Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-lm65w Total loading time: 0.006 Render date: 2025-07-22T03:36:11.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Gender and Politics

Attitudes toward Political Authoritarianism in Economically Advanced Democracies

The Role of Gender Values and Norms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2025

Amy C. Alexander  and
Gefjon Off
Amy C. Alexander
Affiliation:
University of Gothenburg
Gefjon Off
Affiliation:
Leuphana University of Lüneburg and University of Hamburg

Summary

This Element focuses on how individuals' gender values and populations' gender norms influence their attitudes toward political authoritarianism in economically advanced democracies. First, it theorizes that individuals' higher support for gender equality and freedom of sexuality (GEFS) decreases their support of political authoritarianism. This operates directly through the development of a belief system that is incompatible with political authoritarianism as a system rooted in and sustained through conformity to hegemonic masculine dominance. Additionally, this operates indirectly by strengthening support for pluralism, strengthening support for democratic socialization in households, and increasing rejection of the use of violence to control household social relations. Second, it theorizes how GEFS norms and political authoritarian norms are mutually reinforcing in shaping political culture at the country-level. The Element shows evidence consistent with these theories through analysis of data on OECD countries from 1995 to 2022 based on waves 3–7 of the World Values Surveys.
Get access

Keywords

political authoritarianismgender equalityfreedom of sexualitysocializationhegemonic masculinity

