RESEARCH SUPPORT: Research has provided evidence to support the notion that the authoritarian personality is a possible explanation for obedience. In a study by Milgram and Elms (1966), post-experimental interviews were conducted with participants who had fully obeyed in Milgram's original study, to establish a connection between high levels of obedience and an authoritarian personality. The results showed that obedient participants scored higher on the F-scale than disobedient participants. Additionally, the obedient participants had less closeness to their fathers during childhood and held the experimenter in high esteem, whereas the disobedient participants had greater closeness to their fathers during childhood and held the experimenter in lower esteem. Based on these findings, it was concluded that obedient participants in Milgram's original study exhibited more traits associated with the authoritarian personality.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES: It is possible that individual differences contribute to the formation of an authoritarian personality. Middendorp and Meleon's (1990) research indicates that individuals with lower levels of education are more likely to exhibit traits associated with the authoritarian personality than their highly educated counterparts. If these findings are valid, it may be inferred that obedience is not exclusively attributed to authoritarian personality traits but may also be influenced by educational level.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES: The measures used to identify authoritarian personality traits may be subject to methodological criticisms. There is a risk of response bias or social desirability in the F-scale, leading participants to provide socially acceptable responses. This could lead participants to be falsely identified as authoritarian when they are not, as they may feel compelled to answer in ways that align with societal norms. This, in turn, may compromise the internal validity of questionnaire-based research methods for determining the extent of authoritarianism.

POLITICAL BIAS: Christie and Jahoda (1954) noted that the F-scale may reflect political bias. They argue that the F-scale only measures extreme right-wing ideologies, which means it neglects the role that authoritarianism has played in left-wing political movements like Chinese Maoism and Russian Bolshevism. This limitation of Adorno's theory highlights a bias in what is considered to be the core of the authoritarian personality and raises questions about the F-scale's ability to account for obedience to authority across the diverse political spectrum.