date, no experiment has found a non-zero electron EDM. As of 2020 the Particle Data Group publishes its value as |d_e| < 0.11×10⁻²⁸ e⋅cm. Here is a list of some electron EDM experiments after 2000 with published results:

List of Electron EDM Experiments

Year	Location	Principal Investigators	Method	Species	Experimental upper limit on |de|
2002	University of California, Berkeley	Eugene Commins, David DeMille	Atomic beam	Tl	1.6×10−27 e⋅cm
2011	Imperial College London	Edward Hinds, Ben Sauer	Molecular beam	YbF	1.1×10−27 e⋅cm
2014	Harvard-Yale (ACME I experiment)	David DeMille, John Doyle, Gerald Gabrielse	Molecular beam	ThO	8.7×10−29 e⋅cm
2017	JILA	Eric Cornell, Jun Ye	Ion trap	HfF+	1.3×10−28 e⋅cm
2018	Harvard-Yale (ACME II experiment)	David DeMille, John Doyle, Gerald Gabrielse	Molecular beam	ThO	1.1×10−29 e⋅cm
2022	JILA	Eric Cornell, Jun Ye	Ion trap	HfF+	4.1×10−30 e⋅cm

The ACME collaboration is, as of 2020, developing a further version of the ACME experiment series. The latest experiment is called Advanced ACME or ACME III and it aims to improve the limit on electron EDM by one to two orders of magnitude.

Future proposed experiments

Besides the above groups, electron EDM experiments are being pursued or proposed by the following groups:

• University of Groningen: BaF molecular beam
• John Doyle (Harvard University), Nicholas Hutzler (California Institute of Technology), and Timothy Steimle (Arizona State University): YbOH molecular trap
• EDMcubed collaboration, Amar Vutha (University of Toronto), Eric Hessels (York University): oriented polar molecules in an inert gas matrix
• David Weiss (Pennsylvania State University): Cs and Rb atoms trapped inside an optical lattice
• TRIUMF: Fountain of laser cooled Fr
• EDMMA collaboration: Cs in an inert gas matrix

The Demon-Haunted World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World 

 

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Cover of the first edition
Author	Carl Sagan
Language	English
Subjects	Scientific skepticism Science Philosophy
Publisher	Random House
Publication date	1995/1997
Publication place	United States
Media type	Print (hardcover and paperback)
Pages	457
ISBN	0-345-40946-9
OCLC	32855551
Dewey Decimal	001.9 20
LC Class	Q175 .S215 1995
Preceded by	Pale Blue Dot
Followed by	Billions and Billions

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark is a 1995 book by the astrophysicist Carl Sagan. (Four of the 25 chapters were written with Ann Druyan). In it, Sagan aims to explain the scientific method to laypeople and to encourage people to learn critical and skeptical thinking. He explains methods to help distinguish between ideas that are considered valid science and those that can be considered pseudoscience. Sagan states that when new ideas are offered for consideration, they should be tested by means of skeptical thinking and should stand up to rigorous questioning.

Themes

Sagan explains that science is not just a body of knowledge, but is a way of thinking. Sagan shows how scientific thinking is both imaginative and disciplined, bringing humans to an understanding of how the universe is, rather than how they wish to perceive it. He says that science works much better than any other system because it has a "built-in error-correcting machine". Superstition and pseudoscience get in the way of the ability of many laypersons to appreciate the beauty and benefits of science. Skeptical thinking allows people to construct, understand, reason, and recognize valid and invalid arguments. Wherever possible, there must be independent validation of the concepts whose truth should be proved. He states that reason and logic would succeed once the truth were known. Conclusions emerge from premises, and the acceptability of the premises should not be discounted or accepted because of bias.

Dragon in my garage

See also: Falsifiability

As an example of skeptical thinking, Sagan offers a story concerning a fire-breathing dragon who lives in his garage. When he persuades a rational, open-minded visitor to meet the dragon, the visitor remarks that they are unable to see the creature. Sagan replies that he "neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon". The visitor suggests spreading flour on the floor so that the creature's footprints might be seen, which Sagan says is a good idea, "but this dragon floats in the air". When the visitor considers using an infrared camera to view the creature's invisible fire, Sagan explains that her fire is heatless. He continues to counter every proposed physical test with a reason why the test will not work.