Information

Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Gender and Politics
Online ISBN: 9781009374309
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 31 July 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Element purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aaldering, Loes and Van Der Pas, Daphne J. (2020). “Political leadership in the media: Gender bias in leader stereotypes during campaign and routine times,” British Journal of Political Science, 50(3), pp. 911–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abou-Chadi, Tarik, Breyer, Magdalena and Gessler, Theresa (2021). “The (re) politicisation of gender in Western Europe,” European Journal of Politics and Gender, 4(2), pp. 311–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abou-Chadi, Tarik and Krause, Werner (2018). “The causal effect of radical right success on mainstream parties’ policy positions: A regression discontinuity approach,” British Journal of Political Science, 50, pp. 829–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theodor, Adorno, Frenkel-Brenswik, Else, Levinson, Daniel J., and Nevitt Sanford, R. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Verso Books (2019 ed.).Google Scholar
AfD (2016). Grundsatzprogramm für Deutschland, www.afd.de/grundsatzprogramm/.Google Scholar
Akkerman, Tjitske (2015). “Gender and the radical right in Western Europe: A comparative analysis of policy agendas,” Patterns of Prejudice, 49(1–2), pp. 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akrami, Nazar, Ekehammar, Bo, and Yang-Wallentin, Fan (2011). “Personality and social psychology factors explaining sexism,” Journal of Individual Differences, 32(3), pp. 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, Amy C. (2012). “Change in women’s descriptive representation and the belief in women’s ability to govern: A virtuous cycle,” Politics & Gender, 8(4), pp. 437–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, Amy C., and Welzel, Christian (2011). “Measuring effective democracy: The human empowerment approach”, Comparative Politics, 43(3), pp. 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, Amy C. and Welzel, Christian (2017). The myth of deconsolidation: Rising liberalism and the populist reaction. ILE Working Paper Series No. 10, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.Google Scholar
Altemeyer, Bob (1983). Right-wing authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altemeyer, Bob (2007). The authoritarians. B. Altemeyer Winnipeg.Google Scholar
Andersen, Thomas B. (2023). Does democracy cause gender equality? Journal of Institutional Economics, 19(2), pp. 210–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arias, Eric (2019). “How does media influence social norms? Experimental evidence on the role of common knowledge,” Political Science Research and Methods, 7(3), pp. 561–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, Darren E. J. and Jackson, Mervyn (2019). “Benevolent and hostile sexism differentially predicted by facets of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation,” Personality and Individual Differences, 139, pp. 34–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baniamin, Hasan Muhammad (2022). “Variations in the acceptance of parental corporal punishment of children: What matters?” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(19–20), NP18006–NP18031.Google Scholar
Barker, David C., and Tinnick, James D. (2006). “Competing visions of parental roles and ideological constraint.” American Political Science Review, 100(2), pp. 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, Reuben M. and Kenny, David A. (1986). “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), pp. 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beer, Caroline (2009). “Democracy and gender equality”, Studies in Comparative International Development, 44(3), pp. 212–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Ghiat, Ruth (2020). Strongmen: Mussolini to the present. WW Norton.Google Scholar
Bicchieri, Cristina (2016). Norms in the wild: How to diagnose, measure, and change social norms. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bjork-James, Sophie (2020). “Racializing misogyny: Sexuality and gender in the new online white nationalism”, Feminist Anthropology, 1(2), pp. 176–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunkert, Lennart, Kruse, Stefan, and Welzel, Christian (2019). “A tale of culture-bound regime evolution: The centennial democratic trend and its recent reversal”, Democratization, 26(3), pp. 422–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bystrov, Evgenia (2014). “Testing the second demographic transition theory with seemingly unrelated regression: Marital postponement and human empowerment,” European Sociological Review, 30(4), pp. 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassese, Erin C. and Barnes, Tiffany D. (2019). “Reconciling sexism and women’s support for republican candidates: A look at gender, class, and whiteness in the 2012 and 2016 presidential races,” Political Behavior, 41(3), pp. 677–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coneo, Chamorro, Ana, M., Maria, C. Navarro, and Quiroz Molinares, Nathalia (2023). “Sexual-specific disgust sensitivity mechanisms in homonegativity and transnegativity; the mediating role of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA),” Psychology & Sexuality, 14(1), pp. 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chenoweth, Erica and Marks, Zoe (2022). “Revenge of the Patriarchs: Why Autocrats Fear Women,” Foreign Affairs, 101(2), pp. 103–116.Google Scholar
Christopher, Andrew N. and Wojda, Mark R. (2008). “Social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, sexism, and prejudice toward women in the workforce,” Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(1), pp. 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christopher, Andrew N., Zabel, Kevin L. and Miller, Drew E. (2013). “Personality, Authoritarianism, Social Dominance, and Ambivalent Sexism: A Mediational Model,” Individual Differences Research, 11(2), pp. 70–80.Google Scholar
Connell, Robert W. and Messerschmidt, James W. (2005). “Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept,” Gender & Society, 19(6), pp. 829–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppedge, Michael, Gerring, John, Henrik Knutsen, Carl et al. (2021). “V-Dem [Country– Year/Country–Date] Dataset v11.1”, Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project, https://doi.org/10.23696/vdemds21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennison, James (2020). “How Issue Salience Explains the Rise of the Populist Right in Western Europe,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 32(3), pp. 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietze, Gabriele and Roth, Julia (2020). “Right-Wing Populism and Gender: A Preliminary Cartography of an Emergent Field of Research,” in Right-Wing Populism and Gender: European Perspectives and beyond. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
