Although past research suggests authoritarianism may be a uniquely right-wing phenomenon, the present two studies tested the hypothesis that authoritarianism exists in both right-wing and left-wing contexts in essentially equal degrees. Across two studies, university (n 5 475) and Mechanical Turk (n 5 298) participants completed either the RWA (right-wing authoritarianism) scale or a newly developed (and parallel) LWA (left-wing authoritarianism) scale. Participants further completed measurements of ideology and three domain-specific scales: prejudice, dogmatism, and attitude strength. Findings from both studies lend support to an authoritarianism symmetry hypothesis: Significant positive correlations emerged between LWA and measurements of liberalism, prejudice, dogmatism, and attitude strength. These results largely paralleled those correlating RWA with identical conservative-focused measurements, and an overall effect-size measurement showed LWA was similarly related to those constructs (compared to RWA) in both Study 1 and Study 2. Taken together, these studies provide evidence that LWA may be a viable construct in ordinary U.S. samples.KEY WORDS: left-wing authoritarianism, right-wing authoritarianism, rigidity of the right, ideologyThe concept of left-wing authoritarianism-the idea that political liberals may be subject to the same reliance on simple authority and psychological rigidity as political conservatives-has a controversial history in psychology. While some have argued that left-wing authoritarianism (LWA) is a valid construct (

Contemporary U.S. culture has a highly individualistic ethos. Nevertheless, exactly how this ethos was historically fostered remains unanalyzed. A new model of dynamic cultural change maintains that sparsely populated, novel environments that impose major threats to survival, such as the Western frontier in the United States during the 18th and 19th centuries, breed strong values of independence, which in turn guide the production of new practices that encourage self-promotion and focused, competitive work. Faced with few significant threats to survival, residents in traditional areas are likely to seek social prestige by adopting existing practices of other, higher status groups. Because of both the massive economic success of the frontier and the official endorsement of the frontier by the federal government, eastern residents of the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries may have actively adopted the frontier practices of independence, thus incorporating the frontier ethos of independence to form the contemporary U.S. national culture. Available evidence is reviewed, and implications for further research on cultural change are suggested.

Integrative complexity broadly measures the structural complexity of statements. This breadth, although beneficial in multiple ways, can potentially hamper the development of specific theories. In response, the authors developed a model of complex thinking, focusing on 2 different ways that people can be complex within the integrative complexity system and subsequently developed measurements of each of these 2 routes: Dialectical complexity focuses on a dialectical tension between 2 or more competing perspectives, whereas elaborative complexity focuses on complexly elaborating on 1 singular perspective. The authors posit that many variables have different effects on these 2 forms of complexity and subsequently test this idea in 2 different theoretical domains. In Studies 1a, 1b, and 2, the authors demonstrate that variables related to attitude strength (e.g., domain importance, extremism, domain accessibility) decrease dialectical complexity but increase elaborative complexity. In Study 3, the authors show that counterattitudinal lying decreases dialectical complexity but increases elaborative complexity, implicating a strategic (as opposed to a cognitive strain) view of the lying-complexity relationship. The authors argue that this dual demonstration across 2 different theoretical domains helps establish the utility of the new model and measurements as well as offer the potential to reconcile apparent conflicts in the area of cognitive complexity.

Integrative complexity is a conceptually unique and very popular measurement of the complexity of human thought. We believe, however, that it is currently being underutilized because it takes quite a bit of time to score. More time-efficient computer-based measurements of complexity that are currently available are correlated with integrative complexity at fairly low levels. To help fill in this gap, we developed a novel automated integrative complexity system designed specifically from the integrative complexity theoretical framework. This new automated IC system achieved an alpha of .72 on the standard integrative complexity coding test. In addition, across nine datasets covering over 1,300 paragraphs, this new automated system consistently showed modest relationships with human-scored integrative complexity (average alpha = .62; average r = .46). Further analyses revealed that this relationship consistently remained significant when controlling for superficial markers of complexity and that the new system accounted for both the differentiation and integration components of integrative complexity. Although the overlap between the automated and human-scored systems is only modest (and thus suggests the continued usefulness of human scoring), it nonetheless provides the best automated integrative complexity measurement to date.

Although U.S. presidents are one of the most studied groups of political figures and integrative complexity is one of the most widely used constructs in political psychology, no study to date has fully examined the integrative complexity of all U.S. presidents. The present study helps fill in that gap by scoring 41 U.S. presidents' first four State of the Union speeches for integrative complexity and then comparing these scores with a large range of available situational and personality variables. Results suggest a tendency for presidents' integrative complexity to be higher at the beginning of their first term and drop at the end. This pattern was pronounced for presidents who eventually won reelection to a second term and was markedly different for presidents who tried to gain reelection but lost. Additional analyses suggested that presidents' overall integrative complexity scores were in part accounted for by chronic differences between presidents' complexity levels. Further analyses revealed that this overall integrative complexity score was positively correlated to a set of interpersonal traits (friendliness, affiliation motive, extraversion, and wittiness) and negatively correlated with inflexibility. Discussion centers upon the causes and consequences of presidential complexity.The purpose of this study was to assess the integrative complexity of virtually all presidents of the United States. Using 41 presidents' State of the Union addresses, integrative complexity was assessed by independent raters, creating developmental and aggregate integrative complexity scores for each president. The resulting rich dataset allowed us to explore time-series developments of integrative complexity among the presidents and the relationship of integrative complexity to situational and personality variables.