Sagan concludes by asking: "Now what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true."

Continuing with concepts relevant to the 'dragon in my garage' story, Sagan writes about a patient of John Mack who claimed to have scars on her body which were from encounters with aliens. Sagan writes that if the patient is asked what her scars look like, she is unable to show them because, unfortunately, they are located in the private areas of her body.

Baloney detection kit

Sagan presents a set of tools for skeptical thinking that he calls the "baloney detection kit". Skeptical thinking consists both of constructing a reasoned argument and recognizing a fallacious or fraudulent one. In order to identify a fallacious argument, Sagan suggests employing such tools as independent confirmation of facts, debate, development of different hypotheses, quantification, the use of Occam's razor, and the possibility of falsification. Sagan's "baloney detection kit" also provides tools for detecting "the most common fallacies of logic and rhetoric", such as argument from authority and statistics of small numbers. Through these tools, Sagan argues the benefits of a critical mind and the self-correcting nature of science can take place.

Sagan provides nine tools as the first part of this kit.

1. There must be independent confirmation of the facts given when possible.
2. Encourage debate on the evidence from all points of view.
3. Realize that an argument from authority is not always reliable. Sagan supports this by telling us that 'authorities" have made mistakes in the past and they will again in the future.
4. Consider more than one hypothesis. Sagan adds to this by telling us that we must think of the argument from all angles and think all the ways it can be explained or disproved. The hypothesis that then still hasn't been disproved has a much higher chance of being correct.
5. Try your best to not purely stick to a hypothesis that is your own and become biased. Sagan tells us to compare our own hypothesis with others to see if we can find reasons to reject our own hypothesis.
6. Quantify. Sagan tells us that if whatever we are trying to explain has numerical value or quantitative data related to it, then we'll be much more able to compete against other hypotheses.
7. If there is a chain of argument, every link in that chain must be correct.
8. The use of Occam's razor, which tells us to choose the hypothesis that is simpler and requires the least amount of assumptions.
9. Ask if a given hypothesis can be falsified. Sagan tells us that if a hypothesis cannot be tested or falsified then it is not worth considering.

Sagan suggests that with the use of this "baloney detection kit" it is easier to critically think and find the truth.

Logical fallacies

There is a second part to the kit. This consists of twenty logical fallacies that one must not commit when offering up a new claim.

1. Ad hominem. An arguer attacks the opposing arguer and not the actual argument.
2. Argument from authority. Someone expects another to immediately believe that a person of authority or higher knowledge is correct.
3. Argument from adverse consequences. Someone says that something must be done a certain way or else there will be adverse consequences.
4. Appeal to ignorance. One argues a claim in that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa.
5. Special pleading. An arguer responds to a deeply complex or rhetorical question or statement by, usually, saying "oh you don't understand how so and so works."
6. Begging the question. An arguer assumes the answer and makes a claim such as, this happened because of that, or, this needs to happen in order for that to happen.
7. Observational selection. Someone talks about how great something is by explaining all of the positive aspects of it while purposely not mentioning any of the negative aspects.
8. Statistics of small numbers. Someone argues something by giving the statistics in small numbers, which isn't very reliable.
9. Misunderstanding of the nature of statistics. Someone misinterprets statistics given to them.
10. Fallacy of inconsistency. An arguer is very inconsistent in their claims.
11. Non sequitur. This is Latin for "it doesn't follow." A claim is made that doesn't make much sense, such as "Our nation will prevail because God is great."
12. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Latin for "it happened after, so it was caused by." An arguer claims that something happened because of a past event when really it probably didn't.
13. Meaningless question. Someone asks a question that has no real meaning or doesn't add to the argument at all.
14. The excluded middle. An arguer only considers or mentions the two opposite extremes of the conversation and excludes the aspects in between the two extremes.
15. Short-term vs. long-term. A subset of the excluded middle, but so important it was pulled it out for special attention.
16. Slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits…)
17. Confusion of correlation and causation. The latter causes the former
18. Straw man. Caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack. This is also a short-term/long-term fallacy
19. Suppressed evidence, or half-truth.
20. Weasel word. Talleyrand said: "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public." 

