Dominators are prepared to “proceed with relatively little moral restraint,” for they agree with statements like “There really is no such thing as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’; it all boils down to what you can get away with,” and “basically, people are objects to be quietly and coolly manipulated for your own benefit.” They disagree with statements like “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and never do anything unfair to someone else,” and “Since so many members of minority groups end up in our jails, we should take strong steps to make sure prejudice plays no role in their treatment by the legal system.”[25] Other social scientists have similarly found that high-scoring social dominators are “potentially ruthless in their pursuit or maintenance of their desires” and they do not believe that their “actions should never cause harm to others.” And dominators believe “that the end does justify the means.”[26] Today it is recognized that such authoritarian dominators are attracted to “status-inequality-enforcing occupations,” like prosecuting attorney or a job in law enforcement, and that they are “over-represented in positions of political power.”[27]
In his description of social dominators, Altemeyer poses a rhetorical question: “Do you know such people: relatively intimidating, unsympathetic, untrusting and untrustworthy, vengeful, manipulative, and amoral?” While Altemeyer admits that it may seem “unsympathetic to describe those who score highly on the Social Dominance Orientation scale” in this manner, such terms have been used by these individuals to describe themselves. Empirical data bears out such qualities as “relatively power hungry, domineering, mean, Machiavellian and amoral, and hold [ing] ‘conservative’ economical and political outlooks.”[28] These people know exactly where they want to stand. Experiments reveal that right-wing authoritarian followers are particularly likely to trust someone who tells them what they want to hear, for this is how many of them validate their beliefs. Social dominators, on the other hand, typically know exactly what song they want to sing to followers.
Unfortunately, there are people who, when given tests for social dominance and right-wing authoritarianism, score high on both. Altemeyer calls them “Double Highs.” These dominating authoritarian leaders are the individuals whom Altemeyer refers to with good reason as “particularly scary.”
Social dominators whom tests show to be Double Highs seem full of contradictions. They score high as both leaders and as followers, an apparent anomaly that Altemeyer accounts for by explaining that Double Highs respond to questions relating to submission not by considering how they submit to others, but about how others submit to them. They inevitably see the world with themselves in charge.
Altemeyer provided a number of examples of Double High behavior. Ordinary social dominators and ordinary authoritarian followers
Double Highs are also dogmatic. While an average social dominator does not typically embrace “grand philosophies or creeds,” Double Highs do. Altemeyer ran a Global Change Game [*] simulation with fifty-five university students, all of whom scored high as right-wing authoritarian followers, and seven of whom also scored high on social dominance. As their profiles suggested, the seven Double Highs either directly or indirectly took charge, and the others followed. During the two-session simulation, Double Highs engaged in nuclear blackmail, made themselves wealthy by dubious means, provoked a worldwide crisis by destroying the ozone layer, allowed 1.9 billion people to die of starvation and disease, and sent the poor regions of the world “down the tubes.” Simulations, and students, of course, are a long way from reality, yet their performance further suggests the potentially dangerous natures of Double Highs.[32]
Altemeyer observed that if Double Highs were “in control of a school prayer, or anti-homosexual, or anti- immigration, or anti-feminist, or anti-abortion, or anti-gun-control movement—not to mention a military force,” they could pose a serious threat. This is not only because of their own ideology and nature, but because “they lead people who are uninclined to think for themselves”—submissive, gullible right-wing authoritarian followers, who “are brimming with self-righteousness and zeal, and are fain to give dictatorship a chance.” Altemeyer warned, “We have seen them in action before, to our sorrow. We might be wise to develop an understanding of their psychological makeup.”[33] Not given to hyperbole in his scholarly work, Altemeyer has nevertheless repeatedly likened the traits of Double Highs to those of Hitler, and to those who are “most likely to mobilize and lead extremist right-wing movements” in the United States.
A striking revelation found within these studies is the fact that both right-wing authoritarians and social dominators can be accurately described as conservatives without conscience. [34] Needless to say, conscience itself cannot be measured directly. But stated beliefs and expressed behavior often reflect the workings of a conscience.[35] For example, social dominators freely admit on tests that measure moral issues of right and wrong behavior that such matters are irrelevant to them. That suggests little conscience, a fact which is often corroborated by behavior. Altemeyer noted that “social dominators believe that a really good skill to develop is the ability to look someone straight in the face and lie convincingly. Obviously, that person has no conscience.” Nothing shows lack of conscience better than bold- faced lying. Altemeyer pointed out that lying, however, is not a uniquely social dominator skill; it is also easy for right-wing authoritarians to do because of their remarkable self-righteousness.
Examining the consciences of right-wing authoritarian followers, however, is slightly more complicated than doing so for social dominators, because their actions are often different from their words, and they are not able to reflect about themselves easily because of their incredible self-righteousness. They are, however, even more important than the dominator, because there are more followers than leaders, and leaders cannot retain power without followers. A striking aspect of these followers is their limited self-perception. “If you ask right-wing authoritarians, they will say they have very strong consciences indeed, which is one of the reasons they are so good compared to others,” Altemeyer said. “But empirical studies have shown that they are not as good as they believe themselves to be when compared to others. When tested for cheating, right-wing authoritarians, notwithstanding their protestation to the contrary, did not prove themselves to be so principled.” [36] Similarly, it might be expected that right-wing authoritarians who are extremely religious evangelicals would have strong consciences directed by moral precepts or ethical restraints. That, however, does not seem to be the case. “Whether the issue is divorce, materialism, sexual promiscuity, racism, physical abuse in marriage, or neglect of a biblical world view,” wrote evangelical theologian Ronald J. Sider in
How can this paradox be explained? Right-wing authoritarians employ “a number of psychological tricks and defenses that enable them to act fairly beastly,” Altemeyer explained, all the while thinking they are “the good people.” To begin with, they have relatively little self-understanding: “For instance, they do not realize they are more prejudiced and hostile than most people. In fact, they do not realize
