JSPPJ Soc Polit Psych Journal of Social and Political PsychologyJ. Soc. Polit. Psych. 2195-3325 PsychOpen jspp.15791 10.5964/jspp.15791 Original Research Reports Materials Exploring Different Types of the Authoritarian Syndrome: A Latent Profile Analysis of the German Population Exploring Different Types of the Authoritarian Syndrome Exploring different types of the authoritarian syndrome: A latent profile analysis of the German population DillingMarius*1 CenaLorenzo2 KalksteinFiona1 BrählerElmar13 DeckerOliver45 Van Assche Jasper Else-Frenkel-Brunswik-Institute, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany Department of Psychology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany Department of Psychology, Sigmund-Freud-University, Berlin, Germany Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium Else-Frenkel-Brunswik-Institute, University of Leipzig, Dittrichring 18-20, 04109 Leipzig, Germany. Marius.dilling@uni-leipzig.de 19122025 2025 13 2 330 352 08 10 2024 09 09 2025 2025Dilling, Cena, Kalkstein et al.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

By using Latent Profile Analysis (LPA), we identified eight profiles, each representing different combinations or "alloys" of the authoritarian syndrome and associated sociopolitical attitudes. Our findings reveal that authoritarian dispositions do not uniformly correlate with overt prejudice or resentment; instead, they manifest in complex, socially influenced forms. While some profiles exhibit strong authoritarian aggression and conspiracy beliefs tied to manifest right-wing extremism, others demonstrate more contained or even absent devaluation tendencies. The study also uncovers gender-specific variations in authoritarian processing, with certain profiles being predominantly male or female. These insights emphasize the role of societal conditions in shaping authoritarian dynamics and underscore the persistent threat posed by particular authoritarian profiles.

 Background

Currently, authoritarianism is commonly understood through three core dimensions: aggression, conventionalism, and submission. However, this reductionist approach has been increasingly questioned since the rise of anti-vaccine movements and conspiracy theories during the COVID-19 pandemic–especially in the German debate on authoritarianism. These developments have highlighted the need for a broader understanding of authoritarianism, one that includes additional factors such as superstition and conspiracy beliefs which were considered part of authoritarian attitudes in classic authoritarian research. Our paper explores how these dispositions come together to form different "types" of authoritarianism within the German adult population.

 Why was this study done?

We aimed to address the lack of understanding about the diversity of authoritarian dispositions and how they manifest in various sociopolitical attitudes. Traditional statistical approaches often assume homogeneity in authoritarian dispositions, but this study sought to uncover distinct combinations of authoritarian dispositions that commonly used statistical procedures might overlook. The research also aimed to highlight the varying degrees of threat these profiles may pose to democracy.

 What did the researchers do and find?

Using a large probability-based sample of the German adult population, the researchers applied so-called Latent Profile Analysis to identify eight distinct profiles of authoritarianism. These profiles demonstrated different combinations of authoritarian attitudes. Some profiles, like "The Authoritarians" and "Extreme Right", showed strong authoritarian aggression, conspiracy beliefs, and overt prejudice tied to right-wing extremist attitudes. Others, such as "Traditional Cyclists" and "Superstitious Cyclists", exhibited more moderate authoritarian dispositions, with less explicit resentment or prejudice, indicating the need for a more nuanced understanding of how authoritarianism can manifest itself. The study also identified gender differences: some profiles, such as "The Extreme Right", were predominantly male, while others, like "The Superstitious", had a higher proportion of women.

 What do these findings mean?

The findings highlight the complexity of authoritarianism as a socially shaped phenomenon rather than a fixed personality trait. The variability of profiles indicates that authoritarian tendencies do not always lead to the same outcomes, depending on the profile’s social and political context. The gender differences observed further underscore how societal norms are intertwined with different degrees and expressions of authoritarianism. The research suggests that while some authoritarian profiles contribute to dangerous political tendencies, others may be less harmful but still vulnerable to shifting societal and economic conditions. Understanding these profiles can help inform targeted interventions to counter the spread of authoritarian dispositions, particularly those that pose the greatest risk to democratic values. Finally, the study’s findings call for cross-cultural comparisons to explore how authoritarian dynamics vary across different societal contexts.

 authoritarianismconspiracy mentalitysuperstitiontypologylatent profile analysis

In the wake of the increasing tendency to see "dark machinations" and conspiracies in the world during the COVID-19 pandemic, the rise of post-truth politics, Trumpism, and the denial of man-made climate change, an academic debate has (re)sparked especially in German-speaking authoritarianism research (e.g., Amlinger & Nachtwey, 2022; Decker et al., 2020; Dilling et al., under review; Henkelmann et al., 2020; Jäger, 2022; King, 2021), which questions whether Altemeyer's (1981) conception of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) still adequately captures the underlying authoritarian disposition and all its facets.

Phenomena such as conspiracy beliefs and superstitions or spirituality have long been discussed in the context of authoritarianism. As early as The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al., 1950), the so-called Berkeley group used the F(ascism)-scale to measure authoritarian tendencies in order to identify the "potentially fascist individual" (Adorno et al., 1950, p. 1). Conspiracy beliefs were already assessed as projectivity – a disposition to recognize evil machinations and conspiratorial forces in the world – besides superstition and stereotypy.

Based on a confirmatory factor analysis, Decker et al. (2020; Dilling et al., under review) proposed conspiracy beliefs and superstition to be (re-)integrated into a contemporary authoritarian syndrome besides the well-known dynamic of aggression, submission, and conventionalism. Smallpage et al. (2023) recently followed a similar rationale and proposed an integrative construct termed “romanticism”1

The joint occurrence of phenomena like these is also discussed under the term “conspirituality”: a portmanteau of conspiracy and spirituality (Ward & Voas, 2011).

– conceptualized as a higher-order latent factor that unifies various epistemically deviant or skeptical attitudes regarding conspiracy beliefs, pseudoscience, and esotericism – which empirically shows strong associations with Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and RWA. Although the authors do not frame romanticism as an authoritarian disposition, they explicitly refer to the theoretical work of Adorno et al. (1950) on particular narcissistic types of authoritarianism (see also Yendell & Herbert, 2022; Decker et al., 2020) as one possible theoretical lens through which to understand the psychological structure of the romantic belief system. This renewed interest has been further fueled by recent empirical findings from Frenken and Imhoff (2025), who demonstrated that conspiracy beliefs, authoritarianism, and spirituality often converge in Germany as they tend to appeal to similar individuals. In particular, they found the combination of authoritarianism and spirituality to be particularly relevant in explaining tendencies towards violent protest.

Building directly on the conceptualization of the authoritarian syndrome by Decker et al. (2020), which (re-)integrates conspiracy beliefs and superstition alongside authoritarian aggression, submission, and conventionalism, we ask: Given that authoritarianism and its dimensions emerge from societal and socializing dynamics that shift over time, which “types” – understood as groups exhibiting different patterns of high and low values across these five dimensions – can be identified along this revised syndrome?

The Berkeley group already distinguished between high and low scorers on the Anti-Semitism-scale (AS) and the Ethnocentrism-scale (E). The latter, according to the authors, were not (all) susceptible to fascist propaganda and antisemitic resentment (see also Iser, 2006, pp. 105-106). For the authors, the cause of whether someone scored high or low on these scales lay in their (authoritarian) personality structure – which they understood as a result of authoritarian dynamics in society, such as authoritarian socialization processes across the lifespan with a particular focus on early childhood.

Although variable-centered methods confirm that the elements of the authoritarian syndrome tend to occur together (or are absent together in low scorers) (Decker et al., 2020; Dilling et al., under review), this does not preclude the existence of different mixed proportions of these syndrome elements within German society, which mere correlational approaches might conceal. Person-centered approaches allow for the identification of distinct subgroups within the population, each exhibiting different combinations of these characteristics. Indeed, there can be various patterns of authoritarian attitudes within the population that are not captured by average findings from variable-centered analyses. In other words, it is conceivable that a conspiracy mentality – mixed with a higher degree of authoritarian aggression, submission, and conventionalism – can lead to extreme outcomes, e.g. as a neo-Nazi attitude pattern that also includes antisemitic conspiracy narratives, such as Holocaust denial. At the same time, it is also possible that the low scoring “types” exhibit different mixed ratios of these syndrome elements (e.g., in terms of heightened superstition).

In this paper, we therefore use such a person-centered approach to connect to the debate and shed light on the possible existence of different subpopulations regarding the authoritarian syndrome and the relationships of those subpopulations with different variables of interest. To this end, we will first outline the theory of the authoritarian syndrome and conduct a literature review of previous, comparable attempts at typologization. In the Method section, we will then aim to identify distinct profiles through a latent profile analysis (LPA) on a representative, probability-based sample of the adult German population (N = 2,466) and describe the profiles in terms of their social structure, the extent of group-related resentment and right-wing extremist attitudes, attitudes towards democracy and personal experiences of deprivation, among other things. In the final section, we will critically discuss our profiles and their contribution to research on authoritarianism. We will also discuss possible shortcomings, methodological and theoretical limitations and identify opportunities for follow-up studies.