Sagan provides a skeptical analysis of several examples of what he refers to as superstition, fraud, and pseudoscience such as witches, UFOs, ESP, and faith healing. He is critical of organized religion.

In a 2020 interview for Skeptical Inquirer, when Sagan's wife Ann Druyan was asked about the origin of the phrase "baloney detection kit", she said that

It didn't really come from Carl. It actually came from a friend of mine named Arthur Felberbaum who died about forty years ago. He and Carl and I once sat down for dinner together. His politics were very left wing, so Carl and Arthur and I were trying to find common ground so that we could have a really good dinner together. And at one point, Arthur said, "Carl, it's just that I dream that every one of us would have a baloney detection kit in our head." And that's where that idea came from.

Misuse of science

Sagan indicates that science can be misused. Thus, he is highly critical of Edward Teller, the "father of the hydrogen bomb", and Teller's influence on politics, and contrasts his stance to that of Linus Pauling and other scientists who took moral positions.

Sagan also discusses the misuse of science in representation. He relates to the depiction of the mad scientist character in children's TV shows and is critical of this occurrence. Sagan suggests an addition of scientific television programs, many of which would take a look at believed hoaxes of the past and encourage viewers to engage in critical thinking to better represent science on popular television.

Misuse of psychiatric authority

Sagan indicates that therapists can contribute to the growth of pseudoscience or the infusion of "false stories". He is critical of John Mack and his support of abduction cases, which were represented in his patients.

Sagan writes about the story of Paul Ingram. Ingram's daughter reported that her father had sexually abused her. He was told that "sex offenders often repressed memories of their crimes." Ingram was eventually able to have a foggy visualization of the claimed events, and he suggested that perhaps "a demon might be responsible." Sagan describes how once Ingram started remembering events, so did several other individuals and family members. A "memory recovery" technique was performed on Ingram, and he confessed to the crimes. A medical examination was done on his daughter, where none of the scars she described were actually found. Sagan writes that Ingram later tried to plead innocence once "away from his daughters, his police colleagues, and his pastor."

Hoaxes

Hoaxes have played a valuable role in the history of science by revealing the flaws in our thinking and helping us advance our critical thinking skills. One of Sagan’s examples is the "Carlos hoax" by James Randi that revealed flaws in reporting by news media. Carlos was described as an ancient spirit that supposedly possessed José Alvarez and provided Alvarez with advanced knowledge about the universe. Many news outlets assumed this was true and reported it as such, which spread misinformation.

Sagan also cites crop circles as hoaxes.

Reception and legacy

The book was a New York Times bestseller. The contemporary skeptical movement considers it an important book. The Demon-Haunted World has been criticized (in Smithsonian magazine and The New York Times) for not incorporating certain information relevant to the items he discusses in his book. The Smithsonian article by Paul Trachtman argues that Sagan relates issues of government choices and declining scientific thinking skills to pseudoscience topics like astrology and faith healing but ignores other issues that may be causing governmental bodies and other individuals to turn away from science. One such issue is consequences of pouring governmental money into cancer research. Trachtman writes, "it is not because of such beliefs that Congress now approaches the NIH budget with an ax. In fact, billions of dollars spent on years of research in the war on cancer have spawned growing professional bureaucracies and diminishing medical benefits." Trachtman argues that Sagan does not include problems like growing bureaucracies and diminishing medical benefits as reasons for a lack of scientific attention. In his review for the New York Times, James Gorman also argues for an unaddressed issue in Sagan's book, saying Sagan fails to emphasize the idea that scientists should take a more active role in reaching science to the public, while he does mention the failures of the education system to do so.

The review in the Smithsonian magazine and a review in the New York Review of Books provide a range of opinions on Sagan's attitude towards religious ideas. Per the New York Review article, "when it comes to the Supreme Extraterrestrial he is rather circumspect." The Smithsonian article suggests Sagan was very clear about his religious beliefs in the book, for he "splits his universe in two, into science and irrationality." The Smithsonian goes on to say that Sagan's defined religious views fall within the area of an untestable claim, a type of claim he argues against in The Demon-Haunted World.

