Editing Political spectrum (section)

=== Hans Eysenck ===
[[File:Political spectrum Eysenck.png|thumb|Diagram of the political spectrum according to Hans Eysenck]]
Shortly afterward, [[Hans Eysenck]] began researching political attitudes in the [[United Kingdom]]. He believed that there was something essentially similar about the fascism of the National Socialists ([[Nazism|Nazis]]) on the one hand and the communists on the other, despite their opposite positions on the [[Left–right politics|left–right axis]]. As Hans Eysenck described in his 1956 book ''Sense and Nonsense in Psychology'',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ditext.com/eysenck/politics.html|title=politics|access-date=5 May 2016}}</ref> Eysenck compiled a list of political statements found in newspapers and political tracts and asked subjects to rate their agreement or disagreement with each. Submitting this value questionnaire to the same process of [[factor analysis]] used by Ferguson, Eysenck drew out two factors, which he named "Radicalism" (R-factor) and "Tender-Mindedness" (T-factor).

Such analysis produces a factor whether or not it corresponds to a real-world phenomenon and so caution must be exercised in its interpretation. While Eysenck's R-factor is easily identified as the classical "left–right" dimension, the T-factor (representing a factor drawn at right angles to the R-factor) is less intuitive, as high-scorers favored [[pacifism]], [[racial equality]], [[religious education]] and restrictions on [[abortion]], while low-scorers had attitudes more friendly to [[militarism]], harsh [[punishment]], easier [[divorce]] laws and [[Triangular theory of love|companionate]] marriage.

According to social scientist Bojan Todosijevic, radicalism was defined as positively viewing evolution theory, strikes, welfare state, mixed [[marriage]]s, student protests, law reform, women's liberation, United Nations, nudist camps, pop-music, modern art, immigration, abolishing private property, and rejection of patriotism. Conservatism was defined as positively viewing white superiority, birching, death penalty, antisemitism, opposition to nationalization of property, and birth control. Tender-mindedness was defined by moral training, inborn conscience, Bible truth, chastity, self-denial, pacifism, anti-discrimination, being against the death penalty and harsh treatment of criminals. Tough-mindedness was defined by compulsory sterilization, euthanasia, easier divorce laws, racism, antisemitism, compulsory military training, wife swapping, casual living, death penalty, and harsh treatment of criminals.
<ref>{{cite book |last1=Todosijevic |first1=Bojan |title=Political Attitudes and Mentalities. Eastern European Political Cultures: Modeling Studies |date=2013 |publisher=ArsDocendi-Bucharet University Press |pages=23–52 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279512916}}</ref>

Despite the difference in [[methodology]], [[location (geography)|location]] and [[theory]], the results attained by Eysenck and Ferguson matched. Simply rotating Eysenck's two factors 45 degrees renders the same factors of religionism and humanitarianism identified by Ferguson in America.<ref name="Eysenck">{{cite book |author=Eysenck, H.J. |title=Sense and nonsense in psychology |url=https://archive.org/details/sensenonsenseinp00eyse |url-access=registration |publisher=Penguin Books |location=London |year=1956 }}</ref>

Eysenck's dimensions of R and T were found by factor analyses of values in [[Germany]] and [[Sweden]],<ref>{{cite journal |author=Eysenck, H.J. |title=Primary social attitudes: A comparison of attitude patterns in England, Germany, and Sweden |journal=Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology |volume=48 |issue=4 |pages=563–8 |year=1953 |doi=10.1037/h0054347 |pmid=13108438 }}</ref> [[France]]<ref name="Eysenck" /> and [[Japan]].<ref>{{cite book |author=Dator, J.A. |chapter=Measuring attitudes across cultures: A factor analysis of the replies of Japanese judges to Eysenck's inventory of conservative-progressive ideology |editor1-last=Schubert |editor2-first=David Joseph |editor2-last=Danelski |title=Comparative judicial behavior: cross-cultural studies of political decision-making in the East and West |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Yz5BAAAAIAAJ |year=1969 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-631779-3 |editor1-first=Glendon A.}}</ref>

One interesting result Eysenck noted in his 1956 work was that in the [[United States]] and the United Kingdom, most of the political variance was subsumed by the left/right axis, while in France the T-axis was larger and in the [[Middle East]] the only dimension to be found was the T-axis: "Among mid-Eastern Arabs it has been found that while the tough-minded/tender-minded dimension is still clearly expressed in the relationships observed between different attitudes, there is nothing that corresponds to the [[Political radicalism|radical]]-[[conservative]] continuum".<ref name="Eysenck" />

==== Relationship between Eysenck's political views and political research ====
Eysenck's political views related to his research: Eysenck was an outspoken opponent of what he perceived as the [[authoritarian]] abuses of the left and right, and accordingly he believed that with this T axis he had found the link between [[Nazism]] and [[communism]]. According to Eysenck, members of both [[ideologies]] were tough-minded. Central to Eysenck's thesis was the claim that tender-minded ideologies were [[Democratic ideologies|democratic]] and friendly to [[human freedom]]s, while tough-minded ideologies were [[aggressive]] and authoritarian, a claim that is open to political criticism. In this context, Eysenck carried out studies on Nazism and communist groups, claiming to find members of both groups to be more "dominant" and more "aggressive" than control groups.<ref name="Eysenck" />