Authoritarian Syndrome Origin and its Critique

The seminal works of Erich Fromm in the social psychological section of “Studies on Authority and Family” (Fromm, 1936/1987) represent the precursors to the theory of the “Authoritarian Personality”. Fromm outlined an authoritarian social personality based on a voluntary submission to authority on the one hand, and aggression towards the supposedly weaker on the other – which had its origins in the pressure of society, the patriarchal family, and the authoritarian parenting style prevalent during the 1920s Weimar period (Govender et al., 2024). The authoritarian father who transmitted the pressure of society through its norms and taboos, led to a fundamental ambivalence towards authority in the child's later experience. One had to set aside one's own wishes and identify with the goals and norms of the authority, while at the same time the aggression arising from this enforced submission could no longer be directed towards the authority (Fromm, 1936/1987). According to Fromm (1936/1987), the supposedly weak and deviant become the (substitute) object of projection of resentment and hatred, hatred that is actually directed at the oppressor. The idea of a sadomasochist2

Oesterreich points out that the term "sadomasochism" evokes a clinical association for everyday, non-pathological processes – a problem that Fromm himself later addressed by replacing the term "sadomasochism" with authoritarianism (cf. Oesterreich, 1996, p. 37). However, we follow Decker et al. (2020) here and retain the term, as it still appropriately describes the individual side of this authoritarian dynamic: “Masochism” describes the renouncing, voluntarily submitting aspect, while “sadism” describes the authoritarian aggression.

authoritarian personality was born.

Theodor W. Adorno and colleagues would reconnect here in 1940s (Rippl et al., 2000, pp. 13-15). The group focused on researching the social and psychological mechanisms that had made National Socialism and the Holocaust possible. Based on qualitative interviews, they developed the F-scale, which was intended to measure authoritarianism (Adorno et al., 1950, p. 40). The F-scale consisted of nine dimensions: conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intraception (a rejection of imagination, sensitivity, and subjectivity), superstition and stereotypy, power and “toughness” (a tendency to identify oneself with authorities), destructiveness and cynicism (contempt for humanity), projectivity, and sex (a heightened interest in and concerns with sexuality) (Adorno et al., 1950, p. 228).

Even though the approach and the psychodynamic assumptions behind the F-scale attracted a great deal of methodological criticism3

The main criticisms (for an overview see Altemeyer, 1981; Iser, 2006) involve the suboptimal implementation of the mixed-methods design, the attempt to measure personality traits through attitudes, and the generalization of results from non-representative data. There are issues with tautology due to similarities between outcomes and independent variables. Since all items were unilaterally positively polarized, the possible presence of a response set (acquiescence bias) was also criticized. Furthermore, the qualitative interviews were subject to a confirmation bias, as parts of the interviews that contradicted the theory would not have been included (Martin, 2001, as cited in Iser, 2006). In particular, the lack of a factor-analytical review of the assumed latent dimensionality of the F-scale, the partial assignment of individual items to several dimensions, and the resulting conceptual vagueness of the entire measurement instrument are criticized. While the methodological criticism is justified from today’s perspective, it must be mentioned that the authors did not want to measure a multidimensional construct, but an ambivalent personality structure, so that, from a theoretical perspective, it did not seem appropriate for them to establish item discriminability (see Müller, 2019, p. 54).

, authoritarianism has subsequently been the subject of numerous reconceptualizations. Further developments removed the psychodynamic basis and retained only three dimensions of the original scale: conventionalism, authoritarian submission, and authoritarian aggression. Influential examples include right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1981), the theory of authoritarian reaction (Oesterreich, 1996), and the understanding of authoritarianism in the context of social conformity (Feldman, 2003) or as an ideological attitude besides SDO in the context of the Dual-Process Motivational Model (Duckitt, 2001).

It is worth noting that one of the earliest and most persistent criticisms of Adorno et al.’s (1950) work on authoritarianism and the F-scale (as well as subsequent research on authoritarianism) was that it neglected authoritarian dispositions among left-wing individuals (Shils, 1954). While the Berkeley group’s focus was indeed on the historical task of understanding how fascism was possible, this critique is also based on a misunderstanding4

This misunderstanding is also inherent in the term right-wing authoritarianism chosen by Altemeyer and his reception. Notably, Altemeyer (2006, p. 9) himself states, that that a person who strongly supports a communist regime could still be classified as a psychological right-wing authoritarian, even though they hold politically leftist views. Thus, even RWA refers to a personality type, not necessarily to a political orientation.

: the Berkeley group assumed an authoritarianism sui generis, which is independent of the conscious political self-positioning of individuals and groups. They did not assume that the psychodynamics they described were limited to a particular political milieu, hence not ruling out the existence of left-wing authoritarian individuals. They were interested in a general disposition to antidemocratic ideas, which can potentially become fascist. However, it is important to acknowledge that some researchers recently renewed their argument on a distinct measurable left-wing authoritarianism (LWA; Conway et al., 2023; Costello et al., 2022) that shares core psychological variables with RWA–while differing in ideological content, values, and targets of aggression (Nilsson, 2024; Zmigrod, 2022). However, as Nilsson (2024) argues, both methodological and theoretical critiques have emerged, contending that current LWA scales do not capture an authoritarian disposition, but rather conflate it with liberal political views or explicit support for antidemocratic ideologies.

Following Decker et al. (2020), we understand the authoritarian syndrome as a general psychological disposition that is not exclusively limited to right-wing milieus. In contrast to a narrower framework, which restricts authoritarian dynamics solely to the political right, our perspective aligns more closely with the original psychodynamic conception proposed by Fromm (1936/1987) and Adorno et al. (1950).

Theoretical criticism also focused on the question of whether the conceptualization of Adorno and colleagues from 1950 is still up to date, as society and its rigid patriarchal and hierarchical structure–especially within the family context–has changed. Oesterreich (1974) already dealt with similar questions: he argued that due to fundamental social changes, the "rigid conventionalists" have replaced the "classical authoritarians". In addition, Hopf et al. (1995) also observed that some of the adolescents interviewed show either only authoritarian aggression or only authoritarian submissiveness, from which they conclude that the authoritarian syndrome of these adolescents is characterized by a different dynamic than that of the sadomasochistic dynamic described by Fromm (1936/1987). Seipel and Rippl (1999) have investigated precisely these hypotheses. Their data on West German pupils aged 14-19 confirm that the latent core syndrome of submission, aggression and conventionalism has remained unchanged in the time span between 1979 and 1991. More recent studies on probability-based samples have come to similar conclusions (Heller et al., 2022). Decker (2010, p. 37) notes that it is not authoritarian aggression itself that is outdated, but the assumption that this aggression stems solely from parental violence. While Fromm built his theory on Freud’s ideas, he recognized that paternal authority is socially conditioned and reflects authoritarian dynamics specific to a historical context. Modern approaches that follow the psychodynamic framework of Adorno et al. (1950) reject a deterministic link between family experiences and political orientations and take into account other socialization instances such as peers in schools, sports or mass media (see Marcuse 1965/1970, pp. 88–95), but also abstract authorities such as a “strong economy”5

This authoritarian dynamic is characterised primarily by the satisfaction of authoritarian needs through identification with secondary or abstract authorities such as a "strong economy" (Decker, 2019). When the stabilizing function of a "strong economy" loses its prosthetic function in times of (economic) crisis, personal (or primary) authorities become relevant again–e.g. in the form of support for authoritarian politicians or parties (ibid.).

as equally significant for shaping authoritarian dispositions (Decker, 2019).

 Recent Reformulations

The spread of conspiracy beliefs and their proximity to right-wing extremist attitudes and voting decisions (Decker et al., 2022a, 2022b) in Germany, a connection that was particularly salient in the context of the "lateral thinking protests" (“Querdenkenproteste”) against the Corona measures (Liekefett et al., 2023), has triggered numerous debates in Germany, including a debate in the German-speaking research on authoritarianism about the conception of what authoritarianism is and what facets constitute it (see Amlinger & Nachtwey, 2022; Decker et al., 2020; Dilling et al., under review; Henkelmann et al., 2020; Jäger, 2022; King, 2021). The central question is whether Altemeyer's RWA still adequately captures the underlying authoritarian disposition with all its facets. For instance, Schmidt (2022) argued that authoritarianism research developed in a degenerative way by focusing narrowly on psychometric refinement – particularly through Altemeyer’s reduction of the original F-scale–at the expense of theoretical depth and explanatory scope (see also Lederer & Schmidt, 1995). According to Schmidt, the omission of the six original subscales – such as superstition and stereotypy, or projectivity – has limited the capacity of contemporary authoritarianism research as they could have captured additional facets of authoritarianism or might have exerted distinct effects on key outcome variables.

In the debate over whether conspiracy beliefs should be (re)included in the conceptualization of authoritarianism, Decker et al. (2020) proposed that the classic “sadomasochistic” factor, which includes authoritarian aggression, submission, and conventionalism, is currently accompanied by another second-order factor that they call projectivity. Referring to the original work of the Frankfurt-Berkeley group and using confirmatory factor analysis, the authors suggest that both the general belief in conspiracy theories or in an ever-present existence of sinister and evil plots–a conspiracy mentality (Graumann & Moscovici, 1987)–as well as superstition, namely a belief in supernatural, magical, but above all supra-individual powers, should be reintegrated into a contemporary understanding of authoritarianism. These two factors combined then form an authoritarian syndrome (see Figure 1).

Authoritarian Syndrome and Lower-Level Constructs as Proposed by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r20">Decker et al. (2020)</xref>

Psychodynamically, the “projectivity” dimension of the authoritarian syndrome is thought to be primarily based on a denial of reality and the defense mechanism of splitting objects into "good" and "bad" parts and the subsequent identification with the "good" parts of oneself or one's own group, and the externalization of the "bad" parts onto “others”. In conspiracy beliefs, this projection leads to aggression towards supposed conspirators while fostering a heroic self-image as the “awakened”. Superstition, on the other hand, involves submission and projection of responsibility onto external forces, reflecting a surrender to fate or higher powers to escape feelings of powerlessness (Decker et al., 2020; see also Adorno et al., 1950, p. 236).

