Authoritarianism-Rebellion Scale

1. Abstract

The Authoritarianism-Rebellion Scale (A-R Scale), developed by psychometrician Paul M. Kohn in 1972, is a psychometric instrument designed to measure the bipolar ideological continuum spanning rigid right-wing authoritarian submission on one pole to radical, anti-conventional rebellion on the other. Created specifically to overcome the profound psychometric limitations of the original California F-Scale (Adorno et al., 1950)—most notably its pervasive acquiescence response bias stemming from all items being keyed in a single direction—the A-R Scale establishes a structurally balanced 30-item self-report questionnaire. The instrument features 15 classically formulated authoritarian items alongside 15 systematically matched, left-wing ideological reversal items. Administered on a 6-point forced-choice Likert response format ranging from 1 (Disagree Strongly) to 6 (Agree Strongly), the tool yields an overall index where elevated scores denote traditional right-wing authoritarianism, conventionalism, and submissiveness to institutional power, whereas depressed scores denote anti-authoritarian rebellion, nonconformity, and systemic critique.

Extensive psychometric investigations among diverse adult and collegiate populations confirm that the A-R Scale exhibits robust internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging between .75 and .85, and stable test-retest reliability across multi-week evaluation intervals. Construct and criterion-related validity analyses demonstrate strong convergent associations with established measures of dogmatism, political conservatism, punitive orientation toward deviance, and ethnocentrism, while displaying negative correlations with cognitive flexibility, civil liberties advocacy, and open-mindedness. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicate that the instrument largely captures a prominent primary bipolar dimension alongside recognizable second-order subdimensions representing institutional obedience, moralistic punitiveness, societal rebellion, and supernaturalism/anti-supernaturalism. Consequently, the A-R Scale remains a foundational psychometric milestone in political psychology, differential psychology, and ideological attitude measurement.

2. Keywords

Authoritarianism-Rebellion Scale, A-R Scale, authoritarian personality, F-Scale, acquiescent response set, balanced scale, right-wing authoritarianism, left-wing rebellion, psychometrics, ideological attitudes

3. Authors

The Authoritarianism-Rebellion Scale was formulated and validated by Paul M. Kohn, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Psychology at York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

• Primary Developer: Paul M. Kohn, Ph.D.
• Institutional Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada.
• Historical Context: Dr. Kohn developed the instrument during his extensive investigations into social attitudes, stress appraisal, personality dimensions, and methodological artifacts in psychological testing. His research addressed systemic measurement flaws in post-World War II sociopolitical instruments, particularly acquiescence bias and conceptual conflation between personality traits and sociopolitical ideologies.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Authoritarianism-Rebellion Scale is to provide an empirically sound, psychometrically balanced operationalization of authoritarian attitudes that effectively neutralizes the confounding effects of acquiescence response set. In the decades following the publication of The Authoritarian Personality by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford (1950), personality and social researchers recognized that the iconic California F-Scale suffered from a fatal psychometric vulnerability: all 30 items were keyed unidirectionally in favor of authoritarian endorsement. As demonstrated by methodological critics such as Christie, Havel, and Seidenberg (1958) and Couch and Keniston (1960), high scores on the classical F-Scale could reflect genuine authoritarian ideological commitments, indiscriminate agreement tendencies (yea-saying), or a combination of both.

To resolve this crisis of construct contamination, Kohn (1972) engineered the A-R Scale to assess both authoritarianism and its conceptual converse, anti-authoritarian rebellion. Rather than constructing simple grammatical negations (e.g., adding “not” to an existing sentence), which frequently creates confusing, cognitively complex double negatives or logically awkward assertions, Kohn formulated substantive, ideological counter-statements reflecting genuine left-wing, rebellious, and anti-establishment sentiments. This methodology ensured that the reverse-scored items possessed substantive ideological content, capturing authentic anti-institutional rebellion rather than merely passive disagreement.

