This study examined the relationship between right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and empathy, helping behavior, and psychopathy. Participants read about a person in need and this target was presented as either high authoritarian (ingroup), low authoritarian (outgroup), or neutrally (control). Results found that high RWA individuals felt less distressed, upset, and sorrowful for an outgroup target. However, RWA individuals helped equally regardless of target group. Among helpers, higher RWA correlated with higher primary psychopathy. The study discusses exploring motivations for helping among high RWA individuals to better understand these relationships.

1. Empathy, Helping Behavior, and Psychopathy among Right-wing Authoritarians Special thanks to: Office of Grants and Faculty Development Benn Mills Contact: franks98@uwosh.edu Scott D. Frankowski, & David A. Lishner University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Department of Psychology

2. Introduction Right-wing Authoritarianism (RWA; Altemeyer, 1981, 1996) Submit to authorities who are perceived as legitimate Aggress towards those who challenge one's authorities or values espoused by authorities Conventional – adhere to traditional values espoused by one's authorities

3. Introduction RWA – no association between RWA and dispositional empathy, r = .05 (McFarland, 2010) Research questions Will RWA be associated with state-empathy depending on the group identity of the target? Will RWA individuals differ in their helping behavior based upon whether the target in need is perceived as an ingroup or outgroup member?

4. Methods Participants presented with a news article about a person in need Katie Banks – Recently lost parents in car accident Now needed to care for siblings while trying to finish college

5. Methods Person in need is presented as high authoritarian (authoritarian ingroup), low authoritarian (outgroup), or is presented neutrally High Authoritarian target – handed out religious pamphlets on campus, volunteered with Republican Party, internship in Arizona to promote anti-immigrant legislation Low Authoritarian target – participated in peace and anti-war rallies on campus, volunteered for Democratic Party, internship in Arizona with immigrant advocacy group to protest anti-immigrant legislation Control – No information given to indicate authoritarian orientation

6. Methods Helping Opportunity Participants given opportunity to help target by donating time to help stuff envelopes to aid organizations Expected to see less helping by RWA individuals if person in need was outgroup member

7. Results Manipulation check Operationalized by indicating how liberal or conservative participants saw Katie (1 = Extremely Liberal, 9 = Extremely Conservative) F (2, 93) = 6.93, p = .002 Contrast Tests Low authoritarian Katie (M = 4.16, SD = 2.36) vs. high authoritarian Katie (M = 5.75, SD = 1.41), t(93) = 3.72, p < .001 Low authoritarian Katie versus control condition Katie (M = 4.88, SD = 1.13), t(93) = 1.68, p = .097 High authoritarian Katie versus control Katie, t(93) = 2.04, p = .044

8. Results Helpers (n = 31), Non-helpers (n = 65) RWA individuals help equally regardless of target's group identification However, compared to an ingroupperson in need, if person in need is an outgroup member, RWA individuals feel: Less distressed, R2 = .15, F(1, 30) = 5.45, p = .026 Less upset, R2 = .16, F(1, 30) = 5.68, p = .024 Less sorrowful, R2 = .12, F(1, 30) = 4.18, p = .05 Getting what she deserves (near significant), R2 = .11, F(1, 30) = 3.67, p = .067

9. Results – Distressed High-RWA Target in Need Low-RWA Target in Need R2 = .15

10. Results - Upset High-RWA Target in Need Low-RWA Target in Need R2 = .16

11. Results - Sorrowful High-RWA Target in Need Low-RWA Target in Need R2 = .12

12. Results – Getting what she deserves High-RWA Target in Need R2= .03, ns Low-RWA Target in Need R2= .11, p = .067

13. Results – Across all conditions RWA – Positive Correlations Happy: r = .21, p = .041 Humored: r = .20, p = .047 Person in need is to blame: r = .19, p = .06 How fair is person’s situation? r = .19, p = .059 RWA – Negative Correlations Sympathetic: r = -.23, p = .023 Distressed: r = -.22, p = .047 Upset: r = -.25, p = .016 Sorrowful: r = -.21, p = .045 Concern for person in need: r = -.23, p = .027

14. Results – Correlations to other personality traits RWA – Positive Correlations Social Dominance Orientation: r = .47, p < .001 Political Conservatism r = .40, p < .001 RWA - Negative Correlations Perspective Taking: r = -.23, p = .022 Need for Cognition: r = -.34, p = .001

15. Results – Helpers versus non-helpers Among helpers, RWA associated with primary psychopathy

16. Discussion If RWA individuals have these negative feelings towards outgroup member, and, overall to a person in need: Why do they help? Batson (2008), Motivational aspects of helping. Empathic Concern May help for altruistic reasons where benefits of helping are unintended consequences Or, may help for egoistic reasons – protecting self-esteem, avoiding guilt, help to feel good about self

17. Discussion Why do they help (continued) Association between RWA and interpersonal manipulation component of psychopathy? Seeking out closeness to others in order to manipulate them?

18. Discussion Follow-up Studies Look into motivational aspects of helping among right-wing authoritarians Reliability of RWA/psychopathy association among helpers Will these results be replicated? If so, what is the motivation to help among those who score high on RWA and psychopathy?

19. References Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg. Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Batson, C.D. (2008). Empathy-induced altruistic motivation. In Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P.R. (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature. (pp. 15-34)Washington D.C.: APA McFarland, S. (2010). Authoritarianism, social dominance, and other roots of generalized prejudice. Political Psychology, 31, 425-449.