 Classic and Contemporary Authoritarian “Types”

Adorno et al. (1950) not only established a connection between personality development and fascist beliefs, but they also identified different authoritarian and democratic “types and syndromes”. The central distinction was made between high and low scorers on the AS- and E-Scales, with the former being categorized as prejudiced (authoritarians) and the latter as unprejudiced (democratics) – but they also found more ambivalent types somewhere in between. More interestingly for our reasoning, two high scoring types seem to be connected with conspiracy beliefs. The “Rebel and Psychopath”6

Even though Adorno et al. (1950) did not explicitly link the “Rebel and Psychopath” type to conspiracy beliefs, the underlying dynamics of rejecting established authority and the simultaneous attraction to other, often authoritarian, figures or ideas suggest a disposition that could align with conspiracy mentality. This disposition is characterized by a deep mistrust of conventional power structures and a preference for alternative narratives, which can easily translate into modern-day conspiratorial thinking.

syndrome shows an intense hatred of authority, adopting a pseudo-revolutionary, pseudo-anti-authoritarian stance, yet harboring a readiness to submit to another strong figure and join hands with the “hated” authority to give rein to its destructive impulses. It is guided less by prejudice and more by a sadistic motivation to aggression against “the weak”. The second type is called “Crank” – the name was probably chosen because this type is highly projective or “paranoid” and often approaching delusion. Antisemitic belief in an all-powerful Jewish conspiracy accompanies a simultaneous "magic belief in science" – something that is not coincidentally reminiscent of modern conspiracy theorists and their hyper-rational relationship to science. Prejudice is crucial here because it builds a pseudo-reality in which aggressions can be directed in a pseudo-rationalized way.

On the basis of qualitative interviews, Amlinger and Nachtwey (2022; see also Nachtwey & Heumann, 2019) identified a new social type called "libertarian authoritarian", a modern incarnation of the "rebel" and the "crank”. They distinguish between two subtypes: "authoritarian innovators" and "regressive rebels". The former are well-integrated into society, therefore express prejudice only in forms of "pseudorational discussions" (Adorno et al., 1950, p. 607) in order to give their aversive feelings a legitimate basis (Amlinger & Nachtwey, 2022, p. 319). They maintain trust in democratic institutions but do challenge the political order subversively through authoritarian demands. The latter are characterized by anomie and fear of social decline – often because of a non-fulfilment of neoliberal promises of individual self-realization (cf. pp. 13-14) – leading to frustration directed against globalization and multiculturalism. They tend to process their negative emotions and biographical problems through conspiracy beliefs (cf. pp. 327-335). Unlike the innovators, they do not seek to reform the social order but rebel against it, disregarding social norms such as those against antisemitism (cf. p. 333). However, according to the authors these “regressive rebels” lack one decisive characteristic of classic authoritarianism, that of submission (p. 330). Adorno et al. (1950) already described the difficulties to distinguish the “rebels” from real non-authoritarians. Nonetheless, the pseudo-revolutionary “rebels” (p. 763) free themselves from authorities of established political institutions and actors they deem as weak in order to submit to other, seemingly stronger authorities. One could argue that this depends on a shift in perspective: conspiracy believers not only embrace the counter-narratives and “theories”, but also submit to the “alternative” authorities behind them rather than to traditional ones; whereas people with superstitious attitudes submit to the authority of nature, the stars, fate or other supernatural powers (Decker et al., 2020).

Two studies are of particular interest due to their comparable methodology and selection of variables.7

Using the same dataset of the present study, Dilling et al. (2022) also conducted a cluster analysis focusing exclusively on individuals with high scores of the conspiracy mentality scale. As a result, some of our types that score high in conspiracy mentality are comparable to the ones they found.

Decker et al. (2022a) carried out a K-Means cluster analysis of a sample of the German adult population taking into account conspiracy mentality in addition to the classic authoritarian attitudes. Nine clusters were found: two democratic, four authoritarian, and three ambivalent or in-between ones. In addition, they discovered that one third of the sample showed a pronounced conspiracy mentality. However, since their dataset is from 2018, that is to say before the "radicalization" (Rahlf, 2025) of the conspiracist COVID-19 protests in Germany, and that it encompasses a distinct set of variables, namely experiences of control, openness, and autonomy, there are sufficient reasons to analyze latent profiles based on the updated model of the authoritarian syndrome.

For the second study, the types observed by Frenken and Imhoff (2025) are also of particular interest: they conducted a latent profile analysis on four German quota-based online samples using three variables: authoritarianism, belief in specific conspiracy beliefs, and spirituality. While their focus was also on understanding endorsement of illegal and violent protests, they observed that their profiles varied systematically in overall endorsement (low, medium, high) across the three variables. Notably, a profile emerged in each sample, characterized by high conspiracy beliefs and authoritarianism, but low spirituality. They did not identify a profile of “non-authoritarian spiritualists” in any of the datasets (Frenken & Imhoff, 2025, p. 10).

 Method Sample

The analyses were performed on the “Leipzig Studies on Authoritarianism” (LAS) dataset, which is part of a series of biannual, cross-sectional probability-based surveys on authoritarian and extreme right-wing attitudes in Germany that started in 2002 (Decker et al., 2022b). In our study, we focused on the 2022 wave, collected between March and May (N = 2,466; 50.12% women; Mage = 49.25; SD = 17.65). Data were collected through face-to-face, paper-and-pencil interviews. Randomization was achieved in three steps: Germany was initially divided into 258 sample points, then interviewers selected households using the random route method and identified the target respondents using the Kish selection grid. The response rate was 41.2%. A more detailed overview of the socio-structural characteristics of the dataset is displayed in Table A in the Appendix (see Dilling et al., 2025S).

 Measures Indicators for the Latent Profile Analysis

The three subdimensions of authoritarian aggression, submission, and conventionalism were assessed using the 9 items of the Authoritarianism Short Scale (KSA-3; Beierlein et al., 2014). Examples of the items for each dimension are: “Rules in society should be enforced without pity” (authoritarian aggression; α = .87; ω = .87), “We need strong leaders so that we can live safely in society” (authoritarian submission; α = .88; ω = .89), and “Well-established behavior should not be questioned” (conventionalism; α = .87; ω = .87). Response options ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Conspiracy mentality was assessed using a 3-item short form of the Conspiracy Mentality Scale (Imhoff & Bruder, 2014). Example of item: “There are secret organizations that have great influence on political decisions” (α = .93; ω = .93). Response options ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

Superstition was assessed using 4 items taken from the German General Social Survey (ALLBUS). Example of item: “Some faith healers actually have supernatural healing powers” (α = .90; ω = .90). Response options ranged from 1 = certainly not true to 4 = certainly true.

All 16 indicators used in the LPA have been ranged to vary between values 1 and 7 to simplify the reading of the results (see Table B in the Appendix for full wording and descriptive statistics).

 Covariates

The exact wording of all covariates used is shown in Table C in the Appendix.

We employed a series of socio-demographic variables to describe the composition of our profiles: gender, age, reached/not reached higher education, East/West German, unemployment status and the equivalent household income. We also investigated intention to vote for a far-right populist party (Alternative für Deutschland; AfD) through the question: “If there were a federal election next Sunday who would you vote for?”.

Different forms of deprivation (Rippl & Baier, 2005) were assessed. Institutional/political deprivation was assessed using two items (“People like me have no influence on what the government does” and “I think it's pointless to get involved politically”) with a response range between 1 = not true at all and 4 = fully true (r = .68; p < .001). Beyond that we also assessed collective deprivation (evaluation of the German economic situation) as well as personal deprivation (individual economic situation): Those two items ranged from 1 = very good to 5 = very bad, so that higher values represent higher deprivation.

We asked for satisfaction with democracy with three individual items that referred respectively to the idea of democracy, democracy as it is laid down in the German constitution, and as it currently works in Germany. The response options ranged from 1 = very dissatisfied to 4 = very satisfied.

We assessed Right-wing Extremism using the Leipzig Scale on Right-Wing Extremist Attitudes (Fragebogen zur Rechtsextremen Einstellung [FR-LF]; e.g. Heller et al., 2020). It encompasses 18 items in six dimensions: Support for a right-wing dictatorship, national chauvinism, xenophobia, antisemitism, social Darwinism and trivialization of the crimes of National Socialism. Response options ranged on a five-point Likert scale from 1 = I fully disagree to 5 = I fully agree.

In addition to traditional antisemitism, which we surveyed as part of the FR-LF, we also surveyed guilt defence, that is to say secondary antisemitism (Kiess et al., 2020) via the three statements like: “Reparation claims against Germany often no longer benefit the victims at all, but rather a Holocaust industry of resourceful lawyers”. Response options also ranged on a five-point Likert scale from 1 = I fully disagree to 5 = I fully agree.

Hostility towards Muslims was investigated using two items from Heitmeyer (2012): Their wording was “The many Muslims here sometimes make me feel like a foreigner in my own country” and “Muslims should not be allowed to immigrate to Germany”. Response options were assessed using a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = I fully disagree to 4 = I fully agree.

We assessed willingness to use violence and acceptance of violence with two items from the Attitudes that favour violence Scale (Ulbrich-Herrmann, 1995): “In certain situations, I am quite prepared to use physical force to assert my interests” and “I would never use violence myself. But it's good that there are people who let their fists do the talking when things can't go any further”. Response options ranged on a four-point Likert scale from 1 = I fully disagree to 4 = I fully agree.

We also asked for participants’ self-placement on the Left-Right political spectrum (also taken from the ALLBUS). The scale ranged from 1 = left to 10 = right.

We measured participants’ trust in science with the item “To what extent do you trust the following institutions or groups of people? … Science”. Response options ranged on a four-point Likert scale from 1 = trust very much to 4 = do not trust at all.