Down, Ian and Han, Kyung J. (2020). “Marginalisation or legitimation? Mainstream party positioning on immigration and support for radical right parties,” West European Politics, 43(7), pp. 1388–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., Peterson, Erik and Slothuus, Rune (2013). “How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation,” American Political Science Review, 107(1), pp. 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, Lauren E. (2006). “What feminist and political psychologists can learn from each other: The case of authoritarianism,” Feminism & Psychology, 16(1), pp. 58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, Lauren E., Peterson, Bill E. and Winter, David G. (1997). “Authoritarianism and gender roles: Toward a psychological analysis of hegemonic relationships,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(1), pp. 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckhardt, William (1991). “Authoritarianism,” Political Psychology, 12(1), pp. 97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelhardt, Andrew M., Feldman, Stanley and Hetherington, Marc J. (2023). “Advancing the measurement of authoritarianism,” Political Behavior, 45(2), pp. 537–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, Matthew, and Wehling, Elisabeth (2018). “A moral house divided: How idealized family models impact political cognition”, PLOS One, 13(4), p. e0193347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, Stanley (2003). “Enforcing social conformity: A theory of authoritarianism,” Political Psychology, 24(1), pp. 41–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Stanley and Stenner, Karen (1997). “Perceived threat and authoritarianism,” Political Psychology, 18(4), pp. 741–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foa, Roberto S., Mounk, Yascha., and Klassen, Andrew (2022). “Why the future cannot be predicted”, Journal of Democracy, 33(1), 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FPÖ (2011). Party Programme of the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), www.fpoe.at/fileadmin/user_upload/www.fpoe.at/dokumente/2015/2011_graz_parteiprogramm_englisch_web.pdf.Google Scholar
Geva, Dorit (2020). “Daughter, mother, captain: Marine Le Pen, gender, and populism in the French National Front,” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 27(1), pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Hicks, Raymond and Tingley, Dustin (2011). “Causal mediation analysis,” The Stata Journal, 11(4), pp. 605–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, Marks, Gary and Wilson, Carole (2002). “Does left/right structure party positions on European integration?” Comparative Political Studies, 35(8), pp. 965–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, Janet Shibley, Bigler, Rebecca S., Joel, Daphna, Chucky Tate, Charlotte, and van Anders, Sari M. (2019). “The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary.” American Psychologist, 74(2), 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iacobucci, Dawn, Saldanha, Neela and Deng, Xiaoyan (2007). “A meditation on mediation: Evidence that structural equations models perform better than regressions,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), pp. 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke and Tingley, Dustin (2010). “A general approach to causal mediation analysis,” Psychological Methods, 15(4), p. 309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inglehart, Ronald and Norris, Pippa (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald, Norris, Pippa, and Welzel, Christian (2003). “Gender equality and democracy,” in Inglehart, Ronald (ed.) Human values and social change. Brill, pp. 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald and Welzel, Christian (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald, Haerpfer, Christian, Moreno, Alejandro et al. (eds.) (2020). World Values Survey: All Rounds – Country-Pooled Datafile. Madrid, Spain & Vienna, Austria: JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat, www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWVL.jsp.Google Scholar
Jennings, M. Kent and Richard, G. Niemi (2015). Political character of adolescence: The influence of families and schools. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, M. Kent, Stoker, Laura and Bowers, Jake (2009). “Politics across generations: Family transmission reexamined,” The Journal of Politics, 71(3), pp. 782–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaul, Nitasha (2021). “The misogyny of authoritarians in contemporary democracies,” International Studies Review, 23(4), pp. 1619–1645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsch, Helen, and Welzel, Christian (2019). “Democracy misunderstood: Authoritarian notions of democracy around the globe”, Social Forces, 98, pp. 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korolczuk, Elżbieta and Graff, Agnieszka (2018). “Gender as ‘Ebola from Brussels’: The anticolonial frame and the rise of illiberal populism,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 43(4), pp. 797–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krook, Mona Lena (2020). Violence against women in politics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhar, Roman and Paternotte, David (2018). Anti-gender campaigns in Europe: Mobilizing against Equality. Rowman & Littlefield International.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George (1996). Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don’t. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leeper, Thomas J. and Slothuus, Rune (2014). “Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation,” Political Psychology, 35(1), pp. 129–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindskog, Hilma and Oskarson, Maria (2022). “Generational differences in disguise? A longitudinal study of the liberalising effect of education on socio-cultural attitudes,” West European Politics, 46(3), pp. 500–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lomazzi, Vera (2023). The cultural roots of violence against women: individual and institutional gender norms in 12 countries. Social Sciences, 12(3), 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallinas, Stephanie R., Crawford, Jarret T. and Frimer, Jeremy A. (2020). “Subcomponents of right-wing authoritarianism differentially predict attitudes toward obeying authorities,” Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(1), pp. 134–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manne, Kate (2017). Down girl: The logic of misogyny. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meret, Susi (2015). “Charismatic female leadership and gender: Pia Kjærsgaard and the Danish People’s Party,” Patterns of Prejudice, 49(1–2), pp. 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merkel, Wolfgang and Lührmann, Anna (2021). “Resilience of democracies: Responses to illiberal and authoritarian challenges,” Democratization, 28(5), pp. 869–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miklikowska, Marta, and Hurme, Helena (2011). “Democracy begins at home: Democratic parenting and adolescents’ support for democratic values”, European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8(5), 541–557.Google Scholar