The article in the New York Review also claims that Sagan includes something in The Demon-Haunted World which he also is arguing against in that same text. The article mentions how Sagan discusses a natural predisposition people have towards science; but, the article says, "He does not tell us how he used the scientific method to discover the "embedded" human proclivity for science." Sagan heavily discusses the importance of using the scientific method in his book, and this article claims he strays away from his own message by not including a description of his use of the scientific method on this topic.

An article in the Los Angeles Times describe Sagan's book positively. The Los Angeles Times describes Sagan's book as "a manifesto for clear thought", with the main issue being the length of eight chapters. This lengthy discussion is also addressed in the archived New York Times article, which relates to the book as having areas which repeat themselves.

The Demon-Haunted World has been defined in more current sources as still relevant. An article in The Guardian, 2012, suggests the still current relevance of The Demon-Haunted World. Another article from The Verge in 2017 also supports this relevance. The latter article mentions a disconnect between what is proven by science to be the best answer and what is chosen to be done by governmental bodies. Carl Sagan covers this concept as a prominent issue in his book (1995), and this article outlines it as a problem still occurring in 2017.

Relevance

The Demon-Haunted World provides many arguments about our society that will always remain relevant. Sagan mainly argues for increased education among younger populations regarding critical thinking and scientific literacy. First, he explains that scientific literacy and critical thinking are essential for democracy, especially in the United States. Democracy allows people to share their beliefs, but with this come many different perspectives and arguments. Critical thinking is required to determine which are true or false. Scientific literacy provides similar tools and benefits to critical thinking; Sagan asserts science allows us to participate in the most significant method of understanding our Universe. Science is constantly evolving and is intertwined with our democracy, so to fully participate in democracy, you must be able to understand science. Sagan explains that science can be used to escape poverty, aid us in determining how to preserve our world, and to understand our origin and place in the Universe, “Without science and democracy, we risk being a nation of suckers.” Science can also be a valuable tool in examining a community’s social, political, and economic systems to reveal flaws and provide methods of improvement. Sagan asserts all individuals should have the ability to recognize errors.

Sagan insists that "there are no stupid questions" because asking questions is how we advance scientific knowledge. Denying that any questions are stupid also encourages children to develop critical thinking skills. Some examples Sagan provides include “Why is the grass green?” and “Why do we have toes?” Both of these help answer questions about biology, evolution, and the human body. Discouraging anyone from asking these questions and instead just accepting that these are facts of life may contribute to flaws in thinking patterns in the future. Being used to accepting the way things are just because is exactly what Sagan is attempting to fix, encouraging everyone to remain skeptical and question everything. He also places emphasis on using the “Baloney Detection Kit” to spot flaws (see above).

In the decade or so prior to the publication of The Demon-Haunted World, alien abduction accounts were common. Sagan provides concrete examples for why we shouldn’t assume things are true and instead use tools such as Occam's razor to seek more reasonable, science-based explanations.

Authoritarian personality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality

The authoritarian personality is a personality type characterized by a disposition to treat authority figures with unquestioning obedience and respect. Conceptually, the term authoritarian personality originated from the writings of Erich Fromm, and usually is applied to people who exhibit a strict and oppressive personality towards their subordinates. Regardless of whether authoritarianism is more of a personality, attitude, ideology or disposition, scholars find it has significant influence on public opinion and political behavior.

Historical origins

In his 1941 book Fear of Freedom, a psychological exploration of modern politics, Erich Fromm described authoritarianism as a defence mechanism.

In The Authoritarian Personality (1950), Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford proposed a personality type that involved the "potentially fascistic individual". The historical background that influenced the theoretical development of the authoritarian personality included the rise of fascism in the 1930s, World War II (1939–1945), and The Holocaust, which indicated that the fascistic individual was psychologically susceptible to the ideology of antisemitism and to the emotional appeal of anti-democratic politics. Known as the Berkeley studies, the researches of Adorno and Frenkel-Brunswik, and of Levinson and Sanford concentrated upon prejudice, which they studied within psychoanalytic and psychosocial frameworks of Freudian and Frommian theories. The book was described as a landmark work in social science that generated significant criticism of certain methods and results but also confirmation of many of the findings in independent studies. Following its publication was an extensive debate on the merits of the work, with many of the themes of this debate persisting in authoritarianism research today. The authoritarian person also presents a cynical and disdainful view of humanity, and a need to wield power and be tough, which arise from the anxieties produced by the perceived lapses of people who do not abide by the conventions and social norms of society (destructiveness and cynicism); a general tendency to focus upon people who violate the value system, and to act oppressively against them (authoritarian aggression); anti-intellectualism, a general opposition to the subjective and imaginative tendencies of the mind (anti-intraception); and an exaggerated concern with sexual promiscuity, especially when concerning women. The f-scale fell into disrepute as being unreliable after about 10 years. Other criticisms of the sociologic theory presented in The Authoritarian Personality are the validity of the psychoanalytic interpretation of personality and bias that authoritarianism exists only in the right wing of the political spectrum.