Lastly, climate change denial was surveyed using the two items “Climate change has nothing to do with human behavior” and “The effects of climate change are exaggerated”. Response options ranged on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = I fully disagree to 5 = I fully agree.

 Data Analyses

The analyses performed to address our research questions consisted of two steps: initially we employed Latent Profile Analysis to identify latent subgroups within the population and subsequently, an analysis of the associations between class membership and various covariates. The first step was performed using Mplus version 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017), and the second step was performed using STATA (16.1).

Latent Profile Analysis

To identify the profiles that best describe the heterogeneity within our sample regarding the five factors of the authoritarian syndrome, we performed a LPA, including the items that measured authoritarian aggression, submission, conventionalism, conspiracy mentality, and superstition as observed indicators. We began by computing a one-class model and then incrementally increased the number of profiles, while examining the fit indices of profile models. Estimation of models with additional profiles would have been stopped if empirical under-identification or convergence issues were encountered. Following Sorgente and colleagues (2019; see also Sorgente et al., 2024; Sorgente et al., 2025), we selected the optimal fitting model(s) based on different relative fit indices, using both descriptive measures and statistical tests.

We used five different information criteria (IC) as descriptive measures: the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), the Consistent Akaike Information Criterion (CAIC), the Approximate Weight of Evidence (AWE), the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and the Sample-size Adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion (ssBIC). Smaller IC values indicate a better fit. The statistical tests used as inferential measures of relative fit indices were the Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test (VLMR-LRT; Vuong, 1989; Lo et al., 2001), the adjusted Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test (aLMR-LRT; Lo et al., 2001), and the parametric bootstrapped likelihood ratio test (BLRT; Peel & McLachlan, 2000). These three tests compare a (k-1)-class model with a k-class model. A statistically significant p-value suggests that the k-class model fits the data better than the model with one less class. Conversely, if the p-value is non-significant, the k-class model is as good as the (k-1)-class model, therefore the model with fewer profiles should be preferred for parsimony’s sake.

After selecting the best model(s), the quality of its classification (i.e., assignment of people to profiles) was evaluated (Masyn, 2013). The most commonly used diagnostic classification is entropy (Ek), which summarizes the overall precision of classification for the entire sample across all the latent profiles. When posterior classification is no better than random guessing it assumes the value of 0, and when there is perfect posterior classification for all individuals it assumes a value of 1. Clark and Muthén (2009) suggest a cutoff of > .80. Furthermore, the quality of the classification is evaluated by checking the class proportion (CPk), the modal class assignment proportion (mcaPk), average posterior probability (avePPk), and odds of correct classification (OCCk). Classification can be considered good when the mcaPk for each profile is included in the 95% confidence interval of the CPk, avePPk values are equal to or higher than .70, and OCCk values are above 5 (Masyn, 2013; Sorgente et al., 2019).

 Relationship Between Profiles and Other Variables

After identifying the best LPA model, we saved each participant’s most likely class membership as an observed variable representing each participant’s profile on the dimensions of the authoritarian syndrome. We used this variable to describe our profiles in relationship to socio-demographic and attitudinal variables.

 Results Identification of Latent Profiles

We estimated nine different models, from 1-profile to 9-profile, and we did not estimate the 10-profile model because the best loglikelihood could not be replicated. As shown in Table 1, both the 6-profile and the 8-profile solutions had satisfactory fit indices. In particular, the 6-profile solution was the solution with the lowest number of profiles to reach non-significant p-values for VLMR-LRT and aLMR-LRT. Nonetheless, the 8-profile solution satisfied the following criteria: closest loglikelihood to 0, and lowest AIC, CAIC, AWE, BIC, and ssBIC values.

Model Fit Indices for Nine Latent Profiles Models
Model LL AIC CAIC AWE BIC SSBIC SIC VLMR-LRT test LMR-LRT test BLRT test
1-class -79896.43 159856.85 160075.50 160390.15 160043.50 159941.83 -80021.75 – – –
2-class -76149.73 152397.45 152732.26 153214.07 152683.26 152527.57 -76341.63 p < .0001 p < .0001 p < .0001
3-class -74396.78 148925.55 149376.52 150025.48 149310.52 149100.82 -74655.26 p < .0001 p < .0001 p < .0001
4-class -73231.67 146629.34 147196.46 148012.58 147113.46 146849.75 -73556.73 p < .0001 p < .0001 p < .0001
5-class -72353.00 144906.00 145589.29 146572.57 145489.29 145171.56 -72744.64 p = .0444 p = .0461 p < .0001
6-class -71624.87 143483.74 144283.18 145433.62 144166.18 143794.44 -72083.09 p = .0193 p = .0200 p < .0001
7-class -71144.21 142556.42 142422.42 144789.62 143338.02 142912.27 -71669.01 p = .0778 p = .0799 p < .0001
8-class -70706.83 141715.66 141564.66 144232.17 142596.41 142116.65 -71298.21 p = .0323 p = .0332 p < .0001
9-class -70287.17 140910.35 140742.35 143710.17 141890.26 141356.48 -70945.13 p = .0003 p = .0003 p < .0001

Note. LL = Loglikelihood; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; CAIC = Consistent AIC; AWE = Approximate Weight of Evidence criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; ssBIC = sample-size adjusted BIC; SIC = Schwarz Information Criterion; VLMR-LRT = Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test; LMR-LRT = Lo–Mendell–Rubin likelihood ratio test; BLRT = bootstrapped likelihood ratio test.

Consequently, both the 6-profile and the 8-profile solutions were investigated through the classification diagnostics. As reported in Table 2, both solutions satisfied the classification–diagnostic criteria, indicating that both the 6-profile and the 8-profile solutions identified profiles that were well differentiated from each other. We have decided to retain the 8-profile solution as it presented slightly higher discriminant profiles (comparing entropy values) and identified additional profiles that are relevant from a theoretical standpoint.

Classification Diagnostics for the 6-Profile and 8-Profile Models
Class (N) CP [95% CI] mcaP AvePP OCC
Entropy (E) = .894
Class 1 (N = 533) .21 [.187, .234] .211 .945 64.64
Class 2 (N = 398) .157 [.094, .194] .158 .898 47.27
Class 3 (N = 383) .156 [.123, .195] .152 .919 61.38
Class 4 (N = 578) .228 [.203, .257] .229 .930 44.98
Class 5 (N = 348) .136 [.113, .170] .138 .923 76.15
Class 6 (N = 282) .113 [.074, .169] .112 .917 86.72
Entropy (E) = .901
Class 1 (N = 451) .179 [.156, .205] .179 .939 70.60
Class 2 (N = 173) .069 [.052, .087] .069 .925 166.41
Class 3 (N = 437) .172 [.151, .194] .173 .885 37.05
Class 4 (N = 170) .068 [.047, .098] .067 .926 171.51
Class 5 (N = 299) .119 [.087, .145] .118 .895 63.10
Class 6 (N = 498) .196 [.172, .223] .197 .932 56.22
Class 7 (N = 194) .079 [.059, .10] .077 .913 122.34
Class 8 (N = 300) .120 [.096, .140] .119 .940 114.89

Note. CP = Class Proportion; mcaP = modal class assignment proportion; avePP = average posterior probability; OCC = Odds of Correct Classification.

The 8 obtained profiles (see Figure 2), which represent different patterns of the authoritarian syndrome were named as follows: “Low-Scorers” (N = 451; 17.9% of the sample), “The Conspiracists” (N = 173; 6.9%), “The Inconspicuous” (N = 437; 17.3%), “Extreme Right” (N = 170; 6.7%), “The Superstitious” (N = 299; 11.9%), “Traditional Cyclists” (N = 498; 19.7%), “Superstitious Cyclists” (N = 194; 7.7%), and “The Authoritarians” (N = 300; 11.9%). Socio-demographics and AfD voting intention for each profile are reported in Table D in the Appendix. A descriptive overview of each profile is depicted in Table 3.

Representation of the Eight Profiles of Authoritarian Syndrome (Indices) Short Overview of the Eight Profiles of the Authoritarian Syndrome
Profile Short description
Low-scorers Low endorsement across all dimensions of the authoritarian syndrome. Endorsement of the idea of democracy and minimal prejudice. The highest education level (46% with higher degree), slightly more men (62%), and low AfD voting intention (5%).
The Superstitious Rejection of sadomasochistic authoritarianism and conspiracy mentality, but moderate endorsement of superstition. Slightly left-leaning, highly satisfied with democracy, and no prejudices. Lowest AfD voting intention (1%) and predominantly female (73%).
The Inconspicuous Close to the mean on almost all indicators, yet a slight above average tendency towards conspiracy beliefs and prejudice. Slightly dissatisfied with democracy. No striking demographic patterns besides a below-average education.
Extreme Right Very high endorsement of almost all authoritarian dimensions (except for superstition). Highest prejudice levels, strong dissatisfaction with democracy, acceptance of violence, climate change denial and right-wing extremist attitudes. Mostly male (74%), low education, and highest AfD voting intention (34%).
Traditional Cyclists High sadomasochistic authoritarianism, combined with rejection of conspiracy mentality and superstition. Relatively satisfied with democracy, complex prejudice pattern (i.e., reject overt antisemitism while endorsing guilt-related antisemitism). Low AfD voting intention (5%), predominantly male (62%), and oldest profile.
Superstitious Cyclists Sadomasochistic pattern plus superstition. Not generally prejudiced against other groups, but their authoritarian aggression may pose a latent risk for democracy. Politically deprived, lower education, very low AfD voting intention (3%), and predominantly female (72%).
The Conspiracists Very high conspiracy mentality, alongside medium levels of superstition, but rejection of sadomasochist authoritarianism. Dissatisfied with democracy, higher levels of deprivation, distrust in science, and overt climate change denial. Highest unemployment (12%) and above-average AfD voting intention (12%).
The Authoritarians Full authoritarian syndrome (sadomasochistic and projective). Pronounced prejudice and a higher acceptance of violence. Prone to climate change denial. Somewhat similar to the “Extreme Right”. However, they differ in their prominent superstition, lower AfD voting intention (12%), and higher proportion of women (64%).
Description of the Profiles and Relationships With Other Variables