Eysenck left [[Nazi Germany]] to live in Britain and was not shy in attacking [[Stalinism]], citing the [[antisemitic]] prejudices of the Russian government, the luxurious lifestyles of the [[Soviet Union]] leadership and the [[Orwellian]] "[[doublethink]]" of East Germany's naming itself the [[German Democratic Republic]] despite being "one of the most [[Dictatorship|undemocratic]] regimes in the world today".<ref>Eysenck, H.J. (1981). "Left-Wing Authoritarianism: Myth or Reality?, by Hans J. Eysenck" ''Political Psychology''</ref> While Eysenck was an opponent of Nazism, his relationship with [[fascist]] organizations was more complex. Eysenck himself lent theoretical support to the English [[National Party (UK, 1976)|National Party]], which also opposed [[Hitler]]ite Nazism, and was interviewed in the first issue of their journal ''The Beacon'' in relation to his controversial views on relative intelligence between different races.<ref>"An Interview with Prof. Hans Eysenck", ''Beacon'' February 1977</ref><ref>Stephen Rose, "Racism" ''Nature'' 14 September 1978, volume 275, page 86</ref> At one point during the interview, Eysenck was asked whether or not he was of Jewish origin before the interviewer proceeded.<ref>Billig, Michael. (1979) "Psychology, Racism and Fascism", Chapter 6, footnote #70. Published by A.F. & R. Publications.</ref> His political allegiances were called into question by other researchers, notably [[Steven Rose]], who alleged that his scientific research was used for political purposes.<ref>Stephen Rose, "Racism Refuted", ''Nature'' 24 August 1978, volume 274, page 738</ref><ref>Stephen Rose, "Racism", ''Nature'' 14 September 1978, volume 275, page 86</ref>

==== Subsequent criticism of Eysenck's research ====
Eysenck's conception of tough-mindedness has been criticized for a number of reasons.
* Virtually no values were found to load only on the tough/tender dimension.
* The interpretation of tough-mindedness as a manifestation of "authoritarian" versus tender-minded "democratic" values was incompatible with the [[Frankfurt School]]'s [[single-axis model]], which conceptualized authoritarianism as being a fundamental manifestation of conservatism and many researchers took issue with the idea of "left-wing authoritarianism".<ref>{{cite journal |author=Stone, W.F. |title=The myth of left-wing authoritarianism |journal=Political Psychology |volume=2 |issue=3/4 |pages=3–19 |year=1980 |jstor=3790998 |doi=10.2307/3790998}}</ref>
* The theory which Eysenck developed to explain individual variation in the observed dimensions, relating tough-mindedness to [[extroversion]] and [[psychoticism]], returned ambiguous research results.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Ray, J.J. |author2=Bozek, R.S. |title=Authoritarianism and Eysenck's P-scale |journal=Journal of Social Psychology |volume=113 |issue=2 |pages=231–4 |year=1981 |doi=10.1080/00224545.1981.9924374 }}</ref>
* Eysenck's finding that Nazis and communists were more tough-minded than members of mainstream political movements was criticised on technical grounds by [[Milton Rokeach]].<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Rokeach, Milton |author2=Hanley, Charles |title=Eysenck's Tender-Mindedness Dimension: A critique |journal=Psychological Bulletin |volume=53 |issue=2 |pages=169–176 |date=March 1956 |doi=10.1037/h0045968 |pmid=13297921}}</ref>
* Eysenck's method of analysis involves the finding of an abstract dimension (a factor) that explains the spread of a given set of data (in this case, scores on a political survey). This abstract dimension may or may not correspond to a real material phenomenon and obvious problems arise when it is applied to human psychology. The second factor in such an analysis (such as Eysenck's T-factor) is the second best explanation for the spread of the data, which is by definition drawn at right angles to the first factor. While the first factor, which describes the bulk of the variation in a set of data, is more likely to represent something objectively real, subsequent factors become more and more abstract. Thus one would expect to find a factor that roughly corresponds to "left" and "right", as this is the dominant framing for politics in our society, but the basis of Eysenck's "tough/tender-minded" thesis (the second, T-factor) may well represent nothing beyond an abstract mathematical construct. Such a construct would be expected to appear in factor analysis whether or not it corresponded to something real, thus rendering Eysenck's thesis [[Falsifiability|unfalsifiable]] through factor analysis.<ref>Wiggins, J.S. (1973) Personality and Prediction: Principles of Personality Assessment. Addison-Wesley</ref><ref>Lykken, D. T. (1971) Multiple factor analysis and personality research. ''Journal of Experimental Research in Personality'' 5: 161–170.</ref><ref>Ray JJ (1973) Factor analysis and attitude scales. ''The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology'' 9(3):11–12.</ref>