In human psychological development, the formation of the authoritarian personality occurs within the first years of a child's life, strongly influenced and shaped by the parents' personalities and the organizational structure of the child's family; thus, parent-child relations that are "hierarchical, authoritarian, [and] exploitative" can result in a child developing an authoritarian personality. Authoritarian-personality characteristics are fostered by parents who have a psychological need for domination, and who harshly threaten their child to compel obedience to conventional behaviors. Moreover, such domineering parents also are preoccupied with social status, a concern they communicate by having the child follow rigid, external rules. In consequence of such domination, the child suffers emotionally from the suppression of his or her feelings of aggression and resentment towards the domineering parents, whom the child reverently idealizes, but does not criticize. Such personalities may also be related to studies in preschool children of personality and political views as reported by scientists in 2006 which concluded that some children described as being "somewhat dominating" were later found, as adults, to be "relatively liberal", and those described as "relatively over-controlled" were later found, as adults, to be "relatively conservative"; in the words of the researchers,

Preschool children who 20 years later were relatively liberal were characterized as: developing close relationships, self-reliant, energetic, somewhat dominating, relatively under-controlled, and resilient. Preschool children subsequently relatively conservative at age 23 were described as: feeling easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and relatively over-controlled and vulnerable.

Perceived threat

See also: Fear of crime

Hetherington and Weiler argue that perceived threat is a crucial variable in activating an authoritarian disposition. They suggest this helps to explain higher rates of authoritarianism in developing countries, after social or economic crises, as well as security crises like September 11th. The authors believe that some people, who tend to be more pessimistic and experience higher levels of stress and must rely more on instinct than cognition for decision-making, while those who under normal circumstances are more optimistic and at-ease, will also respond in a more authoritarian way when feeling threatened.

Links to gender inequality

According to a study by Brandt and Henry, there is a direct correlation between the rates of gender inequality and the levels of authoritarian ideas in the male and female populations. It was found that in countries with less gender equality where individualism was encouraged and men occupied the dominant societal roles, women were more likely to support traits such as obedience which would allow them to survive in an authoritarian environment and less likely to encourage ideas such as independence and imagination. In countries with higher levels of gender equality, men held less authoritarian views. It is theorized that this occurs due to the stigma attached to individuals who question the cultural norms set by the dominant individuals and establishments in an authoritarian society as a way to prevent the psychological stress caused by the active ostracizing of the stigmatized individuals.

Modern models

C.G. Sibley and J. Duckitt reported that more recent research has produced two more effective scales of measurement for predicting prejudice and other characteristics associated with authoritative personalities. The first scale is called the Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and the second is called the social dominance orientation (SDO).

Bob Altemeyer used the right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) scale, to identify, measure, and quantify the personality traits of authoritarian people. The political personality type identified with the RWA scale indicates the existence of three psychological tendencies and attitudinal clusters characteristic of the authoritarian personality: (i) Submission to legitimate authorities; (ii) Aggression towards minority groups whom authorities identified as targets for sanctioned political violence; and (iii) Adherence to cultural values and political beliefs endorsed by the authorities. As measured with the NEO-PI-R Openness scale, the research indicates a negative correlation (r = 0.57) between the personality trait of "openness to experience", of the Five Factor Model of the human personality.

The research of Jost, Glaser, Arie W. Kruglanski, and Sulloway (2003) indicates that authoritarianism and right-wing authoritarianism are ideological constructs for social cognition, by which political conservatives view people who are the Other who is not the Self. That the authoritarian personality and the conservative personality share two, core traits: (i) resistance to change (social, political. economic), and (ii) justification for social inequality among the members of society. Conservatives have a psychological need to manage existential uncertainty and threats with situational motives (striving for dominance in social hierarchies) and with dispositional motives (self-esteem and the management of fear).