The first profile, the “Low-scorers” (N = 451; 17.9%), scored between 0.7 and 1.09 standard deviations lower than the average of the German population (i.e., zero scores) on all five dimensions of the authoritarian syndrome. As such, individuals classified in this profile exhibit low values on all indicators of the authoritarian syndrome. They are the least politically deprived group (see Figure 3), they show higher satisfaction with the idea of democracy and how it is laid down in the Constitution, but they do not differ from the sample mean for what concern the way democracy actually functions. Finally, they do not show prejudice against any of the investigated outgroups, with scores between -.57 and -.79 standard deviations from the mean for anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim attitudes (see Figure 4). When it comes to socio-demographics (see Table D in the Appendix), it sticks out that their formal education level is–with 46% (sample mean: 25%)–the highest among our profiles. The share of females lies at 38%. The percentage of the “Low-scorers” who would vote for the AfD is 5% (sample mean: 8%).

Attitudes on Deprivation and Democracy of the Eight Profiles of the Authoritarian Syndrome (Indices)

Note. FRG = Federal Republic of Germany. Significance levels from one‐way ANOVAs across all eight profiles: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

 Attitudes on Resentments and Right-Wing Extremism of the Authoritarian Syndrome (Indices)

Note. Significance levels from one‐way ANOVAs across all eight profiles: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The second profile, labeled “The Superstitious” (N = 299; 11.9%), presents a similar pattern to the “Low-scorers” profile in that it does not endorse the items on conspiracy mentality or the “sadomasochistic” ones (even if it presents a different pattern from the first group: an even higher aversion to authoritarian aggression and a smaller aversion to authoritarian submission and conventionalism, respectively -.68 and -.50 SD), however it moderately endorses the items on superstition (+.62 SD). They position themselves slightly to the left (-.35 SD) on the measured political left-right scale (see Figure 5). Those classified in this profile show a higher level of satisfaction with the three facets of democracy than the sample mean and they do not endorse prejudicial attitudes and exhibit the lowest voting intention regarding the AfD (1%) within the eight profiles. This profile presents the highest prevalence of female respondents (73%), and it sticks out that they are predominantly located in Western Germany: only 7% of the respondents in this profile are located in Eastern Germany (sample mean is 21%).

Other Political Attitudes and the Authoritarian Syndrome (Indices)

Note. Significance levels from one‐way ANOVAs across all eight profiles: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The third profile was labeled the “Inconspicuous” (N = 437; 17.3%) as it scored around the sample mean on the majority of the indicators. The profile seems to be characterized by a tendency to respond to the items using the central points of the scales. However, this profile shows a slight tendency towards conspiracy beliefs, which indicates a potentially concerning pattern–as does the relationship with third variables: the profile is more prone–but still only slightly above average–to devaluing social groups (Jews, Muslims, and women), is slightly unsatisfied with democracy (including with the idea of democracy), and shows a slightly higher than the mean acceptance of violence. When it comes to socio-demographics this profile does not show particular patterns, except for slightly below average educational level (19% reached higher education against 25% in the total sample).

The fourth profile, labeled the “Extreme right” (N = 170; 6.7%), exhibits a very strong endorsement of all the indicators of the dimensions of the authoritarian syndrome, except for superstition. This profile is connoted by the strongest association with the third-party variables of right-wing extremism and dissatisfaction with democracy (often even higher than the “full syndrome”, that is, “The Authoritarians”, depicted below). People that belong to this profile feel politically deprived, they are dissatisfied with the three facets of democracy, and exhibit comparatively the highest level of prejudicial attitudes against Muslims, Jews, and women. The danger they may pose is also shown by the fact that they are the most willing to accept violence and even use it themselves. Besides that, they score higher on the climate change denial items and position themselves on the right side of the left-right political continuum. It is not surprising that this profile expresses the highest intention of voting for the AfD (34.45%). This profile is predominantly male (74%) and more frequent in Western Germany, has a below average formal education (17%) and a higher-than-average unemployment rate (8%).

The fifth profile shows endorsement of the three authoritarian “sadomasochistic” subdimensions, but rejection of the two subdimensions of conspiracy mentality and superstition. Considering this absence of the projective subdimensions of the authoritarian syndrome, we labeled them the “Traditional Cyclists” (N = 498; 19.7%), since their profile is characterized by the sadomasochist dynamic already described by Fromm (1936/1987). With the term we refer to the metaphor of a cyclist who "humps up and kicks down" (Adorno, 1952/2004, p. 368). Interestingly, they show a certain degree of satisfaction with the idea and constitutional design of democracy, and they even show higher satisfaction with the actual state of government in Germany than the “Low-scorers” profile. It is possible that this is a consequence of the increasing prevalence of right-wing policies in Western societies (for example the policies on immigration) which could make high sadomasochistic authoritarian attitudes feel more gratified in the contemporary political landscape. The pattern is apparently complex with regard to negative attitudes toward other groups: on the one hand, traditional antisemitism is in line with the sample mean, on the other hand, the defence against guilt antisemitism scale presents a higher score than the mean. This may point to the necessity of communicating antisemitic resentment in a more modern and subtle way: open antisemitism has been socially taboo in Germany since 1945. Bergmann and Erb (1986) therefore assume that antisemitic resentment remains latent and that detours are sought in order to escape this social norm against antisemitism: Guilt defence is one such dimension of antisemitic attitudes (Kiess et al., 2020). They show a slightly above-average resentment towards Muslims–a form of prejudice that is not sanctioned in Germany in the same way as antisemitism. Looking at average values for right-wing extremist attitudes, it becomes clear that this group is authoritarian, but not right-wing extremist. They also express low voting intentions for the AfD (only 5%). Finally, the profile abhors violence and is not positioned clearly on the left, nor on the right side of the political spectrum. Consequently, considering that this is the most prevalent profile in our sample, we can imagine the “Traditional Cyclists” as highly adapted to society, but still presenting a threat to democracy since this profile exhibits a high sensitivity to ingroup conformity and a high potential for becoming aggressive and submissive to authority in the name of protecting the status quo or the wellbeing of the ingroup against possible threat. In socio-demographic terms, this profile is also predominantly male (62%) and on average the oldest (54 years) while the East Germans are over-represented here (38%; sample mean is 21%).

The sixth profile was labelled the “Superstitious Cyclists” (N = 194; 7.7%). The “cyclist” pattern is present as in the “Traditional Cyclist”, but here it is supplemented by high level of agreement with the superstition dimension. Although they express the need to "kick down" in form of authoritarian aggression, this need is not clearly expressed in their prejudices: they show a more pronounced guilt defence antisemitism, but they are not generally prejudiced against other groups. It is predominantly female (72%) and more politically deprived than the mean, yet still in line with the sample mean in terms of satisfaction with the idea of democracy. It is important to highlight, that in the framework of the authoritarian syndrome, superstition is understood as an authoritarian dimension, too. The profile shows a similarity to the "Traditional Cyclists": although they are not hostile to minorities above average, they can become a threat to democracy. The respondents of this profile show also a low voting intention regarding the AfD (3%), are mainly located in Western Germany (only 14% are from Eastern Germany) and have lower formal education (13% have a university entrance qualification).

The seventh profile (N = 173; 6.9%) is characterized by a very high endorsement of conspiracy mentality indicators and a slightly higher than average endorsement of superstition. They reject the three subdimensions of “sadomasochist” authoritarianism (particularly authoritarian submission and aggression, to a lesser extent conventionalism). Considering this, we labelled them “The Conspiracists”. This profile presents the highest level of unemployment (12%) and a higher-than-average intention of voting for the AfD (12%). More interestingly, this profile is characterized by higher levels of deprivation and dissatisfaction with democracy and, while exhibiting levels of prejudice that are comparable to the overall mean, this profile is more likely to deny climate change and distrust science. The profile that emerges is one of dissatisfaction with democracy and an inclination towards “counter-knowledge” and the critique of the epistemic establishment that could definitely give rise to resentment and risk for radicalization.

Finally, the last profile, “The Authoritarians” (N = 300; 11.9%), represents the “full syndrome”, that is to say individuals that endorse all the items of the authoritarian syndrome as delineated in this paper. Along the sadomasochistic factor, they also have high levels of projectivity in forms of superstition and conspiracy mentality. This profile is not satisfied with the idea of democracy or how it is laid down in the constitution, while it is in line with the mean for the way it is working at the moment. More interestingly, it presents a pattern of highly negative attitudes toward all the outgroups investigated. Indeed, they are not only more prejudiced, but also more willing to use and accept violence, more prone to deny climate change and distrust science. This profile is comparable to the "Extreme Right", especially when it comes to the extent of their extreme right-wing attitudes and prejudices: however, these attitudes do not (yet) translate to the same extent into political action in the form of a voting decision in favour of the AfD (only 12%). What stands out, however, is that this profile–in complete contrast to the "Extreme Right"–is made up of an above-average number of women (64% women). This is a phenomenon that we also observe in the other profiles, in which superstitious beliefs are more pronounced.

