Authoritarian personality in social work students

Alena Hricová ¹ *, Michaela Bendová ¹, Tomáš Mrhálek ^2
1 University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Institute of Social and Special-pedagogical Sciences, České Budějovice, Czech Republic ² University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Pedagogic Faculty, Section of Pedagogical and Psychological Programs, České Budějovice, Czech Republic

Korespondenční autor: Alena Hricová (ahricova@zsf.jcu.cz)

ISSN 1804-7181 (On-line)

Full verze:

Submitted:2. 5. 2022
Accepted: 10. 6. 2022
Published online: 30. 6. 2022

Summary

The objective of the study is to identify the share of the authoritarian personality in social work students, as well as the format of these students’ studies. Data collection was implemented via a survey method using a standardized F-scale questionnaire, with additional questions about the socio-demographic character. These were the basis for testing the relation between authoritarian personality and these factors. The research sample consisted of students of two social work study programs at the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences of the University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice (N = 195). The results show a significant relation between authoritarianism and age within the dimensions of submission (p < 0.01; F = 7.68) and superstition (p = 0.03; F = 4.81). We also focused on the relation between the authoritarian personality and full-time vs. parttime study forms. There was only a statistically relevant relation for the dimension of submission (p < 0.01; t = 2.77). For this, part-time students had a lower average, meaning they were less submissive than full-time students. The last statistically significant relationship found was between the study programs, where the t-test showed a significant relationship for eight of the nine dimensions of the questionnaire. In practice, public administration graduates will more often use a control and power approach in relation to their clients.

Keywords: Adorno; Authoritarian personality; Social work; Social work students

Literatura

1. Adorno TW, Frenkel-Brunswik E, Levinson D, Sanford N (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. Harper, 990 p.

2. Balík S, Kubát M (2004). Teorie a praxe totalitních a autoritativních režimů [Theory and practice of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes]. Praha: Dokořán, 168 p. (Czech).

3. Balogová B, Žiaková E (2017). Vademecum sociálnej práce: terminologický slovník [Vademecum of social work: terminological dictionary]. In: Leviská K (Ed.). Moc v sociálnej práci [Power in social work]. Košice: Univerzita Pavla Jozefa Šafárika, pp. 38–39 (Slovak).

4. Beck G (2007). Zakázaná rétorika: 30 manipulativních technik [Forbidden rhetoric: 30 manipulative techniques]. Praha: Grada, 266 p. (Czech).

5. Fromm E (2016). Umění být [The art of being]. Praha: Portál, 152 p. (Czech).

6. Gambrill E (2001). Social Work: An Authority-Based Profession. Res Social Work Pract 11(2): 166–175. DOI: 10.1177/104973­150101100203.

7. Graham JR, Shier ML (2009). The Social Work Profession and Subjective Well-Being: The Impact of a Profession on Overall Subjective Well-Being. Br J Soc Work 40(5): 1553–1572. DOI: 10.1093/bjsw/ bcp049.

8. Hasenfeld Y (1987). Power in Social Work Practice. Soc Serv Rev 61(3): 469–483.

9. Hayesová N (2021). Základy sociální psychologie [Basics of social psychology]. 8th ed. Praha: Portál, 166 p. (Czech).

10. Hewstone M, Stroebe W (2006). Sociální psychologie [Social psychology]. Praha: Portál, 769 p. (Czech).

11. Hnilica K (2012). K morální (in)toleranci autoritářské osobnosti [To moral (in)tolerance of authoritarian personality]. Československá psychologie 56(6): 529–544 (Czech).

12. Hugman R (2017). Power and Authority in Social Work Practice: Some Ethical Issues. Rethinking Values and Ethics in Social Work 193–204. DOI: 10.1057/978–1–137–45503–1_5.

13. Janebová R (2013). Moc a autorita [Power and authority]. In: Matoušek O, et al. (Eds). Encyklopedie sociální práce [Encyclopaedia of social work]. Praha: Portál, pp. 208–210 (Czech).

14. Krejčí O (2004). Politická psychologie [Political psychology]. Praha: Ekopress, 320 p. (Czech).

15. Lukas J, Smolík J (2008). Psychologie vůdcovství [Psychology of leadership]. Brno: Computer Press, 208 p. (Czech).

16. Norrie C, Manthorpe J, Martineau S, Stevens M (2016). The potential uses and abuses of a power of entry for social workers in England: a re-analysis of responses to a government consultation. J Adult Prot The 18(5): 256–265. DOI: 10.1108/JAP-04–2016–0009.

17. Novotný P (1997). Autoritářství jako jedna z determinant výkonu učitelské profese [Authoritarianism

• one of determinants of the teacher profession]. Pedagogika 47(3): 247–258 (Czech).

18. Skyba M (2017). Moc v sociálnej praxi z pohl’adu študentiek sociálnej práce [Power in social practice from the point of view of social work students]. Sociální práce / Sociálna práca: Terapie v sociální práci 17(5): 118–117 (Slovak).

19. Taylor P (1995). Power and Authority in Social Work. In: Taylor P, Daly C (Eds). Gender dilemmas in Social Work. Issues Affecting Women in the Profession. Ontario: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc., p. 148.

20. Vališová A (2008). Jak získat, udržet a neztrácet autoritu [How to gain, maintain, and not lose authority]. Praha: Grada, 144 p. (Czech).

21. Weber M (1978). Economy and Society. Oakland: University of California Press. 1712 p.

22. Weinerová R (2014). Romové a stereotypy [The Roma and stereotypes]. Praha: Karolinum Press, 92 p. (Czech).

23. Welbourne P (2011). Twenty-first century social work: the influence of political context on public service provision in social work education and service delivery. Eur J Soc Work 14(3): 403–420. DOI: 10.1080/136914­51003706670.

24. Žantovský P (2015). Mediální manipulace a krize v České televizi v roce 2000 [Media manipulation and the Czech television crisis in 2000]. Praha: Institut Václava Klause, 280 p. (Czech).