Discussion questions: Authoritarianism and Polarization in American

Politics
Previously, authoritarianism had been studied as a personality
trait. What do the authors mean when they describe it as a
cognitive style?
In what sense, according to the authors, has the public become
more polarized? Why have some scholars come to a different
conclusion, and why do the authors believe they are incorrect?
What do the authors mean by sorting and why does it matter?
What are the fundamental characteristics of authoritarians? Of
non-authoritarians?
How do they measure authoritarianism? What are the benefits of
measuring it this way?
What is construct validity, and how do the authors assess it? Why
is it important that authoritarianism is related to information,
need for order, aversion to ambiguity, tolerance, etc.?
What is the main purpose of Chapter 4?
How did the key issue clusters become more prominent on the
policy agenda?
What is issue evolution and why is it important? What about
worldview evolution?
Very important: What do the authors mean (p. 109) by . .
.scholars suggest a positive interaction between authoritarianism
and threat. As threat increases, the difference between the
preferences of the most and least authoritarian is supposed to
increase.
Why do the authors disagree with the above expectation? What
is their reasoning, and what type of interaction (between threat
and authoritarianism) do they anticipate?
Why, according to the authors, is immigration so likely to be
related to authoritarianism? What are the properties of the issue
that lead to this association?