The research on ideology, politics, and racist prejudice, by John Duckitt and Chris Sibley, identified two types of authoritarian worldview: (i) that the social world is dangerous, which leads to right-wing authoritarianism; and (ii) that the world is a ruthlessly competitive jungle, which leads to social dominance orientation. In a meta-analysis of the research, Sibley and Duckitt explained that the social-dominance orientation scale helps to measure the generalization of prejudice and other authoritarian attitudes that can exist within social groups. Although both the right-wing authoritarianism scale and the social-dominance orientation scale can accurately measure authoritarian personalities, the scales usually are not correlated.

Hetherington and Weiler describe the authoritarian personality as one that has a greater need for order, and less willingness to tolerate ambiguity as well as a tendency to rely on established authorities to provide that order. They acknowledge that while everyone seeks to bring some semblence of order to their world, non-authoritarian personalities are more likely to use concepts like fairness and equality, instead of the time-honored texts, conventions or leaders that are more common among authoritarian personalities. They also note that almost everyone becomes more authoritarian when they feel threat, anxiety or fatigue, as the emotional, reactive parts of the brain crowd out cognitive abilities. They also assert that scholars do not know whether to consider authoritarianism a personality trait, an attitude or an ideology.

Prevalence

Western countries

In 2021, Morning Consult (an American data intelligence company) published the results of a survey measuring the levels of authoritarianism in adults in America and seven other Western countries. The study used Bob Altemeyer's right-wing authoritarianism scale, but they omitted the following two statements from Altemeyer's scale: (1) "The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just "loud mouths" showing off their ignorance"; and (2) "Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married." Morning Consult's scale thus had just 20 items, with a score range of 20 to 180 points. Morning Consult found that 25.6% of American adults qualify as "high RWA" (scoring between 111 and 180 points), while 13.4% of American adults qualify as "low RWA" (scoring 20 to 63 points).

Prevalence among adults in Western countries
2021 Morning Consult survey

	Low RWA	High RWA
US	13.4%	25.6%
UK	13.6%	10.4%
Germany	17.4%	6.7%
France	10.2%	10.7%
Spain	17.9%	9.2%
Italy	17.9%	12.9%
Australia	17.1%	12.9%
Canada	21.3%	13.4%

United States

In a 2009 book, Marc J. Hetherington and Jonathan D. Weiler identified evangelical Protestants as the most authoritarian of voting blocs in the United States. Furthermore, the former Confederate states (i.e. "the South") showed higher levels of authoritarianism than the rest. Rural populations tend to be more authoritarian than urban ones. People who preferred simple problems to complex ones, had less formal education, and those scoring lower in political knowledge also tended to score higher in authoritarianism. The authoritarianism levels of these demographics were assessed with four items that appeared in the 2004 American National Election Studies survey:

1. Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: INDEPENDENCE or RESPECT FOR ELDERS
2. Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: CURIOSITY or GOOD MANNERS
3. Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: OBEDIENCE or SELF-RELIANCE
4. Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: BEING CONSIDERATE or WELL BEHAVED

These questions were designed to force a choice, not unlike in politics, when voters are forced to choose between competing values. Some respondents chose both responses to some of the questions, and the four questions are averaged together, with a score of 1 meaning they answered all four questions with a more authoritarian response and 0 with a less authoritarian response. Half of the americans surveyed scored .75 or higher, indicating that the average American had a more authoritarian disposition in 2004.

Average authoritarianism by relevant party coalition groups

Group	Mean authoritarianism (2004 data)
Religion
Evangelical Protestant	0.709
Catholic	0.571
Mainline Protestant	0.530
Secular	0.481
Jewish	0.383
Church Attendance
Weekly or More	0.689
Less than Weekly	0.549
Region
South	0.657
Non-south	0.547
Population density
Rural	0.603
Small town	0.584
Suburb	0.524
Large City	0.502
Inner City	0.549
Education
Less than High School	0.754
High School Degree	0.657
Some College	0.590
College Degree	0.505
Graduate Degree	0.373