 Discussion

In this study, we employed a person-centered approach to explore the existence of different subpopulations within the German adult population regarding the authoritarian syndrome (Decker et al., 2020). The strength of this study is the combination of a large probability-based sample, representative of the German adult general population with a latent profile analysis (LPA). LPA enables the exploration of natural groupings based on individual response patterns – distinct subgroups that traditional statistical methods, like variable-centered approaches that assume homogeneity within populations, might overlook. Another strength was the detailed questionnaire used, with specific and validated instruments for measuring the components of the authoritarian syndrome and a large quantity of covariates to differentiate and describe the identified profiles.

We identified eight distinct profiles, each characterized by unique combinations or “alloys” of the authoritarian syndrome and associated sociopolitical attitudes. Our findings provide nuanced insights into the heterogeneity8

Some profiles (e.g., “The Authoritarians”) score high on all subdimensions and exhibit strong devaluation and prejudice, whereas others (e.g., “The Superstitious”) show superstition without explicit authoritarian aggression or resentment. This heterogeneity suggests that the assumption of a (fully) reflective measurement model (Decker et al., 2020; Dilling et al., under review) – which assumes that individuals tend to score uniformly "high", "medium" or "low" across all dimensions – may not fully capture the complexity of the manifestations of the authoritarian syndrome. Future research may benefit from exploring alternative modeling approaches.

of authoritarian dispositions and their correlations with various socio-demographic and attitudinal variables. Some of our profiles differ significantly–and not only in terms of the manifestation of their authoritarian syndrome, but also in terms of the covariates considered here. Our analysis supports previous research findings that these attitudes tend to occur or are absent together, even though person-centered methods, like the LPA, can show that this is not the case for all individuals (Decker et al., 2020; Frenken & Imhoff, 2025). An interesting point remains that, unlike Frenken and Imhoff (2025), we do observe more than one mixed profile and also those moderately superstitious and spiritual individuals lacking pronounced aggression, submission and conventionalism (e.g., “The Superstitious”).9

The datasets of both studies were collected in 2022/2023, using similar, but not identical variables within LPA. Notably, Frenken and Imhoff (2025) focus solely on authoritarian submission, excluding aggression and conventionalism. Their items on authoritarianism are taken from the FR-LF (Heller et al., 2020) which measure attitudes towards a right-wing dictatorship. Also, our items on superstition, taken from the German General Social Survey (ALLBUS), focus more directly on superstitious practices while their items tap into more abstract principles. Differences in the number and composition of profiles may likely reflect both substantial variation in measurement instruments and survey modes (face-to-face interviews versus online survey).

We understand the profiles identified as a result of authoritarian dynamics in society and different forms of processing authoritarian aspects of socialization. Therefore, we are explicitly not conceiving the authoritarian syndrome as a mere personality trait, but rather we view it as a phenomenon shaped by interdependent authoritarian dynamics within society. In the tradition of critical theory (Adorno et al., 1950; Horkheimer 1936/1987) we emphasize that societal conditions support the emergence of the different depicted “alloys” of the authoritarian syndrome: With sadomasochism on the one side of the syndrome and conspiracy mentality and superstition on the other, there are socially available forms of processing that can also be used together to compensate for feelings of powerlessness (this is most clearly done by "The Authoritarians"). Even though conspiracy mentality and superstition might seem like mere individual irrationalities or “nonsense”, they are, in fact, manifestations of the broader societal totality from which they are not independent (Decker et al., 2022b).

A central and surprising result is the gender-specific differentiation of the profiles, which may also reveal a gender-specific authoritarian way of processing. While "The Conspiracists" show a balanced gender ratio, other profiles are predominantly male–above all the "Extreme Right", and somewhat less clearly the "Traditional Cyclists" and the "Low-scorers". In contrast, superstition in particular–but also in combination with conspiracy beliefs –is associated with a significantly higher proportion of women in our profiles.

Although research shows small to no mean-value differences in authoritarianism when certain aspects such as class (Sanford et al., 1950, p. 268) or cultural differences (Brandt & Henry, 2012) are controlled for, our results are in line with the findings of studies which identified gender differences in specific dimensions of authoritarianism. For instance, Else Frenkel-Brunswik (1950, p. 350) already noted that men with high F-scale scores showed greater submissiveness than similarly scoring women, and, more recently, Heller et al. (2022) found higher latent means for men regarding aggression, submission, and conventionalism.

However, looking specifically at superstition, our results are in line with other studies showing that women tend to be more superstitious than men (Darwin et al., 2011; Maqsood et al., 2018; Schliessler et al., 2020; Sehar et al., 2023) and more often believe in scientifically unproven phenomena (Gray, 1990). Research indicates that intuitive thinking is linked to stronger superstitious beliefs, whereas analytical thinking is associated with lower endorsement of such beliefs (Genovese, 2005; Pennycook et al., 2012; Maqsood et al., 2018). Studies also suggest that women tend to rely more on intuitive–experiential thinking, while men more often engage in analytical–rational thinking (Epstein, 2003; Maqsood et al., 2018; Sladek et al., 2010). From a critical-theoretical perspective, the thinking style of a group tells more about society than about individuals. Women underlie different norms in behavior than men. If they have authoritarian needs, superstition is an easier way to meet these needs, because superstition does not violate norms of traditional femininity. Masculinity instead is associated with rational thinking. This fact underlines the importance to include superstition as a “female” pattern of authoritarian response to inner and societal conflicts.

One of our core results is that the authoritarian syndrome is not accompanied by devaluation and resentment to the same extent in all authoritarian profiles–even if some elements of the authoritarian syndrome are highly present: on the one hand, we observe the "Extreme Right" and "The Authoritarians", whose pronounced belief in conspiracies (and superstitious beliefs in case of the latter), accompanied with authoritarian sadomasochism, goes hand in hand with strong deprivation and dissatisfaction with democracy as well as manifest right-wing extremism and pronounced prejudices. On the other hand, however, we also observe the "Traditional Cyclists": they appear established and firmly in the saddle–their devaluation tendencies largely "contained", except for more socially acceptable forms of prejudice and resentment–something that Amlinger and Nachtwey (2022) have already described for their similar type of "Authoritarian Innovators". In line with the theory of secondary authoritarianism (Decker, 2019), this containment of devaluing tendencies could be jeopardised if the stabilising function of an external source of control (such as an identification with a "strong economy") is at risk. The fact that guilt defence antisemitism in particular receives above-average approval from "Traditional Cyclists" indicates that the social norm against open antisemitic resentment persists–a norm that is of particular relevance in the Federal Republic of Germany (Bergmann & Erb, 1986). It is possible that this profile is generally subjected to higher social desirability and conformity, thus rejecting socially sanctioned forms of overt prejudice, which nonetheless emerges when the discrimination against the outgroups is less sanctioned by authorities or becomes more visible when investigated through new forms of less blatant prejudice, such as “covert” or “modern” prejudice (McConahay, 1986; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). This could also explain their slightly above-average resentment towards Muslims–a form of prejudice that is not sanctioned in Germany in the same way as antisemitism. This social desirability and conformity might explain their low voting intentions for the AfD (only 5%) as well as in their reluctance to use violence themselves or to accept it. The ambiguity of some “alloys” of the authoritarian syndrome is clearer with "The Superstitious", which, unlike the former, show a clear rejection of prejudice. They do show more pronounced superstitious beliefs, but otherwise resemble the "Low-scorers". Parallel to superstition, we also observe in "The Conspiracists" that belief in conspiracies does not necessarily co-occur with prejudice or even right-wing extremism (see also Dilling et al., 2022): their authoritarian syndrome is characterised by a denial of reality and projection–but not (yet) translated in forms of prejudice. Although they represent indeed a type of conspiracy believer who exhibits below-average submissiveness, but this is also accompanied with relatively low levels of authoritarian aggression–unlike the “regressive rebels”10

In fact, we do not observe any profile that shows low authoritarian submission and high authoritarian aggression and/or prejudice at the same time.

described by Amlinger and Nachtwey (2022). However, this finding should not obscure the fact that the conspiracy mentality is a personalised, often simplified and regressive interpretation of complex social processes. A conspiracy mentality divides the world into "good" and "evil" and is an indication of a serious alienation from the political system that should be taken seriously.

The main limitation of this study is its single-country design focusing on a WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) context. As research shows, the attitudes we focused on here are by no means confined to the German context, but there are important cross-cultural differences (in Confucian, post-communist, autocratic, predominantly Muslim, and non-WEIRD countries) for example with regard to the factor structure of the RWA measurement instrument and it may align more with collectivist duty or deference to authority than with outgroup-directed aggression in some contexts (Chien, 2016; Kagitcibasi, 1970; Takano et al., 2020; Vilanova et al., 2023). Moreover, it may also make a difference whether elements of the authoritarian syndrome are culturally contested or form part of a dominant political ideology–as it is the case in Russia (Bogatyreva, 2024). However, from a needs-based theoretical perspective, and following the tradition of critical theory, we would argue that these elements can still be viewed as attempts to satisfy authoritarian psychological needs–even, and perhaps especially, when they are culturally or politically legitimized. Cultural acceptance does not necessarily neutralize their authoritarian character; rather, it can stabilize and normalize authoritarian dynamics at the societal level.

A central premise put forward by critical theory is that authoritarianism is shaped by socio-cultural and societal conditions: The types described here (and the associated “alloys” of the authoritarian syndrome) are therefore not necessarily measurement-invariant and might manifest differently across cultural contexts. We therefore stress the importance of future cross-cultural and longitudinal studies to assess the temporal and cultural stability of the authoritarian syndrome.