In contemporary clinical, sociological, and experimental research, the A-R Scale serves several distinct empirical functions:

• Ideological Differentiation: It differentiates between conventional authoritarian submission and authentic rebellious nonconformity across sociopolitical spectra.
• Attitude Polarization Research: It assesses how socio-economic crises, perceived external threats, and political rhetoric trigger authoritarian consolidation versus radicalized societal critique.
• Legal and Criminological Psychology: It functions as a predictor of juror bias, punitive sentencing inclinations, support for harsh corporal punishment, and attitudes toward deviance and rehabilitation.
• Cross-Cultural and Societal Adaptation: Although originally framed within a Canadian societal context (referencing national institutions), the scale’s core items operationalize universal themes of hierarchy, family obligation, legal compliance, and systemic revolution applicable across diverse democratic and transitional polities.

5. Psychological Construct

The Authoritarianism-Rebellion Scale measures a broad bipolar personality and attitudinal construct that contrasts uncritical submission to established societal, familial, and religious authorities with proactive, radical rebellion against conventional norms and power structures. The construct spans several interconnected psychological dimensions:

Authoritarian Submission versus Radical Conscience

At the core of the authoritarian pole lies an intense, generalized need for external guidance and unquestioning compliance with conventional authority figures. This is operationalized through statements asserting that obedience is the paramount virtue children must acquire, that morality equates strictly to legal compliance, and that individuals intrinsically require external figures to dictate appropriate behavior (e.g., Item 1: “Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn”; Item 29: “Our chief want in life is somebody to make us do what we should”). Conversely, the rebellious pole conceptualizes obedience as inherently oppressive and morally bankrupt, asserting that individual conscience must supersede external legalities and institutional dictates (e.g., Item 5: “To be a decent human being, follow your conscience regardless of the law”; Item 6: “No principle is more immoral than that of obedience”).

Social Hierarchy and Categorization versus Sociological Structuralism

The authoritarian orientation embraces rigid social stratification, essentialist categorizations of human beings, and social Darwinist assumptions regarding strength and weakness (Item 4: “People can be divided into two distinct classes, the weak and the strong”). In direct contrast, the rebellious orientation rejects innate personal hierarchies, attributing societal disparities instead to systemic socioeconomic injustice and institutional inequality (Item 26: “The strong and the weak are not inherently different. They are merely the advantaged and the disadvantaged members of an unfair society”).

Retributive Moral Punitiveness versus Systemic Rehabilitation

In concordance with Adorno et al.’s construct of authoritarian aggression, the authoritarian pole advocates harsh, retributive, and physical sanctions against societal norm violators, particularly those engaging in taboo sexual offenses (Item 21: “Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than mere punishment: Such criminals ought to be publicly whipped or worse”). Conversely, the rebellious pole perceives egregious criminal acts as symptomatic manifestations of a fundamentally disordered and pathological social matrix, arguing for overarching societal restructuring rather than vindictive personal punishment (Item 13: “Sex crimes like rape and child molesting reflect a sick society and we must change society rather than punish individual offenders”).

Supernatural Determinism versus Rationalist Skepticism

Authoritarian cognition historically exhibits marked fatalism, superstitious external locus of control, and reliance on mystical or cosmic orchestration. On the A-R Scale, this manifests as unquestioning deference to divine or cosmic mandates and openness to esoteric explanations such as astrology (Item 3, Item 17). The counter-pole manifests as resolute rationalism, condemning supernatural beliefs as pernicious self-delusions that foster docile submission to clerical and worldly elites (Item 8, Item 30).

Intergroup Contamination versus Intergroup Integration

The authoritarian mindset exhibits strong xenophobic anxieties regarding outgroup contact, framing demographic mixing as a physiological or cultural vector of disease and moral contagion (Item 10: “Nowadays, when so many different kinds of people move around and mix together so much, a person has to protect himself against catching an infection or disease from them”). The rebellious orientation explicitly advocates for cosmopolitan integration, pluralism, and cross-cultural contact as an enriching collective imperative (Item 18: “Peoples of different nationalities, social classes and races should mix together more. Everybody would benefit from it”).

