social authority

Nowadays, one of the topics of interest to researchers is the authority of teachers, and fades it in universities. Look at the reality in the society and comparing with historical context motivates researchers to question why some of the professors at the university have less authority. For this purpose, this research is trying to focus on economic and demographic factors, to answer questions. The method used in this research is descriptive analysis using survey techniques and data collection tool is a questionnaire. The population consisted of professors of Kermanshah PNU in the academic year 2011-2012, total number of them is equal to 258. Due to the large size of the population, using the Lin sampling table sample size is 258, which for the study based on striated random sampling were selected. In the present study, face validity assessment method and construct validity based on factor analysis were used. To determine the reliability of the statements of each variable, Cronbach's alpha used. Results using SPSS21 and Amos21 statistical software were analyzed. Mean traditional authority equal to 13.57, then charisma authority13.54, and intellectual authority is 18.72. The dimensions compared with the average expected for above dimension respectively traditional authority 15, charisma authority 12, intellectual authority is 15. The results show that there is a significant relationship between relative deprivation and professor’s authority (r=-0.301), the use of mass media and professor’s authority (r=0.161), monthly income and professor’s authority (r=-0.153). In addition, the results of comparison show that average of the professor’s authority among the courses is different, and this difference based on f test is significant. The average professor’s authority, for people with different degrees is different. The results of Multiple regression indicate that the traditional authority (T=4.335), self-esteem (T =3.925), charismatic authority (T =3.788), and the relative deprivation (T =-2.287), total 0.42 from internal changes explain the value of professor’s authority variables. Furthermore, the results of structural equation shows that Chi square insignificant CMIN is equal to 211.143, square root index mean residual square or RMSEA is equal to 0.075, RMR index or residuals mean square root is equal to 0.098, the Chi-square to the degrees of freedom ratio CMIN.dF in model is 3.199, against the CFI comparative fit index 0.926, and comparative fit index thrifty PCFI, are equal to 0.671 Comparative and thrifty indicators for evaluating the overall model calculated that show collected data to support the theoretical model considered.