Another limitation could be the bias that arises from the self-reported nature of the items used for the LPA. Self-report measures often suffer from various response biases, including social desirability bias, where respondents may provide answers they perceive to be more socially acceptable rather than their genuine beliefs or behaviors. This is particularly salient in the context of authoritarian attitudes, which may be stigmatized within specific sociopolitical frameworks.

Building on the exploratory results of our work, further studies could investigate the societal factors that predict profile membership, and thereby consider targeted interventions and policy approaches to counter authoritarian dispositions, or use these findings to predict other socially relevant outcomes. Another avenue for research and lever of intervention could involve studying the factors that impact the transition from one profile (less dangerous to the democratic system) to another (more dangerous) profile. The possibility of analyzing longitudinal datasets through Latent Transition Analysis (LTA) could be useful in unraveling the factors that facilitate or limit the transition between profiles.

We are convinced that the latter is particularly relevant in view of the danger posed to democracy by certain combinations of the authoritarian syndrome, such as the “The Authoritarians” and the “Extreme Right”. What we observe in them has already been described by Adorno (1973) as a "blind belief in authority and readiness to attack those who are deemed weak and who are socially acceptable as victims” (ibid., p. 759). The surface appearance of authoritarianism may have changed in some cases, but its anti-democratic spirit is still widespread.

 Preregistration

This study has not been pre-registered.

The authors have no funding to report.

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback. And we would like to warmly thank Ayline Heller for her valuable input in discussing the relationship between types derived from person-centered approaches and latent constructs from variable-centered methods. Her insights have been highly enriching for our work.