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the Authoritarianism-Rebellion Scale is situated at the intersection of psychodynamic characterology, social learning theory, and modern ideological psychometrics. Its theoretical foundation rests upon four seminal frameworks:

The Frankfurt School and Adorno et al.’s Authoritarian Personality

The primary theoretical foundation derives from the classical work of Theodor W. Adorno and colleagues at the Berkeley Public Opinion Study (1950). Working within a synthesis of psychoanalysis and critical theory, Adorno et al. posited that strict, emotionally cold, and punitively moralistic parenting produces repressed hostility in the developing child. Unable to express anger directly toward punitive parents without incurring devastating retribution, the individual relies on ego defense mechanisms—specifically displacement, projection, and reaction formation. Hostility is displaced onto marginalized outgroups (ethnocentrism, xenophobia), while the vulnerable self identifies completely with powerful authority figures through total submission.

The Methodological Critique of Response Bias

Kohn’s theoretical departure from Adorno et al. was driven by the methodological critiques championed by Lee Cronbach, Richard Christie, Arthur Couch, and Kenneth Keniston. These psychometricians demonstrated that unidirectional scaling conflates cognitive style with substantive ideology. Individuals exhibiting high acquiescent response style (“yea-sayers”) scored artificially high on the F-Scale regardless of content. Kohn realized that for authoritarianism to be validated as a legitimate personality and ideological construct, it had to be decoupled from acquiescence. He posited that true authoritarianism represents a coherent, polarized ideological outlook that must be capable of resisting acquiescence when confronted with equally potent, grammatically affirmative counter-attitudes.

The Concept of Left-Wing Authoritarianism and Radical Rebellion

During the late 1960s and early 1970s, sociologists and psychologists increasingly questioned whether authoritarian dynamics were solely the province of the political right. Researchers such as Milton Rokeach, in his seminal treatise The Open and Closed Mind (1960), postulated that dogmatism and cognitive rigidity can manifest across any ideological domain, including revolutionary communist and radical student movements. Kohn incorporated this perspective by recognizing that ideological rebellion could function as the structural converse to right-wing authoritarianism. Rather than conceptualizing rebellion merely as the absence of authoritarianism, Kohn framed it as an active, substantive sociopolitical stance characterized by iconoclasm, anti-conventionalism, moral permissiveness, and structural critique of established institutions.

Altemeyer’s Social Learning Reconceptualization

Kohn’s work directly foreshadowed the subsequent psychometric revolution executed by Bob Altemeyer (1981, 1988) in his development of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) Scale. Altemeyer abandoned psychodynamic drive theory in favor of Bandura’s social learning theory, defining authoritarianism through three covariable attitudinal clusters: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. Like Kohn, Altemeyer recognized that balanced scale construction (using equal numbers of protrait and contrait items) was psychometrically non-negotiable. Kohn’s A-R Scale represents the crucial historical and empirical bridge connecting the psychodynamically grounded California F-Scale with modern social-cognitive operationalizations of authoritarianism.

7. Validity

Empirical evaluations of the Authoritarianism-Rebellion Scale provide substantial evidence for its construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity across varied experimental and observational paradigms.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In his seminal validation study, Kohn (1972) demonstrated that the A-R Scale correlates strongly with the original California F-Scale ($r = .65$ to $.78$ across samples), confirming that the instrument successfully captures the variance associated with the core authoritarian construct. However, when examining correlations with separate measures of acquiescent response set, the A-R Scale demonstrated near-zero correlations ($r = -.04$ to $.06$), whereas the uncorrected F-Scale exhibited statistically significant positive correlations with acquiescence ($r = .28$ to $.42$). This provided unequivocal construct validation that the A-R Scale measures ideological content rather than response style.

Convergent validity has been extensively demonstrated through correlations with related sociopolitical and cognitive constructs:

• Dogmatism: Demonstrates moderate-to-strong positive correlations with Rokeach’s Dogmatism Scale ($r = .48$ to $.59$), indicating that individuals high on authoritarianism exhibit closed-minded cognitive processing.
• Political Conservatism and Voting Behavior: Shows systematic positive associations with self-reported political conservatism, support for right-wing political candidates, and endorsement of militarism ($r = .40$ to $.55$).
• Punitiveness toward Deviance: Correlates positively with support for capital punishment, mandatory minimum sentencing, and harsh disciplinary practices in educational settings ($r = .45$ to $.62$).
• Ethnocentrism and Social Dominance: Exhibits robust positive correlations with racial prejudice, anti-immigrant sentiment, and social dominance orientation ($r = .38$ to $.52$).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is evidenced by the scale’s lack of substantial association with measures of general intelligence ($g$) and verbal aptitude ($r = -.08$ to $-.14$, non-significant), demonstrating that the instrument does not merely reflect cognitive ability or educational attainment. Furthermore, the A-R Scale diverges predictably from measures of general neuroticism and somatic anxiety ($r = .02$ to $.11$), establishing that authoritarianism-rebellion is an ideological and social-attitudinal construct rather than a manifestation of clinical distress or emotional instability.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

In experimental and applied settings, A-R Scale scores successfully predict real-world behavioral outcomes:

• Conformity Experiments: High scorers conform significantly more frequently to confederate consensus in modified Asch conformity paradigms compared to low scorers (rebels).
• Juror Decision-Making: Simulated jury studies reveal that high A-R scorers assign harsher prison sentences to defendants accused of defying institutional norms (e.g., draft evasion, civil disobedience, anti-police violence), but demonstrate leniency toward authority figures (e.g., police officers accused of excessive force). Low scorers (rebels) demonstrate the exact inverse pattern, assigning significantly harsher penalties to state actors.

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Authoritarianism-Rebellion Scale has been evaluated through multiple classical test theory parameters, demonstrating satisfactory internal consistency and temporal stability.

Internal Consistency

In the original validation investigations conducted by Kohn (1972) involving Canadian university undergraduates ($N = 214$) and community adults ($N = 186$), the full 30-item instrument yielded split-half reliability coefficients (corrected via the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula) ranging from $.78$ to $.84$. Subsequent administrations evaluating Cronbach’s coefficient alpha across varied demographic groups have yielded values consistently clustered between $\alpha = .75$ and $\alpha = .85$.

When evaluated as individual 15-item subcomponents:

• Pro-Authoritarian Subscale (15 items): Cronbach’s alpha coefficients range between $.72$ and $.80$.
• Rebellious/Reversal Subscale (15 items): Cronbach’s alpha coefficients range between $.71$ and $.79$.

The robust correlation between these two halves after reverse scoring ($r = .52$ to $.64$) confirms that they measure opposite ends of a shared underlying psychological continuum rather than two completely orthogonal dimensions.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability evaluations conducted across a four-week retest interval among undergraduate cohorts yielded a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient of $r = .82$ ($p < .001$), demonstrating high test-retest reliability. Across an extended six-month interval, stability coefficients remained substantial at $r = .71$, indicating that while situational factors and profound socioeconomic crises can induce minor shifts, the core disposition assessed by the A-R Scale reflects a relatively enduring personality-attitudinal orientation.

9. Factor Analysis

Structural evaluations of the A-R Scale utilizing both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) reveal a complex, multifaceted latent architecture organized under a dominant primary bipolar factor.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Principal component analyses and principal axis factoring with varimax and oblimin rotations conducted by Kohn (1972) and subsequent independent researchers routinely reveal a strong first unrotated factor accounting for 22% to 28% of the total item variance. This prominent general factor represents the primary bipolar continuum of General Authoritarianism versus Societal Rebellion, upon which the majority of items load significantly ($> |.35|$).

Upon multidimensional extraction using the Kaiser-Guttman criterion (eigenvalues $> 1.0$) and scree plot inspection, four to five secondary, intercorrelated latent dimensions consistently emerge:

• Factor 1: Institutional Obedience and Filial Piety (Items 1, 6, 11, 14, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29). Captures the moralization of obedience to parental, legal, and institutional dictates. Factor loadings range from $.42$ to $.71$.
• Factor 2: Societal Restructuring and Radical Revolutionary Intent (Items 2, 5, 9, 12, 20, 23). Refers to the perceived necessity of revolution, rejection of national moral superiority, and advocacy for systemic change. Factor loadings range from $.38$ to $.68$.
• Factor 3: Punitiveness and Essentialist Hierarchies (Items 4, 13, 21, 26). Contrasts retributive, physical punishment of moral deviants and biological fatalism against sociological structuralism. Factor loadings range from $.40$ to $.65$.
• Factor 4: Determinism and Supernatural Submission (Items 3, 8, 17, 30). Captures religious submission and astrological fatalism versus rationalist skepticism. Factor loadings range from $.45$ to $.74$.
• Factor 5: Intergroup Contamination versus Integration (Items 7, 10, 18, 19). Contrasts xenophobic fear of disease/intimacy against cosmopolitan social integration. Factor loadings range from $.36$ to $.61$.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations comparing alternative structural models demonstrate that a hierarchical model—featuring a higher-order overarching Authoritarianism-Rebellion factor governing the specific lower-order dimensions—demonstrates superior fit compared to single-factor or entirely orthogonal models. Typical fit indices from modern CFA studies yield acceptable parameters:

• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = $.052$ to $.061$ ($90%\text{ CI } [.045, .068]$)
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = $.91$ to $.94$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = $.90$ to $.93$
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = $.056$

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Name: Authoritarianism-Rebellion Scale (A-R Scale)
• Author: Paul M. Kohn, Ph.D.
• Publication Year: 1972
• Instrument Type: Self-report balanced psychometric attitude scale
• Target Population: Adults, university students, and sociopolitical research cohorts
• Administration Format: Individual or group paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized survey
• Completion Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes
• Total Item Count: 30 items
  • 15 Authoritarian protrait items (keyed positively)
  • 15 Rebellious contrait/reversal items (marked with an asterisk, keyed negatively)
• Response Scale: 6-point forced-choice Likert rating scale (no neutral/undecided midpoint):
  • 1 = Disagree Strongly
  • 2 = Disagree Somewhat
  • 3 = Disagree Slightly
  • 4 = Agree Slightly
  • 5 = Agree Somewhat
  • 6 = Agree Strongly
• Scoring Protocol:
  • Authoritarian Items (15 items): Items 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29 are scored directly as marked (1 = 1, 2 = 2, 3 = 3, 4 = 4, 5 = 5, 6 = 6).
  • Reverse-Scored Rebellious Items (15 items): Items 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 30 must be reversed using the formula: $$\text{Scored Value} = 7 – \text{Raw Response}$$ (i.e., $1 \rightarrow 6$, $2 \rightarrow 5$, $3 \rightarrow 4$, $4 \rightarrow 3$, $5 \rightarrow 2$, $6 \rightarrow 1$).
  • Total Score Calculation: Sum all 30 recoded items. Total scores range from 30 to 180.
  • Interpretation: Higher scores (106–180) indicate high authoritarianism, conventionalism, and submission to established institutional power. Intermediate scores (76–105) represent moderate, mixed ideological orientations. Lower scores (30–75) indicate anti-authoritarian rebellion, systemic nonconformity, and radical rejection of authority.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Authoritarianism-Rebellion Scale was published in 1972 by Paul M. Kohn in the academic journal Sociometry (now published as Social Psychology Quarterly by the American Sociological Association). In accordance with standard academic conventions, the instrument was placed in the public domain for non-commercial educational and empirical research purposes. Researchers may utilize, administer, and adapt the items without licensing fees or formal written permission, provided appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to Dr. Kohn’s original 1972 publication. Commercial applications, standardized testing incorporation, or distribution for profit require formal copyright clearance from the publisher and the author’s estate/institutional representatives at York University.

12. References

• Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper & Row.
• Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press.
• Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. Jossey-Bass.
• Christie, R., Havel, J., & Seidenberg, B. (1958). Is the F scale irreversible? The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56(2), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040430
• Couch, A., & Keniston, K. (1960). Yeasayers and naysayers: Agreeing response set as a personality variable. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(2), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040372
• Kohn, P. M. (1972). The Authoritarianism-Rebellion scale: A balanced F scale with left-wing reversals. Sociometry, 35(1), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786555
• Kohn, P. M. (1974). Is the Authoritarianism-Rebellion scale unidimensional? Journal of Personality Assessment, 38(4), 350–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1974.10119989
• Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of belief systems and personality systems. Basic Books.

13. Items of the Scale