Miller, Patrick R., Flores, Andrew R., Haider-Markel, Donald P. et al. (2017). “Transgender politics as body politics: Effects of disgust sensitivity and authoritarianism on transgender rights attitudes,” Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5(1), pp. 4–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudde, Cas (2007). Populist radical right parties in Europe. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa (2017). “Is Western democracy backsliding? Diagnosing the risks,” The Journal of Democracy (Web Exchange).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa and Inglehart, Ronald (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (2024). 2024 Annual Update on OECD Standard-Setting, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/about.Google Scholar
Off, Gefjon (2023). “Complexities and nuances in radical right voters’ (anti)feminism,” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 30(2), pp. 607–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Off, Gefjon, Charron, Nicholas, and Alexander, Amy (2022). “Who perceives women’s rights as threatening to men and boys? Explaining modern sexism among young men in Europe,” Frontiers in Political Science, 4, pp. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyamot, Jr, Clifton, M., Melinda, S. Jackson, Emily, L. Fisher Grace, Deason and Eugene, Borgida (2017). “Social norms and egalitarian values mitigate authoritarian intolerance toward sexual minorities,” Political Psychology, 38(5), pp. 777–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Bill E. and Zurbriggen, Eileen L. (2010). “Gender, sexuality, and the authoritarian personality,” Journal of Personality, 78(6), pp. 1801–1826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, Michael B., Skov, Martin, Serritzlew, Søren and Ramsøy, Thomas (2013). “Motivated reasoning and political parties: Evidence for increased processing in the face of party cues,” Political Behavior, 35(4), pp. 831–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pless, Anna, Tromp, Paul, and Houtman, Dick (2021). “Religious and secular value divides in Western Europe: A cross-national comparison (1981–2008),” International Political Science Review, 44(2), pp. 178–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felicia, Pratto, Sidanius, Jim, Stallworth, Lisa M. and Malle, Bertram F. (1994). “Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), pp. 741–763.Google Scholar
Rawłuszko, Marta (2019). “And if the opponents of gender ideology are right? Gender politics, Europeanization, and the democratic deficit,” Politics & Gender, 17(2), pp. 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. (2009). “Framed before we know it: How gender shapes social relations,” Gender & Society, 23(2), pp. 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Brenda L. and Trigg, Kristin Y. (2004). “Tolerance of sexual harassment: An examination of gender differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles,” Sex Roles, 50(7), pp. 565–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, Michelle K., Haslam, Alexander S., Hersby, Mette D., Bongiorno, Renata (2011). “Think crisis–think female: The glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager–think male stereotype,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), p. 470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sartori, Giovanni (1997). “Understanding pluralism,” Journal of Democracy, 8(4), pp. 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauer, Birgit (2020). “Authoritarian right-wing populism as masculinist identity politics. The role of affects,” in Dietze, G. and Roth, J. (eds.) Right-wing populism and gender: European perspectives and beyond. Transcript Verlag, pp. 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seguino, Stephanie (2011). “Help or hindrance? Religion’s impact on gender inequality in attitudes and outcomes,” World Development, 39(8), 1308–1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibley, Chris G., Wilson, Mark S. and Duckitt, John (2007). “Antecedents of men’s hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), pp. 160–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slothuus, Rune and Vreese, De, Claes, H. (2010). “Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects,” The Journal of Politics, 72(3), pp. 630–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spierings, Niels (2020). “Why gender and sexuality are both trivial and pivotal in populist radical right politics,” in Dietze, G. and Roth, J. (eds.) Right-wing populism and gender. Transcript-Verlag, pp. 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenner, Karen (2005). The authoritarian dynamic. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockard, Jean (2006). “Gender socialization,” in Saltzman Chafetz, J. (ed.) Handbook of the Sociology of Gender. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tankard, Margaret E. and Paluck, Elizabeth L. (2016). “Norm perception as a vehicle for social change,” Social Issues and Policy Review, 10(1), pp. 181–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teorell, Jan, Sundström, Aksel, Holmberg et al., Sören (2023). The quality of government standard dataset, version January 23. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute, www.gu.se/en/quality-government doi:10.18157/qogstdjan23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentim, Vicente (2021). “Parliamentary representation and the normalization of radical right support,” Comparative Political Studies, 54(14), pp. 2475–2511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vox (2023). Programa Electoral Para Las Elecciones Electorales, www.voxespana.es/programa/programa-electoral-vox.Google Scholar
Weeks, Ana and Allen, Peter (2022). “Backlash against ‘identity politics’: Far right success and mainstream party attention to identity groups,” Politics, Groups, and Identities, 11(5), pp. 935935–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welzel, Christian (2006). “Democratization as an emancipative process: The neglected role of mass motivations,” European Journal of Political Research, 45(6), pp. 871–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welzel, Christian (2013). Freedom Rising. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welzel, Christian (2014). “Evolution, empowerment, and emancipation: How societies climb the freedom ladder,” World Development, 64, pp. 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welzel, Christian, Kruse, Stefan, and Brunkert, Lennart (2022). “Why the future is (still) democratic,” Journal of Democracy, 33(1), pp. 156–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuval-Davis, Nira (1997). Gender and Nation. Sage.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

The PDF of this Element conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Attitudes toward Political Authoritarianism in Economically Advanced Democracies
  • Amy C. Alexander, University of Gothenburg, Gefjon Off, Leuphana University of Lüneburg and University of Hamburg
  • Online ISBN: 9781009374309
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Attitudes toward Political Authoritarianism in Economically Advanced Democracies
  • Amy C. Alexander, University of Gothenburg, Gefjon Off, Leuphana University of Lüneburg and University of Hamburg
  • Online ISBN: 9781009374309
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Attitudes toward Political Authoritarianism in Economically Advanced Democracies
  • Amy C. Alexander, University of Gothenburg, Gefjon Off, Leuphana University of Lüneburg and University of Hamburg
  • Online ISBN: 9781009374309
Available formats
×