 References Adorno, T. W. (1973). Studien zum autoritären Charakter. Suhrkamp. Adorno, T. W. (2004). Vorurteil und Charakter. In R. Tiedemann (Ed.), Gesammelte Schriften: Band 9.2. Soziologische Schriften II Hälfte 2 (pp. 360–373). Suhrkamp. (Original work published 1952) Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality: Studies in prejudice. Harper & Brothers. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press. Altemeyer, B. (2006). The authoritarians. University of Manitoba Press. Amlinger, C., & Nachtwey, O. (2022). Gekränkte Freiheit. Aspekte des libertären Autoritarismus. Suhrkamp. Beierlein, C., Asbrock, F., Kauff, M., & Schmidt, P. (2014). Die Kurzskala Autoritarismus (KSA-3): ein ökonomisches Messinstrument zur Erfassung dreier Subdimensionen autoritärer Einstellungen (GESIS-Working Papers, No. 35). GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. Bergmann, W., & Erb, R. (1986). Kommunikationslatenz, Moral und öffentliche Meinung. Theoretische Überlegungen zum Antisemitismus in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 38, 223–246. Bogatyreva, N. (2024). Enemies inside and out: How Russians believe conspiracy theories. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 232(1), 38–43. 10.1027/2151-2604/a000543 Brandt, M. J., & Henry, P. J. (2012). Gender inequality and gender differences in authoritarianism. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(10), 1301–1315. 10.1177/014616721244987122733982 Chien, C. L. (2016). Beyond authoritarian personality: The culture-inclusive theory of Chinese authoritarian orientation. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 924. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.0092427445894 Clark, S. L., & Muthén, B. (2009). Relating latent class analysis results to variables not included in the analysis. https://www.statmodel.com/download/relatinglca.pdf Conway, L. G., III, Zubrod, A., Chan, L., McFarland, J. D., & Van de Vliert, E. (2023). Is the myth of left-wing authoritarianism itself a myth? Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1041391. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.104139136846476 Costello, T. H., Bowes, S. M., Stevens, S. T., Waldman, I. D., Tasimi, A., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2022). Clarifying the structure and nature of left-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(1), 135–170. 10.1037/pspp000034134383522 Darwin, H., Neave, N., & Holmes, J. (2011). Belief in conspiracy theories: The role of paranormal belief, paranoid ideation and schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(8), 1289–1293. 10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.027 Decker, O. (2010). Das Veralten des Autoritären Charakters. In O. Decker, M. Weißmann, J. Kiess, & E. Brähler (Eds.), Die Mitte in der Krise. Rechtsextreme Einstellungen in Deutschland (pp. 29–41). zu Klampen! Decker, O. (2019). Secondary authoritarianism – The economy and right-wing extremist attitudes in contemporary Germany. Journal of Psycho-Social Studies, 12(1-2), 203–213. 10.1332/147867319X15608718111032 Decker, O., Kiess, J., & Brähler, E. (Eds.). (2022a). The dynamics of right-wing extremism within German society: Escape into authoritarianism. Routledge. Decker, O., Kiess, J., Heller, A., & Brähler, E. (Eds.). (2022b). Autoritäre Dynamiken in unsicheren Zeiten. Neue Herausforderungen – alte Reaktionen? Leipziger Autoritarismus Studie 2022. Psychosozial-Verlag. Decker, O., Schuler, J., Yendell, A., Schließler, C., & Brähler, E. (2020). Das autoritäre Syndrom: Dimension und Verbreitung der Demokratie-Feindlichkeit. In O. Decker & E. Brähler (Eds.), Alte Ressentiments — Neue Radikalität: Leipziger Autoritarismus Studie 2020 (pp. 179-210). Psychosozial-Verlag. Dilling, M., Heller, A., Schließler, C., Kiess, J., Brähler, E., & Decker, O. (under review). Authoritarianism today – A revised measurement model. Dilling, M., Schließler, C., Hellweg, N., Brähler, E., & Decker, O. (2022). Wer sind die Verschwörungsgläubigen? Facetten der Verschwörungsmentalität in Deutschland. Leipziger Autoritarismus Studie 2022. In O. Decker, J. Kiess, A. Heller, & E. Brähler (Eds.), Autoritäre Dynamiken in unsicheren Zeiten. Neue Herausforderungen – alte Reaktionen? (pp. 209-243). Psychosozial-Verlag. Duckitt, J. (2001). Dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 41–113. 10.1016/S0065-2601(01)80004-6 Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (pp. 159-184). John Wiley & Sons. Feldman, S. (2003). Enforcing social conformity: A theory of authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 24(1), 41–74. 10.1111/0162-895X.00316 Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1950). Parents and childhood as seen through the interviews. In T. W. Adorno, E. Frenkel-Brunswik, D. Levinson, & R. N. Sanfort (Eds.), The authoritarian personality: Studies in prejudice (pp. 337–389). Harper and Row. Frenken, M., & Imhoff, R. (2025). Law and order, magical spirits, and false flag operations: On the co-occurrence of authoritarianism, spirituality, and conspiracy beliefs and their association with support of violent protests. Political Psychology. Advance online publication. 10.1111/pops.70034 Fromm, E. (1987). Sozialpsychologischer Teil. In M. Horkheimer (Ed.), Studien über Autorität und Familie. Forschungsberichte aus dem Institut für Sozialforschung (pp. 77–135). zu Klampen! (Original work published 1936) Genovese, J. E. C. (2005). Paranormal belief, schizotypy, and thinking styles among teachers and future teachers. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(1), 93–102. 10.1016/j.paid.2004.12.008 Govender, N., Sivil, R., & Swer, G. M. (2024). The authoritarian character revisited: Genesis and key concepts. Symposion, 11(2), 213–238. 10.5840/symposion202411217 Graumann, C. F., & Moscovici, S. (Eds.). (1987). Changing conceptions of conspiracy. Springer. Gray, T. (1990). Gender differences in belief in scientifically unsubstantiated phenomena. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 22(2), 181–190. 10.1037/h0078898 Heitmeyer, W. (2012). Deutsche Zustände – Folge 10. Suhrkamp. Heller, A., Brähler, E., & Decker, O. (2020). Rechtsextremismus – ein einheitliches Konstrukt? Der Fragebogen zur rechtsextremen Einstellung – Leipziger Form (FR-LF). In A. Heller, O. Decker, & E. Brähler (Eds.), Prekärer Zusammenhalt. Die Bedrohung des demokratischen Miteinanders in Deutschland (pp. 151-172). Psychosozial-Verlag. Heller, A., Decker, O., Clemens, V., Fegert, J. M., Heiner, S., Brähler, E., & Schmidt, P. (2022). Changes in authoritarianism before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: Comparisons of latent means across East and West Germany, gender, age, and education. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 941466. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.94146635959026 Henkelmann, K., Jäckel, C., Stahl, A., Wünsch, N., & Zopes, B. (Eds.). (2020). Konformistische Rebellen: Zur Aktualität des autoritären Charakters. Verbrecher Verlag. Hopf, C., Rieker, P., Sanden-Marcus, M., & Schmidt, C. (Eds.). (1995). Familie und Rechtsextremismus. Familiale Sozialisation und rechtsextreme Orientierungen junger Männer. Juventa. Horkheimer, M. (1987). Studien über Autorität und Familie. Forschungsberichte aus dem Institut für Sozialforschung. zu Klampen! (Original work published 1936) Imhoff, R., & Bruder, M. (2014). Speaking (un-)truth to power: Conspiracy mentality as a generalised political attitude. European Journal of Personality, 28(1), 25–43. 10.1002/per.1930 Iser, J. A. (2006). Vorurteile: Zur Rolle von Persönlichkeit, Werten, generellen Einstellungen und Bedrohung. Die Theorie grundlegender menschlicher Werte, Autoritarismus und die Theorie der Sozialen Dominanz als Erklärungsansätze für Vorurteile: Ein integrativer Theorienvergleich [Doctoral dissertation, Justus Liebig University Giessen]. JLUdocs. 10.22029/jlupub-15404 Jäger, D. W. G. F. (2022). Dialektik der Deprivation: Zu Idee und Praxis der Entsagung als Element des Autoritarismus und ihre Rekonfiguration in der Gegenwart [Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen]. 10.33612/diss.206272479 Kagitcibasi, C. (1970). Social norms and authoritarianism: A Turkish-American comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(3), 444–451. 10.1037/h00300535497252 Kiess, J., Decker, O., Heller, A., & Brähler, E. (2020). Antisemitismus als antimodernes Ressentiment: Struktur und Verbreitung eines Weltbildes. In O. Decker & E. Brähler (Eds.), Autoritäre Dynamiken: Neue Radikalität—Alte Ressentiments. Leipziger Autoritarismus Studie 2020 (pp. 211-248). Psychosozial-Verlag. King, V. (2021). Autoritarismus als Regression. WestEnd – Neue Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, 18(1), 87–102. Lederer, G., & Schmidt, P. (Eds.). (1995). Autoritarismus und Gesellschaft. Trendanalysen und vergleichende Jugenduntersuchungen von 1945-1993. Leske + Budrich. Liekefett, L., Bürner, A.-K., & Becker, J. C. (2023). Hippies next to right-wing extremists? Social Psychology, 54(3), 123–135. 10.1027/1864-9335/a000509 Lo, Y., Mendell, N. R., & Rubin, D. B. (2001). Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika, 88(3), 767–778. 10.1093/biomet/88.3.767 Maqsood, A., Jamil, F., & Khalid, R. (2018). Thinking styles and belief in superstitions: Moderating role of gender in young adults. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 33(2), 335–348. Marcuse, H. (1970). Kultur und Gesellschaft 2. Suhrkamp Verlag. (Original work published 1965) Martin, J. L. (2001). The authoritarian personality, 50 years later: What lessons are there for political psychology? Political Psychology, 22(1), 1–26. 10.1111/0162-895X.00223 Masyn, K. (2013). Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling. In T. D. Little (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods in psychology: Vol. 2. Statistical analysis. Oxford Library of Psychology. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199934898.013.0025 McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91–125). Academic Press. Müller, M. (2019). Antisemitismus im Kontext von Konformität. Die Umwegkommunikationsthese und antisemitische Vorurteile in Deutschland [Doctoral dissertation]. Beltz Juventa. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén. Nachtwey, O., & Heumann, M. (2019). Regressive Rebellen und autoritäre Innovatoren: Typen des neuen Autoritarismus. In K. Dörre, H. Rosa, K. Becker, S. Bose, & B. Seyd (Eds.), Große Transformation? Zur Zukunft moderner Gesellschaften (pp. 435–453). Springer. Nilsson, A. (2024). Antidemocratic tendencies on the left, the right, and beyond: A critical review of the theory and measurement of left‐wing authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 45(4), 693–708. 10.1111/pops.12951 Oesterreich, D. (1996). Flucht in die Sicherheit. Zur Theorie des Autoritarismus und der autoritären Reaktion. Leske + Budrich. Oesterreich, D. (1974). Autoritarismus und Autonomie. Klett. Peel, D., & McLachlan, G. J. (2000). Robust mixture modelling using the t distribution. Statistics and Computing, 10(4), 339–348. 10.1023/A:1008981510081 Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Seli, P., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2012). Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition, 123(3), 335–346. 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.00322481051 Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 57–75. 10.1002/ejsp.2420250106 Rahlf, L. (2025). From democratic resistance to hostility against a “Covid-regime” – Conspiracy theories as cross-milieu catalysts of radicalization. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 48(11), 1281–1312. 10.1080/1057610X.2023.2169894 Rippl, S., & Baier, D. (2005). Das Deprivationskonzept in der Rechtsextremismusforschung. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 57(4), 644–666. 10.1007/s11577-005-0219-0 Rippl, S., Kindervater, A., & Seipel, C. (2000). Die autoritäre Persönlichkeit: Konzept, Kritik und neuere Forschungsansätze. In S. Rippl, C. Seipel, & A. Kindervater (Eds.), Autoritarismus. Kontroversen und Ansätze der aktuellen Autoritarismusforschung (pp. 13-30). Leske + Budrich. Sanford, R. N., Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., & Levinson, D. (1950). The measurement of implicit antidemocratic trends. In T. W. Adorno, E. Frenkel-Brunswik, D. Levinson, & R. N. Sanford, The authoritarian personality: Studies in prejudice (pp. 222–290). Harper and Row. Schliessler, C., Hellweg, N., & Decker, O. (2020). Aberglaube, Esoterik und Verschwörungsmentalität in Zeiten der Pandemie. In O. Decker & E. Brähler (Eds.), Autoritäre Dynamiken. Alte Ressentiments – neu Radikalität. Leipziger Autoritarismus Studie 2020 (pp. 283–308). Psychosozial-Verlag. Schmidt, P. (2022). Logical positivism or critical theory as the methodological foundation of the authoritarian personality? Serendipities: Journal for the Sociology and History of the Social Sciences, 7(1-2), 102–133. 10.7146/serendipities.v7i1-2.132327 Sehar, H., Ashraf, M. T., Razaq, N., Tehzeeb, M., Kanwal, S., & Jogezai, A. K. (2023). Relationship between superstitious beliefs and Big Five Personality Traits with gender. Rawal Medical Journal, 48(1), 220–223. https://www.rmj.org.pk/?mno=37321 Seipel, C., & Rippl, S. (1999). Jugend und Autorität. Ist die Theorie der “autoritären Persönlichkeit” heute noch ein tragfähiges Erklärungsmodell? Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, 19(2), 188–202. Shils, E. A. (1954). Authoritarianism: “Right” and “left.” In R. Christie & M. Jahoda (Eds.), Studies in the scope and method of “The Authoritarian Personality” (pp. 24–49). Free Press. Sladek, R. M., Bond, M. J., & Phillips, P. A. (2010). Age and gender differences in preferences for rational and experiential thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(8), 907–911. 10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.028 Smallpage, S. M., Askew, R. L., Kurlander, E. A., & Rust, J. B. (2023). Conspiracy thinking and the long historical shadow of Romanticism on authoritarian politics. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1185699. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.118569937854138 Sorgente, A., Lanz, M., Bhatia, S., Crespo, C., Dunai, J., Fonseca, G., Lep, Ž., Martos, T., Negru‑Subtirica, O., Portugal, A., Ranta, M., Relvas, A. P., Sallay, V., Singh, N., Sirsch, U., Vosylis, R., Zupančič, M., Shim, S., & Serido, J. (2025). Financial Identity Scale: Testing the international validity of its variable-centered and person-centered models. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. Advance online publication. 10.1007/s10834-025-10054-8 Sorgente, A., Lanz, M., Serido, J., Tagliabue, S., & Shim, S. (2019). Latent transition analysis: Guidelines and an application to emerging adults’ social development. TPM – Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 26(1), 39–72. 10.4473/TPM26.1.3 Sorgente, A., Fonseca, G., Lep, Ž., Li, L., Serido, J., Vosylis, R., Crespo, C., Relvas, A. P., Zupančič, M., & Lanz, M. (2024). Profiles of emerging adults’ resilience facing the negative impact of COVID-19 across six countries. Current Psychology, 43(15), 14113–14125. 10.1007/s12144-022-03658-y Takano, R., Taka, F., & Nomura, M. (2020). Development of Japanese versions of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale. Shinrigaku Kenkyu, 91(6), 398–408. 10.4992/jjpsy.91.19225 Ulbrich-Herrmann, M. (1995). Zur Verbreitung von gewaltbefürwortenden Einstellungen und Gewaltverhalten. In W. Heitmeyer (Ed.), Gewalt. Schattenseiten der Individualisierung bei Jugendlichen aus unterschiedlichen Milieus (pp. 127–141). Juventa. Vilanova, F., Milfont, T. L., & Costa, A. B. (2023). Short version of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale for the Brazilian context. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 36, 17. 10.1186/s41155-023-00260-437470848 Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57(2), 307–333. 10.2307/1912557 Ward, C., & Voas, D. (2011). The emergence of conspirituality. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 26(1), 103–121. 10.1080/13537903.2011.539846 Yendell, A., & Herbert, D. (2022). Religion, conspiracy thinking, and the rejection of democracy: Evidence from the UK. Politics and Governance, 10(4), 229–242. 10.17645/pag.v10i4.5904 Zmigrod, L. (2022). A psychology of ideology: Unpacking the psychological structure of ideological thinking. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 17(4), 1072–1092. 10.1177/1745691621104414035231196 Ethics Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Department of the University of Leipzig (594/21‐ek).

 Data Availability

The dataset analyzed in the current study was generated as a joint project of several different universities. Due to missing consent of all parties involved, we are unable to make the dataset publicly available. The parts of the dataset supporting the findings as well as the code used in this study will be provided by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

 Supplementary Materials

The Supplementary Materials (Dilling et al., 2025S) consist of four tables and one figure. Table A provides socio-structural characteristics of the dataset, including descriptive statistics for sex, age, age groups, employment status, education, and income across West and East Germany. Table B presents descriptive statistics and English translations of all items used in the latent profile analysis, while Table C contains the corresponding information for all covariables. Table D summarizes socio-demographics and AfD voting intentions across the eight profiles of the authoritarian syndrome, covering sex, age, unemployment status, education, income, the proportion of East German respondents, and AfD voting intention. Figure A visualizes the eight authoritarian syndrome profiles across all items included in the latent profile analysis.

Dilling M. Cena L. Kalkstein F. Brähler E. Decker O. (2025S). Supplementary materials to "Exploring different types of the authoritarian syndrome: A latent profile analysis of the German population" [Appendix: Additional tables and figures]. PsychOpen GOLD. 10.23668/psycharchives.21507